Corpus-Paul

[JERRY SUMNEY <JSUMNEY AT LEXTHEO.EDU>]

Mark,  

        I think we agree that Paul thinks these other teachers subvert the
Galatian Christians' standing in Christ, but I do not think the Galatians
are precisely in a liminal state.  They have experienced the initiation in
baptism and are admitted to the rites of the community (particularly the
Lord's Supper) on that basis.  While their experience may be still catching
up to this transfer into the community, they have fulfilled the ritual
requirements presented them and are enjoying the promised benefits (as Paul
reminds them), including the presence of the Spirit.

Now to the questions-
you wrote:

First, what do you think that circumcision represents for those who 
would influence the Galatian addressees toward it, if not 
"completion" of the ritual process of proselyte conversion? Which 
leads to the second question(s).


I respond:
I think the proposed benefit may be quite simple, more relaxed fellowship
with Christian Jews, for example.  Paul's example of the Antioch incident
shows what sorts of problems might develop in a mixed community.  It is not
clear that "those from James" in that story have a theological agenda with
respect to Gentiles.  Perhaps circumcision of Gentiles might have helped
Jewish Christians in their relations with non-Christian Jews (see Paul's
polemical remark about their avoiding persecution).  No matter what we claim
the goal of their encouraging the Gentiles to be circumcised we have gone
beyond the evidence of the text.  Paul gives no clear idea about what the
other teachers claim is gained by it, only his rejection of it because of
what it means they lose.

Mark also asks:
do you not think 
that either the influencers or the addressees gave the matter "any" 
theological consideration? If not theologically, then how did they 
consider it? What does it represent; symbolize? For the influencers 
or the addressees, What do you suppose circumcision meant?

I respond:

Actually I think it is quite possible that this matter got very little
theological consideration.  If Paul preaches that circumcision and
uncircumcision do not matter, the other teachers and the Galatians could
take that to mean it is OK for Gentiles to be circumcised if it makes for
better relations within the Christian community.  After all, these Gentiles
had cut themselves off more radically from their previous lives and
relationships than Jews had.  Their circumcision would probably not have had
as much impact on their relations with the broader world because they had
already cut themselves off from it by becoming Christians.  Jewish
Christians, on the other hand, may have been able to maintain more of their
relationship with the Jewish community.  So if their associations with
non-Christian Jews are complicated by their life with uncircumcised people,
they may have advocated this practice as an act which meant nothing
theologically but would be a help to them.  Perhaps, since we are in the
realm of speculation, even a help to their own consciences as they ate with
and associated with Gentile Christians.

Regardless of whether the speculative stuff rings true, the basic point I
want to make is that I do not think there must be a big theological agenda
for these other teachers.  They may have had a complex theological agenda,
but the text of Galatians gives, I think, no clear indication of this.  We
should not mirror read and read between the lines in ways that assume that
Paul must at every turn be responding directly to their theological claims.
 
Jerry
Jerry L. Sumney
Lexington Theological Seminary
631 S. Limestone
Lexington, KY 40508
(606) 252-0361
jsumney AT lextheo.edu