What does “works of the flesh” have to do with being “under the law”? That’s the question with which I’m presently wrestling. I don’t have my answer worked out yet (and I’m not sure I ever will), but here are some quotes that are helping me think about it. Dunn is, of course, from the NPP, and it appears that Russell is as well (see the top of page 182 of his article).
Walter Bo Russell, III, makes some interesting points in his article, “Does the Christian Have ‘Flesh’ in Galatians 5:13-26?” for JETS 36 (1993): 179-187. The first paragraph is from pages 180-1, the rest is from page 187:
Particularly, Paul uses sarx and pneuma in antithesis in his extended discussion of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the Church in Galatians 3-6 and Romans 7-8. In these contexts sarx is in tandem with nomos (”law”) and is associated with the era of Israel under the Mosaic law. This is why Paul connects “flesh” and “law” in passages like Gal 5:17-18; Rom 6:12-14; 8:1-4 in a manner that is disconcerting to many commentators. He is arguing against the Jewish Christians’ advocacy of the proselyte model of Gentile incorporation and against their advocacy of the use of the Mosaic law as the primary means for constraining the Christians’ behavior. Jewish Christians were advocating an anachronistic redemptive historical model, and Paul’s response is appropriately redemptive-historical in its logic. . . .The choice that the Galatians faced was to continue to follow the true gospel that Paul had preached to them and not to desert to a nongospel (1:6-7). Therefore they must reject becoming proselytes to Judaism and being circumcised (5:1-12). Ethically this meant they must “walk according to the rule of the Spirit” and not fulfill the desires connected with those who still live according to the rule of the flesh (5:16). To be “led according to the rule of the Spirit” is not to be “under the law” (5:18). The choice to live in the Judaizers’ “law/flesh community” will manifest itself in the behavior of that community: the deeds of the flesh (5:19-21). Conversely the choice to continue to live in the “Spirit community” will manifest itself in the fruit of the Spirit (5:22-23). This is true because Christians have crucified the sarx—that is, the mode of existence of their body being under sin’s mastery and not indwelt by God’s Spirit ended (5:24). Since they live according to the rule of the Spirit they should also corporately walk according to the rule of the Spirit (5:25).
James Dunn on defining “under the law” in his commentary on Galatians (pp. 301-2):
[On 5:18] For it denoted for [Paul] the space of the nation Israel, the Jewish people under the law as their guardian angel (see on iii.23); reference to legalistic self-righteousness (as Oepke 176), or the condemnation of the law (as Borse 196), is uncalled for and excluded by iv.4 (Barclay, Obeying 116 n. 24). To put oneself thus ‘under the law’ was to look once again for an answer to ‘the desire of the flesh’ in a written code, an outward constraint; whereas in the age of fulfilment introduced by Christ, it was the circumcision of the heart, an effective inner force which was now available. To put onself [sic] ‘under the law’, in other words, was to look in the wrong direction for salvation. Worse still, to assume that only ‘under the law’ could salvation be found was to deny the reality of Gentile as Gentile having received the Spirit. No! The reality of being led by the Spirit, that is, the Spirit of Jesus (iv.6), was independent of being ‘under the law’ and should not therefore be identified with the ethnic Jewish identity which that phrase encapsulated. In short, their experience of the Spirit thus far should be enough to convince them that to take the step of becoming a proselyte (through circumcision) was unnecessary. Implicit here also is a clear distinction between being ‘under the law’ and ‘fulfilling the law’ (v.14); the law is ‘fulfilled’ by those who are led by the Spirit (Thielman 53); not by putting oneself ‘under the law’.
[On 5:19] Paul does not hesitate to press the logic of his argument strongly. By implication, to put oneself ‘under the law’, to become a proselyte, to accept circumcision, is to think and act on the level of the flesh (see on vi.13), on that level of visibility and outwardness which is the very opposite of the inward reality of the Spirit’s work (the contrast to explicit in Rom ii.28-9). And to put oneself on the level of the flesh is to put oneself on the same level as so many of the very things which Jews (and all those of goodwill) hated and despised – the works of the flesh, the outworking of the flesh, those things which express the character of the flesh and its desires; the echo of the earlier repeated phrase, ‘the works of the law’ (ii.16, iii.3, 5, 10) is no doubt intentional. The challenge to the other missionaries is as sharp as it could be, and may well have seemed to them outrageous. Judaism, after all, was more opposed to these things than others were (particularly idolatry and sorcery), and the very thought that desire for circumcision was even on the same plane as them must have seemed ridiculous. But this is precisely Paul’s challenge: to put such weight on the fleshly rite of circumcision and on ethnic identity was actually to pitch the theological principle into the same realm as these things so widely despised; to make circumcision the test-case of eligibility for a share in Abraham’s inheritance was to make the effective working of the Spirit dependent on a work of (done in) the flesh. By linking ‘under the law’ (v.18) with ‘works of the flesh’ (both in antithesis to what the Spirit produces) Paul thus presumably hoped to jolt his readers into a recognition of the level they were thinking on and of what they might lose (see also on v.22).
As far as I can tell, Galatians 5:16-26 does not afford an opportunity to deal with the foundation of the NPP’s views on Paul. Instead it builds on conclusions that have been made based on other passages in Galatians. One of the big questions then is how well these foundational arguments, made elsewhere, fit into this passage. I’m still working on that one.
Update (same day): I added another paragraph to Dunn’s quote. Here I think that Dunn articulates one of my primary concerns about this passage, the thing that makes me dizzy to think about: “Judaism, after all, was more opposed to these things than others were (particularly idolatry and sorcery), and the very thought that desire for circumcision was even on the same plane as them must have seemed ridiculous.” How can Paul accuse them that being “under the law” is somehow associated with these “works of the flesh” when those who follow the law would be disgusted by many of these works? It is a bold and offensive statement (to his adversaries). That is what makes me wrestle with this question.
This is an interesting question. Perhaps I will delve into it some more after I take a nap and finish my presentation for Wednesday!
Might I suggest–granted the class and subject is the New Perspective and Paul–that any serious investigation of the New Perspective can only be seen in light of the life and works of Yeshua?
Paul may have his own arguments and perspective, but these are likely based on Yeshua’s own witness. Did Yeshua have nothing to say or do about flesh and Torah? What did his actions and words mean?
I suggest that if Paul is in any continuity with Yeshua, then once you begin finding the answers to your questions in the gospels (with critical-historical help from other places), it may be easier to understand not only what Paul thinks, but why he came to that conclusion… It is probably more difficult and dangerous to wrestle with Paul first…and it may lead to conclusions that are out of line with the Fount from which they sprung…
While I agree that Jesus is the touchstone for interpreting Scripture, it is important to understand what the text says on its own first.
Thus, to understand this passage we have to understand the flow of chapter 5 and we have to understand the relationship between “under the law” and “deeds of the flesh.”
First, the flow. Verses 1-6 highlight that Christians should not put themselves under the Law. Doing so is of no benefit. In fact, being circumcised in addition to faith in Christ could be regarded as an affront to Christ’s grace. Verse 7-12 turn to those who are tempting the Christians to turn to the law, the Judaizers. Paul finds their program so disgusting that he wishes they would be emasculated.
Then there is a major shift in verse 13 from a discussion of the Law to a discussion of Christian freedom. Not only are Christians not to take up the yoke of slavery which is the Law (1), they are also not to abuse their freedom in Christ by attacking one another (13-15). Instead they are to serve one another and love one another, which happens to fulfill the Law.
This same line of thinking is continues in verse 16ff. Walking by the Spirit is how one keeps from misusing Christian freedom. That one can walk by the Spirit is a sign that one is not under the Law, i.e., under its curse and condemnation. But if a Christian is not walking by the Spirit, and thus misusing their freedom, then this will be manifest in the doing of the deeds of the flesh.
