Sixty-First General Meeting University of Scranton
August 8-11, 1998 Scranton, Pennsylvania
Summary:
Recent Perspectives on Romans and Galatians
Day One – Sunday, August 9, 1998
Introductions: After all members of the seminar introduced themselves, the features of this seminar were described as follows:
We read texts and not papers (to prevent discussions from being overly focused on secondary literature).
Present day (pastoral) issues remain in view, and are explicitly addressed near the end of sessions.
All participants are heartily encouraged to enter the dialogue. There is not a pecking order of publication or institutional appointment.
In keeping with our theme of "Recent Perspectives," Mark Nanos, the author of The Mystery of Romans, outlined his viewpoint on that letter. He explained that he reads Roman with the supposition that Paul remains a practicing Jew after his "conviction of faith in Christ" and that his church communities are also practicing certain Jewish practices in order to be included in the wider Jewish community (which includes non-church Jews). Paul’s attitude to the Torah is, therefore, basically positive. Paul was determined to work out the halachic implications of Gentiles holding equal membership in the Jewish community. In Nanos’ view, most interpretations of Romans are hampered by reading it through a Galatians lens. Thus, Paul is a Jew writing to a Jewish situation by addressing the issues of full Gentile participation. Among these issues are misguided efforts to assert Gentile dominance over the Jews-in-Christ. This assertion is also damaging how Gentiles-in-Christ are perceived by the "stumbling in faith," (i.e., those Jews who are not in Christ who have grave doubts about claims of Gentile equality with Jews).
Nanos concluded by observing that all interpretations of the Roman situation are based on scanty evidence. This is true both of his own approach as well as of the more conventional perspectives.
We then moved to a discussion of relevant texts, beginning with Romans 14:1-6,12-17. The following points were made:
Next, the discussion turned briefly to Romans 13:1-7. Typically, the "authorities" are understood to be Roman officials. Another possibility is that they might instead be synagogue rulers who can wield a "sword" of their authority and to whom taxes for the Temple should be paid.
Finally, Romans 9:30-10:4 was considered. One opinion was that Paul is objecting here to an "ethnocentric inclusivism" which admits Gentiles into Israel but understands the Torah as necessary for full membership. Paul, in contrast, argues for equal Gentile membership without them taking on full Torah observance.
Some voiced that Paul sees Christ as both normative and superior to the Torah. Some questioned why ideas of superiority would be necessary if Christ is understood as the full flowering of the Torah’s goal of bringing the nations into relationship with the God of Israel. This was differently expressed by suggesting that non-church Jews need, in Paul’s view, to realize "what time it is" – the time of the eschatological in-gathering of the nations, into Christ.
Others stated that Paul saw that "the Law had a flaw" that was surmounted with the coming of Christ. The flaw was depending on "works of the law" for justification. Still others understood Paul to be more concerned with defending the right of the Gentiles to enter the community without the Law.
Our time ended with the question, "What is happening in Paul regarding the Law?
Day Two – Monday, August 10, 1998
To aid in the discussion a typology charting various approaches to Paul the Law, prepared by George Smiga ["Preaching at Risk: Paul’s Statements on the Law," New Theology Review, August, 1996: 74-95], was displayed. It is presented here:
|
1. The Qualitative Interpretation |
2. The Quantitative Interpretation |
3. The Retrospective Interpretation |
4. The Sociological Interpretation |
5. The Restrictive Interpretation |
|
The Law is inherently flawed since it presumes that one can earn God’s favor. Paul came to realize this and so forsook Judaism. |
No one can observe all of the Law fully; people always sin. So trying to obey Torah leads only to failure and punishment. Paul realized this and abandoned it. |
After his encounter with Christ the Torah’s import dwindled for Paul. Its ongoing purpose thus became a problem for Paul that he never solved. |
Paul wanted the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ. Laws which divide (kosher laws, circumcision, e.g.) are now ended. Only moral norms remain. |
Paul is only concerned with the Law’s effects on Gentiles. He says nothing about the Law per se, or its validity for Jews. |
We then began our conversation with Galatians 3:10-14. It was suggested that the letter addresses Gentiles-in-Christ to insist that the Law does not justify them. Jesus does. This accords with part of Lloyd Gaston’s approach (type 5 above), but would not go so far as to posit a two roads to salvation theory.
Another participant framed the issue that Paul addresses as "should Gentiles take on a Torah-identity?" to which Paul replies, "no." The question is getting in, not observance once inside.
