Pauls View of the Law

7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law

1/25

P A U L ' S V I E W S O N T H E LA W: Q U E S T I O N S

A B O U T O R I G I N (GAL. 1:6-2:21; P H I L . 3:2-11)

by

FABIAN E. U D O H

Notre Dame, IN

1. The Problem

The historical problem of the origin of Paul's particular views on the

Law is that of how to relate them with what he says about himself

and his ministry, on the one hand, with what is known about early

Christianity and about S econd Tem pl e Jud ais m, on the other han d.1

Th us stated, the probl em requires some metho dolo gica l clarification.

It needs to be distinguished from two other problems: a) the devel

opment of Paul's thought about the Law, b) Paul's conversion and his

pre-conversion thought.

Not much need be said here about the problem of the development

of Paul's thought about the Law, except that, although Paul's position

certainly shifted, the problem of the development of his thought must

not be confused with the question of its historical origin. By develop

ment I mean chronological progress: "Paul first thought this and later

on he thought that. . . . " Fo r this kind of devel opment to be validly

established, we would need first to establish an exact chronology of

Paul's letters. The latter problem has so far proven to be an uphill

t a s k l

Moreover, any effort to trace a chronological development of

Paul's various views on the Law is rendered futile by the fact that, as

we shall see shortly, he holds the different views in the same letter.

Let us turn to the question of Paul's conversion and its relationship

to his views on the Law. In Galatians 1 Paul declares that he did not

receive his Gospel from a human being, nor was he taught it, but

1


2/25

PAUL AND THE LAW! QUESTIONS ABOUT ORIGIN 2 1 5

from "a revelat ion of Jesus Christ " (Gal. 1:11-12). He goes on to prove

the point by a narrative of how he spent the years following the "rev

elation": he "did not confer with flesh and blood," he swears; he went

to Jerusalem to visit Pe ter only after three years, and dur ing the fifteen

days spent there he me t none of the other apostles excep t Ja me s, Je sus'

brother (Gal. 1:15-24). Further, it would appear from Paul's contrasting

the Gospel which he preaches with the "different gospel" preached by

his opponents in Galatia (Gal. 1:6-11) that his Gospel has always been

identical to what he states in Gal. 2:16. It would follow then that the

content of the Gospel he preached, including his views on the Law,

Paul either received it at the same time as the revelation of Christ,

or he concluded later from reflecting on that event.

Many Pauline scholars think that this is the genesis of Paul's par

ticular views on the Law.5 I pay particular attention to this position

here, especially since it has again been proposed in Terence L.

Donaldson's recent work on Paul.4 The essential question is: Wh at was

the content of the "reve lat ion" that Paul received? The fundamental

difficulty with the view which answers this question by asserting that

Paul was converted from one view about the Law to another is that,

in the autobiographical account in Galatians, Paul does not attach any

explicit content to the revelation of Christ, except that Paul came to

accept Jesus as the Christ who m G od h ad ra ised from the dead . As

Christiaan Beker has rightly noted, Paul otherwise gives us no insight

into his conversion experience, except insofar as it founds his call to

be the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. 1:16). Therefore, "Paul's conver

sion experience is not the entrance to his thought."1 The argument

involves a petitio principi: Paul at some later point in his Christian life

thought that faith in Christ excluded the observance of the Law; there

fore he previously persecuted Christians for believing that faith in Christ

excluded the Law. Paul's later thought serves to explain his earlier

conduct, whereas it is this past conduct which is supposed to explain

5 See, m particular, S Kim, The Origin ofPaul's Gospel (WUNT 2 4, 2nd ed , Tubingen

Mohr, 1984), also, among others, J Dupont, "The Conversion of Paul, and its Influence

on his Understanding of Salvation by Faith,'1

in W Gasque and R Martin (eds ),


3/25

216 FABIAN E. UDOH

his later thought. The argument, in other words, merely states that

Paul was converted to "Paulinism."()

This is where I think the problem lies. If we knew the reason why

Paul persecuted Christians we could have answered two important his

torical questions. First: What in Paul led him to persecute Christians?

We have an answer to this question from Paul: His zeal for the Law

(Phil. 3:5-6; Gal . 1:13-14). Th e second is: What in early Christianity led

to Paul 's per secution of Christ ians? T he answer is: We do not know. 7

Donaldson's answer to this second question deserves special atten

tion. He argues that Paul persecuted Christians because he perceived

"that Christ was being presented as a rival boundary marker for the

people of Israel, the community of the righteous who were promised

salvation in the future. "a Paul saw in the Christian preaching the Christ-

Torah antithesis, Christ and the Torah representing "mutually exclu

sive ways of marking the boundary of the people of God." 9 By locat

ing the answer in Paul's perception, Donaldson links the two questions:

Paul's persecution was a "zealous activity" in defense of the Law whose

role, he perceived, the Christians were undermining. The crucial point

in this link is Do na ld so n' s un de rs ta nd in g of "zea l" in first-century

Judaism. The zealous were distinguished by three characteristics: a) "a

willingness to use violence against anyJews, Gentiles, or the wicked

in generalwho were contravening, opposing, or subverting the Torah";

b) a willingness "to suffer and die for the sake of the Torah, even to

die at one's own hand"; c) they acted "to preserve the righteousness

of the community, by disciplining the wrongdoer and upholding the

Torah, and to restore the righteous status of the community, by aton

ing for its sins."10

See M S Enslin, The Ethics of Paul (London Abingdon, 1930) 11-12

It is doubtful that Paul had the power to carry out such acts of persecution as

Acts 8 1-3 portrays Paul says he "persecuted the Church of God" (1 Cor 15 9, Gal

1 1 3, Phil 3 6), which might suggest that he did not pait iupate in mob actions against

individual Christians lhe extent to which he exposed others to the wide range of oral

and physical abuses o which he was himself afterwards a victim (2 Cor 11 23-25,

12 10, 1 Coi 4 12), cannot be specified See - Menoud, "Le sens du verb Gal 1,3,23, Acts 9,21,' in Apophoreta hS Ernst Haenchen, B^NW 30 (1964) 178-86,

A H lt "P l' P Ch i ti P ti f th Ch h Th i P L l


4/25

PAUL AND THL LAW! QUESTIONS ABOUT ORIGIN 2 1 7

What Donaldson concedes should, however, be emphasized here,

namely, that "by the first century, zeal was a widely held Jewi sh ideal

with a long and celebrat ed tradition."1 1 In spite of Jo se ph us ' at tem pt

to ascribe it to a particular group on whom he wishes to place blame

for the war of 66 GE,1 2

Josephus' work as a whole shows that "zeal"

would denote the attitude of most first-century devout Jews.M

Paul's

self-description as "zealot" does not give us particular insight into his

pre-conversion thoughts and activities.

