Corpus-Paul

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

Dear Moon,
You may appreciate an article that advances some different ideas, which cites many of the articles regarding this passage in recent years. Scott rightly, in my view, takes exception to Dunn's proposal of Jewish exclusivism here. Instead he suggests that it is the negative side of the traditional expectation for the inclusion of gentiles in the restoration of Israel, drawing on Deut. in particular; the setting out the blessings and curses. See:
Scott, James M. 1993. "'For as Many as are of Works of the Law are under a Curse' (Galatians 3.10)." Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Eds. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. (JSNTSS 83/SSEJC 1). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Pp. 187-221.

I should be careful not to associate Scott with what I may have realized after thinking through his article some years ago. But I think with a little twist his argument can be taken to indicate that which seems to me to be everywhere in the letter; namely, that gentiles by becoming proselytes deny the very foundation of their confession that in Jesus Christ the end of the ages has dawned, that time when Israel and the nations turn to worhship the One God, as promised to Abraham. If so, then becoming Israelites would undermine this confession, and render Christ's death meaningless for themselves, suggesting that this time had not yet dawned, and that representatives from the nations must still become Israelites to join the righteous ones of God. 

This puts the passage in its relative place; one of several ways Paul tries to explain by various midrashim the ironic rebuke of 3:1-5 over the course of 3:6--4:7. If they are children of Abraham already as "proven" by the receipt of the Spirit, why would they think they need to become proselytes, children of Jacob/Moses in order to gain this identity? As wonderful as it is for the Jewish people, and thus desirable for the Christ-believing gentile, Paul asserts here that it has a downside risk that they, as gentiles, need not share. They have the goods promised for the age to come, or at least the first taste of them. Overall this does seem a concession to his general rejection in principle to proselyte conversion for themselves as undermining the meaning of the death of Christ, and instead seeking to make a dissuasive comparative point. But it is only one of many small arguments he resorts to here, and should be kept in its relative place.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City

You had written:
> The interpretation of Gal 3:10-13, in particular, why those of the Law are 
> under curse,  must consider whether there is an implied assumption
> of human inability to obey the law. Scholars in the
> Reformed tradition often accept the implied assumption. But there have been 
> challenges againt that interpretation. That is, in Judaism
> there is no notion that human beings should obey the law perfectly to be 
> accepted by God, and that they are unable to obey the law.
> Some new interpretations were suggested by scholars who are inclined 
> to the "New Perspective on Paul", e.g. by Sanders, Dunn, Howard, and 
> Wright.
>
> But I am not satisfied with any of these proposals. Are there any new
> ones?