Corpus-Paul

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

[Moon]
> 
> > I take as the meaning of 3:25-26:
> > 
> > "Now that faith has come, we, the Jews, are no
> > longer under a custodian;
> > for in Christ Jesus, you, the Gentile believers, are
> > all sons of God, through faith."
> 
> >That is, the reason that the Jews are no longer under
> > the custodian of the law is that the Gentiles can be
> > sons of God apart from the law...
> 
[Loren]
> But it's really Gentiles who are no longer under the
> custodian of the law. In the past they were -- they
> had to be "guided and guarded" by the Torah after
> becoming proselytes. The image of the law as a
> "pedagogue"/"custodian" doesn't apply well to the
> Jewish people in any case. Pedagogues were household
> slaves appointed to guard boys from mischief and
> educate them until they became mature adults -- and
> they were widely perceived as "killjoys" with
> unfavorable dispositions.

 The Jewish people certainly
> didn't find the Torah to be onerous or cumbersome --
> or in any way "like a pedagogue" -- and Paul of course
> was no exception (Philip. 3:4b-6). On the other hand,
> Gentiles, especially fresh proselytes or those faced
> with the immediate prospect of proselyte conversion,
> would easily have appreciated the metaphor of the
> Torah as a "pedagogue".
> 
[Moon]
This is a good point. But there are two points that can be
taken against your argument. First, 
the official statement of the Jerusalem Council in Acts says
that the Law was a burden even to "our fathers". Second,
even if the Jews did not consider the Torah like a pedagogue,
Paul could have said so from the viewpoint of the new age that
has dawned. The point of Paul's argument in chapter 3 about the Law
seems to be something like: The Law was a temporary
measure for the Jewish people until the new age. Now that the new 
age has come, you do not need to and should not get under the Law.
  
[Loren]
> The context in Galatians is a Gentile one all around
> (for I believe that the opponents/influencers were
> Gentile proselytes rather than Jews), and so my own
> paraphrase of verses 25-26 would read as follows:
> 
> "Now that faith has come, 'we' proselytes are no
> longer under a pedagogue, for in Christ Jesus you
> uncircumcised Gentiles are all sons of God through
> faith."
> 
[Moon]
Please explain how the second clause explains the first clause.
  
[Loren]
> As I stated earlier, it is neither far-fetched nor
> unprecedented to lump "Gentiles and the Torah"
> together, given an adequate context. That's why I
> thin
k the "we" is rhetorical.
> 
[Moon]
Please clarify what you mean by "rhetorical"?
If "we" is rhetorical, is "you" rhetorical as well?
So, "we" refers to the same people as "you" in the sections
where "we" and "you" occur, e.g. chapter 3 and 4?

Regards,
Moon

PS: I think this will be an excitig discussion.

Moon