Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The treatment of "dying to the Law" in the Mystery of Romans by Nanos

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: The treatment of "dying to the Law" in the Mystery of Romans by Nanos
  • Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:38:54 -0600


Dear Moon,
I will now try to tell the story of the Antioch dialogue as retold for the Galatian addressees, and see if this works. I will follow the general flow of 2:11-21, and try to incorporate the language of substitution that seems to arise in this context.

This coalition of Christ-believers in Antioch engaged in indiscriminate table-fellowship, that is, Jewish and non-Jewish people ate together as though the age to come had dawned when Israel and the nations would eat together as one. The food was Jewish, as was the setting, but the usual discrimination, e.g., of the seating arrangement, was not. There was no place for gentile guests or proselyte candidates distinguishable from a place for Jewish people or proselytes. Instead everyone was treated as though equal righteous ones. No violation of Torah was taking place, but halakhic decisions were being made to accommodate their conviction that the end of the ages had dawned in Christ, and thus that these gentiles were not becoming Israelites, but as representatives of the nations they were living to the One God of Israel as the One God of all humankind. And they were living righteously, not as pagans, but as what we might call righteous gentiles or fearers of God.

Suddenly Peter withdrew because of a desire to protect his reputation as an honorable Torah-observing Jew, and the reputation of this coalition as an honorable Torah-observing group, in the face of disapproval expressed by an Antiochene interest group advocating the circumcision (proselyte conversion) of gentiles in order to engage in the kind of indiscriminate table-fellowship that was being conducted (this interest group did not share Peter or the coalitions belief that the meaning of the death of Christ legitimated this behavior); we might call this social anxiety, Paul calls it being fearful of the ones for circumcision. It is the way of living in the flesh/humanly in terms of concern for approval from one's reference group. Thus after Peter withdraws from this indiscriminate table-fellowship (the rest of the Jewish participants follow Peter in this action also, but will be left out in the story for simplicity), which tears-down what had been being built up in this coalition, he is accused by Paul of hypocrisy, of wearing a mask or play-acting a part that was not in keeping with what he really believes is appropriate (not apostasy, as though he has changed this behavior because he has changed his beliefs and now teaches gentiles to become proselytes). (this is a kind of substitution language, pretending at being someone other than he is).

Paul tells Peter that the logical result of this withdrawal is a denial of the meaning of Christ's death for them as Jews on the same level as for gentiles. His action violates the truth upon which these gentiles identity as righteous ones even though not Jewish is grounded, and thus leads logically to the conclusion that these gentiles are indeed in need of becoming proselytes if they are to gain the standing that they have been led to believe they have already gained simply by faith of/in Christ. In other words, that nothing has changed with the death of Christ, the traditional interpretation of the present age is still in force, and only Israelites can be righteous ones of God. Gentiles seeking this standing must become proselytes. By the maintenance of an alternate position because of the meaning of Christ's death according to this coalition (the truth of the gospel), these gentiles have been marginalized to date within the larger Jewish communities as well as pagan communities, but not within this subgroup. Now, in view of Peter's withdrawal, for what purpose should they refrain from escaping this marginality by becoming proselytes?

But then (vv. 15ff.), if nothing has changed, why have Peter and Paul believed in Christ? or these gentiles? Does not the faith of Peter and Paul in the faithfulness of Christ demonstrate that becoming proselytes does not make gentiles into righteous ones, since they as Jews by nature were already righteous ones on these terms, yet have believed in Christ in order to be righteoused in Christ. Does this belief imply that they as Jews by nature have stepped-down to becoming gentile sinners by this faith, or by their action of indiscriminate table-fellowship with these gentiles in Christ? Has Christ become the agent of making Jews by nature into gentile sinners? May it never be! Rather, if we build-up this indiscriminate table-fellowship as a witness to our belief that the age to come has dawned in Christ after having torn it down when you withdrew out of fear, then we make ourselves to be those who stand-in for Christ in the present age (helping gentiles step-up instead of Jews step-down), walking straight-toward the truth of the good news of Christ for the present age. For we through the Law of Christ bringing the indiscriminate table-fellowship of the age to come have become oblivious (died) to the criticism of the agents of the traditional interpretation of the Law for the present age on this matter, for we are no longer living for our own honor, but in the place of Christ, we are continuing his task, as shameful as it may seem at times to those agents. In this way we are living to God. We have been identified with Christ's shame (crucifixion), and thus it is no longer we (subject to the concern for approval from this agents) who live, but it is the faithfulness of Christ that is exemplified in our action of indiscriminate table-fellowship. He loved us and gave himself for us, we live in his place, carrying on the task of loving and giving ourselves for the gentiles. Otherwise the loving-kindness of God through the action of Christ is useless, and these gentiles should become proselytes in order to gain standing as righteous ones in the present age, as Christ's death was merely gratuitous, which implies that these other agents advocating the proselyte conversion of these gentiles are right after all. And why, after all, do we Jewish people believe in Christ?

How does this work within the context of the Galatian addressees, who are not Jewish but gentiles under some kind of pressure to become proselytes in order to ensure their standing as righteous ones in the present age? It serves as an historical incident that exemplifies the issues that may be obscured by the seeming compatibility of becoming proselytes as well as Christ-believers in order to gain indisputable standing outside of the Christ-believing subgroup norms within the larger Jewish community (the intra-Jewish tensions normally faced by this coalition, which strung together creates a sense of the inter-Jewish situation they are facing). No one from Antioch or Jerusalem is present in Galatia. But it may be helpful for them to realize that even leaders like Peter have compromised when faced with the prospect of suffering the pain of social dishonor/rejection/disadvantage if they hold to this principle. But he was put in his place, just as they are being in this letter now (cf. 1:6-7; 3:1; 4:16). Paul (and other leaders) has (have) suffered (sometimes at the hands of Paul when shaming them for failure to be willing to do so) to preserve for them this truth (cf. 5:11) and they must not now compromise it, but rather stand-fast and wait for the hope of righteousness, suffering what social consequences may be required in the present age, when this position is disputable according to the traditional interpretation of what is right. They must thus help one another instead of competing with one another according to the prevailing norms (chs. 5-6). Will they now seek to please God according to the revelation of the good news in Christ, observing the modified norms of this reformist group, or will they seek to gain indisputable acceptance according to the norms of these agents of the traditional interpretation? The consequence of the latter choice, Paul seeks to clarify, is the subversion of the meaning of the death of Christ for themselves, denying the very experience of the Spirit they have had to date, by which God has demonstrated that the age to come has dawned in Christ and they are equally righteous ones, ones God has come to know, children of Abraham, full-heirs of the promise to Abraham, righteous ones from the nations joining with the righteous ones of Israel in the worship of the One God of all creation.

What do you think?

Regards,
Mark Nanos




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page