Thus, Dunn’s concern is alleviated. Paul doesn’t have in mind Law-observance which leads to these horrible things, but instead a libertine lifestyle, which is an abuse of Christian freedom, that leads to these actions.
In other words, the deeds of the flesh are a sign of the misuse of Christian freedom. It follows then that the fruit of the Spirit are a sign of the reality of walking in the Spirit. And there is no Law or principle which stands against the fruit of the Spirit. The are exemplary in every respect.
This is simply my rendering of this passage. I am sure that my preconceptions about the NPP have crept into my interpretation, but I think that I am being pretty objective in my understanding of “under the Law” and “deeds of the flesh.” The two are very different and do not share the same referent at all.
I don’t know if that was helpful or cogent…but I tried!
Dave, I will be the first to admit that the Gospels are my prioritized “canon within a canon” (while Hagner’s is Paul, and within that, Romans). But before we deal with things in a broader canonical fashion, I think we need to take each text on its own terms. Anabaptists (myself among them) have a tendency to skimp on Paul and only focus on Jesus. So by doing a close reading of Paul, I’m not neglecting study of Jesus… I’m just trying to be faithful to one text at a time.
And even if we did take a look into the Gospels for material on flesh and the law, it really is quite a different situation. I get the sense that “flesh” means something different in the Gospels than it does in Paul (not that Paul uses it the same way every time). Additionally, from the scholarly perspective, it is an entirely different conundrum to think about what Jesus actually “said.” What we have is what the Jesus was remembered as saying, redacted and placed within a larger framework of what Jesus was remembered as doing. I’m not saying that they Gospels are not reliable. I’m not saying that in the least. Rather, I’m saying that we don’t have writings by Jesus himself by which we can do a direct comparison of Jesus’ and Paul’s thoughts on any given issue. It’s a complicated subject and one I may take up later on the blog. Right now, I’m just trying to understand Paul.
Matt, thanks for your thoughts. I was with you for the most part, but then I lost you when you said, “Thus, Dunn’s concern is alleviated.” Dunn is taking into consideration how these things are meant to be directed towards the problem at hand for Paul, namely that Gentiles were being told to get circumcised in order to join the group. Whether you agree with the whole “ethnic identity” bit (which I do think is a little bit forced at this point in the letter), I think that Dunn’s thoughts are helpful. I don’t think that he’s “concerned,” but simply explaining Paul’s argument (I was “concerned” when reflecting on Paul’s implied accusation).
I don’t think I’m convinced that Paul would want to warn against libertine lifestyle in general, when he has been so passionately arguing about the works of the law and circumcision. If Paul is talking about freedom, what is slavery? What are we free from? It seems like Galatians has two enslavements, one bad and one good (from Paul’s perspective). The bad is enslavement to the law. The good is enslavement to one another. I think he’s not just talking about general unethical behavior, but is responding directly to a situation of conflict. The great majority of the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit relate somehow to community conflict. That conflict is associated with the “works of the law” somehow, and thus enslavement to one another (as part of walking by the Spirit) is one part of the remedy of enslavement to the law. I think he’s responding specifically to the conflict in the Galatian church, not the generic threat of loose morality. As for the “works of the flesh” that are in regards to sexual morality, idolatry, and sorcery, I think (with Dunn) that Paul is grabbing the attention of the ethically minded (both Jews and Gentiles) with a list which would unite their disgust, then associating it with the work of his judaizing opponents and being “under the law.”
The problem with associating “under the Law” with “deeds of the flesh” is that it is highly dubious that Jews (Christian or otherwise) in the NT period would be engaged in the things labeled “deeds of the flesh.” This is what Dunn is highlighting. I am saying that “under the Law” has to do with the curse of the Law, which has been alleviated by the work of the cross. And the deeds of the flesh are signs of libertine lifestyle.** If this is true, then there is no need for anyone to think that Paul was being “ridiculous” (Dunn’s word) here because “under the Law” and “deeds of the flesh” do not have to be seen in tandem.
