Corpus-Paul

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

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