The type 2 approach above was stated not to be credible since the Law contains mechanisms within it to remedy sin (penitence, sacrifice, etc.). Moreover, in Philippians 3:6 Paul is comfortable thinking that the Law could be done. A Jew can observe the Law. The question concerns Gentiles and the Law. Someone asked about seeing this more communally rather than individually as N.T. Wright offers. The curse on Paul’s mind Israel might be the experience of exile because of covenant failings. This exilic condition could be seen as continuing under Roman domination. This communal approach was seen to have some merit. In any case, it was noted that the evidence permits several constructions of the narrative story guiding Paul’s thinking.
One member observed that Gaston is helpful in this because he stresses the need for knowing the Gentile-centered Galatian pastoral context to which Paul responds with an epistle. E.P. Sanders was seen as helpful in tracking Paul’s argument: the opening of chapter 3 makes it clear that Paul is arguing from the experience of receiving the Spirit that the Galatians have had. He stresses their pneumatic experience to counter a widespread supposition that Torah observance is the mark of membership among God’s people. Indeed, Paul faces the difficult task of persuading the Galatians that it would actually be detrimental to them to take on the Law.
It was suggested that Paul might be drawing on the dead bones imagery of Ezekiel 37. Others commented that although Ezekiel is adduced in Romans 8, it is not cited in Galatians. Galatians 3 seems more grounded in Deuteronomy.
This began an exchange on the possibility that Paul is replying to scriptural passages that his opponents in Galatia are using to substantiate their ideas. He employs Jewish scriptural arguments against the Jewish interpretation of his adversaries. Thus, the opponents have asserted "Cursed is everyone who does not . . . [obey] everything in the Law" (Deut 27:26) and "Whoever does the works of the Law will live by them" (Lev. 18:5). Paul counters with a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 that "the one who is righteous will live by faith." He also argues that Christ had himself become accursed according to Deut. 21:23 to redeem those cursed by the Law. Such arguments should be understood as persuasive efforts, not as dogmatic formulations.
A member wondered if option #5 (the restrictive approach) was the place to start in interpreting Galatians, but supplemented with the "grains of truth" in the other options. This seemed to meet with general approval.
Several questions were then posed. What does it mean to say that Gentiles-in-Christ were being expected to take on "minimal" Torah standards without assuming the whole Law? How would this work out in practice? Also, following the suggestion of Paula Fredriksen, isn’t the controversy in Galatians driven by the delay of the eschaton? It would have been one thing to admit Gentiles into Jewish communities or Jewish churches when one expects the End momentarily, but what happens when one has to associate with former strangers over an extended period of time of uncertain duration?
The question about minimal observance was understood by some to refer to the practices necessary to permit table fellowship. These could easily vary locally.
Someone asked if the Law was being associated with sin by being identified as "fleshy" at the beginning of chapter. This was answered in two ways: The Gentiles in Galatia seem uncertain of their status as full members of the community. They are therefore vulnerable to those who insist on their circumcision to guarantee their status. There is not really an interest in becoming Jewish by observing the Torah in its entirety (see Gal 5:3), only a magical use of the ritual of circumcision to earn status with God. This superstitious approach to Jewish rituals is what Paul rejects as fleshy. In addition, although sarx (flesh) is used in a moral sense in chapters 5 and 6, in chapter 3 it is used in physical sense (as in 2 Cor 5:16). The physical sense, of course, also is particularly appropriate to the issue of circumcision being debated in Gal 3.
It was then noted that Paul isn’t so much addressing minimalist or maximalist degrees of Torah observance as in opposing its coercive imposition on the Gentiles as a requirement for being a member of the people of God. In this view "works of the law" are destructive only if they are made constitutive for membership.
This led to a reading of Gal 2:11-21, the "incident at Antioch". After noting Gaston’s cautions about the translations of 2:16 and 21, a discussion ensued as to what was the nature of the conflict between Paul and Peter. Questions about whether food laws were really at issue and about Peter’s possible long-term strategies were raised.
