Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Flesh and Spirit

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Flesh and Spirit
  • Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:48:12 -0500


on 4/27/02 2:04 PM, Doug C at archy AT clara.co.uk wrote:

> I've always felt that this language, which occurs most in letters whose
> context includes Jew and Gentile issues, that the most obvious
> background to the choice is that the Jewish covenant is made (literally)
> in the flesh (of the foreskin) whereas the new covenant is made in the
> Spirit, so it is natural to ask the Galatians by what means they
> received the Spirit.
> Obviously, Paul deploys the language in ways that broaden the semantic
> field beyond this, but I am of the view that this does not negate the
> basic comparison. In other contexts, esp. 1 Cor 15 he employs a
> different anthropology, and I would disagree with those who make flesh
> and spirit fundamental concepts of Paul's theological anthropology.
> But I'd be interested to hear other views.

Doug,
In my view, you are right to note this usage in Galatians (e.g., in 3:1-5).
And I question it ever meaning "sinful nature" for Paul, as many propose,
and not a few NT's translate it. However, even in Galatians there are other
usages of this flesh/spirit language that do not have to do with
circumcision per se, and the contrast he brings to mind for his addressees
thereby. I will try to explain.

Consider the fruit of the flesh vs. spirit in ch. 5. Here the flesh leads to
the kinds of sins that are associated with pagan life, those that are
proscribed by Torah, to which one is introduced by proselyte conversion
(circumcision of the flesh of males at the completion of that ritual
conversion process). Writing to Gentiles--former pagans in Paul's
communities, but still pagans in the opinion of most Jews and that of most
if not all of their family's and neighbor's--these manifestations would not
be associated with circumcision of the flesh (for men), which brings them
(men) into the realm of obligations to righteous living/Torah. They are
contrasted with the way of Torah, which Paul understands to articulate love
of neighbor, that which is manifest in the fruit of the spirit (the breadth
of confession of faith in the provision of God and his identification of
those that are his righteous ones).

Rather, Paul makes this argument in Galatians overall, in my view, and it is
signified in this language in ch. 5. These non-Jewish addressees are being
marginalized for the claim to be not still pagans, and thus no longer
participating in cultic life (many if not all of the manifestations of the
flesh Paul lists signify pagan ritual life as seen from a Jewish
perspective), but also not proselyte candidates, and thus not on their way
to being re-identified as "former pagans" among the "righteous ones of God"
according to prevailing conventions for making this transfer from pagan to
Jewish communal life. This leaves them--according to prevailing conventions
of identity in Jewish subgroups--in the ambiguous territory of being mere
"pagan" guests who are involved in both Jewish and pagan lives, depending
upon their social location at any given moment. But they have expected
otherwise, that they are already, by the confession (breath/spirit) of faith
in/of Christ righteous ones, no longer pagans, yet not proselytes;
nevertheless, their equals in the community of faith in Israel's One God as
the One God of all of the nations.

Now that Paul is gone and in the pressing situation of the moment when no
other local authorities agree with this view, they are becoming unsettled,
and seek a resolution to this problem (which is multi-dimensional, involving
psychological but also very real social issues). According to the
conventions long held they can become proselytes, or remain guests, but then
obliged to understand themselves as pagans who are responsible to their
pagan identities as well when among family and neighbors. They must decide!
They are considering how to get this re-identification that offers relief
without dad/mom (Paul) finding out, of it he/she does, so that he/she will
understand that it was the only reasonable way for them to proceed! They
either need to return to pagan identity, at least in part, or become
proselytes, while still maintaining their confession of faith in Christ--so
they think the choices to be. Surely, they think, we cannot return to being
pagans (i.e., to practices of idolatrous communal identity), so the only
real choice is proselyte conversion. But Paul (mom/dad) finds out what they
are considering, and in this letter we have his response. While the main
thrust is against the proselyte option they have adduced to be more
attractive, the other option is also addressed at points, and his opposition
to its viability is maintained in background of his argument (surfacing at
4:8-10 and at points in ch. 5).

Paul argues that his addressees are not to so understand themselves and the
communities comprised of Jews and non-Jews that constitute these Jewish
subgroups according to the "confession" (expression of the breadth/spirit)
of faith in/of Christ. Like a parent involved in trying to persuade
teenagers caught in the trying cross-fire of peer vs. parental approval, the
parent maintains that these non-Jewish addressees are not to consider trying
to get approval by being "identified" according to the prevailing "human"
conventions of the present age as either "proselytes" or "pagans" (the two
"normal/human" conventions on offer outside of the community confessing
faith in/of Christ). Things have changed for those who confess
(breath/spirit) Christ, for the age to come has dawned in the midst of the
present "evil" age, that is, in the midst of the age under the authority of
human conventions. The are not to seek to escape the marginalization that is
resulting from mere appeal to their "confession" (expression of the
spirit/breath) of faith in Christ to legitimate their identity as righteous
ones (without being pagans or becoming proselytes, as their identity is
declared in the gospel of Christ); God will prevail, and they are to suffer
the consequences in the meantime, living according to their confession
(breath/spirit) of faith in/of Christ, and thus in the service of each other
suffering this plight. The options on offer according to human (fleshly)
convention would involve them instead in the agonistic (conflict oriented)
world of seeking "fleshly," that is, a measure of community approval
according to this present age's human conventions for identification.

(By analogy, as a parent might put it, these supposed friends are just using
you, or wish to use you--real friends would accept you as you are. Whether
that is the case or not, the point made is that you cannot win (according to
the values upheld by your parents) by trying to play at the game of the
child's peers, and you are likely to fail at the peers' game too. Why not
stay true to your convictions (confession/breadth/spirit) instead of trying
to please the expectations of others (human conventions/flesh).)

I believe that this understanding of flesh/spirit as "human conventions for
identifying the 'in-crowd'" versus "confession of faith in Christ for
identifying the 'in-crowd'" gets at the heart of Paul's usage of this
language. When he uses flesh/spirit to contrast circumcision/confession to
identify the righteous ones, they are linked in usage, as long as the
rhetorical situation is kept in view (non-Jews considering proselyte
conversion to remove the ambiguity of identity that remains after they have
confessed faith in Christ, thus not fitting into either pagan or Jewish
communal identity schemes according to prevailing conventions). As soon as
this is universalized to speak of "all humans," that is, of Jews as well as
non-Jews refraining from Jewish identity as though that is the problem of
"the flesh," then the usage is modified in a way that necessarily negates
the value of Jewish identity and Torah (making them synonymous with
"flesh"), and I believe that to be opposed to Paul's own identity,
conviction, and message (in flesh and spirit identified at the same time to
be Jewish and Torah-observant as well as a confessor of Christ, who suffers
for the proposition that these gentiles are not to become proselytes [cf.
5:11], which opposes prevailing conventions of identification in a way that
is threatening for those who do not share this conviction/confession of
faith).

Sorry about the length, but I hope that that it has served to clarify a
different way of reading this language (even if still a mere sketch), which
has proven to be so important in Pauline theology. Comments welcome.

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page