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: Yonder Gillihan <ymgillih AT midway.uchicago.edu>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul as apostate (was Paul obligated to Torah?)
  • Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:40:16 -0600


Dear Mark,
Thank you for responding to my questions. Having recently read Stendahl's
<Final Account> I am familiar with at least one example of the type of
interpretation of Rom 9-11 that you seem to offer; I agree that 9-11
concerns the role and destiny of ethnic Israel in Paul's vision of
salvation, and with Stendahl I agree that 9-11 provides an interpretive key
to the rest of the epistle, and indeed sheds much light on Paul's theology
in general. What role and destiny Paul imagines for ethnic Israel in these
chapters is a matter of much dispute, as you know; Stendahl's discovery of
a non-christological soteriology for Israel (and indeed for all of
humanity, since his Paul allows for a heaven full of Christians, Jews,
Buddhists) in Paul's thought is worth examining closely: its obvious
usefulness as a theological corrective to anti-Jewish supercessionism in
Lutheran (and most Christian) theology makes it very appealing, but the
value of its contribution to Pauline studies will ultimately depend upon
how it withstands the scrutiny of future critical exegesis. This topic is
might be worth pursuing in future postings.

For now I would like to respond very briefly to your critique of my first
letter.

Difficulties for your proposition that Paul saw himself as one obligated to
observe the Law I see as follows:

1) In Gal 3:19-26 Paul narrates salvation history, confirming (as in Rom
3:2; 7:7-14; 9:4-5, which you mentioned) that the Law is of divine origin.
Nevertheless Paul describes its origin as something "added because of
transgression" (v. 19a), which alone suggests that without transgression
there is no need for law; this interpretation is supported in 19b by his
description of the limited time of the Law's authority: it was bestowed
(PROSETEQH) "until the seed would come to whom it was promised." In vv.
19c-21 (admittedly difficult to interpret) Paul contrasts the giving of the
Law through the mediation of angels with God's unmediated giving of the
promise to Abraham 430 years prior (3:15-18), and the renewing of the
Abrahamic covenant in the Christ event (with Betz, <Galatians>169-70).

Already here Paul has described the authority of the Law as of limited
duration, and he elaborates on its purpose in vv. 21-25: in accordance with
the promises of God, the Law was given, but the Law does not have power to
confer righteousness (v. 21). Rather "scripture" imprisoned all things
under the power of sin so that what was promised--i.e. righteousness
through God's promise to Abraham--might be given via faith in/of X. (v.
22). In vv. 23-24 Paul describes Law as the "guardian" or "teacher"
(PAIDAGWGOS) under which "we"--Paul and Israel, or all of humanity?--were
imprisoned and guarded for a limited time: "until faith would be revealed"
(v. 23); "until X came so that 'we' might be justified by faith" (v. 24);
"Now that faith has come, WE are no longer subject to a paidogwgos." I
emphasize the first person plural pronoun here because it is of utmost
importance that Paul includes himself in that group of people who are no
longer subject to the Law. Whether the "we" in v. 23 is Paul and Israel or
Paul and all of humanity, it seems difficult to argue that Paul thinks of
himself as subject to the Law after he declares in v. 25 that "we" are no
longer subject to the paidogwgos, and thus not obligated to keep Torah.

Another difficult passage is 2:11-14. Paul's confrontation with Cephas
comes out of frustration at Cephas' return to strict observance of food
laws, who seems to have refused to dine with Gentiles because of kosher
regulations (e.g. those in mBerachot 7.1, 8.6; cf. Acts 10:28 for similar
(exaggerated?) emphasis on Jewish avoidance of contact with Gentiles). Paul
does not have any problem with Cephas' eating with Gentiles; rather he
condemns his return to rigid distinction between Jews and Gentiles based on
one particular variety of interpretation of the Law. In v. 14 Paul
describes Cephas as living "like a Gentile and not like a Jew" but does not
condemn him for failing to live like a Jew, i.e. according to the Law.
Rather he condemns him for compelling Gentiles to submit to the very legal
requirements that Cephas himself (Paul claims) abandoned. This does not
seem to me to support that Paul thought himself, Cephas, and other
circumcised, Jewish Christians obligated to observe the Law.

Two more points: I described the Galatians' "clamoring after the law,"
which you rightly interpreted as "a rather negative implied value
judgment," but wrongly that I suggested Paul is making this judgment about
Law. Paul obviously sees Law as of divine origin, and a gift, and
spiritual, as you pointed out. But what role has Law in salvation history?
It seems to me that, especially in Romans, Law serves to reveal the human
incapacity to meet the demands of God's righteousness. In Rom 2:17-27 Paul
points out that the ethnic recipients of Torah fall far short of fulfilling
the requirements and do not qualify as righteous according to the standard
of the Law. Their failure is the failure of all humanity, since no one on
earth can meet the demands of God's righteousness; Israel was especially
entrusted with the evidence of humanity's inability to effect its own
righteousness: Torah (3:20). Torah is for Paul, according to my reading, a
revelation entrusted to the Jews for all of humanity, which shows
humanity's inevitable inability to meet the demands of God's righteousness.
All of humanity is accountable to these demands, which are revealed to both
Jew and Gentile (2:14-15; 3:2, 19). But only through the eschatological
XARIS of Christ may the demands of God's righteousness be met.

Thus the negativity of Paul's assessment of the Galatians' enthusiasm for
circumcision and Law, which I summarized as "clamoring," (Paul's
assessment, not mine) comes because Paul thinks that the Galatians are
viewing Torah wrongly. It is for him a measure of human need for God's
grace, but not the road to justification.

Now I greatly appreciated your sociological analysis of the motivations for
the Galatians' desire to become proselytes, and think it's a valuable
insight. Having just begun to read Galatians closely, I find your analysis
provocative and instructive:

>I would interpret this: 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.

Is there a subj. verb in Gal 5:4? All three look indicative to me. I agree
that DIKAIOUSTHE should be translated "would be justified/legitimated," but
it is indicative.

Finally, I agree with you that "There is no plain sense of the letter;
there are plain senses," which is why I qualified my ability to describe
the "plainest sense of the letter" with "so says one raised in Protestant
20th century America." I am fully aware that my interpretations are a
result of 1) Protestant background; 2) 20th century German and American
scholarship, especially that learned around the seminar table of Mr. Betz;
and 3) pure naivete as a young graduate student just beginning to deepen
his education. I share with you optimism that our dialogue will produce
greater understanding of the meanings of our cultural treasures, these
privileged texts; hopefully each other's critical interpretations will not
remain as inscrutable as the "mysteries of God" that the ancients produced,
interpreted, and passed on. Thanks much for taking time to further this
dialogue, and thanks to J. Gibson for providing this invaluable forum.

Yonder M. Gillihan
Ph.D. student, The Department of New Testament and Early Christian Literature
The University of Chicago




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page