Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Social context of Galatian's suffering

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: Social context of Galatian's suffering
  • Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 09:25:04 -0500 (CDT)


Ray Pickett wrote:
I am wondering in what sense a community
>founded by someone who says that he "died to the law", doesn't think
>gentiles members should have to do "works of law", and doesn't even
>appeal to the law as a moral guide could be considered "Jewish"? I
>realize that Paul is angry and may be overstating his case, but do you
>think his reiteration of his gospel in this letter is all that different
>from his initial preaching in Galatia?

Ray,
This is a provocative line of observations and questions.

Sometimes it does seem like an overwhelming case against Paul's continued
place within Judaism, both in terms of the value of Jewish identity and
behavior. But I suggest that this language, when contextualized, may
indicate quite the opposite case. Let me take these three briefly, although
I realize that each one could occupy much discussion, and a flood of others
may follow. And let me pose a similar kind of logically problem that would
seem to run in the other direction.

One, Paul's mention of dying to the law is in the context of explaining
that Jewish status (and thus, e.g., honor), which he and Peter share, but
the gentiles present do not, no longer provides the foundation for the kind
of discrimination Peter had "momentarily" exhibited at Antioch, when the
gentiles present responded to being shamed on these terms with the resolve
to eliminate this problem by becoming proselytes. In this sense Paul has
died to the Law, but this need not indicate that he was not practicing the
Law. All it would take was gentiles in this situation behaving like
righteous gentiles, and fully Jewish behavior would be possible for Jewish
people present. The difference would be saliant in the kind of fellowship,
perhaps exhibited by the arrangement of the seating (a place where status
discrimination is evident), that these gentiles were being treated as
equals with the Jewish people present (as though proselytes), in
demonstration of their belief that the age to come had dawned and Jew and
gentiles worshiped as one. I have discussed this dynamic at greater length
in Appendix 1, "Peter's Hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-21) in the Light of Paul's
Anxiety (Rom. 7)," The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's
Letter. It does not seem to me that if Paul did not retain the status of
Law-observant Jew that his polemical comments here or elsewhere would bear
the weight he seems to believe they will. By analogy, who has not heard a
Baptist say they are not religious, or a Christian, or even a Baptist, in
order to polemicise their point about what they believe really matters?
Isn't this polemic because they believe this way of knowing each other "in
the flesh," i.e., by human reputation, gets in the way of knowing each
other "in the spirit," i.e., by confession of faith? But this is the ideal,
I am imagining, for being a "true" Baptist for this person, a view shared
by many other Baptists as well (I imagine), and thus understood not to mean
they are not and do not highly value being a Baptist. If however, they are
only a former one, then it has a different meaning, a put-down of Baptist
identity as an outsider. This latter view seems to me to by the way Paul is
read, but it need not.

Two, the question of what Paul means by "works of Law," is obviously an
enormous topic. I will just say that the way I believe this prase is used
in Galatians has little to do with practicing Jewish behavior for Jewish
people, but with the entrance of gentile people into Jewish identity; and
not just any gentile people, but ones who are already Christ-believers, and
thus already have become "known by God." In other words, Paul employs this
phrase in making the case that gentile believers in Christ are already
re-identified as righteous ones, with the Spirit as confirmation of this
new status ("hearing by faith"/"having begun by the Spirit"). Thus to seek
this status still, by way of proselyte conversion ("by works of Law"/"are
you now ending with the flesh"), is to deny what they have, and thus to
render the meaning of Christ's death mere gratuitousness (cf. 2:21; 3:4). I
take his logic to be that this way of negotiating the boundary was already
in place in this age, and taking it up thus subverts the new way it is
negotiated in Christ, testifying to a change, however, in the midst of the
present age, and thus the need to endure in this present marginality: to
"resist" re-identification by the traditional norms and "wait for the hope
of righteousness" by those revealed in Christ.

Third, the question of whether Paul appeals to the Law as a moral guide or
not, is again, a big issue. But if I accept this point here, it still does
not lead me to the same conclusion. If Paul is dealing with gentiles and
not Jews, that is with people not under Torah, then it would be
inconsistent to appeal to Torah to make his point if he can do so by way of
appeal to first principles. Paul's ethical appeals, even when made in this
manner, come to the same conclusion as Torah and Tanak, as far as I can
see: live in holiness and love. And so he puts it: love one another, and
thus you will fulfill the whole Law.

Finally, we of course cannot know whether Paul's understanding of the good
news of Christ has developed in some way between his time in Galatia and
later letter, but he does seem to suggest that he has already made the
points he now seeks to make (1:8; 5:7-10, 21). The change in tone to ironic
rebuke would further suggest that they should know better, expressing his
disappointment. (This is how parents often approach dissapointment with
children: I am surprised that you have done this, after all we have taught
you...) But I do not see what weight this carries in your question. Paul's
rivalry was when present, and is in this letter, with the views of Jewish
interest groups and people who suggest that "his" (i.e. Christ-believing)
gentiles should be circumcised to claim the status of righteous ones. For
this move, from Paul's point of view, "turns upside down the good news of
Christ" (1:7). I would think that a champion of this view would need to
lead an exemplary Torah-observant life himself, although the halakhic
innovations necessary for communal practice would be subject to much
dispute, easily misunderstood or turned against him. He will be accused of
teaching otherwise (according to Luke), but also behave in a way intended
to deny it (according to Luke; cf. Acts 21).
>
>I take your point that the gentile believers in Galatia were involved
>with Jews when Paul wrote the letter, and that some of them had been
>convinced that it would be a good thing to be circumcised. What I am
>having a difficult time imagining is how Paul infiltrated Jewish
>communities in Anatolia and preached a gospel to God-fearing gentiles
>that essentially undermined Jewish identity, and then these gentiles
>continued to stay involved with the Jews and eventually came around to
>thinking that they should complete the ritual process of proselyte
>conversion. Is this the scenerio you have in mind? If not, how do you
>think the situation evolved in those Galatian churches.

Yes Ray, this is roughly along the line that I imagine the situation. I
don't think "infiltrated" captures Paul's activity. If a reformer, he saw
this move on behalf of his "brethren." If Torah-observant himself, he did
not undermine Jewish identity, but proclaimed a time when those of the
nations would turn to Israel's Lord as the One God of all humankind. But
think of the powerful attraction of proselyte identity for gentiles in such
a situation, if Paul does not denigrate Jewish identity or behavior, yet
his policy leaves these gentiles with a social identity that is perpetually
liminal and cause for concern by those members of the Jewish communities
who do not share this faith.
>
>To my way of thinking, Paul's gospel seems to be aimed at gentile
>idolaters from the git-go. I assume he is interacting with the
>synagogues in the various cities, and so certainly some god-fearers
>would have been pleased to discover that they could belong to the people
>of God without being circumcised. Honestly, I had never thought about
>the possiblity that the preponderance of gentile believers had first
>turned from paganism to Judaism, then from Judaism to this particular
>Jewish sect. I certainly think this is worth pondering some more. But I
>need to have a better grasp of how Jewish communities would have even
>tolerated Paul's gospel and mission as I find it expressed in Galatians.
>Perhaps I am just inferring an erroneous picture from what you are
>suggesting.

Ray, I have no trouble with understanding the gentiles whom Paul addresses
to have been either already in some way associated with the Jewish
communities, or not. But when they came into the Christ-believing groups
Paul (a Jewish reformer in my view) founded, this involved a move into the
realm of the Jewish communities.
>
>> But it may be taken to suggest that they are now suffering in a Jewish
>> environement for their expectations and claims of equality, as though they
>> had acquired proselyte status without having yet done so.
>
>This is also an interesting interpretation that I hadn't thought about.
>However, if Paul was referring to their present suffering in a Jewish
>environment, wouldn't he most likely have used a present tense instead
>of an aorist (EPATHETE)? I am reading v. 4 in conjunction with the
>reference in v. 1 to Paul's recounting of his preaching, or graphic
>exhibition (PROEGRAPHE - aorist) of Christ having been crucified, and
>also with v. 5, which recalls them having received the Spirit when they
>heard it. In other words, the context of this reference to their
>suffering seems to be their initial hearing of Paul's gospel and the
>ensuing consequences, not the current situation.

I do not see the grammar as a problem here. The engagement of their
interests has already taken place when Paul writes this letter (1:6-7;
5:7ff.; 6:12-13). He is saying that they have already suffered the effects
of having been evil eyed, although they had failed to realize this was the
cause of their distress.
>
>> It is not clear to me that the reference to their having been pagans in 4:8
>> means that they converted directly from paganism to faith in Christ. This
>> identity could have been the object of polemical (here ironically twisted)
>> comments from a Jewish perspective (like Paul's) forever, like a
>> "freed-person," i.e., former slave, regardless of the passing of time and
>> experiences. It does seem to clarify that he is addressing non-Jewish
>> people, former pagans, but it does not rule out that they were already in
>> some way associated with a Jewish community there, "righteous gentiles."
>
>Having done my dissertation on the Corinthian correspondence, I
>appreciate Paul's capacity for irony and even sarcasm. But it seems most
>natural to me to read 4:8-10 as referring to folks who have transitioned
>from paganism to faith in Christ. 4:19 suggests to me that Paul sees
>himself as the father/mother of this community of believers. Given his
>concern in 1 Cor. with not building on another's foundation, I have a
>hard imagining that Paul's mission strategy in this region is
>essentially to "steal" gentile proselytes from the Jewish communities.
>Is that what you imagine to be the case?

I do not see Paul's activity as "stealing" either. But if a sectarian Paul
is imagined, taking these gentiles with him, then this could be so
described, at least from the view of the communities they leave. But I see
Paul as working within the community, setting up what become subgroups, but
not as sectarian groups (yet). In other words, I imagine something more
like a charismatic movement group within a mainline congregation
(generalizing from the way I assume this might work), meeting under the
auspices of the dominant group, and with them, but also nurturing a new
identity. Such activity may be viewed in many different ways by all
involved, in-group and out-group as defined from various points of view.

If not, then it seems that he
>was cultivating a gentile audience in these cities, then after he forms
>a community there is an attempt to connect with Jewish communities.

I cannot imagine how gentile groups cultivated by a sectarian Paul would be
later attracted to attempt to connect with Jewish communities, actually, to
become Jewish people themselves. Or why Jewish communities (presumably
minority groups in these Anatolian towns themselves) would be either
interested in them, or in a position to engage in social control of them,
as seems to be suggested in the letter (persuading; hindering; excluding;
compelling). Can you explain such a social development?

Respectfully,
Mark Nanos






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page