Corpus-Paul

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

Mark

> Mark writes:
>  what do you make of the language in 3:24-25 ... Is there a way to understand this so that the role
> of the Torah for Jewish Christ-believers is retained? That role was never to
> gain salvation, as you know (but the traditional Christian view did not
> understand), so in what way are Jews in Christ no longer under it, if that
> is what is meant? I had offered one suggestion in my earlier post (no longer
> protected from Gentiles joining the family of Abraham without joining
> Israel, i.e., by way of proselyte conversion, because the time promised for
> Abraham's seed to bless the other nations too had arrived), and wonder how
> you managed to make this work out, if some other way.


I need to state my overall perception first. Paul’s primary concern in Galatians, as I see it, is a strong insistence that faith in, and faithfulness to, the crucified Christ belong together. The desire for circumcision among Gentile disciples of Christ in Galatia is not based on a sense of incomplete soteriology, i.e. wanting to secure a righteous standing before God with the addition of works of the law. Rather, the wish for circumcision originates from the fact that being a Gentile follower of Christ had turned out to be much more complicated than being a Jewish follower of Christ. Circumcision was therefore perceived by Gentiles in Galatia as a means to achieve relief from social and political marginalization. (Mind you, this is the fifties. After 72 it became quite a different story.) What Paul is attacking then is the desire to compromise the calling to follow in the footsteps of the crucified Christ. In the back of his mind there may also be the conviction of an eschatological scheme acc to which Gentiles were to remain Gentiles (as you and others have argued). But I think in terms of the occasion of this letter, the primary concern was the imitatio Christi crucifixi.

As we get to Gal 3, the chapter starts out with affirming the vivid portrayal of Christ crucified and the consequences thereof, such as miracles, Spirit experiences and sufferings (v. 4. You need to read the NIV to notice the "suffering". In the NRSV pascho has been rendered "experience" the NJB has "receive favors"). The affirmation in v 6 : "Consider Abraham, he believed God..." has to be read as a continuation of these assertions combined. Paul is putting forward Abraham as one who has experienced miracles and suffering, In fact, his utter submission to God's will by offering his son as a sacrifice preceded the miracle of Isaac's rescue and of God's oath which guaranteed the promise (Gen 22:15-17).

V. 19 states that later on the law was added "because of transgressions", meaning - I think - that the law was added in order to reinforce the conditions of the promise, i.e. "an Abraham-like submission to the will of God". The fact that Abraham's self-subordinating faith is reported both before and after his circumcision (Gen 15:6 and 22:15f) underlines that the principle of faith and faithfulness remains the same with or without circumcision. With circumcision and the Sinai covenant we get a guardian over the principle for the People of Israel and within that people we find henceforth an ongoing debate as to how the principle should be properly maintained.

Reading vv 23-24 in light of this, it may be THIS function of the law, namely to provide guardianship over the principle, that had been rendered obsolete in Paul's view, since the principle had now become so vividly alive in the crucified  Christ. What could bring alive the Abrahamic submission to God better than the self-sacrifice of the Christ? Thus, v 24 might be paraphrased as: "Now that such faithfulness has been portrayed before our eyes, there is no need any longer for the law to be a pedagogue." It's value as God's path for the people of Israel is not necessarily affected by this. But I imagine that Paul might have suggested to his fellow Jewish Christians that the motivation for obedience to the law comes from the portrayal of Christ before their eyes. In that sense Christ is the focus for both Jewish and Gentile followers. This may tie in with the admonition to the Gentile addressees : "if you are .led by the Spirit you are not under law" (5:18).

 

It may be no coincidence that "hupo nomon" relates to guardianship in all instances (3:23, 4:4-5; 21; 5:18). I am not sure about 4:21 though. Maybe you or someone else has would like to comment? In Romans the phrase "hupo nomon" occurs twice (Rom 6:14-15) both relating to guardianship.

 

You suggested that the removel of the laws function as pedagogue might mean for Jews that it: "no longer protected from Gentiles joining the family of Abraham without joining Israel." As I think about your suggestion, it occurs to me that this could have been a message to Jews. But since Paul is writing to Gentiles who are tempted to "enter" Judaism, the emphasis that the pedagogue is no longer in function fits the idea of guarding the principle of faith and faithfulness better.

 

Mmmmh, thats about what comes to mind.

Cheers!

Dieter