Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul as apostate (was Paul obligated to Torah?)

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: Re: Paul as apostate (was Paul obligated to Torah?)
  • Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 22:45:08 -0600


Dear Yonder,

I will reply below your welcome comments.


I think that this issue has been covered in the past, but I have not
followed past exchanges so closely. Can you explain how your following
assertion matches up with Paul's argument in Gal 4:31-5:6? You write,

"I see no evidence that Paul did not consider himself, as a circumcised
worshipper of the One God, indebted to observe the whole Law, as he puts it
in Gal. 5:3. . ."

Yet Paul includes himself among the children of the free woman in 4:31 (ouk
esmen paidiskes tekna alla tes eleutheras); his appropriation of the story
of Sarah and Hagar is intended to illuminate the crisis at Galatia, and
tensions in the early "Christian" communities in general: the children of
Hagar the slave are those bound to the law, while the children of Sarah are
those enslaved to Christ, and consequently justified apart from the law
through faith in Christ. Paul absolutely identifies himself with the latter
in 4:31. Can this be contested?

Of course you must realize that your conclusion rests upon an "interpretation" of an "allegory." Allegories are tricky things, and their interpretation is based upon what one brings "to" it. I have given my view in earlier posts, but I will copy it here for you. In any case it does not lead to your conclusion, but in quite the opposite direction:

from June 1, 1999, a posted proposal that still has never been responded to:

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.



In 5:1 Paul reemphasizes the freedom for which Christ has set "us" free
(tei eleutheriai hemas X. eleutherosen), by which he re-identifies himself
among those who are free from the law; adherence to the law is slavery.

I see no connection here of freedom and Law for a Jewish person, no mention of Law at all for that matter. He tells gentiles not to be "again" enslaved; but they were never enslaved to the Law. I think you are mistaken here.

In
v. 2 Paul urges the Galatians not to become circumcised, since then
"Christos humas ouden ophelhsei"; in this immediate context he sets forth
the consequence of their clamoring after the law: "I testify (marturomai)
again to every man who is circumcised that he is one obligated (opheiletes)
to perform the entire law."

This is a conditional statement, not about "clamoring" after the Law, a rather negative implied value judgement that I do not see Paul making about Law by the way. The issue is about gaining proselyte identity for non-Jewish people; if these gentiles to whom he writes become proselytes, an apparently appealing issue for these Christ-believers, ironically, you might say, in view of Christian sensibilities since! The point appears to be that they want the standing of proselytes in their social setting, that would be an advantage. But Paul's undermining rhetoric seeks to put them in their place: they have not considered the concomitant obligations of becoming Jewish/Israelites. My argument is that they would simply tell Paul he is all wet if he as a circumcised one telling them this is not an observer of the Law!: How can you tell us not to acquire what you have, the privileges of Jewish identity without the obligation, when that does not apply to you!

This statement should be read, I believe, as
the consequence of 4:31-5:2 so that Paul says, "Be warned: if any man
becomes circumcised he will be obligated to observe the entire law." In
other words, if members of the Galatian community think that eschatological
salvation depends upon observance of aspects of the Torah, they should
recall that the Torah stipulates that righteousness depends upon observing
all of its commandments.

This is a non-sequitur; the Torah does not stipulate any such thing. It is a gift of God to those made righteous by grace, and they gratefully acknowledge God's righteousness by seeking to do righteousness wholeheartedly. It is no different than Christian ideology in this regard.

Do they wish to pursue the entire law? Do they not
realize that picking up the obligation of circumcision implies becoming
indebted to the entire Torah?

That is not how I would interpret this. Rather: Do you wish the communal privileges of proselytes, righteous ones beyond dispute according to the prevailing membership and reference group norms? Then you will gain the obligations too. But in your case that is silly, since you already have the goods without the obligations. But that is but one point among other more important ones; namely, you would render the work of Christ for yourselves gratuitous, since proselyte conversion exists quite apart from the meaning of his death. The issue is whether the age to come has dawned in Christ or not; if they believe it has, then they are children of promise of the age to come in the midst of the present age. But that will create conflict with guardians of the communal good in the present age who do not share this view, to be sure.


In v. 5 Paul describes the state of those who accept the obligation to be
circumcised: "you have been abolished from Christ, you who would be
justified by the Law--you have fallen away from grace!"

