Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <mark AT marknanos.com>]

Jeff,
Strangely, folks who are so concerned with the meaning of every verse do not
seem to wrestle with v. 15 (NASB): Brethren, I speak in terms of human
relations: even though it is only a man¹s covenant, yet when it has been
ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. If that is so, then
it follows that Paul is not going to argue that Torah has been set aside or
that conditions have been added to it--for Jews, as for proselytes. (They
are quick to see that this means the Abrahamic covenant is not set aside,
but fail to see the logic goes both ways: since the Mosaic is in play before
Paul writes, it is not set aside either. Paul must work with both of these
covenants, although Christian theologians have not.) Put in play with 5:3,
that everyone who is circumcised "is obliged to observe the whole Torah," it
follows that Paul, who is circumcised and a Christ-believers, is obliged to
observe the whole Torah. Otherwise, his non-Jewish addressees should be
expected not to be persuaded by this argument, but to reply: "But Paul, we
will be just like you, circumcised, but because believers in Christ, we are
not obliged to observe Torah at all."

Also,
I would like to comment on your reply to Tim along with your query here. I
don't think Paul has in mind the issues of curse for Jews here, but is
trying to make it clear that the implications of Torah arise for proselytes
just as they do for Jews, for everyone, just as the curse of being hung
after killed applied to everyone, so to Jesus. Of course Jews accept the
curse of the Law, that is a part of what it means to be in the covenant
community of Israel. It is, strangely, a part of the relationship privileges
versus the other nations, who are not in this special relationship; what Jew
would not want to be in this relationship, and hence, under these
conditions?

Paul's rhetoric should not in the first instance be universalized, but be
dealt with as contextual, as addressing particular issues in space and time.
It is hard to sort out the pronouns here in vv. 13 and 14 (and elsewhere),
but it seems to me that this part of the narrative Paul is developing after
3:1-5 is diatribal (consisting of a discourse with an imaginary Jew and an
imaginary Gentile, each saying something back and forth):

The first person plural pronounces express the views of members of the
nations who are not proselytes getting the point: Abrahamic descent is
extended to "us" of the nations just as to Jews, including receipt of the
Spirit (reserved for Abraham's children), without becoming proselytes. The
good news proclaimed to Abraham in v. 6 is that "all" the nations would be
blessed in him, "everyone" who shares his faith in God's faithfulness to the
promise. The Gentiles (members of the other nations) in Galatia are to now
get the connection for themselves (the diatribe's "us"), while necessarily
remaining members of the nations instead of becoming members of the nation
Israel (the diatribe's "them"), that is, instead of becoming proselytes
("them").

The risk of the curse is a given for those under Torah, as are all Jews, as
anyone who reads the Scriptures or rabbinic literature can easily see. It is
not intimidating for those who seek righteousness, for God provides for the
sinning of the righteous. It is intimidating for those who wish to turn away
from God and his grace. Many of the questions posed by Christians come from
a different conceptualization of what is at issue than I believe Paul's
language was designed to address, and then his language is forced to address
it, leading to the illogical conclusions as if logical extensions of Paul's
position. There is nothing here that describes Paul as no longer under Torah
obligations because a believer in Jesus Christ, but quite the contrary is
implied throughout, in my view.

Regards,
Mark
-- 
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Soebbing Visiting Scholar, Rockhurst University
Lecturer, University of Kansas
Co-Moderator, Corpus Paulinum
http://www.marknanos.com


on 3/28/06 6:48 AM, Jeff Krantz @ optonline.net at jkrantz AT optonline.net
wrote:

