Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>]

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