Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: 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: "Dieter Mitternacht" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Gal. 6:12: Fear of persecution for the cross of Christ
  • Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:45:36 +0200


Dear Mark.
I have taken the liberty of reducing your remarks down to those sentences
which I will respond to, hoping not to have distorted what you are saying.

We are discussing Gal 6:12-13 (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."
> ...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.

Yes! I agree! The point I would make, though, is that the overall strategy of
denigration of the influencers by Paul that surfaces in the letter time and
again makes me wonder whether we can draw the conclusion, that only the
influencers were under the threat or the experience of persecution (cf. 'ONLY
in order that THEY may not be persecuted').

> 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....
> 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;

Yes! 'seeking enhanced honor rating' is a very nice way of putting it,
though. I would be a bit more blunt in my recapitulation of Paul's
description. The portrayal of the influencers throughout the letter is not
balanced, to say the least.
Their actions: troublemakers (1.7 focus on emotion), deceivers (3.1),
obstructing their athlete competitors (5.7), enraging them against the
skandalon of the cross (5.11-12).
Their 'real' motives: they are purely selfish (4.17), want to 'glory in your
flesh' and are hypocrites (i.e. not law abiding 6.13). Not the teaching, but
the character of the influencers is under attack. They are sissies, so let
them be consistent and cut it all off (5.12, I do not think much of the
joke-theory with regard to 5.12, even though, of course, I agree that Paul is
exaggerating). So it should not come as a surprise, that they are portrayed
as having no concern for the addressee's welfare, and are only concerned with
their own (6.12).


> 4) the persecution the influencers fear is because of the cross of Christ.

> The cross symbolizes the Roman public treatment of political
> criminals, ... will create fear in others of
> doing such things, thus keeping the Pax Romana. But for many Jews
> ... it is a symbol of martyrdom by the Roman regime. ... 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) ...

Of course, in general all of these aspects are at work somewhere! But, the
way I see it, it is the image of the suffering Christ, the light that that
image throws on the situation and actions of the addressees and the
influencers (!), and the call for imitation that is in focus in Gal. This
seems obvious to me in 2.19, 3.1, 4.14, 5.11, 6.12 and 6.17. But already in
1.4 the focus, somewhat unexpectedly, is on the suffering of the saints. Form
historians, as I am sure you are aware, have been trying to identify a
tradition here, because the phrasing does not seem to fit what they
considered typical Pauline. I think it fits exactly into the strategy of Gal.

> they do not want to be persecuted for the
> cross of Christ....
> 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).

I would want to exchange 'legitimated' for 'made possible', in order not to
loose sight of the fact that it was not a matter of 'must' but 'may'. You
refer to 5.11 and remark 'that Paul has been persecuted for this'. Yes, but
equally important is, that in the first third of the verse Paul is asserting,
that he NO LONGER preaches circumcision. He may be utilizing a rhetoric of
anticipation (Esler) in order to counteract a rumour with regard to his
present situation (eti!). But, as far as I can see, Paul is not disputing,
that there had been a time when he had been preaching circumcision. And
unless that time was after his turning to Christ, I see the passage making no
sense at all. Thus, some may even have thought of him as being a man-pleaser
(1.10), whereas he himself would have had the success of his mission in mind
entirely. In any event, I do NOT think, we can conclude that Paul received a
'primal' theological insight that was later confirmed in Acts 15, a straight
path on which he never wavered. And this, to my mind, sounds very natural,
for a man with such fervor.

> 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).

Yes! And I think here we should take into consideration the change in the
politcal 'Grosswetterlage' (as G Theissen has called it), i.e. the change of
emperor in Rome 41 ce. as long as persecution occured here and there and
without clear rationale (under Caligula), deviant social behavior may not
have come up as the major concern. However with the edict of Claudius 49 ce,
persecution could be anticipated and avoided, wherefore keeing of the status
quo became desirable.

If the controversy over circumcision of Gentiles in Gal was a matter of
social and political accomodation or persecution, then that would also make
plausible, why on earlier occasions, where the social and political
circumstances were different, Paul may have 'preached' circumcision. But now
that it has become a matter of betrayal of the path of the cross, it has to
be fiercly rejected. Yet still: 'in Christ Jesus neither circumcision och
uncircumcision is of any avail, but(!) faith working through love (PISTIS DI'
AGAPES)' 5.6. Compare this to 2.20: (Having been crucified with Christ) 'I
live in the FAITH of the son of God who LOVED me and gave himself for me'. So
even here I think a case could been made that the imitatio Christi crucifixi
is at the heart of the matter.

> the influencers are those Jewish social control agents of
> the larger Jewish community (although a minority community) to whom
> the addressees have appealed...
> 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)

With regard to the identification of the influencers, we seem to agree that
their concern was not only for themselves, but also for others. You think of
the larger minority (which I have no problem with), I think, they also had a
concern for the addressees. "They make much of you" (4.17) Paul admits, but
in the next moment turns their motives into bad ones. Here, I think, we must
apply the same critical mind as we do in 6.12, where we allow for the concern
of the influencers to be a concern for others too, especially when
considering the denigration of motive throughout the letter. And in order to
keep that in mind, I like to call them 'advisors'.

Whether or not the influencers were Jewish Christ-believers, I accept your
point, that no solid case can be build on the basis of 6.12. Still, my
reading of chs 1 and 2 especially, make me stick both to the Southern
connection of the influencers and to the view of a solid dissent between Paul
and the leadership in Jerusalem.

Now what leads to the production of such a letter? To my mind (based, among
other things, on an epistolographic analysis of Galatians, that puts 4.12
right into the center of the letter, with a frame around it that streches
from 3.26 to 5.1), the conflict between Paul and the Galatian addressees is
caused by Paul's deep sense of loss of friendship and loyalty. The addressees
had been so promising, so full of selfless loving-kindness towards him from
the very beginning. But now, in his perception, they had betrayed the very
sign of their brotherhood, not seeking the crown of glory but earthly
serenity. With that cognition in his heart and his mind, Paul, with great
rhetorical skill, sets an example of intolerance and misuse of authority that
has caused, at times, a rather devastating Wirkungsgeschichte. For that,
however, we cannot and should not blame him. He was just writing a little
letter to a few people in a remote part of Asia Minor.


All the best!
Dieter








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page