More problematic is what Donaldson wants to derive from Paul's

zeal: Paul's per ceptio n of the Chris tia n move ment an d its kerygma. If

one were to gra nt th at the zealous Jew sought, by violent means, to

discipline those who contravened, opposed, or subverted the Torah,

one must still ask" in what ways? Again here, what Donaldson con

cedes11

is in fact capital: the div ers ity and degrees of to le ra nc e

within Second Temple Judaism prohibi ts an y fixations about the causes

of social/rel igious confl icts.1'

A very relevant example will help to illustrate the complexity of

the problem Th e high priest Ana nus took adva ntag e of the interreg

num between the death of the praefectus, Festus (who, according to Acts

25:1-27:1, sent Paul to Rome), and the arrival of the new praefectus,

Albinus, in c. 62 GE to ha ve James the brother of Jesus condemned

by the cour t and stoned. Josephus says that Ananus accused James

11"Zealot," 672 Paul, 285

1Donaldson cites A J 18 16 23-24 (Judas the Galilean and the "Fourth Philosophy"),

J 7 8 6-7 91 320-401 (Llca/ar the Zealot), i J 18 2 4 51 (sic) Donaldson, "Zealot,"

673 ns 71, 72, 74, Paul, 286 and ns 49,

)2, 551Josephus underline s Jewish willingness to ficht and to die rather than tolerate

thieats to the Law and the institutions of Israel " 1 here should be nothing astonish

ing in oui facing death on behalf of our laws with a com age which no other nation

can equal' ( lp 232 234) ' Io defeat in any other fc*rm we patiently submit, but when

pressure is put upon us to alter our statutes, then we delibrately fight, even against

tremendous odds, and hold out under reverses to the last extiemity" [Ap 2 37 272)

I he incidents m ] 1 33 2-4 648-55 {A J 17 6 2-4 149-67), J 2 9 2-3 169-74

{A J 18 3 1 55-59), and A J 18 8 2-3, 9 261-72, 305-9 are instructive Scholarly lit

erature on the subject is large See especially, Rajak, Josephus The Historian and His

Society (Philadelphia Fortress, 1983) esp pp 65-184 S Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and

Rome ''Leiden Brill, 1979) esp pp 151-70, M Smith, "Zealots and Sicarn, their Originsand Relation," HTR 64 (1971) 1-19, L Sanders, Judaism Practice andBelief63 B(E

66 (E (L d SCM 1992 35 43 l D ld "Z l " 673 d 66 P l


5/25

218 FABIAN E. UDOH

(and some others) of having transgressed the Law. Jos ephus, however,

explains Ananus' action by the fact that Ananus was "rash in temper

and unusually daring. He followed the school of the Sadducees, who

are i ndee d more heartless th an any of the other Jews . . . when they

sit in judgem en t." The execution offended those inhab itant s of Jerusale m

who "were considered the most fair-minded and who were in strict

observance of the law." They sent a delegation to bring charges against

Ananus before King Agrippa II, the son of the Agrippa who, accord

ing to Acts 12:1-23, ha d earlier execute d Ja me s the br othe r of J o hn

and intended to do the same to Peter. Another delegation went to

meet Albinus in Alexandria. The praefectus threatened Ananus with

vengeanc e. But Anan us lost his jo b before Albinus arrived: Agrippa II

deposed him forthwith.10

Like Paul, Ananus acted out of his zeal for the Law. His zeal was

opposed, however, by those who were at least as zealous as he. Besides,

and most important for our point, Ananus' accusation that James

"transgressed the law" offers us no insight into the particular offense,

real or perceived, wh ich merite d Ja me s the execution. In this case, as

in Paul's zeal, "the Law" is no more than a metaphor for what

Dona ldson calls "the symbols an d institutions defining Jewis h social

identity." 1 ' Ananus might very well have been zealous, rash, daring

and heartless, but we know noth ing abo ut what he perceived in Ja me s.

And we know nothing either about what Paul perceived in those he

persecuted. Donaldson's thesis that he perceived the Ghrist-Torah

antithesis derives exclusively from Paul's Christian statements about

the Law.18 Donaldson's thesis is therefore ineluctably circular.19

" A J 20 9 1 199-2031 "Zealot," 670l!i Donaldson admits as mueh himself "We need to face squarely the fact that we

ha\e no direct and independent access to Paul's pre-Damascus opinions and percep

tions Indeed, the strongest argument in favor of this understanding of Paul's pre-

Chnstian perceptions is that it is congruent with and thus accounts for the shape of

his Christian perceptions of Christ and 1 orah" [Paul, 288-89) "In each case (my own

included), the reasons proposed for Paul's persecuting activity are grounded in the particular understanding of Paul's Christian convictions rather than any independent infor

{


6/25


We would need, I reiterate, to answer the question about what

(some) Christians did and believed in that led to their being perse

cuted if the problem of Paul's motives is to make any historical sense.

As it is, partly because of the fragmentary nature of our extant sources,

we cannot answer this question. Paul's pre-conversion thoughts and

motivations are, therefore, not available to historical investigation. It

follows that we cannot establish what it was that changed when he

was converted to the messianic community, except that he came to

accept the Christian preaching. Consequently, the problem of the origin

of Paul's distinctive views on the Law cannot be identified with the

question of "the nature of Paul's conversion." It is not essentially the

problem of how in Paul's mind one set of conceptions and questions

might have led to other conceptions, answers and further questions.

The issue is not primarily that of establishing how he or any other

first-century Jewish-Christian could have deduced anything about the

Law simply from belief that Jesus is the messiah raised from the dead.20

Let me summarize the reasons why the argument from Paul's pre-

conversion thoughts and motivations should be abandoned:

1) It is far from certain that from the beginning the Christian Paul

held the various views about the Law that we find in his (later) writ

ings or that he arrived at them simply by his faith in Jesus.21

2) The negative assessments of the role of the Law do not repre

sent all of Paul's views about the relationship between faith in Jesus

and Paul's belonging to the Jewish people.

3) There is no evidence that before the admission of Gentiles into

20 This is Albert Schweitzer s question, sec The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (New

York MacMillan, 1956 [ 19311) 221, C Tuckett, '^Deuteronomy 21,23 and Paul's

Conversion," in A Vanhoye (ed), L'Aptre Paul (Leuven Leuven University, 1986) 350

In response scholars often start either from the Chnstological problem said to

be raised bv the idea of a Crucified Christ (Gal 3 10-14) or from the sotenological

consequences of tht revelation ofJesus as the Messiah, Son of God See, for example,

-H Menoud, "Revelation and Tradition The Influence of Paul's Conversion on

his Theology,' Int 7 (1953) 131-41 (on the Chnstological side), G Bornkamm, 'T h e

Revelation of Christ to Paul on the Damascus Road and Paul's Doctrine of Justification

and Reconciliation A Study in Galatians 1," in R Banks (ed), Reconciliation and Hope(Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1974) 90-103 (on the sotenological side), J D G Dunn,

" Light to Gentiles The Significance of the Damascus Road Chnstophany for Paul "


7/25

220 FABIAN E. UDOH

the Chnstian movement there was ever a dispute among early Christians

about the role of the Law.

4) Paul was not the only Jew w ho believed that Jesus was the Ch ris t

and that salvation was attained for Jews (and for Gentiles) through

faith m him. This conviction belongs to the heart of what is known

of early Christian kerygma.22

The view that Jews needed to believe

was reason for the "mission" to Jews (Gal. 2:9). The implication is

that the separation Ch ri st /T or ah t ha t is, Jewish covenant-ident ity

as the means for salvation belonged fundamentally to early Christian

kerygma. Peter, Ja mes , Jo hn , Barnabas, and others who opposed Paul

directly must have accepted this. As far as we know, other Christians

did not make the same kinds of negative deductions as Paul made

about the Law from their belief. Donaldson is correct that the answer

to Sanders' question "why did Paul draw conclusions which others in

his situation, or in similar situations, did not?"2^ requires a "diachronic

component." We need, that is, to identify "t he stage in Paul's experi

ence" in which to root his particular conclusions.24

That stage cannot

be Paul's pre-conversi on thought and his conversion experience.

2. Proposal

Some general considerations, arising from our second objection above,

are in order. The absolute, negative role that Paul sometimes assigns

to all the Law in the history of salvation does not represent all he has

to say on the subject. As it has long been recognized, three conflicting

positions '' can be discerned from the extant letters.

1) Paul establishes a radical dichotomy betwee n observance of the

Law an d faith in Jesus : Gal . 2:16; 3; 4; 5:2-5; Rom. 3:20-4:24; 7;

10:3-4; Phil. 3:4-11. According to these passages those who are under

the Law are accursed (Gal. 3:10); the Law was added to the promise

mad e to Ab ra ha m "because of transgression" (Gal. 3:19; Rom. 3:20;

4.15; 5:20; 7:5-6); through the Law God shut humanity up and enslaved

Sanders notes that "the general conception that one is saved by faith wascompletely common in early Christianity, and that Paul's original contribution lies inthe antithetical formulation by faith and not byworks of law " See PaulandPalestinian


8/25


us to "the elemental spirits of the universe"; Gentile Christians who

observe the Law are again being enslaved to the same "elemental spir

its," the idols, to which they were enslaved before their conversion

(Gal. 3:23-4:11); those who keep the Law, those of the "present

Jerusalem," are the children of Hagar, they are born into slavery (Gal.

4:21-31). If the Galatians received circumcision and kept the Law,

they would be "severed from Chris t," and would "have fallen from

grace" (Gal. 5:2-4).

2) He treats the Law as a matt er of indifference: "F or in Christ

neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail" (Gal. 5:6; 3:28;

6:15; 1 Cor. 7:17-19; 9:19-23; 10:23-11:1; Rom. 14:1-15:6).

3) He insists that his converts lead a life that is "perfect," "p ur e, "

"guiltless" and "blameless." This means living according to what the

Law requires: No food offered to idols, one may not ma rr y his father's

wife, or go to a prostitute, or have homosexual relations, and so forth

(1 Cor. 5:1-2; 6:9-11; 7:17-25; 9:9, 21 ; 12:2; 1 The ss. 4:3-8; Phil.

1:9-11; 2:14-16). The "just requirement of the Law" (Rom. 8:4) can

and must be fulfilled, according to the spirit of Lev. 19:18 (Rom. 13:9;

Gal. 5:14). In theory Gentiles could naturally observe what the Law

required (Rom. 2:14-15, 26-27).20

The Law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14),

good (Rom. 7:16) and holy; what it commands is "holy, and just and

good" (Rom. 7:12).27

Paul does not overthrow the Law, he upholds it

(Rom. 3:31).

From the point of view of logical sequence, it is easier to see how

Paul, in some circumstances, could have radicalized the position that

the Law was 2 8

(did not mat ter), th an it is to imagine hi m

softening his more radical views. The sequence is likely to be:

(Righteousness comes through faith in Christ, for Jews and for Gentiles)

- In Christ Jes us nei the r circumcision n qr uncircumcision is of any

avail, nor indeed foods, sabbaths, and feasts (Gal. 5:6; 6:15; 1 Co r.

7:17-19; 10:23-11:1; Rom. 14:1-15:6) - Christ is the end of the Law

(Rom. 10:3-4) - Faith in Christ excludes observanc e of the Law (Phil.

3:3-11; Gal. 3:16-29; Rom. 3:20-30) -> Everyon e who is circumcised

is boun d to keep the whole Law, is severed from Christ, has fallen


9/25

222 FABIAN E. UDOH

away from grace (Gal. 5:3-4), and has aba nd on ed freedom an d re tur ned

to th e slavery of idolatry (Gal. 4:8-11).29

This sequence enables us to see that Paul's more usual position

would be the "moderate" view: in Christ observance of certain prescrip

tions of the Law (circumcision, food laws, sabbath etc.) is a matter of

indifference. If his original position were tha t all observ ance resulted

in the dire consequences that he sometimes portrays, he would be

capitulating on the question of principle if he then went on to say that

it did not really mat te r. Let me repe at that the seque nce is otherwise

only logical, that is, somewhat illusory since it is not a chronological

sequence. In actual fact both views lie side by side in the same letters.

It is the negative and distinctively Pauline statements about the con

nection betw een the Law, faith in Jesus, flesh, sin, and death that need

to be accounted for/0

These statements are nowhere to be found in

those of his letters that are generally recognized to be early, namely,

1 Thessalomans and 1 Cori nthians/1

They are concentrated in Galatians,

in Philippians 3, and in Romans. Romans is generally accepted to be

' L Sanders proposes the following sequence "God revealed his son to Paul

and called him to be apostle to the Gentiles Christ is not only the Jewish messiah,

he is sa\ior and Lord of the universe If salvation is by Christ and is intended for

Gentile as well as Jew, it is not by the Jewish law in any case, no matter how well it

is dont, and without regard to one's interior attitude Salvation is by faith in Christ,

and the law does not rest on faith" (Paul and the Law, 152, author's emphases) I agree

with this sequence I note, however, that it only, and rightly, underlines Paul's point

of departure as the belief that righteousness comes by faith in Christ, forJews and for

Gentiles, and not by the Law Mysequence seeks to account for the way Paul's mod

erate views might relate to his radical positions (see also Sanders, Paul and the Law,149-54)

i(1See Raisanen, Paul and the Law, 229, Sanders, Paul andPalestinian Judaism, 519,

Paul andthe Lau, 153-5411

In 1 Corinthians Paul speaks df the "law" () in 9 8-9, 20-21, 14 21, 34,

15 56 Of these passages, 1 Cor 15 56 is ofparticular interest since it seems to echo

Paul's treatment of the Jewish Law in Galatians and Romans "The sting of death is

sin, and the power of sin is the law " W Hollander and J Holleman have per

suasively, in my view, argued that the term "law" in this passage must not be under

stood as referring specifically to the Jewish Law, but as a reference to law in general

Moreover, "both the connection between death and sin and the connection between

sin and law are to be understood against the background of Hellenistic popular philosophy' (H W Hollander and J Holleman, "The Relationship of Death, Sin, and

L 1 C 15 56 " N T 35 [1993] 270 291 d th lit t it d th


10/25

PAUL AND LAW! QUESTIONS ABOUT ORIGIN 2 2 3

later than Galatians, and Paul's views there can be shown to be a

reworking of what he proposed in Galatians. We need therefore to

focus our investigation on what Paul says in Galatians and in Philippians

and address historical questions to those parts where he posits the Law

and faith in Christ as antithetical.^

A. Phil. 3:2-11: The Antithesis

We would have learnt something about the shifts in Paul's thought if

we could da te Philippi ans and determine its relationshi p to Galatians.

The identity of Paul's opp one nts in Philippians 3 is also dis put ed. ^His opening warning in Phil. 3:2: "Bewar e of the dogs, beware of the

evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh ( ),"

is a clarion call against his enemies, the Jew ish Christ ians in G al at ia ,u

whose influence in Phil ippi he hoped to an ticipate.

Paul's actual argument proceeds in three stages:

a) Th e bone of contention is circumcision. This is clear because, as

Penna observed, the savage pun "mutilation ()" in v. 2 ridicules

"circumcision ()"^ which Paul goes on to appropriate in v. 3,allegorically identifying it with those who worship in spirit (similarly

opp osed to

in Rom. 2:28-29). With this identification Paul sets up an opposition

"in the flesh ( )" vs. "in spirit ()." Wh en he, therefo re,

goes on to repeat three times in Phil. 3:3, 4ab that he did not put his

confidence "in the flesh" he means "in circumcision," which tops the

list of his (Jewish) prerogatives in v. 5. In Gal. 6:12-13 Paul opposes

circumcision ("flesh") to the cross of Christ (in which Paul puts hisconfidence). This same pattern is reproduced in Phil. 3:3: rather than

put his confidence in circumcision ("in the flesh"), Paul "boasts in

Christ Jes us ." Th e initial opposi tion in v. *2 ("flesh" vs. "spirit") is

reduced in fact to the antithesis "circumcision" vs. "Christ."

]>See Sanders, Paulandthe Law, 151

uI agree with latum ("Sequence," 101, 243-47) that Philippians is to be placed

soon alter Galatians and that no actual opponents, other than those in Galatia, are insight m Philippians 3

uContra R Penna who concludes that Paul's opponents m Philippians 3 are


11/25

224 FABIAN E. UDOH

b) But Paul does not limit the debate to this set of opposi tions. He

shifts the pa ra di gm to "t he La w" vs "faith in Chri st " (w. 5, 6, 9).

c) Finally, he generalizes the object of his rejection: "whatever was

gain to me" (v. 7), "nay all things" (v. 8ab), and the list in w . 5-7

indicates that Paul is no longer thinking of circumcision but is effectively

rejecting his covenant-status as a Jew.^(l

This status, now considered

"rubbish" and "loss," stands in opposition to the "gain" that is "faith

in Christ." The overall result is a polarized situation with "we" on the

one side and "Jews" on the other, each group possessing its own "right

eousness" (esp. w . 7-9).

The personal nature of Paul's argument in Philippians 3 5 7 accounts

for his use of ("my own") in v. 9 in lieu of ("their own") as

in Rom. 10:3 where he argues in the third person. The conclusion in

either case is the same. What Paul is rejecting is "the righteousness

connected with God's covenant with Israel" in favor of "the righteousness

connected with the Christ event "m

Let me sum up. Phil. 3.2-11 contains three sets of antitheses: "cir

cumcision" vs. "Christ"; "Law" vs. "faith in Christ"; "Jewish covenant-

sta tus" vs "faith in Chr ist ." Ho w did these (polarized) antitheses arise?

Paul the Christian accepted the view that righteousness, which, as Paul

argues in Ro m. 9:30-10:4, Israel "p ur su ed " was throug h faith in Jesus

made the Christ. This is a fixed point around which all his discus

sions revolve. But there is no necessary link between believing that

Jesus is the Christ and the loss of Jewish covenant-status.V)

Besides,

Paul elsewhere speaks in positive terms of his Jewish heritage, includ

ing circumcision (Rom. 3:1-4; 9:4-5; 15:7-13), and concludes in Rom.

11:29 that God's gifts and the call of Israel are irrevocable. If Jews

accepted Christ, Paul expected they could be circumcised and live in

other ways as Jews (1 Cor. 7:,18, impl ied in Gal. 2:7-10).w

i(See also F Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles (SN I SMS 56, Cambridge

Cambridge University, 1986) 78* Paul's argument becomes personal starting from the and m 4

(Raisanen, Torah, 77)s Raisanen, Torah, 71 (author's emphases)

uSanders and Bammel correctly note that Paul nowhere argues that it is the com

i f h M i h hi h b h L S S d l d P l


12/25

PAUL AND LAW: QUESTIONS ABOUT ORIGIN 2 2 5

I am proposing that the antitheses are to be seen solely as part of

Paul's response to two categories of related problems which, in the

first decades o Christianity, resulted from the admission of Gentiles

into the Chr ist ian movement: 1) the necessity of circumcision an d

observance of the Torah as a condition for the admission of Gentiles;

2) the subsequent prob lem of commensality in mixed Jewish /Ge nt il e

communities, and the result ing need for Jewish Christ ians to gentilize.

In order to work out the historical context in which these problems

arose, we shall need to turn to our second central passage.

B. Gal. 1.11-2.21 Jerusalem and Antioch

I am not assuming that Paul's retrospective account in Gal. 1:11-2:21

of his early life as a Chris tian is a balanced dispassionate apprec ia tion

of the issues at stake/1

He uses his autobiography for the sake of the

polemic in Galatia. He charges that his opponents, wishing to avoid

being persecuted for the cross of Christ (6:12-16), preac hed "ano ther

Gospel," different, that is, from "the Gospel of Christ" that he h im

self had preached, in Galatia (1:6-10; 3:1; 5:7,10).

1. Gal. 1:11-12, 15-17; 2:16: Revelation and Call, Paul's Gospel

In spite of Paul's passion and rhetorical skill, it is possible for us to

stay focused on what the issue was in Galatia. As in Phil. 3:2-11, what

triggered Paul's rage was the demand that Gentile Christians be cir

cumcised (Gal 2:3 ; 5*2-6, 11; 6:11-16), and possibly also that they

observe the Sabbath and the festivals enjoined by the Law (4:8-11).

