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: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 09:15:43 -0600


Dear Yonder,
I will make a few comments below. Note that I have put a few questions to you in my last post (and to others in this conversation) that go unanswered; is my view the only one that must be defended in a dialogue?

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

So if I answer these then you will answer the ones I have offered that challenge your proposition that Paul saw himself as one not responsible to observe the Law?


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).

Your premise is not clear to me. Are you saying that your first statement is reversed by v. 19a? What do you think "added because of transgression" means? This passage seems to me to simply say what is obvious since the introduction of created beings, they transgress, and thus apparently need some clarification of what is right and wrong from God's perspective, so that rightness can be done by the righteous ones of God (those righteoused by his grace, Israel). Since Abraham was able to hear what God wanted to communicate about righteousness, his descendents were privileged to get this communication, and thus responsible to observe its implications for how creatures of God ought to live. The other nations, from whom those to whom Paul writes in Galatia are descended by way of the promise to Abraham, but not according to the lineage passing through Jacob/Israel, Moses et al. The Law was given to Abraham's descendents of this nation/ethnos, but not to all who would one day receive his promise, which was to all the nations. Paul makes it a point to clarify that the later action did not invalidate the earlier one, would it follow that the earlier one invalidates the later?


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).

I would not say duration as much as sphere. His point in this passage is that this privilege/responsibility of Law identity was limited to Abraham's descendents through Israel, from whom Paul hails, but not the addressees. The aspect of time is with respect to when these representatives of the other nations will inherit Abraham's promise "with" the descendents of Abraham through Israel: Paul is arguing throughout this chapter in support of vv. 1-5, for which this entire narrative is constructed as explanation, that the time is "now" where these addressees from the other nations are concerned. The last point, that the Law does not confer righteousness, is a point that other Israelites would share, but it is a point that the interest of these gentiles in proselyte status after they already have the status of Abraham's children by promise implies that they do not realize. For gentiles in Christ the action of becoming identified by Law would imply that this would confer something more than becoming identified by Spirit has already conferred (see again vv. 1-5, where Paul makes the case directly that he now here tries to support by argumentation from examples).

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.

I do not follow your logic here either. "Is the Law against the promises of God? Certainly not..." Paul's point for these non-Israelites is that their current consideration of a course of proselyte conversion implies something about the Law with respect to gaining righteousness that it was not given to provide; Israelites know this, like me Paul, but you addressees fail to realize this. The promise has already been received by you as gentiles, without becoming proselytes of Israel, but as representatives of the other nations. Why would you now believe you should become proselytes to gain what you already have gained? The follow-up to this chapter in 4 about being know by God is to the same point. It is the implied premise of the addressees' logic that is confronted here, not Israelite logic.

The "we" is tricky, but however it is taken it does not lead to where you seem to think it does, at least as I read it. It may refer to Paul and other Israelites to confront the implied premise of the addressee gentiles, or it could include them by extension: as long as Israel is confined to the role as light to the nations but righteous status is reserved for her, then what Paul is proposing, that the status of these representatives of the other nations to whom he now writes are also righteous ones, could not become the case without them becoming Israelites, that is, by way of proselyte conversion. But if the time has dawned when Israel is a light to the nations so that the representatives of the nations can also become righteous ones without becoming Israelites, then the time has changed. Righteousness is no longer confined to only Israelites and those who join her by way of proselyte conversion. It does not follow that Israel loses her righteousness; that seems to me to be an absurd conclusion to draw from the argument. Israelites are still the righteous ones and have the Law of righteousness; but these gentiles are not Israelites or becoming Israelites, they do not have the Law of righteousness. All are now one in Christ, Paul argues, but the difference between them remains, they are members of different nations. Israel is no longer restricted to making proselytes for others to become righteous ones; for the time of righteousness for all of creation has dawned. But she is still Israel, although now things are even better; otherwise what kind of promise would it have been for her?


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).

I do not believe any food restrictions were at risk at the table from which Peter withdrew; that they were all eating Jewishly is implied in the argument Paul makes in vv. 14ff. (I have a chapter on this in Mystery of Romans).

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.


I disagree entirely. The logic of Paul's argument assumes that everyone was eating appropriately, but Peter's withdrawal followed by the other Jewish members at the table undermines the legitimacy of truth claim that the gentiles at the table are standing (sitting) upon, that is, that they are entitled to equal treatment at this Jewish coalitions Jewish table without becoming Jewish proselytes.( At this table their is no seating arrangement by way of Jewish status or not, you might say). Peter's withdrawal is hypocritical; he teaches the gentiles this as well as Paul, but then for fear of (loss of honor) with outgroup advocates of their proselyte conversion he wears a mask. But the implications are not masked for these gentiles (at least Paul sees clearly what conclusion they should draw). They will be left exposed to draw only one conclusion, the premise upon which they have believed their status to have changed is not true. They must do as the outgroup maintains and become proselytes in order to gain honor as equals among the righteous ones of God, and thus acquire an indiscriminate right to sit at the table of honor, in this coalition as well as any other Jewish one. So Paul's confrontation of Peter is about what time it is based upon the meaning of Christ's actions; is it still that time when righteousness is confined to Israelites, and thus these gentiles need to become proselytes (as your discriminating withdrawal implies), or is it the age to come when members of the nations will step up to equal status as righteous ones (where difference remains, but not discrimination), a new creation community of Israel and the nations worshipping the One God of Israel as the One God of all humankind!?

[snip comments from Romans; Gal. has gotten too long a conversation for one post already]

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.

This last statement is on target about circumcision, not Law. Paul's comments are rhetorical, situational, not abstract statements for everyperson at all times. To accomplish this latter aim would take several interpretive moves. We are dealing only with the argument Paul was making in his context, so I do not think we should take this up, and I find your last sentence out of context. By the way, I think it reveals something about later Christian gentiles concerns, like Luther's, but not Jewish people or groups of Paul's time, since there is no search for a road other than God's grace, on which they already stood. It was the road for gentiles that was in question, although not a contrast of grace there either, but how that grace was given. Could it be received apart from proselyte standing? was the question. Work's righteousness was not in view for any of the Jewish people involved in the debate.

It is gentiles to whom he writes that "are viewing Torah wrongly," not Jewish people. This exigence (urgency of moment) creates the context for Paul's arguments. They must be evaluated in this light. These gentiles are not seeking Law per se, but Law identity, because in the present age, according to those influencing them, the (available gracious inclusive) way for these gentiles to become righteous ones in the present age is by becoming proselytes. In other words, those influencing the Galatians gentile addressees do not agree that the age to come has dawned and thus that the way for gentiles to become righteous ones has changed, they do not accept the premise upon which this claim by the addressees (and Paul and the other Christ-believing apostles) is legitimated, because they do not share these gentiles' faith in the meaning of Christ's death for themselves. That is the rhetorical context that frames the debate, and thus Paul's use of language in this letter.


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.

Yes, sorry; the subjunctive is in v. 2, along with the EAN, which set the conditional frame for these statements through v. 6.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page