The apparent setting of the incident after the meeting in Jerusalem helps here. Although it had been agreed that circumcision was not to be required of Gentiles-in-Christ, the social question of whether Gentiles could share table fellowship with Jews-in-Christ as full equals had not been addressed. The arrival of the people from James brought this to the surface: should Jews start acting like Gentiles to share table with them? Various ideas were voiced for why Peter and the other Jews drew back from table fellowship with Gentiles, but in the end the unity of Jew and Gentile in the Antiochean church was broken. This, for Paul, was a violation of the good news of unity in Christ between Jews and Gentiles as Jews and Gentiles. Others saw the issue as still circumcision, even if an agreement on that had already been reached in Jerusalem. If uncircumcised Gentiles were still treated as second-class members of the community, then that would be a continuing incentive for them to become circumcised to equalize their status.
Any efforts to eliminate the distinctiveness of Jewish or Gentile identity would also violate what Paul sees as the divine principle of "the Jew first, then the Greek." Zechariah 8:23 was adduced: "In those days ten [Gentiles] . . . shall take hold of a Jew, grasping his garments and saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’" The text doesn’t say the Gentiles convert to Judaism. For Paul, "those [eschatological] days" have arrived. However, the delay of the End and the intimacy of Jews and Gentiles in Antioch trying to share together the table fellowship of the Lord’s Supper brings to the surface: how do we live together as equals in community for an indefinitely long time before the eschaton?
Day 3 – Tuesday, August 11, 1998
The session began with the reading of Romans 7:4-25. It was suggested that the group keep these questions in mind:
The first comment was that whether Paul was deprecating the Law or not, a nuanced explanation of his logic is needed. The fact that he is more comfortable than us with paradox must be kept in mind.
It was explained that in Romans Paul must tone down the negative things he had said about the Law in Galatians. In Galatia he had been dealing with a Gentile issue in a church with few Jews. In Rome, Jews-in-Christ are prominent. (Whether this provides a good lens for reading the letter was doubted by some.) Thus, Paul is not deprecating the Law; he is addressing the problem that sin makes the successful doing of the Law a constant difficulty. Although in Phil. 3:6 Paul says he did the Law just fine, that does not contradict the discussion here since Paul is addressing very different situations in Philippi and Rome, and so a perfect systematic consistency should not be expected.
Different members then offered comments on rhetorical aspects of Romans 7. First, Paul’s statement that "No one can keep the Law" must be understood as a rhetorical flourish. As an empirical assertion, it’s silly. Another participant observed, in regard to the paradoxical aspects of Paul’s argument, that Christians have tended to focus on the negative side of Paul’s comments on the Law, thereby destroying the paradox and distorting Paul’s thinking. Another observed that Paul occasionally leads the reader on with some argument and then reverses himself (such as describing his Torah observance as blameless, but later on as imperfect). This makes the reader enter into the paradoxes with which Paul is grappling. Finally, a member noted that despite the fact that Paul argues differently in different situations, he is driven by his personal experiences that Christ empowers him. However, he is also trying to preserve the Law for Jews who want to keep it.
Someone raised two questions: How does a Gentile in Christ do God’s will any better than a Jew following the Law who is not in Christ? What does that mean? The second question was: what is the "problem" of the Law of which many commentators speak? It was suggested that the Law’s unavoidable side-effect of making boundaries was at issue. The first question prompted the observation that in modern Jewish-Christian relations, the topic of access to the Holy Spirit outside of Christianity or Christ must eventually be part of the discussion.
It seemed clear to everyone that Paul does not always mean the same thing by nomos. Could a reader substitute the word "Bible" for every case of nomos? Most time it works, but in several places it plainly does not.
To one member it seemed that we should ask, Who needs to learn that the Law is still inadequate for salvation? It might be that Paul thinks that both Jews and Gentiles in the Church must know this, but for different reasons.
Most of the group seemed to agree that the section was not purely or even primarily autobiographical. One member thought that the tension in the text is between the Old Adam and the New Adam, not between Jew and Gentile.
Translation problems with Rom 7:21 were discussed. It was suggested that the preferred rendering would be "I therefore find a law by trying to do good," which would change the standard sense significantly. The possibility of a yetzer ha-ra/ yetzer ha-tov dynamic at work here was mentioned by another member. The observation that Paul is not using technical language was repeated.
We then turned to address directly the pastoral concerns that arise when one preaches or teaches from such texts as Romans 7. How, in particular, are Catholics to implement the statement of the Pontifical Biblical Commission that "Particular attention is necessary, according to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council (Nostra Aetate, 4), to avoid absolutely any actualization of certain texts of the New Testament which could provoke or reinforce unfavorable attitudes toward the Jewish people" [The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, IV, A,3]?
Several useful recommendations were made that could be organized into the following ten principles: