Upload
31songofjoy
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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 ),
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
{
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
6/25
PAUL AND THE LAW! QUESTIONS ABOUT ORIGIN 2 1 9
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 "
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
8/25
PAUL AND THE LAW! QUESTIONS ABOUT ORIGIN 2 2 1
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
14/25
PAUL AND THE LAW! QUESTIONS ABOUT ORIGIN 2 2 7
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
16/25
PAUL AND THE LAW! QUESTIONS ABOUT ORIGIN 2 2 9
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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-
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
18/25
PAUL AND THE LAW! QUESTIONS ABOUT ORIGIN 2 3 1
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,
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
22/25
PAUL AND THE LAW! QUESTIONS ABOUT ORIGIN 2 3 5
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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
7/31/2019 Pauls View of the Law
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.