We cannot tell from 2:11-21 if they also required the observance of

food laws In Gala tians, as in Phil ippians , Paul 's argu men ts quickly led

him to deny any positive role in the history of salvation first to the

Law (2:16-3:5; 3:15-4:7) and then to Israel' s Siniatic covenant-s tatus

(4:21-5:1).

When Paul calls the attention of the Galatians to "his Gospel," the

one that came to him through the revelation of Christ (1:11-12, 15-17),

he is referring to his formulation in Gal . 2:16: Everyone (that is, Jews

as well as Gentiles) is ma de righteous by faith in Jesus Chris t and not

by the works of the Law (that is, Jewish covenant- identity). It is this


13/25

226 FABIAN E UDOH

"Gospel of Christ" that his rivals seek to pervert (16), it was "the

truth ' of this Gospel that Paul defended in Je ru sa lem (2 5), an d it was

according to this Gospel that Peter at Antioch failed to walk in upright

ness (2 14)

In othei instances, Paul usually formulates the Gospel he preached

in terms correspond ing more closely to those of early Chri stian pre ach

ing, not in terms of the antithesis "t he La w" vs "faith in Chri st " This

is the case m those letters where the polemics about Gentile entry into

the Christian movement is lacking, in 1 Lhessalomans and 1 Corinthians

particularly Paul preached that

) God sent his son,

n) he was crucified and died for the sins of humani ty ,

in) he was raised from the dead and exalted as Lord in heaven,

i\) he will soon return, and at his return the dead among those

who behe\e in him will be raised and those still living will be changed

and they will all be with him forever,

\) unbelievers will be destroyed in the wrath to come,

vi) for this reason Gentiles must abandon idolatry and all must be

of right conduct, keeping their "spirit an d soul an d body sound

and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Chri st" (1 Thess 5 23)4

The vision of the risen Christ established Paul as an authentic apos

tolic witness to this Gospel, on the same footing as the other recog

nized witnesses (1 Cor 15 8-9, 1 Co r 9 1-2) It makes no difference,

he concludes "Whe th er then it was I or they [the other apostles], so

we procl aimed a nd so you have come to believe" (1 Co r 15 11) Did

Paul change his Gospel along the way?

Wat son thinks he did At the early stage of his missionary activity,

Paul and his compa nion s in Antioch prea che d only to Jews Th ey

turned to the Gentiles because of the failure of the mission to the

Jews, and they did not require circumcision, the observance of the

Sabbat h and of other Jewi sh feastsH

They abandoned the Law in

order to facilitate Gentile entry

The question of whether or not Paul ever tried to convert Jews

must remain open

The only relevance that this question could have


14/25


for the present discussion is that it could further support the fact that

Paul did not always formulate his Gospel in terms of the antithesis

"Law" vs. "faith in Christ." h There is nothing in Paul's letters, however,

to suggest that he began his ministry by first attempting to convert

Jews. Paul insists that his mission was to the Gentiles. It was in rela

tion to this mission tha t conflicts arose and he suffered persecution

(esp. Gal. 5:11; 6:12; 4:29; and 1 Thess. 2:16). A substantial Gentile mis

sion must have preceded, by some years, the attack on Paul in Galatia.

Watson's theory does not allow adequately for the fact that it might

have taken some years for the problems that arose from the admis

sion of Gentiles to reach the point where it provoked the response we

have in Galatians. The questions, connected with the dating of Galatians,

are: how many vears? And why so long? Both of these questions can

only receive partial and speculative answers. In any event, if ever Paul

changed his Gospel, it is with respect to the problems of the Gentile

mission that the reasons for such a change are to be sought. 40

2. Gal. 2:1-10: Gentiles, Circumcision, and the Law

There is no difficulty in accepting Paul' s sworn statement that afterhis conversion he went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus,

and he did not go to Jerusa lem to mee t with Peter and Jam es until

after three years. Thereafter he went into the two adjoining regions

of Syria and of Gilicia (Gal. 1:17-21). He does not seem to see the

need to explain how he came to be found fourteen (possibly eleven)

or more years later in Syrian Antioch together with Barnabas and

other Jewish Christ ians (2:11-13). We may never know exactly wh en

Paul became part of this community, and whether or not he took partin founding it. Fourteen (or eleven) years after his conversion, before

the incident involving Peter's visit to Antioch (Gal. 2:11-21), Paul had

gone to Jerusa lem with Barnabas a nd Titus in order to be assured by

the "acknowledged leaders" of the Christian movement that his min

istry among the Gent iles was not in vain (Gal. 2:1-2). It follows from

all this that in the 11 or 14 years between his first and second visits

to Jerus alem , Paul ha d been involved with preach ing the Christian

faith and founding communities among the Greek speaking inhabitants


15/25

228 FABIAN E. UDOH

of Syria, Asia Minor (and, probably, Macedonia, and Greece), possi

bly using Antioch as his base.47

From Gal. 2:1-10 we also learn that in Antioch and generally in

their mission, some (Jewish) Christians4 8

including Barnabas and Paul

admitted Gentiles into their messianic movement without the require

ment of circumcision and observance of the Law. Since Paul was part

of a larger mo\ement, the problem is not to know how Paul could

have arrived at a Gentile (Law-free) mission as Donaldson assumes,49

but rather what led early Chris tia ns (most likely before Paul) to under

take such a mission. We may never be sure why they did this. There

are several speculative explanations:

1) Thi s move was a matt er of practical expediency i ntended to

facilitate Gentile conversion, in view of the disdain with which the

practice of circumcision was held in the Greek speaking world and the

health risk which adult circumcision involved.)0

li) The founders of the Antiochene community allegorized them

selves out of the actual practice of the Law.'1

ili) The first Gentile Christians were God-fearers from the Synagogue

and the Christians did not want to require from them, for participa

tion in the Christian rituals, more than what the Synagogue demanded.