> Dear Mark,
> 
> Thanks for clarifying for me.  I think, without  my being particularly
> clear, you've dealt with my question.  For the sake of clarity, though, let
> me see if I can be more specific.  It is the universality of the text that
> worried me (not for myself, but as something to which I might be called to
> respond) where Paul says that "all" are "under a curse."  It seems to
> suggest that, as no one is capable of keeping the whole of the law, all are
> therefore "cursed."
> 
> As an admonition within part of the proselyte conversion process, "under a
> curse" makes a different sense, as something they take on as a
> responsibiliity, not as a condemnation.  (I don't know all the folks I'll be
> talking with today, but I do know that one of them is very much a
> fundamentalist, and I want to be able to respond cogently to this if he
> brings it up as an objection to Paul's Torah observance, i.e. "How could
> Paul be Torah observant if he considered it to curse everyone who tries??"
> 
> BTW... Have you seen "Paul Among the Post Liberals?"  It is more a
> theological than an exegetical work, but he does make reference to your
> work!
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> Jeff K.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark D. Nanos" <mark AT marknanos.com>
> To: "Corpus Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 10:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Galatians 3:10
> 
> 
>> Dear Jeff,
>> Delighted that you are discussing Irony! Not sure what the issue is
>> concerning Paul's Torah-observance and the language of curse in 3:10ff.
>> Can
>> you be more specific about the problem, so I can try to speak to it? In
>> general, I offer the following.
>> 
>> The curse for failure to observe the Torah is classic for Torah-observant
>> Jews who subscribed to the Deuteronomistic view of things, so not sure
>> what
>> is at issue for you; non-Torah observant more likely to doubt the gravity
>> of
>> Torah-obligation. Even today potential proselyte candidates are warned in
>> Rabbinic Judaism of the responsibility that they are considering taking
>> on,
>> the obligation of Torah and consequences that follow for those who turn
>> from
>> it thereafter. Candidates are in fact ritually dissuaded from adopting
>> that
>> course. Paul's reasons were different, and his argument, but the issue of
>> Torah-observance for him is not related, as far as I can see--if you
>> attend
>> to the rhetorical context of the narrative from 3:6ff, which is determined
>> by the situational argument of 3:1-5, specifically, against proselyte
>> conversion for those non-Jews who have already gained in Christ that which
>> proselyte conversion otherwise promises to candidates upon completion.
>> Hence, to undertake it now would for them constitute an admission that
>> they
>> had not gained what the gospel of Christ claims for them (as non-Jews, and
>> thus, just like Jews can claim), and the Spirit already witnesses in their
>> lives. So they cannot undertake it in this Judaism, unlike in other Jewish
>> groups. That would be like turning back the clock, so to speak, to the
>> time
>> before the changing of eons with Jesus Christ, and becoming vulnerable to
>> an
>> outcome that need not apply to themselves. Instead they should celebrate
>> their inclusion as non-Jews; even if that involves some marginalization,
>> for
>> the alternative also has its drawbacks--and they are graver for them in
>> particular, so Paul argues, I think.
>> 
>> Hope this helps, but let me know if something more specific at issue, or
>> if
>> anyone else wishes to discuss this somewhat convoluted passage. I have
>> much
>> more work to do on it myself someday.
>> 
>> Take care,
>> Mark
>> -- 
>> Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
>> Soebbing Visiting Scholar, Rockhurst University
>> Lecturer, University of Kansas
>> Co-Moderator, Corpus Paulinum
>> http://www.marknanos.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> on 3/27/06 7:29 PM, Jeff Krantz @ optonline.net at jkrantz AT optonline.net
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Quick question for Mark or someone familiar with his work about Galatians
>>> 3:10.  I'm doing a presentation on Paul for a local clericus (interfaith)
>>> tomorrow, and I'll be talking about The Irony of Galatians.  In light of
>>> Mark's suggestion that Paul is himself Torah observant, I wonder how I
>>> might
>>> deal with the "curse" of 3:10ff.  All that is present in the book is the
>>> inclusion of the passage among those that are examples of "ironic"
>>> speech.
>>> 
>>> Anything else I might speak to if it comes up?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Jeff Krantz
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Corpus-Paul mailing list
>>> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Corpus-Paul mailing list
>> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul