Corpus-Paul

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

Maybe we can return to the issue of Jewish faith and Paul that was addressed 
but not really discussed earlier. I'd like to pick up a comment made by John 
Brand that some on this list (Nanos et al) assume that:

> >  the Jewish faith was at the writing of the NT considered a
> > legitimate vehicle to justification outside of Christ.

First, I want to suggest that we set some parameters for the discussion in 
order to stay focused.
1) Let's not talk about how Jewish faith was considered "at the writing of 
the NT", but limit the inquiry to the time of Paul's
activity as a follower of Christ.
2) Let's focus on Galatians and restrain ourselves (for the moment) from 
including other letters of Paul. Not everybody may share the presupposition 
that every letter of Paul has it's own communication situation. But maybe we 
can simply agree that it can be profitable to attend to the thought patterns 
of one letter at a time.

The question then would be: What is Paul's position on Jewish faith (outside 
of Christ) in Galatians?

I will begin with stating (very comprehensively) some basic assertions that 
seem reasonable to me. Maybe discussing these will help clarify our 
different presuppositions:

1. Paul was in agreement with other Jews of his time that trust in and 
faithfulness to God belonged together.
2. When Paul alludes to Ps 143 in Gal 2:16c and states that by works of the 
law no one shall be justified, he was making an assertion that was 
intelligible to Jews (in general).
3. One function of the law is and has always been to promote and support 
Abraham's trust in and faithfulness to the promise.
4. When Paul declares Christ to be the coming (fulfillment) of the promise 
to Abraham, this must mean that there is no longer any promise to promote or 
support.
5. Fullfilment does not alter the focus of the promise (trust in and 
faithfulness to God). It only alters the conditions under which trust in and 
faithfulness to God operate.
6. We should not confuse change of conditions (provisions) with change of 
content. Even the pistis of Christ that has come (3:23-24) is about trust in 
and faithfulness to God.
7. Paul uses the formula "Christ gave himself for our sins" in order to 
emphasize all Christ-followers' deliverance from the present evil age (Gal 
1:4). This prepares for the assertions regarding the distribution of the 
Spirit, who will support trust in and faithfulness to God within the evil 
age.
8. Trust in and faithfulness to God without the "adoption as sons" amounts 
to inferior conditions.
9. Jews and Gentiles in Christ share the same ("we" 4:4) conditions 
(provisions) for trust in and faithfulness to God, even Gentiles can be 
adopted sons of God ("you" 4:6).
10. Jews in Christ thus have the priviledge of being part of a double 
heritage from God.
11. Jews without Christ lack the second heritage. Their trust in and 
faithfulness to God continues to require the pedagogical function of the 
nomos. Apart from that, why should God revoke his promises? The law did not 
annull the promise given to Abraham, so why should Christ annul the law for 
those to whom God had given it?

May I just emphasize in conclusion (as I have done before), that I am simply 
attempting to make some kind of systematic sense of a text. I do not claim 
to construct "truth" or that Paul were the mouthpiece of God.

Dieter Mitternacht