Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The Offense of the Cross

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: The Offense of the Cross
  • Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 08:48:42 -0500

I would appreciate your comments on this recent posting in a Suite101.com Pauline Studies discussion, which I moderate: "I would appreciate some comments on what others think the apostle Paul is referring to when he uses 'the offense of the cross.' Galatians 11b '...the offense of the cross...'"


Bob Hunter, student
<mailto:bob_leonora.hunter AT thezone.net>bob_leonora.hunter AT thezone.net

Dear Bob,
In my view, the context of Paul's comment in 5:11 is very specific: "But if I, brethren, still proclaim circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the scandal/stumbling block/offense of the cross has been removed." So in this case the offense is tied up with the way in which Paul proclaims the meaning of the crucifixion of Jesus. In the context of the letter this is further narrowed to how Paul proclaims the message of Christ for gentiles apart from proselyte conversion, for which circumcision serves here as a symbolic representation. It seems that Paul is implying that if he proclaimed Christ for gentiles inclusive of proselyte conversion for them that he would not be suffering for the message, so that the scandal is not exactly that he proclaims Christ crucified, but that he does not include gentiles responding to this message as proselytes (Jews, Israelites), but rather as gentiles. This is not an abstract contrast of Law/proselyte conversion versus Christ/faith (or other such abstract contrasts traditionally proposed, such as Christ versus self-righteousness/human pride, since the Law is against self-righteousness and human pride too), but a specific contrast for gentiles who have already been incorporated into the righteous ones of God while remaining gentiles by way of faith of/in Christ apart from proselyte conversion. It would undermine the claim to standing in Christ as gentiles.

The rhetorical point is an aspect of his argument that the addressees must not seek to include the message of proselyte conversion that they are hearing in Galatia with the message of Christ that they have heard from Paul, for like leaven in a lump of dough, it will be a decisive turn of direction, and will influence the outcome ineluctably. For Paul the two must not be mixed for gentiles, this other message is in his view an obstruction on the path they had been running (v. 7; cf. 1:6-9).

The addressees would like to convince themselves that they can escape whatever undesirable consequences they are suffering for not having become proselytes by regarding this other message as compatible with Paul's message. Paul asserts that he has not taken such a route himself (proclaiming proselyte conversion alongside faith in Christ), even though it would have been easier for him as well (he could have escaped persecution for his proclamation of Christ), because it would compromise something to do with the meaning of Christ's death. That is explained elsewhere as decisively bringing in the age to come when gentiles along with Israelites receive the promises made to Abraham; thus, for these gentiles to now become Israelites in order to join the righteous ones of God would in effect deny that the age of inclusion of the nations alongside Israel had begun.

That is the rub, for this logical implication is apparently assumed by Paul not to be lost on those who propose this other message (whether they get it or not, or care, is another matter, the rhetorical point is for the purpose of persuading the addressees to understand what is at stake on this point). The proponents of the message of proselyte conversion do not find faith in Christ objectionable per se (whether they believe in the good news of Christ themselves is arguable), but the claim that the meaning of his death as a martyr of the Roman regime has modified current traditions for the incorporation of gentiles implies much more about the consequences than they are willing to grant. The implied context of the addressees is that they are suffering whatever constraints they are suffering (cf. 3:1-5; 6:12-13) for the same principle as Paul has suffered (for proclaiming what they have thus far believed), that is, because these gentiles have not become proselytes, which is considered by the proponents of the other message to be appropriate (in the present age) for gentiles making a claim to inheritance among the righteous ones of God (in the present age).

This claim is offensive/scandalous/a stumbling block for the proponents of the other message of good, and they resist its implications by insisting upon the compliance of the gentile addressees with prevailing norms, a constraint which has led to the circumstances the addressees seek to escape, which is the exigence or "urgency of moment" that Paul by way of this letter seeks to address (thus, our only entree into this historical situation results, but it is limited to being rhetorical). Regardless of the compatibility of the two messages of good news for these gentiles claimed by the messengers of this other message, the addressees cannot accept "both" messages as good for themselves even as Paul has not been able to proclaim "both," for the result would compromise the meaning of the crucified Christ as initiating the age to come.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Lee's Summit, MO, USA


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page