Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

--- moon-ryul jung wrote:

> The negative remarks Paul made on the Law include:
> "Before this faith came, we [the Jews] were held
> prisoners by the
> Law, locked up until faith should be revealed"
> ((3:23) "Now that the faith
> has come, we [the Jews] are no longer under the Law,
> [but under the bigger
> scheme of the faith, i.e. Christ, so that we do not
> need to discriminate
> the Gentiles based on the Law]" (3:25) "When we [the
> Jews]were children,
> we were enslaved under the stoicheia of the world"
> "(4:3)
> 
> NOTE: I take "we" to refer to the Jews, the people
> of the Law. Those who 
> were under the Law were none other than the Jews.
> The Gentiles were not 
> under the Law at all.  

This isn’t entirely accurate, Moon. Paul could speak
of God-fearers “under the law”. Rom. 2:14-16, for
instance, says that Gentiles who don’t have the Torah
are nonetheless are subject to, and bound by, “the law
written on their hearts, to which their own conscience
bears witness” -- which I take to be some equivalent
of the Noahide commandments, or the “Noahide law” --
and they will be “judged by that law” (2:12) no less
than the Jewish people will be judged by the Mosaic
law. [The “Noahide law” being: (1) monotheism, (2)
organize courts/promote justice, (3) don’t murder, (4)
don’t steal, (5) don’t blaspheme, (6) don’t fornicate,
(7) don’t eat the flesh of limbs torn from a living
animal.]

In the case of Gal. 3:23-29, “we” may not refer to the
Jewish people anymore than “I” refers to the Jewish
Paul in Rom. 7:7-25. I’m inclined to believe that “we”
is rhetorical -- especially considering that Paul’s
Galatian audience is a Gentile one -- and it’s helpful
to remember that there are precedents for associating
Gentiles not only with the Noahaide commandments but
the Torah as a whole (Jubilees 15:28-32; Targum
pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. 22; IV Ezra 7:20-24).

> Through a long and fierce (?)
> discussion with Mark
> in a long thread, I finally came to conclude that it
> is quite reasonable
> to take 4:9 to refer to the Galatians' attempt to
> return to pagan
> practices,
> to avoid pressure/persecution from the pagan
> society.
> 
> They were pressed between the two options which they
> believed was wrong:
> getting circumcised/becoming proselytes or
> participating in pagan
> worhship.
> In that situation, it is quite reasonable for some
> to choose the latter
> compromise.
> 
I agree with you here; I’m very persuaded by Mark on
this point. In last Sunday’s posting he compared
Peter’s reasons for stopping table-fellowship with
Gentiles (2:11-14) with his proposal for the Gentiles’
reasons for taking on pagan practices (4:8-10). He
wrote: “Social pressure to save face with a rival
court of reputation leads to behavior that ‘masks’
one’s faith in Christ. . . Masking/hypocrisy means
that [neither Peter nor the Gentiles have] changed
real beliefs, but covered them up for expedient social
reasons. . . compromising to get along, something we
all face with competing courts of reputation.” I agree
with this and see no reason why Galatians can’t be
read as Paul’s attempt to stifle twin desires of his
Gentiles converts -- proselyte conversion, and
accommodation with pagan practices.

Loren Rosson III,
Nashua, NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/