Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: the role of the law in salvation-history

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: the role of the law in salvation-history
  • Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 11:07:13 -0500


on 10/1/01 9:18 AM, Billy LeJeune at billyl AT wcs.edu wrote:

> I would agree that,
>
> The issue being addressed to these non-Jewish addressees is not
> about observing
> the Law, but about becoming proselytes, ie., people of the Law
>
> and add that the ironic ridicule is that they are considering joining a
> people under a curse! Even if they were able to do all the law, the
> curse is already in place. The law-observance of the Israelites is
> certainly not in their thinking, that's the point. If it were they
> wouldn't be tempted to join.

Billy,
I see it differently, that is, in terms of the situational rhetoric involved
in what Paul is writing. What he is trying to undermine is not becoming
proselytes per se, but for these gentiles who already have that which
proselyte conversion offers, if they now seek to become proselytes in order
to comply with the constraints of those who uphold the conventions in place
(in the present age). For the addressees it undermines that which they claim
to have (standing as children of Abraham, as righteous ones of God), and
thus renders meaningless the death of Christ. The option of proselyte
conversion was already available in the present age; what has changed is the
confession of faith that the end of the ages has dawned. The addressees fail
to realize what is at stake, so Paul seeks to explain it, albeit by way of
polemical rhetoric. He ridicules ironically, as parents often do with
children (when children want to conform to two reference groups but fail to
accept that the result is the discarding of one for the other). But such
rhetoric must be de-rhetorized to be useful for making universal statements
about such things as the value of the Law for Paul, etc. Just as parental
rhetoric: the parents may not be as opposed to something per se (for other
people or other situations) as it might appear in the rhetorical context
where they seek to constrain their children on the matter at hand.

To put this another way, the universal statement you are suggesting (with
Wright, and so many others) that Paul opposes becoming an Israelite per se,
because this is a curse, would lead to the conclusion that Paul believes
even Israelites should not circumcise their sons, i.e., render them
Israelites, continue to be and raise Jews. (Do the parents think that their
children should never date?; or only in this case, or at this age, or with
that person, etc.)

But that is not the rhetorical context, and would have to be proven against
the inference of 5:3 for Paul, who claims to still be a circumcised one, and
Israelite, a Jew, in several places. So is not the rhetoric of 5:3
predicated upon the conviction that he is obliged to observe the whole Law,
since a circumcised Israelite? Otherwise this point would have no teeth for
the non-Israelite addressees, in terms of dissuasive power.

Take care,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page