Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: THi ELEUQERIAi in Gal 5:1

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: THi ELEUQERIAi in Gal 5:1
  • Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:43:00 -0500 (CDT)


Noting the discussion of the dative in 5:1 that has been taking place on
the B-Greek list, which I too have followed with interest, Carlton Winbery
completed his comments with the following observation.
>This is a strong way for Paul to introduce his following
>discussion of the nature of this freedom. His previous discussion was
>primarily "the law" which easily became a "yoke." Behind Galatians and
>Romans there seems to be the idea of the oponents that "righteous by faith
>apart from law" leads to the undisciplined life. Paul presents the life of
>freedom with the demand of love as the controlling force behind his ethic
>(5:6 "faith working through love." and the complete sentence in 5:13 which
>ends . . . "thru love serve [be a slave to] one another."
>
This is a common enough way to take Paul's meaning, that is, that the thing
from which the Galatian gentile addressees have been freed and should
remain so, is the Jewish Law. But I suggest that they have not been freed
from the Law per se, and that this is not what they are urged to continue
in freedom from. First of all, they, as gentiles were not under the Law to
be freed from. And the point of the previous argument was not something
wrong or enslaving about the Law either. Moreover, the controlling force
behind the ethic of the Law is also faith working through love, so this
offers no difference from Law observance. Lastly, I do not think that the
issue which Paul's rhetoric addressees has anything to do with opposing
whether someone else maintains the notion that "'righteous by faith apart
from law' leads to the undisciplined life." The issue for those influencing
Paul's addressees is not a failure of ethical lifestyle among Paul's
addressees, but of failing to gain the "appropriate" identity for the claim
to identity they are making since they have not become proselytes,
righteous ones of Israel, but claim to be equal righteous ones of God;
knowing and known by God.

I suggest then that the issue turns on the "identity" for these gentile
addressees who claim to be (and whom Paul regards as) already the people of
God by faith in Christ: will they now be enslaved to another court of
reputation's manner of gaining this identity, thereby implying that they do
not already have it?

In other words, the freedom they have is to be known by God as his children
by faith in/of Christ apart from becoming children of Israel. The slavery
that Paul envisions is that of seeking the approval of another interest
group which maintains that to gain this identity they claim for themselves
in Christ they must complete the ritual process of conversion; i.e., become
proselytes. (This happens to be a Jewish exigence, but I think Paul would
appeal to this principle against any such alternate way of gaining identity
for those who "already" have it in Christ, even if Jewish identity or
behavior was not in view; I take this to be similar to what Baptists mean
when they say they are not religious, or Baptist, or Christian, or
whatever, to make a similar comparative point about their identity in
Christ, not in terms of human acceptance). They are to resist this
proposition, because of their belief, with Paul, that the age to come has
dawned in Christ in the midst of the present age, and thus these
representatives of the nations join with Israelites as the people of God
without becoming Israelites themselves. The usual reading dismisses this
equal participation for Israelites as Israelites, an ironic turn that Paul
seems not to have considered might result from his one-sided polemic.

Note that the comments which follow in the next verses are about just this
matter: will they receive circumcision and thus undermine the meaning of
God's grace toward themselves in Christ. Paul in fact brings in the
implication that by becoming proselytes they will become Law people too;
but this implies that this is not the issue in focus for the addressees, or
those influencing them, or Paul, except to make them aware of this
implication for the change of identity they are considering. So it is not
freedom from Law, but from conversion to proselyte status. This they have
come to know and be known by God independent of (freedom), and in this
state they are to remain--free--of the need for acceptance by any "human"
agents or agencies who claim otherwise on the authority of the traditions
of the fathers (or some other means), since God has acted miraculously
toward themselves, just as God had acted miraculously toward Abraham and
Sarah, apart from the usual human convention for providing a son when
barren. (I tried to articulate this point in a post on 6/1 on the Allegory
of Abraham's sons).

Note too that Paul, as a circumcised one, implicitly recognizes his
obligation to observe the whole Law in 5:3. If he does not, then his
rhetorical point falls meaninglessly to the ground. For the addressees
could answer, "Paul, we just want what you have, undisputed Jewish identity
(that for us comes by proselyte conversion), and thus acceptance by this
"dominant" court of reputation--which does have tradition on its side!--and
this does not oblige any Law observance for us, just as it does not for
you."

Paul identifies with their marginality in this letter: he too is
marginalized even though he has the appropriate identity, for he maintains
a position that challenges the norms of the dominant community on behalf of
the truth of the gospel that these gentiles are equal though remaining
gentiles. They must identify now with him in resisting the temptation to
conform because this will undermine the principle in which they believe
based upon the work of God in Christ. He is persecuted for not preaching
proselyte conversion; so too will they be for standing fast to this
principle truth of the gospel (cf. 5:10-11; 4:12; 6:17).

So I would suggest that slavery, oversimplified, corresponds with pleasing
the dominant community leaders upholding the traditional norms: proselyte
conversion to make the claims to equal status and access to communal goods
these "gentiles" are making based upon faith in Christ. Freedom is claiming
this status in Christ, on the basis of the truth of the gospel. Asserting
this freedom by resisting the norms means being willing to pay the price
attached to resistance from these people and institutions, though remaining
within their sphere, and thus subject to their social control mechanisms to
bring about compliance. And the following instructions urge them to seek to
help each other with this difficult task, rather than be divided upon the
basis of their relative status as defined by these or other human agents or
agencies. Do not challenge each other to gain honor (which is an aspect of
discrimination implicit in any ritual conversion), and do not envy the
honor the other might have (by such agents or agencies), but rather humbly
serve one another apart from this satisfaction in the present "evil" age
(cf. 5:24-26). Resistance will make you vulnerable; help one another with
this burden, and remain careful not to be tempted to comply again (6:1-5).

A final point. It seems to me that if these people want Paul's addressees
to become proselytes and are not emphasizing the implications for full
Torah observance (which Paul's rhetoric implies at least: 5:3), then this
implies that these gentiles are already behaving in a righteous way, very
ethically you might say, in terms respected by these influential people.
Their problem is not with their behavior, but with their lack of proper
identity, the credentials expected for gentiles claiming full membership
and willing to behave righteously. It is unlikely that Jewish ritual
control agents want to make proselytes out of gentiles who are not already
well on the road to righteous behavior. But people responsible for leading
a group often want to know "who" one is to be making claims or acting as
they are, that is, if they claim to have this right apart from the norms
that these leaders uphold. They often ask: What are your credentials for
saying this or behaving in this way!? That is what is at dispute, I submit,
in Galatia, not observance of the Law, or freedom from observing it, but
whether God is only the God of Israelites, and not also of gentiles, by the
faith in/of Christ (cf. Rom. 3:29-30). It would be good not to make the
opposite mistake, which seems to me implied in the usual reading against
Law observance for those identified as Isaelites, thus denying their belief
in this way of living in community (read: love) that is also given by
revelation.

Respectfully,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page