You must mean v. 4, but you have apparently missed the subjunctive verb. Not those already in this state, but those who "would" acquire this state of being "legitimated" as righteous ones by becoming proselytes, gentiles in Christ who now seek to be known by God when they are already known by God ironically deny the very status they already have, and render the work of Christ and their belief in the meaning of that work gratuitous. But this is not the state of Paul or other Jews.

Does Paul think
that he and all other circumcised Jews are required to obey the law, in
light of this verse?

Yes, as I read it!

Does he think that he and other Jewish Christians are
obligated to observe the Law, while Gentiles who attempt to do so are
accursed?

Yes on the first; wrong question on the second. This is not about gentiles observing the Law; they don't and nobody thinks they are obliged to until they become proselytes. He thinks that certain gentiles, those in Christ to whom he writes, would deny implicitly who they are in Christ if they try to become who they want to be apart from Christ.

Such would be enormously bad for communal identity, to say the
least, since the community supposedly defined by unity through faith in
Christ is radically divided into those who are free from the Torah and
those who remain obligated to fulfill its requirements. Division between
Jew and Greek, slave and free remain--the very categories which Paul
declared annulled in 3:23-29.

Paul did not annul the category, on my reading, that takes the teeth out of his point. The differences remain in the present age, but the discrimination that generally accompanies these differences in this "cosmos" (human construction of reality) have been overcome among ourselves, there is no longer discrimination among those in Christ, at least that was the ideal to which Paul appealed.

Again in v. 5 he emphasizes that "we," those
who approach God through faith, await the hope of righteousness. How can
this "I" be at once one indebted to perform the entire law, as your
interpretation of 5:3 goes, and one set free, an heir of the free woman, a
citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem?

I don't understand your question.


A better interpretation, it seems to me at this point, is that Paul
considers Jewish Law a matter of indifference as regards righteousness: it
is a cultural convention without eschatological significance, now that God
has given the gift of justification through faith in Christ.

Interesting. So you thing that Israel created the Law, that it is not a gift from God. I do not see the difference between the legitimacy of your claim for Christ and the legitimacy of the Law; both are gifts from God, are they not? I think you might want to read Rom. 3:2; 7:12-14; 9:4-5; for he does apparently not know what you do, but thinks that the Law is a gift of God for the righteous ones of Israel, among other gifts, and even calls the Law spiritual (ever ponder that one?).

Indeed 2:16
seems to suggest that Paul does not see any hope for justification apart
from faith in Christ; why, then, would he think of himself as obligated to
fulfill the law?

I do not follow you here. This passage is not a part of the flow of chapter 5 you were bringing points from, but has its own context, and one that is a narrative I might add.

In 6:14 Paul announces that he should never boast of
anything except the cross of "our Lord Jesus Christ," an attitude opposing
that which he describes of the "Judaizers" in v. 13.

You will have to clarify this, I do not see how this passage confirms your view.


Finally, 6:16 does not seem to allow for division between those obligated
to observe the law and those obligated to avoid obligation to observe the law:

kai hosoi twi kanoni toutwi stochesousin, eirene ep' autous kai eleos epi
ton Israel tou theou

"Israel" here is the eschatological community defined by the freedom
described in the letter, inclusive of Jews and Gentiles;

Paul does not say this. He does not define the Israel of God, but since he has denied to his gentiles to become Israelites (Jews and gentiles are one he argues instead, a new community of equals, but different nonetheless), this seems to me to refer to historical Israel, whom Paul is still a reformer working on behalf of, not a later Christian supersessionist from whom the place or value are disregarded; again you might want to read Rom. 9--11, also from Paul. Peter Richardson has argued persuasively that this refers to historical Israel, not the church; with this my own interpretation of the letter much less the grammar of this verse ("even the Israel of God") agrees.

God's grace and
mercy are upon "us," to use Paul's frequent description of the
community--upon those who follow "this rule," namely, that of seeking
justification through faith and not through performance of the entire Torah.

If you've the inclination and time, would you mind (re-)describing your
reasons for thinking that Paul considers himself to be "indebted to observe
the whole Law," in your words, when the plainest sense of the letter (so
says one raised in Protestant 20th century America) seems to suggest
otherwise, and as scholarship of the past century and a half seems to have
thought?

There is no plain sense of the letter; there are plain senses, i.e., perspectives shaped by other stuff too long to list after a long day. I find your plain as inscrutable as you may find mine. But that is why such dialogue is valuable, assuming that we are engaged in a journey to learn together, admitting that we are all limited by our assumptions along the way.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page