Corpus-Paul

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

Dear Moon,
You engaged me on several points. Some have been omitted here, but I 
hope not the main issues that you bring up.

I had written:
> > The desires of the flesh here are the desires that are driving the
> > gentile addressees to seek acceptance, the desire for human
> > acceptance, honor, goods, etc.; human competition for standing as the
> > undisputed righteous ones of God, the stuff of many a socio-religious
> > quarrel, in fact. These desires may not be wrong in and of
> > themselves, but they lead in the wrong direction, as this vice
> > catalogue stereotypically portrays them, when they motivate the
> > addressees against the direction that the Spirit has already made
> > manifest, their full membership already gained by way of Christ. To
> > seek full membership (in this case for undisputed acceptance, honor,
> > goods, etc.) by becoming proselytes is thus now, for themselves, to
> > deny that this has already been gained, or as Paul puts it to Peter,
> > to render gratuitous the meaning of the death of Christ (2:21; cf.
> > 3:1-5). If you read through the balance of ch. 5 and first 10 verses
> > of ch. 6 in this light, you will see that appeal runs along this
> > line, away from competitive evaluation of the other because of
> > assurance of status and ultimate victory assured by God.
> >

To which you replied:
> There seems to be two points that are potentially against this line of
> thinking, Gal 5:13 and the list of the works of the flesh in 5:19.
>
> 5:13: For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your
> freedom
> as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of another.
>
> It seems to imply that somehow the freedom Galatians got could be used
> as an opportunity for the flesh. If that is so called the "freedom from
> the Law" in the context of "Law-free gospel", this verse makes a good
> sense.
> One may think that Law-free people might misuse the freedom because they
> do not have the laws guiding their behavior.  How did you avoid this
> interpretation?

This is a big issue, as you no doubt realize. In addition to the 
traditional reformation-against-Jewish-Law-oriented approaches, 
entire interpretations of the letter's situation take off from this, 
from the two-front theories of Lutgert and Ropes early in the 20th 
century, to the continued work of Schmithals.

I do not see any of this implied, although in a way the two-front 
theories are on to something that I do see in the context, although 
interpreted very differently. The rhetorical context of Paul's 
response implies a fear that the addressees are internalizing as good 
for themselves becoming proselytes. Why they are doing so is an 
interesting question, and I will address this briefly in a moment. In 
4:21 they are ridiculed with Socratic irony for naively "wanting to 
be under the Law," that is, to become proselytes, because, Paul goes 
on to say, they do not even understand what this means for themselves 
as Christ-believing gentiles, how it undermines that belief. So 
again, one wonders "why" they want become proselytes, if not for the 
"usual" or "right" reasons.

An interpreter should note that Paul here in 5:14 defines his 
"freedom" program within the aspirations of the Law. That is, the Law 
is training in the art of love (as A. Heschel so beautifully put the 
matter), so that any interpretation that takes Paul here to malign 
the very nature or purpose of the Law runs against the grain of his 
argument, which does not overthrow the Law, but appeals to doing the 
Law lawfully, you might say, in the service of one's neighbor instead 
of merely one's self-interest, such as an agonistic honor contest 
among peers might be characterized (described in v. 15).

I responded to an earlier discussion of 4:8-10 by bringing up the 
"why" as I understand it, at least in part. If these gentiles are 
being denied the privileges of righteous life, such as withdrawal 
from pagan practices like the Imperial cult, since they are not 
signed up to become proselytes, but are actually only guests, and 
thus present a threatening proposition to both the Jewish and pagan 
communities. For a longstanding program had been arranged for 
avoiding these practices for Jewish people (and proselytes, former 
pagans!) that does not threaten the fabric of pagan communal concerns 
for retribution (human and divine). (This involved the twice daily 
burnt offering on behalf of Caesar, so Jewish people did not need to 
engage in the usual pagan world attributions). But what if these 
gentiles to whom Paul writes present themselves as righteous ones (on 
a par with proselytes) who are thus no longer obliged to participate 
in such pagan rites, to both the Jewish and pagan communal social 
control agents? Will the leaders of the Jewish community think it 
appropriate to put the entire community in danger to protect this 
"assertion" of protection from obligation to the pagan communal 
leaders? Or will they rather propose the traditional solution, 
proselyte conversion, to gain that which they seek, on grounds that 
will not be disputed by either community? Paul describes this in 
6:12, by saying that the influencers seek the addressees circumcision 
in order to avoid persecution for the cross of Christ (I take this to 
mean, since they do not share the belief in what Christ's death 
means, they do not wish to suffer for legitimating the addressees' 
appeal to this meaning when called to account to the local pagan 
civic leaders for this breach of behavioral norms on the part of 
these "pagans").

