Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul break the Law?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dieter Mitternacht" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul break the Law?
  • Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:39:56 +0100

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








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page