Entering the Christian community was not yet considered by the mes

sianic sect to be outside the objectives of the Synagogue. '2

IV) Experience, rather than theology or explicit strategy, showed that

Gentiles (once admitted) received the Spirit an d were equal witnesses

to the "powerful works" and ecstatic experiences in the community

with their Jewish brethren.

v) Many Jews expected Gentiles to be brought into the people of

God in the eschatological (messianic) time. However, the numerous

bibl ical and post-biblical passages which speak of the inclusi on of

!Accoidmg to J Murphy-O'Connor ("Paul m Arabia," CBQ 55 [1993] 732-37)

Paul tried to make converts in Arabia (Gal 1 17) My suggestion that Paul might have

used Antioch as his base is derived from Paul's presence in this community, not from

Acts 13 1-14 28 et passim1

1 The ss 2 15-16 (if Paul's "us " includes the Churches m Ju daea, see 14) shows

that Chnstians m Judaea weit also involved in the Gentile mission


16/25


Gentiles in the last days, do not contain halakhah on the requirements

for inclusion. The texts are poetic and visionary rather than legal. ^

The passages reveal, in any case, that the expectation was for inclu

sion of Gentiles, not their conversion to Ju da is m (with circumcision as

a prerequisite).'4

As far as we know, all Jewis h Christians agreed that

Gentiles should be brought into their messianic community. Christians,

who believed that they we re in the messianic en d-time , adopted the

traditional Jewish eschatological expectation of Gentile inclusion/" The y

were the first Jewish group to have to sort out the social and theo

logical problems (including the need for rules of inclusion) that arose

from the tradi tiona l Jewis h expecta tion of Gentil e inclusion/*'

Of these suggestions, the most improba ble , in my view, is No. ii,

which is linked to the hypothesis that there existed a se para te Hel len

istic, Law-liberal, wing in the early Church.u

A combination of all the

others is possible. The last two seem to me to be the most plausible.

Paul's eschatological scheme of "to the Jews first and also to the Greeks"

(Rom. 1:16; see 2:9, and the discussion in Romans 9-11), and the lan

guage which he adopts in Rom. 15:15-16 support No. v. And No. iv

agrees with the experience which Paul calls on the Galatians to remem

ber (Gal. 3:2-5). This is a point to which Paul often returns as being

the seal of the authent icity of his apostleship (1 Co r. 2:4-5; 12:4-13;

2 Cor. 12:12; Rom. 15:18-19).^

Paul claims that his second visit to Jer usa lem was "in response to

a revelation." The point is that he went there to receive the endorse

ment of his apostolic authority and practice from the leaders in Jerusalem

l iSee Isa 2 2-4 = Mie 4 1-4. Isa 25 6-8, 56 3-7, Zech 8 20-23, Sib 3 616,

715-23, 772-76, Pss Sol 17 31-41, l o b 13 11, 145-7 Sandeis, Paulandthe Law, 18-19, Frednksen, "Judaism," 544-46

1Frednksen, "Judaism,

1' 546-4-8

nFrednksen, "Judaism," 552-54, 558-59

1(Sanders, Paul and the Law, 19, Frednksen, 'Judaism," 559-64R Bultmann Tiieolosie des Neuen Testaments (Tubingen Mohr, 5 Auflage 1965) 1

66-186, M Hengel, "Zwischen Jesus und Paulus, 72 (1975) 151-206, "Die Ursprngeder christlichen Mission," NTS 18 (1971/72) 15-38, "Der vorchristliche Paulus," in

M Hengel und U Heckel (eds ), Paulus und das antike Judentum (WUNT 58, Tubingen

Mohr, 1991) 265-291 Raisanen refuted HengePs arguments and yet postulated a distinct "Hellenistic I neology" which allegorized itself out of observing the Law (Torah,

6 i i h ill h h i hi i h h i f


17/25

230 FABIAN E. UDOH

(Gal. 2:2). In Jer usa lem some Christians de ma nd ed that Titus, w ho

accompanied Paul, be circumcised (Gal. 2:3-4). This is our first evi

dence for dissenting voices. They seem to be localized in Jerusalem.' q

Paul's terse insistence that he and his follow workers "did not submit

to them [these 'false brethren'] even for a moment" (Gal. 2:5) shows

that, however extensive was the rift in the opinio n in Je ru sa le m abou t

the rules of Gentile inclusion, the demand for the circumcision of

Gentile Christians did not prevail.

Peter, Ja me s an d J o h n supported the position ado pte d de facto by

Paul, Barnabas and the others involved in the Gentile mission (Gal.

2:6-10). This support, crucial for the Christian Gentile mission, has

several implications not always recognized by the scholars wrho have

discussed the topic of the origin of Paul's particular views on the Law:

i) The Ch ur ch in Jud ae a, at least those wh om Paul recogniz ed as

its leaders, acce pte d a Torah-free mission to the Gentiles, insofar as

Gentile observance was concerned (Gal. 2:6-9).

ii) Th ey affirmed the implications of the com mo n Chr isti an preach

ing: Salvation is by faith in Je sus Christ . Gentiles, therefore, had no

other entry requi rem ent , definitely not assuming Jewish covenant -iden

tity through circumcision. Paul will evoke this common ground when

he protests in Gal. 2:16 against Peter's conduct: "yet we know that a

per son is ma de righteous () not by works of the Law but

through faith in Jes us Chr ist ."

iii) This support did not, however, silence all dissent. Some within

the Christian movement were again to insist that Jewish identity b e

adopted by Gentile Christians.

It was precisely this insistence which provoked Paul's rage in Galatians

and in Phil. 3:2-11. The formulation of Paul's Gospel in terms of the

antitheses "circumcision" vs. "faith in Christ," "the Law" vs. "faith in

Christ" is first of all to be explained by Paul's attempt to refute the

bases of this insistence; they belong to this historical context.0 0

The decision and support for Gentile inclusion without the require

ment of Gent ile obse rvan ce said not hi ng of the status of the Law for

1Paul does not complete the sentence in Gal 2 4, and it is not clear if he eneoun-


18/25


Jewish Christians. They were assumed to remain observant. Paul's

account of the meetin g in Je ru sa le m m akes it look as if the world was

divided into two hermetica lly sealed parts: Pet er, Jam es an d J o h n were

to go to the Je ws while Pau l and B ar naba s we nt to the Genti les (Gal.

2:7-9). The problems that were bound to arise in mixed Jewish/Gentile

communities were left unresolved.

3. Gal. 2:11-21: Jews, Faith in Jesus and the Law

This brings us to the issues that arose from Peter's visit to Antioch

(Gal. 2:11-21). I am assuming that Peter's visit took place after the

Jerusalem meeting. Paul charges that Peter first used to eat with the

Gentiles. Whe n emissaries arrived from Ja me s, however, he with drew

for fear of "thos e of the circu mcis ion. " T h e oth er Jew ish me mb er s of

the community, and even Barnabas, separated themselves as well. Paul

challenged Peter, accused him of being a hypocrite, that is, of not

being stra ightforward about the truth of the Go spel.