If the solution of proselyte conversion was presented to these 
gentiles as a "message of good" for themselves (good news!, whether 
apart from the label euangelion or not is another matter), then it is 
precisely the gentile addressees new understanding of themselves as 
righteous ones upon the good news of Christ that has ironically now 
led them to seek proselyte identity in order to reduce the dissonance 
created by the novel and disputable claims that result.

To return to 5:13, they are thus tempted, from Paul's perspective, to 
use their freedom (i.e., for these gentiles, their standing as 
righteous ones apart from proselyte conversion, free to understand 
themselves in these "new age" terms) as "an "occasion"/"opportunity"/ 
clearer is "incentive" [AFORMHN; as dative of advantage] for the 
flesh, that is, for the agonistic quest for status that Paul sees 
represented in these gentiles seeking to overcome the social problem 
they face by conforming with "human" conventions, instead of an 
incentive to serve each other as they brave the problems that this 
causes together, walking straight toward the truth of the gospel, 
whatever the cost. The rest of the letter sets out the program for 
suffering together in this task of remaining faithful, as did Christ 
and Paul, at great social cost from those who do not share their view 
of reality.

Is that clear at all? As I read this passage, since Paul has not 
proposed any Law-free gospel, there is no reason to be concerned with 
concomitant antinomianism. The fear for Paul remains the same here as 
in the rest of the letter. Will these gentiles, because of social 
constraints associated with their identity claims, comply with the 
dominant Jewish or pagan communal interpretations of what is "right" 
for them, either turning back to some practices of pagan life in 
order to survive since they are not proselytes entitled to abstain 
therefrom, or of becoming proselytes in order to completely eliminate 
the problem, since they no longer regard themselves as pagans, and 
cannot really go back since becoming Christ- and thus Spirit-people? 
Paul opposes both options, and calls them to understand who they now 
are in Christ, righteous ones of God, and thus to what they must 
suffer and yet continue to affirm in their lives together as they 
"wait for the hope of righteousness" (5:5).

> The works of the flesh include fornication and drunkeness as well as
> strife, jealousy, envy, party spirit, dissension, enmity, anger (Yes,
> many are related to competition and struggle for honor and human victory!)
> How would fornication  and drunkeness be related to Galatian's desire to
> get accepted in the mainline Jewish community?

This is a good question. I am not sure, unless they are related to 
the pagan practices to which they might be returning until they have 
become official proselyte candidates. Fornication is associated with 
certain pagan festivals, for example, and drunkeness as well.

The easy way out, and perhaps the best solution to date, is to appeal 
to the nature of such catalogues. They are stereotypical. Paul's here 
conform with many others, which seem to be kind of grab bags of bad 
or good stuff. Note that at end of v. 21 he writes "and the like." In 
other words, it is an incomplete list, a grab bag of bad stuff. The 
same is implied by the ending to the catalogue of virtues in v. 23, 
"against such things/stuff." This kind of rounding off of 
stereotypical catalogues was common in Greco-Romans literature, as 
was a sometimes seemingly haphazard order, although other times there 
is an emphasis on the first or last, among other possible schemes 
(cf. J. T. Fitzgerald, "The Catalogue in Ancient Greek Literature," 
in "The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture," ed. Porter and Olbricht, 
1997, Sheffield). The balance of the good and bad stuff in these 
catalogues is directed at social interaction that may characterize 
any social group or groups in the vying for honor/place, which is 
what is in view in this letter, just who the addressees are, have 
become, should be, etc., and according to which authority they will 
now decide to resolve the conflicting signals.

If you wish to raise the issue of Rom. 6 after this explanation, then 
we can move at that time from Galatians to Romans. For the moment, 
does this resolve the ostensible problem in Galatians?

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City