Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Gal. 6:12: Fear of persecution for the cross of Christ

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: Gal. 6:12: Fear of persecution for the cross of Christ
  • Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:13:53 -0500


Dieter wrote:
it has been suggested by many interpreters, that there is suprisingly little if not nothing Paul is saying about the influencers, that he couldn't have said in just about any controversial situation. The one thing that is specific, as far as I can see, is 6.12, and here we touch at the heart of the matter, persecution.

Dear Dieter (and list),
This brings up a good topic for discussion about constructions being close to the text (which you questioned), beginning with the text of 6:12-13, cited here (NRSV):

"It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh."

Leaving aside how much Paul did or did not know about the influencers, you single out here a specific textual detail. Whether you are correct or not about the value of this one over others (I would argue that this one is like several others that seem to me equally informative, including in this very passage), the implication of Paul's accusations are valid to consider in terms of the salience that Paul seems to assume they will have for the addressees, regardless of any stereotypical rhetoric of vilification that is at work or not. To stay with this one you cite, if there is no way for the addressees to understand the influencers as being somehow vulnerable to persecution (even if this vulnerability might now seem new or different to them upon its being framed in this way by Paul), then this is an ineffective way for Paul to try to undermine the influencers interests, motives, methods, etc., since it would not appear to the addressees to match their perception of reality, and would thus fail to persuade the addressees to reconsider the issues at hand, for which purpose Paul writes.

Before I proceed to the issue: Note that this is a persecution that
the influencers' fear, and thus are constrained by in their dealings with the addressees, according to Paul, but Paul does not say in this verse/passage that the addressees are being or fear being persecuted. Rather, he says they are being compelled, as in persuaded/manipulated/shamed.

(sorry about the length of this introduction and following argument; I have tried to be brief, but I assume that this view and its assumptions must be spelled out, since it is so different from the prevailing views and their assumptions).

Now the interesting point that arises in 6:12 is that Paul puts the issue of the influencers' fear of persecution in a very specific context:
1) the influencers seek enhanced honor rating;
2) they believe that the threat of persecution can be avoided;
3) that this will be the result of them successfully persuading the addressees to become proselytes;
4) the persecution the influencers fear is because of the cross of Christ.

It is point 4 that I wish to develop, in the context of the other points. The cross symbolizes the Roman public treatment of political criminals, or criminals whose death in this way provides some political capital, that is, that it will create fear in others of doing such things, thus keeping the Pax Romana. But for many Jews considering the crucifixion of a Judean political figure it is a symbol of martyrdom by the Roman regime. That would be true for Jewish non-Jesus believers as well as believers; although they would speak more likely of the cross of Jesus, than of Messiah, that is, of a Judean person, not a messiah, or one one whom some call a Messiah, or in an ironic way, as did the Romans who put up the sign, etc. But it is, for the addressees (and Paul and all other Christ-believers) more than this, it is a symbol with meaning for themselves (and the whole world), because they believe that this particular martyr of the Romans was the Messiah, that his death had aeon changing meaning, etc., thus "the cross of Christ" is the way Paul expresses this symbol for the addressees, who share his faith in the meaning of Jesus Christ without Paul having to spell it out.

What does this accusation tell us about the influencers? They are in some way standing betwixt and between the compliance of the addressees with proselyte conversion and some other people to whom they answer for the addressees' non-compliance, should that be the result. To stay with just one issue, the longstanding and still virtually unanimous view of interpreters is that the influencers are Christ-believers: since they do not want to be persecuted for the cross of Christ, they must be Christ-believers who uphold the value of Jewish identity above the inclusion of gentiles apart from circumcision (more accurately, it should be that the influencers answer to some person/s or group/s whom they fear for this relative valuation, which a few interpreters do recognize). Variations on this theme exist, and different views of the identity of the influencers' influencers, but these can be left aside for the moment.

Most if not all interpreters cite this as "hard" evidence that the influencers are Christ-believers. But I suggest it not only does not provide such evidence, but the opposite. It is Paul and the addressees who believe this "new" way to include gentiles as full members is legitimated by the meaning of the death of this Judean martyr of the Roman regime, and it is on the basis of this view that they have resisted compliance with the traditional membership norm, i.e., by way of proselyte conversion (Paul has been persecuted for this: 5:11). So for those to whom the influencers answer, it is not sufficient reason to legitimate this non-conformity; this is the case for the influencers as well, since they seek to increase their own honor rating with the addressees by upholding it (cf. end of 6:13), a position (compromise) which would not be honorable for other Christ-believers in the estimation of the addressees.

So I propose that it is pagan social control agents to whom the influencers must answer for a breach of protocol for the inclusion of fellow-pagans, in whom they have a vested interest in continued pagan identity if they have not or do not intend to undergo status transformation to Jewish identity (as I discussed in recent posts about 4:8-10). It is the "pagan" upholders of Roman values who would be struck by the political dimension of the claim that a criminal was a martyr, further, that this Judean dead man was alive and the real king/imperial figure, although the threat would be real for representative of minority Jewish communities who collaborated with those who upheld such a view. Even if such a belief might be tolerated, deviant social behavior (not becoming proselytes yet claiming freedom from pagan public idolatrous activities) would make it an issue that could not be overlooked (e.g., fear of loss in familial and commercial terms, and reprisals from the gods for failure of communal worship).

If the addressees are part of a Jewish subgroup (they are interested in gaining Jewish identity on the traditional Jewish terms after all), then the influencers are those Jewish social control agents of the larger Jewish community (although a minority community) to whom the addressees have appealed, explaining their own non-compliance based on what they believe the meaning of this Judean martyr of the Roman regime is for themselves. But these Jewish social control agents fear the fallout from the dominant pagan social control agents for permitting this non-compliance (such as loss of the privilege of not having to participate in such idolatrous civic duties as do pagans, like participation in imperial cult festivities), since they would have to answer for such non-compliance by explaining the political subversion of the dominant community's beliefs. But the influencers do not want to bring suffering ("persecution") upon themselves and the larger (minority) Jewish community whom they are to protect for upholding the legitimacy based upon claims (of this non-compliant subgroup) they do not share, namely, in the meaning of "the cross of Christ" for justifying such non-compliance.

Thus,
a) the addressees are Christ-believing non-Jews within a Jewish subgroup (the subgroup deems them righteous full members, other Jewish groups and pagan society deem them pagan guests);
b) the influencers are non-Christ-believing representatives of the larger Jewish community in Galatia, although such leaders represent a minority community in such a pagan society, and thus they have constraints upon themselves as well, that is, they too are marginalized in some way, and must answer for the identity claims of "pagans" claiming to be under their authority and to be no longer pagans, apart from the status transformation ritual by which such change is accomplished;
c) those whom the influencers fear represent the interests of the dominant pagan community in which the addressees, as pagans, have obligations to comply with communal norms, and to which the Jewish communal leaders, as those who have "special" exemptions based on the fact that they are not pagans, must answer for any breach of convention. Those whom the influencers fear could range from the leaders of the local pagan community, to relatives and neighbors of the addressees.

Perhaps this will elicit some discussion of this text and the issues raised by my construction of the context for interpreting it. No doubt other texts will be raised, and I welcome that, but it would be useful to discuss this one first, since so much about the situation and identities has been hung upon it, most recently in the minimal evidence claimed in the post to which I now respond. Dieter? Anyone else?

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page