In our most recent post on 1 Corinthians we covered chapter 9. In that post when commenting on 9:19-23, I stated that, following Mark Nanos, Paul changed his basis of argument in his preaching depending on his audience. In saying this I was resisting the standard interpretation that Paul varied his behavior, particularly in relation to the law depending on his audience. Since I'm breaking with the consensus a bit, I thought I should give a fuller explanation of why I cam to that conclusion. But first let's present the text from the NRSV:
19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.
Paul opens the paragraph discussing both his goal and his means. His goal is to draw people to follow Jesus. He describes his means as slavery. What exactly did that require? Normally, when one became a slave they adopted their master's entire way of life including their religion.[1] Paul obviously did not adopt the religious practices of others so there are some limits to the parallel and we will have to look at what Paul says in subsequent verses to understand what he means by becoming a slave to all.
In verses 20 and 21 he states that he 'becomes' a member of one of three different groups when he is with them, Jews, Gentile proselytes, and pagans. There are two immediate things to notice. First, how could Paul become a Gentile proselyte? In what sense would that make sense? That's one thing that he literally could not become.[2] The second thing to note is that he seems to distance himself from two of the groups, those under the law and those outside the law. He does not distance himself similarly from the Jews, making it appear like he is identifying himself with them.
This then pushes us to a further point. If Paul saw himself as being Jewish, then, if he didn't follow the law when he was with Gentiles, he would have been open to charges of duplicity and inconsistency. I will quote Nanos's powerful conclusion here:
The problems with the traditional interpretation of this passage seem severe enough that we must search for an alternative explanation. Nanos offers the suggestion that Paul merely modulated his rhetorical approach and argumentative base depending on the group he was evangelizing. That seems plausible and has external corroboration from Acts. So in the end Paul's discussion of his enslavement to others is more a statement of his empathy and willing, costly service to different groups.
----------------------------------------------
[1] Pointed out by Ciampa and Rosner.
[2] A point made by Nanos.
19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.
Paul opens the paragraph discussing both his goal and his means. His goal is to draw people to follow Jesus. He describes his means as slavery. What exactly did that require? Normally, when one became a slave they adopted their master's entire way of life including their religion.[1] Paul obviously did not adopt the religious practices of others so there are some limits to the parallel and we will have to look at what Paul says in subsequent verses to understand what he means by becoming a slave to all.
In verses 20 and 21 he states that he 'becomes' a member of one of three different groups when he is with them, Jews, Gentile proselytes, and pagans. There are two immediate things to notice. First, how could Paul become a Gentile proselyte? In what sense would that make sense? That's one thing that he literally could not become.[2] The second thing to note is that he seems to distance himself from two of the groups, those under the law and those outside the law. He does not distance himself similarly from the Jews, making it appear like he is identifying himself with them.
This then pushes us to a further point. If Paul saw himself as being Jewish, then, if he didn't follow the law when he was with Gentiles, he would have been open to charges of duplicity and inconsistency. I will quote Nanos's powerful conclusion here:
Paul's lifestyle adaptability involves conduct that can be variously described as "mimicking," "imitating," "deceiving," "tricking," or "aping" the conduct of the other in Torah-defined terms, either to observe or not observe Torah, but without sharing the others' propositional bases for or against Torah-observance. Paul is by definition not Torah-observant consistently or as a matter of conviction. At the same time, he implicitly if not explicitly shares the propositional bases of non-Jews who do not observe Torah, although perhaps for different reasons, as in the case of idolaters. In both the cases of Jews and idolaters he misrepresents his convictions and those concomitant with the message he delivers to them.
The problems with the traditional interpretation of this passage seem severe enough that we must search for an alternative explanation. Nanos offers the suggestion that Paul merely modulated his rhetorical approach and argumentative base depending on the group he was evangelizing. That seems plausible and has external corroboration from Acts. So in the end Paul's discussion of his enslavement to others is more a statement of his empathy and willing, costly service to different groups.
----------------------------------------------
[1] Pointed out by Ciampa and Rosner.
[2] A point made by Nanos.
Comments
Post a Comment