Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

Roy Ciampa wrote:
I think, though,
>that your argument here won't work with Galatians 2:16ff.  You say "In the
>case of Galatians the phrase seems to describe something especially
>applicable to the question of whether gentiles already in-Christ need to
>become proselytes. It thus refers to a phenomenon that does not arise among
>Jewish people with regard to Torah, except as it may relate to their
>position on this matter of gentile status as fully righteous ones or not in
>the context of Paul's groups."  You later put it this way: "Works of law
>for Paul in Galatians = proselyte conversion for gentiles already fully
>aggregated by faith in/of Christ into the people of God".
>
>        But in Galatians 2:16 Paul says that "we [Jews and not Gentile
>sinners] also believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith
>in Christ, and not by works of the law".  It seems to me that it does not
>make any sense to say "We Jews also believed in Christ Jesus, in order to
>be justified by faith in Christ and not by proselyte conversion for
>gentiles already aggregated by faith into the people of God"!  It seems
>clear that according to Gal 2:16ff. works of the law _was_ a phenomenon
>that had arisen among the Jews but that they (I personally think Paul is
>referring to himself and Peter here, as examples) had decided to follow the
>way of faith _rather than_ the way of the works of the law.
>
>        Although the fundamental question in Galatians is not "about the
>observance of Torah in
>a particular way, i.e., halakhah per se" that does seem to be the best
>explanation for the problem in Antioch, which is the immediate context for
>Paul's reference to works of the Law in Gal 2:16 (this argument will not
>carry as much weight with those who separate 2:15ff from 2:11-14, but even
>they must recognize the proximity of Paul's reference to works of the law
>here with the just-finished reference to a problem with Jews and Gentiles
>eating together).

Roy,
You have a point here, that is, that my effort at a descriptive definition
won't fit into the spot in 2:16 as a direct replacement, and it is thus
flawed. It does fit in this way when Paul is addressing the Galatian
gentiles and not telling a story as in the case of Antioch (this applies
regardless of how the narrative is divided at 2:14 or 15 or kept as one
piece). Note 3:2, which I take to be the rhetorical purpose to which Paul
is driving when he sets out the historical material, even though the cases
he narrates do not mirror the situation in Galatia in every detail. Here
this substitution will fit hand in glove.

And it does work, I think, in 2:16, when space is given to my qualifying
comment: "It thus refers to a phenomenon that does not arise among Jewish
people with regard to Torah, except as it may relate to their position on
this matter of gentile status as fully righteous ones or not in the context
of Paul's groups."

That is the issue between Peter and Paul, in that Paul accused Peter of
behaving in a manner that implied this (proselyte conversion) was necessary
for gentiles if they were to be regarded on the same level as Jewish
people, i.e., indiscriminately. Here the identity of Peter and Paul is
still marked by circumcision, but not that of an adult gentile who converts
to "acquire" this status, the issue at hand for the gentiles Paul
addresses. In the case of Peter and Paul it is "ascribed," and their
circumcision was the result of the observance of their parents (in having
them circumcised) of course. But they still choose this identity at the
point of Paul's comment, yet not over against those gentiles who share
their faith in Christ but who do not share their Jewish/Israelite identity.
It is to maintain this principle about their faith in the gospel of Christ
that Paul confronts Peter. Works of law is not their observance of halakhah
per se, but their continued honored identity as righteous ones of Israel
("Jews by nature"), rather than their gaining of this identity, which is
the implied rhetorical situation of the addressees ("gentile sinners").

I think the interpretation of Galatians, including the point of these
historical stories which Paul retells in making his case, is well served by
making an (overly) sharp distinction between identity and observance when
setting out the issues. These gentiles were not Torah people, and thus
Paul's polemic is not against Torah observance, the question is whether
they will become such. The phrase we translate as works of law, I believe,
has to do with this question of identity in the context of gentile
Christ-believers who share the identity as children of Abraham, but not of
Moses. And it is in this context that the Antioch is presented, although
here the perspective changes to confronting a Jewish person who has failed
to maintain this position because of social anxiety suffered in the
presence of other Jewish people who do not share this conviction about
Christ. Same issue as the Galatians face, but from another vantage point.

[snip]

>You are right that the question is whether the Galatians "should now choose
>to become people of the Torah by way of proselyte conversion" but that is
>another way of saying they should now choose to become "people who live
>according to the halakha" by means of proselyte conversion.

This is no doubt true in a sense, but there is an important distinction
that should be maintained between the two. Circumcision for a gentile as a
part of completing the ritual process of conversion and observance of the
Torah thereafter once this new identity has been gained are not the same
thing. Paul plays off of this difference in 5:3. The Galatians are
concerned with an identity transformation in order to be socially accepted;
Paul is concerned with a theological principle that will be undermined if
they do so. That is not because there is something undermining about being
or becoming Jewish/Israelite per se (Paul still appeals to this as a
superior station to have in our passage), but because they are seeking to
gain thereby what they already have, thus delegitimating the results of
Christ's death for themselves (i.e., as representatives of what God is now
doing for the nations too). This is a special case, and not a perspective
shared by other Jewish interest groups on this particular point, from
either a social or theological perspective. And this is the context in
which works of law takes on its role in Paul's argument. At least, that is
how it appears to me.

Regards,
Mark Nanos

Kansas City and
Postgraduate student at University of St. Andrews