Corpus-Paul

["Dieter Mitternacht" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>]

Mark.

> I would like to think along with you here and discuss this case, but I am
> unclear what you take the conclusion to be. Please explain how choosing one
> or the other is superfluous, and how you translate and interpret the phrase.
> Most helpful would be to explain the implications then, in the concrete case
> of a Jewish person of Paul's time, like Paul, who believes in the
> faithfulness of Christ.

 

I was arguing that the distinction may turn out superfluous, in the sense that once we accept that instead of opposition between law and promise there is addition we do not have to play the one against the other. An article on Galatians by David Flusser comes to mind (it's years ago since I read it and I am quoting from memory) where he writes that Gal 2:16 is the most natural statement for any Jew. Of course no one is justified by works of the law. Jews may have to be reminded of it, but it is not a strange statement. So far my recollection of Flusser (May God have mercy if I remember wrongly). Anyway, it is along these lines that I read Gal 3.24. Paul reminded his Gentile addressees that even if they would get circumcised they must know that the nomos is not the solution but the path, its not magic but a calling to surrender, obey and trust, and thus the call to follow in the footsteps of one who is prepared to sacrifice (be it Abraham or Christ) does not change. In order to see my point you need to recognize my understanding of the problem at Galatia (see my reply to Howard).

> A.: Does that Jewish person regard the doing of Torah observance, let's say
> dietary rules, now obsolete with the coming of Christ?

 

To my mind, these kinds of questions are secondary. Paul's primary concern both at Antioch and in Galatia is the readiness to suffer for and with Christ ("...for fear of those of the circumcision..." 2:12). There were of course different ways of interpreting law compliance, but I am quite confident that Peter and other Jewish Christians were constantly figuring out ways to both comply and commune. I think that Acts 15 reminisces one solution to that process. The real issue is that not everybody agreed and so we get accusation and fear. 2:14b-15 I think is Paul's ironic (Ha!, I've learned from Nanos) way of dismantling the arguments either way and preparing for the actual issue which is: readiness to follow in the footsteps of a crucified Christ.

> Or B.: might it mean a specific function of Torah that relates to the
> metaphor introduced by pedagogues, guardians, and trustees, to protect the
> child from outsiders?--in this case, to protect Jews from non-Jews, which is
> now no longer required, since non-Jews who believe in the seed of Abraham
> join with Jews who believe in him as one family as joint heirs, the awaited
> day having dawned.

 

If  my reading of Paul's description of the role of the law that I gave above is correct, then the image of the  pedagogue is harsh but basically positive. No good father would appoint a pedagogue that was harmful to his children, yet he may wish the pedagogue to use the rod on occasion and of course, as you point out, protect the owners property (as e.g. slaves) against outsiders, especially the stoichea tou kosmou (4:3). The point being that the balance of power is shifting as the sons receive their full rights, i.e. the Spirit in their hearts (4:6). If you take the introductory (and quite unusual) affirmation about Christ giving himself for our sins "in order to rescue us from the present evil age" (1:4) you may find an affirmation of the protective function of Christ, which may imply that the law does not have to provide that function any longer for Christ-believing Jews. (This last point just popped up, I have not thought it through.)

 

>
> (For B, I wonder about this implication: In that case, perhaps the point is
> not a global one [that Jews believing in Christ do not continue to observe
> Jewish dietary laws], but rather that the separating function of the Torah
> [of protecting Jews from non-Jews, the righteous seeds of Abraham from the
> unrighteous of the other nations] would have completed its purpose, but
> there would be the need for some halakhic decisions about how to accomplish
> continued dietary customs when meeting with non-Jews who believe in Christ,
> but are not similarly obliged [or are they?--cf., Acts 15]. That is to say,
> there are other functions of Torah regulations than separation from
> non-Jews, which have to do with covenant obligations that continue, since
> the covenant with Moses was also not revoked for those who are descendents
> of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob/Israel according to the flesh as well as
> faith.)

 

In essence, I consider your argument with regard to Gal 5:3 still valid. Unless Paul thought of circumcision as requiring compliance with the law, he could not have made that statement. Thus, Jewish Christ-followers kept on circumcising their children and interpreting the Torah in order to comply with its regulations for food etc.  They would probably come up with some halakha which to their understanding were compliant yet others would dispute that and at times there would be serious conflicts. Worshipping with non-Jews on a regular basis I suppose would have some impact too. Interpretations would sometimes tend to be quite liberal, just as Gentiles would accommodate their habits in order not to offend their Jewish brothers and sisters. This of course is an ideal description that may have been true at some places for some short amount of time. Looking back, we know how quickly things turned out differently.

 

Gosh, English is not my first language and I can only hope that this is comprehendible.

 

Xairetismous

Dieter