Corpus-Paul

["moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>]

[Moon]

> >Version 2: I DIED to the Law, which the Jews thought prohibited them from
> >loving the neighbor indiscriminately, THROUGH the Law, i.e. through the
> >true
> >intention of the Law which required them to love the neighbor
> >indiscriminately.
> >Dying to the Law in that sense has a connection to living to God, because
> >it means that Paul is no longer constrained by the Law with respect to
> >the table fellowship with Gentiles.
> 
[Mark]
Thus your second proposal does not seem to fit well into the language 
> of v. 19 in my view, as it does not seem to follow from v. 18 or lead 
> to v. 20, and, as incredible as it may seem, the grammar indicates 
> that Paul thought it would communicate something that helped to 
> clarify the overall argument. This seems to be that Paul is a 
> stand-in for Christ in continuing to stand-up for this indiscriminate 
> table-fellowship, as Peter should be as well, and thus not anxious 
> about the dishonor that might result from others who interpret the 
> Law differently on this matter. Following Christ in this matter has 
> not relegated these Jews by nature to gentile sinner status (Christ 
> is not a servant of sin, v. 17), but it has involved them in being 
> crucified to the appeal of honor by the traditional interpreters 
> (they have made themselves stand-ins, v. 18). 

Somehow doing the Law 
> in this new way is not a violation of the Law but a way of living to 
> God. 


The true intention of the Law has not changed, but the 
> interpretation of how to do it has changed with the belief that the 
> age to come has dawned because of the loving and giving of God in 
> Christ (v. 20),

[Moon]
I have a scenario in which Version 2 makes a good sense. You already
said many things supporting it. 

The issue in v 17 is whether Paul and Peter also became like 
(gentile-sinners) by trying to be righteoused in Christ.  Paul said NO 
WAY.
V 18 gives an explanation to this assertion. He says, "Rather (GAR), 
if I build again (like you Peter) what I tore down, ie. the barrier between 
the Jews and the
Gentiles, it makes me a transgressor." Here Paul "redefines" what 
constitutes transgression. ( I follow the traditional interpretation. ) But 
what is the
ground for such "redefinition" of transgression [of the Law]? Doesn't the 
Law
prohibit such an indiscriminate tablefellowship with gentiles? Paul answers 
to
this question:
 Because I died to the Law through the Law. What is the true
intention of the Law? Doesn't it demand an indiscrimiate love of the 
neighbor?
What I do with gentiles in Christ is not a transgression of the true 
intention
of the Law, though it looks like it on surface level. I died to such a
traditional interpretation of the Law by grasping the true intention of the 
Law in Christ.

So, by means of a word play, Paul answers to the charge of 
Law-transgression
by referring to the true intention of the Law. He says: It looks like I 
transgressed the Law, but in fact I died to the traditional interpretation
of the Law by grasping the true intention of the Law. I died to the 
trational interpretation of the Law that I may live to God.
  
I think the above scenario fits well to vv 17-21. This interpretation of 
the
word play, i.e.  of "the Law against the Law" is also reasonable, does not 
misrepresent the picture of Judaism like the traditional Lutheran 
interpretation. It seems that the best way to fight againt the traditional
interpretation of the Law is to go back to the origin, i.e. 
the true intention of the Law: We are not violating the Law, but in fact 
we
fulfill it in Christ.  

What do you think of this scenario?

Moon
Moon R. Jung
Associate Professor
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea


 and not living according to the implications that 
> follow would be in effect to render that a meaningless/gratuitous 
> action (v. 21).
>