Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] The use of shame in reasoning

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: bobmacdonald AT shaw.ca, Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] The use of shame in reasoning
  • Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 04:37:57 -0800 (PST)

Bob,

>I have to ask: is Paul trying to 'shame' anybody?

I see Paul shaming both Greeks and Judeans, and in
turn giving a degree of face to the other. It's the
"offend-and-defend" strategy which demands (thus
Esler) careful attention to all ethnic groups
involved. Let's consider 1:18-3:20 as a whole unit.
Paul begins (1), first and foremost, with the Greeks
(1:18-2:5), since they apparently are the ones most
guilty of believing themselves superior to others
(14:1-15:13). Paul says that these Greeks, "whoever
they are" (remember he has never met them), will be
punished for the crimes of Sodom. He then (2) goes
further by contrasting their situation with that of
the Judean (2:6-2:16), emphasizing that judgment
indeed comes "apart from the law" as well as "by the
law", and that Greeks are just as liable as Judeans,
though in a different way.

But (3) the Judean is no less liable (2:17-3:20), and
this is important. Being under the law doesn't exempt
one from judgment, and the Torah-observant should
practice what they preach (2:21a). Stealing, adultery,
and robbing temples (or committing sacrilege) will
call forth as much wrath as the fifty-mile long
catalog of pagan sins. Such outrageous shaming
rhetoric is exactly what we would expect from Paul,
steeped in an honor-shame world in general, and
Israelite tradition in particular. Consider a text
like Ezek 33:25-26: "You eat flesh with the blood, and
lift up your eyes to idols, and shed blood...you
depend on your swords, you committ abominations, and
each of you defiles his neighbor's wife." I'm sure
many people laughed at Ezekiel, but many also took him
seriously. Preposterous rhetoric is the staple of
these prophets and apostles. Paul needs to shame the
Judeans, not only to keep them on the same playing
field as the Greeks, but to prevent another Galatian
scenario which could otherwise result from the
one-sided indictment of 1:18-2:5.

I cannot possibly see Greeks targetted anywhere in
2:17-3:20, despite what the force of fashion teaches
us today. Paul specifically targets the "Judean"
(2:17) and the value of "his circumcision" (2:25). He
addresses natural Judean concerns about special
privilege (3:1), saying that while Judeans have the
edge in terms of native privileges and educational
background (3:2), they have no advantage salvificaly
(3:9-18), for the Torah puts them under the power of
sin (3:19-20) as much as pagan idolatry. (The law is
made parallel to pagan deities, as it were.)

Paul in fact shames his addressees with a vengeance.
He implies that God hates Israel (at least for now)
just as he "hated Esau" (9:13), and that the Torah may
as well be remote as the heavens and the abyss (for
Christ, not the commandment, is who resides nearby, on
the lips and in the hearts of believers) (10:6-8).
These are nasty indictments. Conversely, to cast the
Greeks as "wild olive shoots" also amounts to shaming
(see Esler's argument as to why). Just as the Greeks
and Judeans alike are shamed in 1:18-2:5 and 2:17-29
respectively, so they are in ch 11 and chs 9-10. But
they are, of course, defended and given face in turn.

The Greeks die to ungodliness -- "to impurity and
lawlessness" (6:19) -- and become slaves of God
(6:16-23), just as the Judeans die to the law and
become slaves of the spirit (7:1-6). Another context
in which both groups are in view.

>I now have another question: Esler says on p286 that
"for
>Paul there was no one between Abraham and Christ who
pursued
>righteousness by faith." ... "The centuries between
Moses
>and Christ comprised a period of unrelieved gloom.

Good question, Bob. I've actually resisted the bleak
picture portrayed by Esler -- until about sometime in
the last two weeks. :) I'm now convinced that it's
entirely inappropriate to speak of salvation-history
in Paul's thought -- far less the "climax of the
covenant" championed by Tom Wright. I should emphasize
that it's important to try to understand how Paul
appears to understand the matter as opposed to what we
(or most Judeans) may find intuitively ridiculous.

4:18-25, to me, is what drives the nail in the coffin
of "salvation-history" theories. Paul goes beyond even
the radical argument of 4:1-17. He claims that Abraham
was "strong in faith" for believing in God's creative
power in giving life to the dead -- as Isaac was given
from a dead womb. Abraham was the only one in Israel's
history who had this particular measure of faith --
but it was not "for his sake alone" (4:23). It was
also for Christ-believers contemporary with Paul
(4:24). Those who believe God raised Christ from the
dead have the same faith Abraham did; no one else
between the time of Abraham and Christ had this
measure of faith. This is why scholars like Luz,
Martyn, and Esler are probably correct. Esler cites
Martyn: "the corporate people of Israel was a dance
sat out by the covenantal promise as it waited for
Christ" (p 193). And he later notes that while Paul
would agree that God fulfilled the promises to Abraham
in Christ, he is careful in 4:11 to delete the word
"covenant" itself from the Gen 17:11 (p 286).

[As a side-note, I'm surprised that Esler didn’t
follow through with his own insights about 4:18-25.
Having recognized what the term "strong in faith"
signals, he abandons it when he gets to 14:1-15:13. As
Mark Nanos has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt
(to the point of embarassment), the "weak in faith" of
14:1-15:13 must, by definition, be those who reject
the messiah's resurrection; i.e. they must be outside
the Christ movement.]

What do you think, Bob?

=====
Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

"In the natural sciences a person is remembered for his best idea; in the
social sciences he is remembered for his worst."



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page