Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: hUPO NOMON in Gal 4:5

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: hUPO NOMON in Gal 4:5
  • Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:20:23 -0600


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page