Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

“HOE KUN JE DE HEIDENEN VERPLICHTEN ALSJODEN TELEVEN?”

1985; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 46; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2143/bij.46.2.2016254

1783-1377

Johannes Smit,

Historical and Linguistic Studies

Summary The exegesis of Gal. 2,11–21 is plagued by three problems, which resist the efforts of the specialists to solve them. The first problem is the meaning of “through the law”, when Paul states in v. 19: “For through the law I died to the law”. Then there is the old question, whether 2,11–14 and 2,15–21 shoud be separated from each other by a caesura or should be taken together as a coherent unity. Finally the line of thought, which Paul develops in 2,14b–21 is badly in need of further clarification. These problems are connected with each other and the aim of this article is to propose a solution for all three of them. A survey of the history of the exegesis shows, that “through the law I died to the law” is a real contradiction that cannot be explained in a satisfactory way. In the greek of the New Testament dia with genetive can denote manner. Following a personal pronoun it can more specifically denote the situation in which one finds oneself cfr. Rom. 2,27; 4,11. This is the case in Gal. 2,19, which therefore should be translated as: “I as a law-respecting Jew died to the law”. The correspondence of V. 19 with V. 15 within the structure of this passage proves beyond doubt that this is the right explanation. A rhetorical analysis of the formal correspondences, the argumentation and the style of 2,14b–21 shows that a definite correspondence exists between 2,14b–17 and 2,18–21. Disguised under a number of different figures of style Paul repeats his argument in form and content. It is further argued, that 2,11–21 has to be taken as a coherent whole. It forms part of the autobiographical narrative, which begins in 1,13 and reaches its end in 2,21. The normal speechsituation of the letter, which was left in 1,13, is not resumed in 2,14 or 15 but only in 3,1. All this leads up to a reading of Gal. 2,11–21 which makes it clear, that Paul presents the incident with Kephas in Antioch as a test case in which the special and the general, the incidental and the principal are combined. In the presentation of Paul Kephas examplifies a definite group of jewish christians, who are convinced that Gentiles must fulfil the torah to become full members of the christian community. In his argumentation Paul states that in demanding this they are being inconsistent. When they came to believe in Christ they themselves admitted that the observation of the torah does not justify them. When it is not necessary for therrtselves anymore to keep the law, they cannot force the Gentiles to do so. The same in other words: through their faith in Christ they as Jews died to the law. So they cannot force Gentiles to live by it. The final conclusion of this study is a theological one. In Gal. 2,11–21 Paul is not dealing with the question: ‘Where do I find a gracious God?’. He is not discussing the justification of the sinner in the individualistic lutheran perspective. In this passage Paul is primarily concerned with the unity of the christian community. Christians with a jewish background cannot force christians with a pagan background to observe the jewish torah and to live as Jews. As far as the torah separates the Jews from the Gentiles it is outdated by the unity of all, Jews and Gentiles, in Christ.