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: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 07:51:06 -0600


Dear Moon,
Nice to hear from you. Comments below.

[Yonder]
> > > 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.
>
[Mark]

> > 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.

[Moon]

If "we" are NO LONGER subject to the paidogwgos, doesn't it mean that "we"
were
once subject to it? So, "we" must refer to the Jews. If you take "no longer
subject to the paidogwgos" to mean "no longer subject to the 'implied
premise of the addressee gentiles'", it means that "we" were once subject
to the implied premise of the addressee gentiles. But you would strongly
object to this last statement. So, it seems that "we are no longer subject
to the paidogwgos" implies that the mode of existence under the Law was
somehow
less than mature and there was no reason for the Getiles to get into that
state.

I know that you would not accept this conclusion. I was fascinated by
your approach to "Paul and the Law". But the "last obstacle" seems to be
the language of Gal 4, as far as I am concerned.

Do you mean chapter 3? Oh that it was really so close! Funny thing is that a Paul against Law for Christ-believers is inscribed in Christian identity on the prevailing interpretations of Paul, and thus Paul against Law for Jewish people seems to be a necessary premise. This argument is far more than a matter of a few texts, it is ideological. It seems to me predicated upon a non-sequitur. But that is another matter. Back to a few texts.

What is the argumentative context of Paul's narrative discourse from 3:6--4:7? Is it not 3:1-5, which these stories are intended to clarify? And is not 4:8ff. directly linked to the ironic rebuke of 3:1-6 interrupted by this narrative? I believe that this is the case, and it makes all the difference for what Paul is arguing. That does not mean an interpreter cannot construe something in the midst of his narrative to mean something having nothing to do with the point of the argument, but I think that any such point must be qualified thereafter, certainly not abstracted as the core truth of Paul's theology of the Law. Is that a fair enough methodological inference?

Now the point Paul wants to clarify is that something has changed for the gentiles to whom he writes so that in order to acquire status among the righteous ones they do not--must not--now complete proselyte conversion. Why? Because they already have this status, and God has borne witness to it by giving them the Spirit and miracles (3:5), so that it is clear that they do not need to try to know God anymore: they know God and are even more importantly known by God already apart from becoming proselytes, members of Israel (4:8-9). The narrative of 3:6--4:7 explains how this came about.

Now if Israel's role was to be the righteous ones, that is, to have God's righteous Law so that they could live righteously after having been graciously called his righteous ones. And if this righteousness was confined to Israel in order to fulfill her role as bearing the light of a righteous God to all of humankind, then it would be the case that any non-Israelite (gentiles, representative of other nations: "them") would need to become an Israelite in order to stand among the righteous ones as one of them. But Israel ("we") awaits a day when this righteousness will not be confined to Israel, but all of creation (the "we" whom Isreal's righteousness serves) will be restored (right-ed) to the righteous Creator, when Israel and the Nations (the ultimate "we") will be at peace in God's righteous world. When that day dawns will Israel no longer be the righteous ones or have the privilege of Right=Law? What kind of expectation would that be? Israel ("we" on behalf of the nations) will remain Israel, but non-Israelites ("them") will not become Israel (the "we" in service of "them"), all of the Nations will not collapse into Israel, nor will they be converted into Israelites. God is the God of all Creation, and Israel's special role on behalf of the Nations will finally be achieved (the ultimate "we" of all humankind). All will live rightly, fulfilling the Law of Righteousness even if not under that Law as Israelites (cf. 5:14). Thus Paul writes later in ch. 6 of a new creation, a new community of Israelites and non-Israelites.

Now the issue in Galatia revolves around the question of what time it is because it concerns what is the appropriate action in the present age for gentiles seeking identity as righteous ones. And thus the time element of this narrative. Is it the time when gentiles must become Israelites to become members of the righteous ones. Those who are influencing Paul's gentiles in Galatia say indeed that is the case still, since that is the way of the present age. They do not believe that the age to come has dawned in the meaning of Christ's death. Why then should these gentiles believe that they have gained a status as gentiles that can only be gained by non-Israelites in the present age by way of proselyte conversion? That is simply the normative or traditional interpretation of the fathers. Nothing unique about that position. Much to recommend itself for the interests of all concerned, actually, if you do not believe that the time has changed. I suggest that these influential people have not approached Paul's gentiles, but the gentiles have rather approached them with an unexpected claim to identity for gentiles in the present age.

The unique position is the one these gentiles have learned from Paul. He has taught them that with Christ's death and resurrection the age to come has dawned, and thus they as representatives of the Nations have become righteous ones apart from becoming Israelites, so that along with Israelites they may worship together as one the One Creator God of Israel and all the Nations. And in view of their experience of the righteous Spirit of God, an experience confined to Israelites in the present age but now by way of this anomaly revealing that the end of the ages has dawned, they have confirmation that this is more than an argument, it is for themselves a reality.

So for themselves to become Israelites by way of proselyte conversion is inherently to deny that they are already righteous ones bearing witness to the dawning of the end of the ages in Christ. This upends the meaning of the death of Christ for themselves and denies the reality to which they should instead be bearing witness. Thus the ironic ridicule of 3:1-5 and 4:8ff. Don't they get it! No, until this letter they had not realized what was at stake in consideration of these two messages as though compatible for themselves, at least not fully as Paul now explains it to be.

Now if this is the conceptual frame for Paul's language then there is no problem with the statements in chapter 3. Righteousness was confined to Israel until the time when it is not. The "we" of Israel does not stand alone, but necessarily determines the "we" of the Nations. The question is simply whether righteous standing is confined to Israelites after Christ. Or are Israelites and non-Israelites one in him? Does the difference remain, all the more so since the age to come has merely dawned in the midst of the present "evil" age instead of obliterating it as might be expected in view of the prophetic expectations created. Paul argues: Yes it does. There are Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, males and females. Does the discrimination remain in the age to come community of believers in Christ made up of all of these different people: No. And it must not. But it does remain if gentiles must become proselytes to step up to righteous standing; that is inscribed in the very nature of this rite.

I do not see the problem Moon, in chapter 3. Exegesis must be careful to make sense of the rhetorical unit(s) in which each statement is made. When the end of the ages has dawned Israel's role will be modified of course, but Israel will not be finished. These are two enormously different things. A pedagogos is a guide to help a Greco-Roman child until the awaited time has arrived of sonship, not the grave. There is nothing wrong with being a child first, it is just the order of things in the present age (time and development being some of the constraints); God must work with the problem God has of reaching out to a world that is not listening, and so the role of Abraham and his descendents on behalf of all the rest.

In the awaited time Israel will no longer be burdened with the problem of proselyte conversion, but will enjoy God's work with all of humankind, all of creation will be free of the discrimination that is inscribed in difference in the present age. This "difference" of being a righteous people has been a great burden to Israel indeed, well beyond Paul's time in tragic ways right up until our own time. Difference is burdened by discrimination in the present age, from every side of the difference (just ask any person inscribed with minority status by differences that cannot be altered). The age to come will be welcome by Israel; the question for those influencing the addressees in Galatia, who do not share the conviction that this time has begun, is how to respond to this anomalous claim that it has. The question for the gentiles to whom Paul writes who do believe this, is how to resist the forces for conforming to the prevailing norms of the present age, and bear the marginality that will result. The question for Paul is what to write in view of his absence to convince them of the cosmic weight of the exigence at hand.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page