It is impossible to reconstr uct wh at exactly Jam es objected to in

Peter's conduct. Were Peter and the othe r Jew s eating Ge nt il e pr o

hibitedfood, or was Ja me s merely c once rned tha t Peter was having

too much social contact with Gentiles?() l

Esler's thesis that in the first

century GE Ju da is m h ad a n inhe rent " b a n " on Jewish-Ge ntile table-

fellowship is ingenious and extreme.b i

The evidence he cites does not

prove what he conte nds . T h e sources are pr eoc cu pied with Je ws eat

ing Gentile food.()' Th e two issues must not be confused. Je wi sh dietary

laws neither precluded commensality nor rendered it de facto impossi

ble. The sheer volume of contact s between Jews, especially the aris

tocracy, and Gentiles in the Gre co -R om an world makes it impossible

to mainta in tha t Je ws did not eat with Gent iles .0 4

The sources show

that every form of subterfuge must have bee n found to enable Jew s

to avoid eating foods they considered prohibited. Gentile hosts would

" So Sandeis, "Jewish Association with Gentiles and Galatians 2 11-14," inR Fortna and Gaventa (eds ), The Conversation Continues (Nashville Abingdon, 1990)185-87

12 1 Esler, Community andGospel in Luke Acts (SNTSMS 57, Cambridge Cambridge

Univeisity, 1987) 71-86, see also Dunn, "Incident," 12 Fordiscussions ofEsler's view,


19/25

232 FABIAN E. UDOH

have ma de concessions And the less scrupulous among the Jews prob

ably made concessions as well.

Especially if food was directly the issue at Antioch, it would me an

that the Christ ians there had ceased to pay att ent ion to Jewish sus

ceptibilities an d ha d rem ove d such barriers as they ju dged to impede

th e full acceptance of Gentiles, as Gentiles, into the messianic com

munity() )

Gentile Christ ian communit ies in Antioch a nd elsewhere

ceased to pay att ent ion to (some) Jew ish dietary laws from the time

of their foundation.0'' This can be inferred from the Corinthians' response

to Paul's Gospel, ("all things are lawful"), and from

Paul's attempt to establish some standards there with respect to food

connected with idol worship (1 Cor. 8-11:1).

Whatever the direct issue in Gal. 2:11-21 was, we see here one of

the react ions by Jewish Chri stians as they adjust to what was accepted

m prin cipl e. If Gentiles did not nee d to observe the Law, Je wis h

Christians had to deal with the problem of commensality in situations

where Jews and Gentiles ate together. The problem is no longer that

of the acceptance of Gentiles into the Christian community but that

of Jewish observance of dietary laws.07

We learn from Paul's corre

spon dence that unity and table-fellowship were of pr ima ry imp ort anc e

to him (esp. 1 Cor. 11:17-34, a nd Rom. 14:1-15:13 discussed below).

He suggests to his Corinthian converts that whether they eat or drink

they should "give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church

of God" (1 Cor. 10:31-33). This advice is impracticable. Christians

could not be both Jews and Gentiles simultaneously. IfJews and Gentiles

were to "break bread" toget her at the Lord' s supper, one of the par ties

' Sanders observed that "how much was too much would be judged differently

b\ diffeient people and groups, and it would also vary with the circumstances" ("Jewish

association," 186) I he problem is to know how much was considered by James and

the other Jews to be too much Dunn argued that the Christians had abandoned only

Phansaic halakhoth on iitual purity and tithing ("Incident," 25-32) He is wrong on both

accounts Diaspora Jews gave no tithes and could not have been expected to be

pure and neither was expected of Gentiles For discussions of Dunn's theory see

J Houlden,A Response to James D G Dunn," JSNT 18 (1983) 58-67, Hill, Hellenists,

133-37, and especially Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London

SCM, 1990) 258-308, "Jewish Association," 170-85 Dunn's later evaluation of the


20/25

PAUL AND THE LAW! QUESTIONS ABOUT ORIG IN 2 3 3

would have needed to give up something. And if the principle that

Gentile Christians were not to be observant was to be upheld, then

Jewish Christians would have needed to give up their observance at

least of some aspects of dietary laws. They would have had in the

long run (to use Paul's phrase in Gal. 2:17) to "be found to be sinners." 08

When Peter pulled back from table-fellowship with the Gentiles, he

was consistent with one implication of what he endorsed in Jerusalem:

Jews should remain observant (Gal. 1:7-9). But Paul's logic in oppos

ing him was also impecc able: Peter's refusal of table-fellowship me an t

that, inconsistent with the Je rus al em agr eement , Gentiles could not in

fact be accepted into the messianic community without being required

to observe the Law. ,, q Peter was for this reason building up once again

the barriers that had been torn down (Gal. 2:18). But Paul's charge

that Peter was "compelling the Gentiles to live like Je ws " (Gal. 2:14)

is an exaggeration/0 which, however, makes an important point: if

Jews decided not to live like Gentiles, the impasse to which the ques

tion of table-fellowship brought early Christianity could not have been

overcome unless Gentiles ac comm odat ed a min im um of Jewish dietary

laws. In Antioch Paul rejected this accommodation and this rejection

points to the fact that, in a mixed community, Paul would expect

Jewish Christians not to observe dietary laws.71

We do not know what the outco me of the confrontation betw een

Peter and Paul was. It is plausible that Pete r relented an d re tu rne d

to eating with the Gentiles and that James saw the complexity of the

situation and sent word to Peter asking him to ignore his earlier con

cerns. Paul later appea led to the meetin g in Je rus al em and , most im

portantly, faithfully continued to collect the money which he himself

carried to the Ch ur ch in Je rusa le m, in spite of his misgivings about

his visit to the city (Gal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Co r. 9:1-15; Rom.

15:25-33). Paul 's cont inued faithfulness to the Ch ur ch in Judaea argues

against the view that this incident marked the break between Paul and

I

18 Sanders is coneet that Paul's statement in Gal 2 14 that Peter at Antioch was

"living like a Gentile" is an exaggeiation ("Jewish Association," 186-87) Paul's rhetor

ical question in Gal 2 17 anses out of his later experience and the polemic in Galatia


21/25

234 FABIAN L. UDOH

the Ch ur ch in J ud ae a (and Antioch), an d the origin of his negative

views on the Law.^

One thing is certain, however: the problem of commensality in a

mixed community did not go away. And it is correct to maintain, as

Sanders does, that, whe n Jewish and Gr eek ethnic particularities c ame

into conflict, Paul expected the Jews to give up those factors which

sep ara ted th em from Greeks, except in matte rs of, especially sexual,

ethics ' and, of course, explicit idolatry.

Paul came bac k in R o m 14:1-15:13 to the quest ion of table-fellow

ship. His audience in Ro me is a mixed Jew ish /Gen til e com mun ity7 4

where there were conflicts bec ause Jews an d Gentiles were "passing

judgement1 5

on each other and would not "welcome," that is, share

meals with one othe r becaus e of Jew ish dietary laws.70

Here Paul is

conciliatory, circumspect and euphemistic. "I know and am persuaded

in the Lord Jes us, " he writes, " th at noth in g is unc lean in itself; but it

is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean" (Rom. 14:14). "Some,"

he urges, "believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetable.

Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who

abstain must not pass judgement on those who eat; for God has wel

com ed t he m" (Ro m. 14:3, see w . 3-13). For a mo me nt it would ap pe ar

that Paul is leaving it to the conscience of the individual to make the

right ju dg eme nt , to observe or not to observe dietary laws.7( )

But he

finishes by telling the "s tr on g" (that is, those who would not keep the

dietary laws)' "Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for any one

to make others fall by what he eats; it is right not to eat meat or drink

See Dunn, "Incident," 36-41, Galatians, 130-50, Watson, Paul, 174-76 In Hill's viewthe Apostolie Decree ofActs 15 represents the final resolution of the issue (Hellenists, 142)

5Sandeis, Paulandthe Lau, 178 and 30

' The topic o the composition of the Christian community in Rome has generated considerable debate and literature For represeiitatrve samples of the sides in the

debate, see Donfried (ed), Tie Roman Debate (Peabody, Mass Hendrickson, 1991[1977]) also Donfried and Richardson, (eds ), Judaism andChristianity in FirstCen tuj) Rome (Giand Rapids Eerdmans, 1998) I am persuaded by the position, argued

again by fit/myer, that the community in Rome had both Jews and Gentiles SeeJ A htzmver Romans (AB 33, New York Doubleday 1993) 25-39 and the literaturecited there


22/25


wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble" (Rom. 14:20-21,

my emphasis). Put simply, the Gent ile Christ ians , and probably the

"strong" Jewish Chris tians, in Ro me should observe food laws.77

Contradiction? Correct. But there seems to be a purpose to his mad

ness. The common factor between Paul's reaction at Antioch and his

paraenesis in Rom . 14:1-15:13 is the preservat ion of unity and com-

mensality. What is astonishing is that in Romans Paul is not trying to

resolve the conflict, as he did at Antioch and possibly elsewhere, by

urging Jews to give up thei r ethnic particular ity. W hat has cha nged?

The first difference is circumstantial. In Romans Paul is self-con

sciously writing to a community he did not found (Rom. 15:14-21).7H

In Galatians, other Christian preachers had entered what he consid

ered his territory and had insisted against the general consent, espe

cially of the leaders of the Churchthat Paul's work was in vain. The

second change regards the source of the conflict. The rift in Antioch

was provoked by the Jewish me mber s of the communi ty. Th e conflict

in Rome was caused by the "s trong" Ge nti le (see Ro m. 1:13-15)

Christians who would not accommodate their "weak"Jewishbrethren.

Therefore, whereas in Ant ioch Paul was trying to bri ng the Je ws back

to the table, in Rome it was the "strong" who needed to give up their

claim and accept their brethren.7< ) Thirdly, Paul's perception of the

issues has changed radically. In Romans the problem of table-fellow

ship is clearly in \iew and the Law, that is, the implications of obser

vance for Gentile inclusion, has receded out of sight. Paul is thus able

to maintain tha t observance and non-observa nce are matter s of in

difference so long as they are not a stumbling block to others and

to the unity of the community. On the contrary, his exaggerated state

ment in Gal. 2:14 shows that Paul interprets the Antioch incident in

light of the crisis in Galatia."0 As it appears in Galatians, Paul's objec

tion to Peter's conduct was not only the defense of unity and table-

77 So alsb, Tatum, "Sequence," 50-57! W Meeks makes the same ohsei\ation It is, however, difficult to see how, in

view of Galatians, Paul could have ur^ed the position in Rom 14 20-21 "out of his

experience," as Meeks contends ("Judgment o the Brother Romans 14 1-15 13," in

G F Hawthoine an d O Be t/ [eds ], Tiadition and Interpretation in the New Testament


23/25

236 FABIAN E UDO H

fellowship, but, as I have argued, the refusal of the imposition of obser

vance, as a condition for inclusion, on Gentiles

This third reason is crucial for understanding the historical context

of Paul's part icular views on the Law It also brings us back to Galatians

Paul was ready to allow and even urge the observance of the Law,

including dietary laws, when right behaviour, unity and table-fellow

ship wer e in question In so doing, he does not see himself as "com

pelling Gentiles to live like Je ws " This means that it is not true tha t

the Law is antithetically opposed to faith in Christ, and that anyone

who observes it has fallen away from grace and is cut off from Chris t

But Paul was prepared to say this when his rivals proposed that his

Gentile converts be circumcised and obey the Law as a condition of

their inclusion

It is entirely possible that Paul was always ready to respond in these

terms whenever and wherever he thought one was compelling Gentile

Christians to live like Je ws In ac tual fact we have direct evidence for

only one concrete historical situation in which he did so Galati ans

Apart from the "false br et hr en " in Jer usa lem , over wh om Paul and

the acknowledged leaders of the Christian movement prevailed, there

is no evidence that the demand for Gentile observance was a prob

lem before the Galatian crisis

3 Summar) and Conclusion

On a general level, as Sanders demonstrated, the "source" of Paul's

negative views on the Law is the common Christian faith that, for

Jews as well as for Gentiles, salvation could be attained only by entry

into the messianic move ment t hro ugh faith in Christ Jes us As far as

we know, among those who shared this faith, Paul was alone to assign

absolute, negative roles to the Law I have argued tha t the overall his

torical context for his extreme views was the debate over the rules for

the inclusion of Gentiles and, more precisely, the insistence by some

that Gentiles accept Jewi sh covenant -identity

There are in the extant sources three historical moments when this

debate and subsequent conflicts could have reached a critical point

1) Paul's second visit to Je rusa le m 2) Peter 's visit to Antioch 3) the


24/25

PAUL AND LAW QUESTIONS ABOUT ORIGIN 2 3 7

of Gentile observance Moreov er, the outcome of tha t incident is un

certain I have suggested that Paul's conti nue d fidelity to the Ch urc h

m Judaea points to the conclusion that, whether or not Peter returned

to eating with the Gentiles, the disagreement did not mark the turn

ing point in Paul's \ lew of the relationship between the Law and faith

in Christ

I propose, therefore, tha t the historica l origin of Paul 's negative

views on the Law was the crisis in Gala tia The antitheses "circumci

sion" vs "faith in Christ ," "th e La w" vs "faith in Chri st " an d the

subsequent negative roles which he assigns to the Law in the history

of salvation were initially par t of his response to this crisis After the

Galatian crisis and the language that he adopted in responding to it,

Paul saw the nee d to acc oun t for two pro blems a) the equality which

his faith established between Jews and Gentiles with respect to salva

tion, b) Jewish (Christian) transgression Paul, in short , still needed to

find a role for God' s election and covena nt with Israel This quest ion

surfaces briefly in Gal 3 19-4 7 Paul wrestled with it in detail in the

letter to the Romans


25/25

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	31songofjoy
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Pauls View of the Law

Documents