Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The treatment of "dying to the Law" in the Mystery of Romans by Nanos

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The treatment of "dying to the Law" in the Mystery of Romans by Nanos
  • Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:18:11 -0600


Dear Moon,
I think your proposal can work, although there is something with substitution that still seems to be at work here that is not brought out in this manner. And I would alter at least one aspect, noted below, if it is to work.

[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.

OK to here, if you translate in this manner.

I died to such a
traditional interpretation of the Law by grasping the true intention of the
Law in Christ.

The true intention of the Law is not at issue, and was grasped by those who would disagree with Paul as well (it was the true intention of the Law in the present age for gentiles seeking standing as righteous ones to become proselytes). The issue is whether the time has changed so that what is appropriate according to the true intention of the Law can be fulfilled by this indiscriminate table-fellowship among Jews and gentiles.


So, by means of a word play, Paul answers to the charge of
Law-transgression
by referring to the true intention of the Law.

Rather, by referring to what is appropriate now according 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.

Again, not intention but timing.

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?

Without the above modifications it strikes me as triumphalist; with them it may seem to work, but I am not convinced that this was Paul's meaning.

So would you translate this along this line?: "through the Law (of Christ) to the Law (of the present age) I died, that I may live to God [as is appropriate now on this matter of table-fellowship]."

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page