To put it a different way, it is my contention that Paul is telling the Galatians in 16-25 that there is a middle ground between the slavery of the Law and unbridled freedom which the flesh desires (v 13). That middle ground is found in “walking in the Spirit.”
** — I think the best evidence that “under the law” and “deeds of the flesh” are not interrelated is found in v13 where freedom and flesh are linked. The flesh does not find opportunity in the Law, the flesh finds opportunity in freedom from the Law. Thus the “deeds of the flesh” must have to do with freedom from the Law, i.e., they are not natural out-workings of the Law.
“While I agree that Jesus is the touchstone for interpreting Scripture, it is important to understand what the text says on its own first.”
Is it not possible that in order to rightly understand what a text on its own says, one should first understand the general context which formed and informed it–in Paul’s case, Yeshua? Do you suppose that Paul did not take anything for granted about his new-found following of Yeshua’s way and that he was fully capable of showing–and did indeed show–the lens or perspective through which he understood that way, therefore we can come to a clear understanding of the basis of his thoughts simply by looking at them alone?
“canon within a canon…before we deal with things in a broader canonical fashion, I think we need to take each text on its own terms.”
I don’t quite follow what you mean about a “canon within a canon” or dealing with things in a “canonical” fashion… I don’t believe in a “canon”–that is, I do not believe in an inspired list of correct texts…
“it is an entirely different conundrum to think about what Jesus actually “said.”
Which is why I mentioned doing so through a “critical-historical” investigation, if you’ll recall…
“It’s a complicated subject and one I may take up later on the blog“
I hope you do. I am somewhat perplexed at the response I received… Not so much from yourself as from Matt… But I am still perplexed…
I agree with you that Jesus had a massive impact upon Paul. If it were not for the Damascus road encounter Paul would have continued his abuse of the early followers of Jesus. But when it comes to interpreting his writings it is best to understand them in their own right first. How do we keep such an interpretive endeavor from going into silliness? By making sure that our interpretations are historically sound and that they do not conflict with the teachings of Jesus that we have preserved in the Gospels.
So I am arguing that the first major step of hermeneutics is allowing a text to speak on its own. The second major step is comparing the findings of the first step with what can be known historically about the author, the audience, the social environment, etc and with the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. A third step would be to then apply the findings of the first and second steps to the life of the Church and its mission.
Wow, Dave, we should get together for a chat sometime. I would love to hear about your spiritual journey and how you define your beliefs. I think it’s interesting that you’re (now) a church-going Christian (or maybe you don’t like the term “Christian”?), but don’t accept the traditional Christian canon. I apologize for jumping to conclusions about canonical perspectives earlier. I really would love to hear your perspective on faith and following “Yeshua,” as you say. Are any texts authoritative from your perspective?
You may be interested in the last chapter of Seyoon Kim’s book Paul and the New Perspective, entitled, “The Jesus Tradition in Paul.” Beyond just Paul’s Damascus road conversion/call (which Kim emphasizes), he also sees a junk load of “possible echoes” from the Jesus tradition in Paul’s letters. I think that might be closer to what you’re thinking about if I’m reading you correctly.
Also, have you read April DeConick’s Forbidden Gospels Blog yet? It sounds like that might be up your alley. I don’t agree with everything she says, but I like to read it.
I used to try my best to disassociate myself from the term “Christian”, but I’ve gotten over that issue…
Considering church a good thing–or even being a part of one–has been a big issue for me as well, but I’ve also gotten over that…
Yes, I enjoy April’s blog. Unfortunately, I get drawn into NT studies more often than I’d like… I’m much more interested in OT, ANE, DSS, LXX, Tragumim, and Pseudepigrapha.
If you’d like to get together after church sometime, I would enjoy getting to know you as well. Just look for the guy with blue fingerneails.