Corpus-Paul

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

Dear Moon,
I am honored by your concluding comment; thank you for the 
opportunity to be a part of your journey. Perhaps I can summarize a 
response to what I think you are raising as a concern in your last 
post, now from Rom. 8 rather than Gal.

> Moon: Do you have in mind "their theological claim" that "the death of
> Christ
>      has initiated the age to come community of Israel "and" the Nations
>      as One worshipping together as Israel and the Nations the One God of
>      all humankind (cf. Rom. 3:29-31)."? This claim "altered their
> halakhic
>      lifestyle in such a way as to impose  upon the interests of other
> Jewish
>      groups who do not share their view of an altered reality/time."
>
>      But you are still saying that their "theological claim" has to do
> with
>      the SCOPE of those who can worship the one God legitimately. Paul
> seems to
>      claim much more than that. Of course, we are here talking about what
> Paul
      claims, not  whether you and I agree with him.

I am trying to say that the scope of the rhetorical concern 
communicated in Romans and Galatians is primarily about the 
implications of the meaning of the death of Christ for the inclusion 
of gentiles among the righteous ones of God apart from becoming 
Israelites, as could be expected of the modification of created order 
once the end of the ages arrives. A secondary rhetorical concern, is 
Paul's view of the appropriate response of Jewish people to this 
claim in the midst of the current age. These are letters addressed to 
those kinds of problems that arise in the social situations of 
gentiles now introduced by faith in Christ to Jewish social space, if 
not for the first time, at least with a sense of identity that is 
new, and not likely to be supported by the response of Jewish people 
and social control agents who do not share their faith in the meaning 
of Jesus Christ for themselves, much less these gentiles. They will 
also not be supported by their network of pagan family and neighbors, 
etc., which contributes to the problem of defining their identity and 
expectations of suffering, but ultimate vindication.

Regarding the interpretation of Rom. 8:1-5, this follows the language 
of Rom. 7, to complete Paul's argument that Jewish people struggle 
with this conclusion of the identity of these gentiles as full 
members of the righteous ones of God apart from acquiring proselyte 
status, and I take this to be a description of the kind of struggle 
that Peter failed to overcome in the social situation in Antioch, 
according to Paul's telling of the incident in Gal. 2:11ff. The Law 
cannot, by definition of its role to set apart the righteous ones of 
God as Israel, even though calling quintessentially for love of one's 
neighbor, accomplish the task of avoiding discrimination where 
differentiation is inscribed in the very gift of God to Israel, even 
if that gift includes the responsibility to be the righteous ones on 
behalf of the Nations until the promised day arrives when all of 
humankind will be restored to righteousness (defining of one's 
neighbor involves differentiation). Humans seem to be ineluctably 
constrained to discriminate where difference is constructed, and the 
research of social psychologists of the Tajfel school have 
demonstrated and explained this with great insight: it does not take 
anything more than categorical difference to observe categorical 
discrimination. Until the awaited day of shalom (true peace = 
difference without discrimination, such as lions and lambs lying down 
"together") arrives representatives of the nations who seek to join 
the righteous ones become proselytes to do so (sameness can eliminate 
discrimination, although some difference is still inscribed in 
"proselyte," just as some difference is inscribed in "freed-person").

That is the weakness of human flesh (the comparative impulse by means 
of "facial" interaction among humans) that I believe Paul is getting 
at here; not a Jewish problem, but a human one, which Jewish people 
are by the Law seeking to overcome, but ultimately look to God's 
actions at the end of the ages to accomplish fully. Thus Paul's 
language at the end of Rom. 7 and into chapter 8 describes the 
conviction that the awaited day has dawned in Christ, and is 
appropriated by those who are in Christ, or at least should be (when 
it is not, as in the case of Peter's hypocrisy in Antioch, it is 
confronted as undermining the meaning of Christ for both Jew and 
gentile, for it de-legitimates the very premise of their claim that 
Jesus is the Christ). When it is not by gentile people, we get the 
language of Rom. 11--15, in my view. He thus calls for walking in the 
Spirit to overcome human limitations of discrimination.

Perhaps I can indulge in an extra-exegetical comment. Whether Paul 
has rightly perceived the results of faith in Christ for those humans 
who believe in Christ is another matter, but we are here seeking to 
exegete his texts. It seems to me that Paul, or at least his 
interpreters, inscribe Christ-believing identity with the same kind 
of difference that is generated by God's gift of Torah, and that it 
has led to the same seemingly ineluctable result of discrimination; 
but again, that is another topic, and I want to be careful not to 
offend Christian sensibilities in the way that Jewish people have all 
too often had to suffer in discussions of the Law. My point is to 
emphasize that this constraint is a human problem, as Rom. 7 seeks to 
articulate (however it is interpreted). A challenge for the 
post-Holocaust Jewish and Christian interpreter at the hermeneutical 
level, in my view, is to reinscribe the lines of identification by 
new definitions, and thus to overcome the limitations of difference 
based upon the traditional readings and definitions. A similar 
project is being undertaken in many other areas of difference, such 
as in the cases of some feminist or African-American critics, for 
example.

My reading of Paul is based upon a assumption that I think you are 
actually trying to get at, that is, that Paul believes that God has 
done something bigger in Christ than merely reconcile Jew and gentile 
to each other. I think that he does believe this, that he believes 
the end of the ages has dawned, with whatever results are implied. 
But the rhetorical issues of the two letters we have been discussing 
is not the "whatever," for Paul is not describing why he believes or 
behaves as he does, but responding to the particular situations that 
have arisen in these social contexts for his gentile addressees, 
which are very different even between these two letters, in spite of 
the fact that many of the same words and even phrases can be traced 
in both. That is a constraint that the interpreter should pay 
attention to at the point of exegesis, and why the traditional 
interpretations of such language as "justification" has been 
challenged in recent years in terms of how Paul is using it, that is, 
in exegetical terms. Beyond that is another matter, another 
discussion.

Does this answer the concerns you have raised?

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City