Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Gal 3:10-13

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: Gal 3:10-13
  • Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:50:27 -0500


Glad you have commented Jim,

I am unfortunately unable to take the time to develop a full response, and the next week will afford even less time. I replied to Moon's interest in alternatives to the so-called new perspective views of which he was aware with Scott's argument. I think there is something there in appealing to the exilic concerns of a Jewish person like Paul of this time. The language of curse and redemption drawn from Deut., and the appeal to Abraham with regard to blessing for all of the nations not just the circumcised one, seem to me sufficient entrees to the discussion. So too the discussion of covenant and the purpose of Torah in the following arguments. However, there are several comments in your post to which I would like to respond, because I do not see the contrasts along the same lines.

The dominant metaphors, addressed
to the Galatian believers, are "works of the Law" and "hearing with faith"
as catalysts of the experience of the Spirit. The rhetorical questions in
3:1 - 5 elaborate those metaphors. The arguments begun in 3:6, that
continue through chapter five, are pragmatic expressions of them. There is
nothing in those arguments that suggest that the hearers of the letter would
know anything of the ideologies of exilic theology or would consider
themselves to be anything other than in Christ and of the Spirit. The issue
seems to be how to manifest the Spirit, what are the forms of Spirit-filled
behavior. Paul's claim is that circumcision isn't a manifestation of the
Spirit.


It seems to me the question is not whether circumcision is a manifestation of the Spirit per se; this is not Philo. Your prior suggestion of catalyst is more helpful. The question is whether they need to become proselytes, a ritual process for which completion is signaled by circumcision of the flesh, signifying a change of identity. Then they would be counted among those who are able to receive the Spirit by the influencers.

Paul's argument against it is the appeal to the presence already of that which its completion must seem to offer, proper identity as children of Abraham and thus entitled to receipt of the Spirit. This bears witness to their identity as children of Abraham already, and thus they need not become proselytes to gain an identity they already have; moreover, doing so denies that this has already taken place.

This identity concern is framed within a Jewish perspective, the importance of being identified with Abraham is not a pagan concern. The argument is against what they apparently think will be gained, and Paul seeks to show that this is not so for themselves. They "already" have the desired benefits without "acquiring" the undesirable risks (i.e., inclusion in the people Israel with the Deuteronomic obligations/threats).


"Curse" and "blessing" are eschatological states. Anyone who believes that
the Spirit-filled life is the result of works of the law is cursed, no
matter their religious, ethnic, cultural or political origin. Anyone who is
in Christ is blessed.


It seems that Paul is appealing to an eschatological state, but it is not clear that the other good news is. He says the age to come has dawned in the present evil age. But he deals with the other message as representative only of the present age ( a time which representatives of the nations must become members of Israel to be counted among the righteous ones). This is another reason to consider whether Paul is dealing with the question of identity for his addressees in terms of whether they should consider what for them represents rolling back the clock, so to speak, by becoming proselytes of this age when already having manifestation of the age to come, i.e., the Spirit. I take his parenetic language in chps. 5--6 along this line. He argues that they should not strive for identity in terms of that court of reputation which is concerned with this age (observable in the flesh) identity, and thus compete with each other in the agonistic terms of this age.

I do not think the abstraction from Paul's rhetoric is warranted ("anyone," and implied, "anytime" for "any reason"). He is writing to a specific audience, not every human, and a specific situation. It is those in Galatia who would be undermining the meaning of the death of Christ for themselves by "now" becoming proselytes to gain what they "already" have (a very specific reason), and those influencing them in this direction, whom are in view in Paul's curses.


I simply do not see the need to import theology of exile/restoration into
the argument, or for that matter anything from the theology of late Judaism.
The rhetorical hermeneutic of those teaching the so-called "different"
gospel seems focussed on circumcision, and Paul's argumentative
reformulation of that into "works of the law" is nice rhetorical ploy, but
only that, in my opinion.

But the question is what circumcision signifies for the influencers, for the addressees, and for Paul. And this takes us into the theological world of Paul and second Temple Judaism as well as the Greco-Roman world of his addressees in Galatia (not to mention other cultural influences if e.g. Celts or Phrygians). Circumcision is a cut in the flesh to identify descendents of Abraham. Paul argues that this identity precedes descendency from Jacob/Moses, which is the identity apparently indicated by circumcision for the influencers in the situation addressed in Galatia. He argues that this other identity involves them in identifying with a people under a curse, which they need not do since they are already identified with Abraham. The appropriateness of exile/restoration theology is thereby suggested.

I take "works of Law" as used here to refer to the "actions of Law" to identify one, i.e., status related, in this case, completion of the ritual of conversion by the action of circumcision. But I think the phrase is used in a very specific way that applies to these "gentiles." This is not something opposed per se, that is, for Jewish people, in the context of Paul's argument. So the point is that for them to "now" choose this course is to deny that they "already" have what it promises to acquire for them, and that is what makes it wrong for themselves, these gentiles in-Christ.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page