Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Allegory of Abraham's sons (Gal. 4:21-5:1)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Allegory of Abraham's sons (Gal. 4:21-5:1)
  • Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:50:43 -0500 (CDT)


Dear List,
Appeal is often made to the allegory of Abraham's sons by Sarah and Hagar
in order to suggest his dismissal of Jewish identity and Torah observance,
and that he intended to have the ones influencing his addressees tossed
out, implying of course that they had the power to do this if they so
chose. I am not convinced on either point that this is what Paul's
communication of this allegory or letter implied to the original
addressees. I offer the following sketch of the meaning with regard to
these points, and would appreciate feedback on this approach.

Caveat: I would also like to comment that I am not inclined toward
interpolation solutions unless overwhelming "textual" evidence suggests
such tampering. We are of course dealing with texts that are not the
originals, but the decision to make such judgments on the basis of a theory
of what Paul says or not involves a hopelessly circular problem. One must
prove from Paul what is not Paul; but what if you have assumed the opposite
of the historical case and thus argued backwards? Or more likely, have
interpreted Paul in abstracting one point as controlling so that another
seems inconsistent, when it is the abstraction that is in error, at least
when applied to the anomalous case? So I take this material as one piece
and assume that if the interpretation does not work as read, then it is the
interpretation that needs amending, not the text.

Allegory of Abraham's sons (Gal. 4:21-5:1)

Point one: It is to be noted that the tension throughout the letter and in
this argument is between those who appeal to the traditional way of
resolving the dissonance that arises in the "present evil age" when
gentiles exhibit the proofs of status as righteous ones without having
first become Israelites (i.e., righteous ones). The context is about how to
include gentiles claiming on the basis of faith of/in Christ, and with the
confirmation of their status by the presence of the Spirit among
themselves. The historical position is that this is accomplished and
confirmed by proselyte conversion. The revealed position of Paul and other
Christ-believers in Jerusalem is that this is by a miraculous action of God
according to promise, that is, since the death of Christ. The tension is
cast between human interpretations justified by tradition until the age to
come, or new interpretations justified by traditional expectations for this
future time, but now argued by Paul (and the other apostles) as having
already begun.

This tension is paralleled with the action of Abraham when he sought to
bring about his promised son by means of human conventional processes for
doing so when his wife is perceived as incapable of bearing a child (via
concubine by traditional method for procreation when wife is sterile). The
association with the addressees is as those who do not conform with the
conclusions which are derived from the traditions of the fathers for
gentile inclusion in this age--because they are children of the miracle of
the age to come dawning in the midst of this evil one. Their situation
corresponds with the miraculous birth of Isaac according to promise (via
wife by miracle to fulfill promise of God, not by human/traditional means).
Thus the contrast between heavenly and earthly solutions is defined.

Thus the identity of natural born Jews (such as Paul or Peter) is not in
view, but two methods for the inclusion of gentiles according to two
different yet entirely Jewish perspectives on what is appropriate at the
current time--about which this letter is concerned--are allegorized.

The conflict surrounds how to facilitate gentile inclusion in an
intra-Jewish context: the traditional means arrived at by human consensus
and enforced by the dominant community's social control agents is by
proselyte conversion, which renders them Jews, Israelites. But the position
of this minority coalition is that by faith in Christ while remaining
gentiles (non-Jews, non-Israelites), though believers in Israel's God as
the One God of all creation. They now believe the times have changed. These
gentiles do not become members of Israel but remain representatives of the
nations, yet equal within the new community of believers in Christ.

The point is that seeking the way of the influencers "human" "traditional"
solution will put the addressees in jeopardy of negating the "divine" work
of God in Christ ("the seed"), ironically undermining the very promise upon
which their current faith stands, even as Abraham's descendants born
according to the human mechanisms for solving his problem ironically end up
threatening those born by miraculous means.

In each the judgment is case specific. In the case of Abraham, there is
nothing wrong with this traditional "human" or "in the flesh" method per
se, but it is wrong for Abraham in view of God's revelation of the promise
being fulfilled in another (heaven sent) way in Sarah. The results of lack
of trust in this are not pleasant. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with
traditional "human" or "in the flesh" proselyte conversion per se, but in
this case it is wrong for the addressees in view of God's revelation of the
promise fulfilled in Christ.

Paul's point is not against tradition or Israelite identity per se--his
arguments are themselves based upon these premises--but against maintaining
a traditional interpretation when it limits the work of God in fulfillment
of expectations for a future time he claims to be upon themselves. If God
will fulfill the promise through Sarah, then the traditional route of
concubine conception is ruled out for Abraham; so too for the Galatian
gentiles in view of the confirmation of the Spirit that they are already
fully children of God and not liminals in need of completing proselyte
conversion. To follow this path for themselves is to deny the other has
been completed according to promise for themselves.

I see no statement against Israelite identity or practice per se, except
among gentile Christ believers with regard to whether gentiles in Christ
need to become Israelites, which is consistent with the rhetorical
situation of the entire letter. Paul sees this particular approach
undermines the foundational truth which drives them to desire this identity
in the first place, the role of Christ for themselves. If the time has not
changed with the death of Christ, then for Paul and his addressees (note
that this is a shared premise Paul does not need to argue but only assert),
he has died gratuitously. They do not want their actions to imply this
negation of meaning for Christ's death for themselves, so they must
reassess the appeal of the traditional way to negotiate their identity
conundrum.

Point 2: While the allegorical appeal is to casting out, the application to
the Galatians is not along this line. It is rather to resist the
influencers ("stand fast, therefore..."), but no power to cast them out is
implied. Instead it is the opposite: they are to learn to help (instead of
compete with) each other in the perpetual state of marginality that this
resistance may provoke, which is the point of the parenetic material of
5:1--6:10.

Mark Nanos
Kansas City and
Postgraduate student at Univ. of St. Andrews






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page