Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The Mystery of Romans: the theme of- --- - restoration of Israel

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The Mystery of Romans: the theme of- --- - restoration of Israel
  • Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 09:41:59 -0600


on 1/6/02 6:32 AM, moon-ryul jung at moon AT sogang.ac.kr wrote:

> How do you take 1 Cor 9:19-22:
>
> For since I am free from all I can make myself a slave to all, in order
> to gain even more. 9:20 To the Jews I became like a Jew to gain the Jews.
> To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am
> not under the law) to gain those under the law. 9:21 To those free from
> the law I became like one free from the law (though I am not free from
> GodÂ’s law but under the law of Christ) to gain those free from the law.
> 9:22 To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become
> all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some.
>
> What would it mean that Paul, a Jew himself, BECAME like a Jew?
> For Paul To BECOME like one under the law or to BECOME like one
> free from the law would imply that his "original" state is
> neutral with respect to the two modes of life. He transcends both
> modes of lifestyle, although he can accomodate either of them
> as necessary.
>
> You would not accept this interpretation of 1 Cor 9:12-22. How would
> you interpret this passage?

Moon,
Thanks for your comments and continued engagement.

You rightly surmise that I do not accept that interpretation, although it is
common and virtually unquestioned. I will give an alternative in due time,
when I am able to turn my attention to conceptualizing and testing my
working hypothesis at more length, and arguing it appropriately. In the
meantime, for the sake of this discussion, I simply do not believe that it
can be read as a universal statement apart from context--rhetorical and
historical--as though it reverses all that I have found in Romans and
Galatians, which suggest to me Paul is Torah-observant as a matter of faith.
But of course it involves a full exegesis and explanation. I am still
engaged in the journey, and enjoying it as I go. I approach these texts with
as much care as I can; I also approach them with the understanding that I
may find something other than I suppose, even that I am wrong about Paul.

If I may offer but one rhetorically similar use of language and concepts
that arise in family settings, this is the kind of language and behavior one
finds a father might use with their teenage son when trying to relate on a
status level other than as father/son. Let's say they go fishing. For
whatever reason (I can think of several), on this trip the father seeks to
relate to the son as a fellow fisherman, to behave and talk as though
friends rather than on the father/son axis, i.e., without appeal to
authority, but as together with a friend. He announces this intention as
they drive to his favorite fishing hole, until then shared by the father
with his adult friends rather than his child.

Does this mean that they are not father/son, or that, depending up events
and conversations, that they will not revert? or that, once the fishing trip
is complete (probably well before!) that no matters of authority will arise
and the father will be fully father? Because of this decision/event is the
father's "original" state neutral with respect to being a father and also a
friend? How would the son understand the father saying he was his friend, or
acting like one? Would he no longer understand the fixed relationship of
father/son applied to matters where that relationship and its dynamics are
likely to arise?

If this comparison is accepted for the sake of argument, then it is easy
(for me) to see that the non-Jews to whom Paul wrote, if they know him to be
fully Torah observant, would not understand him to be claiming otherwise. As
this statement makes very clear, the interpretation we presume for the
original reader is dependent upon our construction of Paul, which supposedly
arises from exegesis of this text, not eisegesis. Since virtually all
interpreters of Paul for a very long time have understood him to be known by
his addressees as no longer Torah-observant except when trying to win other
Jews to faith in Jesus (and thus for expedience and duplicity, not as an act
of conviction), this passage has been understood to both develop and confirm
that assumption. But if they know him to be otherwise, as I suppose, then...

In the context of Paul's larger discussion in chs. 8--10 I can see several
possible ways for them to take his language without ever considering it to
signify that he was ambivalent about his own identity and behavior as a Jew
as a matter of principle and faith.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Mark

--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com





  • Re: The Mystery of Romans: the theme of- --- - restoration of Israel, Mark D. Nanos, 01/06/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page