Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: The Offense of the Cross

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: The Offense of the Cross
  • Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 03:03:12 -0500


Stephen wrote:
I tend to agree with Douglas Horst, that the "offense of the
cross" in Gal 5:11 is the strange and embarrassing idea of a
humiliated Messiah. What Mark Nanos has described seems more
like the offense of Gentile-inclusion rather than, specifically,
of the cross. The offense of Gentile-inclusion would, presumably,
still have been an issue even if Jesus hadn't been crucified.
But crucifixion was the ultimate humiliation and was, for the
conventional way of thinking, "proof" that Jesus could not
have been the Messiah. To teach otherwise was a _skandalon_.

Dear Stephen (and Douglas),

Paul ties the purpose statement in Gal. 5:11 to the issue of his not "still" proclaiming circumcision; should not the interpreter be concerned then with this issue from the start?

By the way, my view is not that it is gentile "inclusion" per se, as you suggest, but "how" they are included, and what this asserts about the meaning of the death of "this" Roman martyr.

The inclusion of gentiles was already a Jewish communal practice (it is not itself the issue), but it was "the means" for negotiating inclusion as full members, by proselyte conversion (traditional view) or not (Paul and this coalition of Christ-believers' view), that was at issue.

For Paul the issue of the meaning of the crucifixion of Jesus (because of resurrection, see the letter opening) cannot be separated from what he believes is appropriate with regard to "how" gentiles are included "now," after the death and resurrection of Christ. These are not so easily separated in his thinking, and I am not suggesting one independent of the other, as you seem to imply. Of course this does not mean that the cross meant nothing else to Paul, but the question related to what Paul is saying about it in Gal. 5:11.

However the meaning of the death of Jesus is expressed here, I do not presume what you do about an offense of gentile-inclusion per se; on what basis do you do so? Gentile inclusion was not offensive per se, nor scandalous (witness that gentiles were associates of the synagogues, and that proselyte conversion was a convention for including those seeking full membership). Nor was being crucified scandalous per se. The issue is whether this person who was crucified has the meaning for how gentiles are included that Paul proclaimed. Some consider it a scandalous proposition, others consider it good news, and Paul is willing to suffer for its continued proclamation, wearing such suffering as a badge of honor! (The rhetorical point is made in calling the Galatian gentiles to identify with such marginalization as Paul's for the truth of the gospel where their inclusion while remaining gentiles is concerned).

On another note, whether crucifixion is "the ultimate humiliation" is arguable. It is not my intent to quibble, but as I hope you will see, to make a point that is useful for analyzing what Paul may or may not have communicated with this language of the cross. It is humiliating from some perspectives, but whether it can be so ranked is another matter, and cultural norms and views of honor and shame, as well as the perspective of the evaluator, would have to be considered in any conclusion reached. Moreover, as you no doubt realize, the meaning of crucifixion is not simply humiliation (e.g., it is painful too!).

What you may not have considered is that what crucifixion means is contextual. Humiliation/shame is an active meaning if one considered a basis of their "honorable" standing to be because it is not vulnerable to Roman execution (such an expectation as one making a claim to be the Messiah might harbor; some interpreters have argued that Jesus did not make such a claim for himself). For such a "pretender" to standing above Roman rule, for example, or bringing it down, it would be shameful to be found publicly not to be who they have claimed to be, assuming they have claimed this upon the basis that they were above such vulnerability. But the meaning of crucifixion would vary with whomever is being considered; so too who should be ashamed! (The marks on those protesting what they deem to be political injustices are often badges of honor proudly worn thereafter, and mark for them the shame of the regime which inflicted them; e.g., consider those protesters who suffered in the Vietnam era, or on the other side, those who suffered as prisoners of war).

That the meaning of the death of Jesus was considered differently by those who believed that it was significant for themselves or not is self-evident. Other Judeans were martyred in this way, what did their deaths mean (to other Judeans? to their mothers? to gentiles in Galatia? etc.)? That depends, naturally, on whom you ask. In the case of a Judean martyr of the Roman regime it has political implications (meanings). At least one of the prominent purposes, it is hoped by the Romans executing this action, is to convince other Judeans (or other subjugated peoples) not to do or say as this one has done or said (or allowed to be said or done) or the same thing may be expected to happen to you. Its public nature is at least in part to send this message (meaning) from a Roman perspective (cf. Pseudo-Quintilian, Declamations 274; Philo, Flaccus 84-85). The Roman executioners would consider the martyr humiliated/shamed. At least for some Judeans, e.g., those sharing anti-Roman sentiments, it is not necessarily humiliating to be crucified by the enemy, but adumbrates the ineluctable fate of the enemy when God finally acts to humiliate them (or perhaps God's absence, since such injustices continue in the present age). In other words, it is humiliating in the Roman court of reputation (kosmos), but not necessarily in the inner-Judean one. The turning upside-down of what is honorable and shameful fills the Biblical texts, and on this point, see Gal. 3:1 and 6:17 for Paul doing just this with regard to the crucifixion of Jesus and his own marks of Jesus, arguable the wounds he has suffered in sympathy with Jesus and perhaps linked to precisely the point of his non-circumcision-of-gentiles-in-Christ message in 5:11). The possibilities along this and other lines of thought are many, and may bear upon the reading of the Corinthian passages as well.

You are right to observe that many Jews would conclude that one who has been crucified by the Romans has not "proven" to be the Messiah, but a pretender, if he indeed claimed to occupy such a role, or even if others claimed that for him. But that is not the point in Gal. 5:11. Yet it can be related logically since Paul hangs his argument in this letter (and Romans) on a claim that this death has not been as meaningless as it might otherwise seem, because the existence of these gentiles-in-Christ demonstrates that something in this age has changed when they have the Spirit while still gentiles, and thus behave as righteous and loving as the Law prescribes apart from becoming Law-people by way of proselyte conversion: so he argues, how can this be unless the age to come has dawned? Unless God has raised him from the dead ones (cf. 1:1-5).

So I put these questions to you: does not Paul's statement in Gal. 5:11 imply that if he proclaimed Jesus Christ as well as the proselyte conversion of gentiles who wished to be full members of the community of the righteous ones, that he would not be suffering persecution for what he proclaimed? But since he proclaims Jesus Christ apart from proselyte conversion that it is scandalous in the view of some, which has led to his being persecuted? What does this have to do with a "cross" in Gal. 5:11?

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page