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.

I have decided to choose Gal 5:16-26 for my 5-6 page exegetical assignment in Paul and the Law because at first glance I really have no idea where it will fit into the whole OPP/NPP debate. I thought it would be best to do my own translation to get me going, so this is my first attempt at a mostly literal translation (and I’m not focusing too much on the individual words in the lists under “works of the flesh” and “fruit of the spirit” right now). I may try a more smooth one later. The Greek text is from the NA27. You can read little notes to myself if you hover over the dotted lined words.

Galatians 5
16 Λέγω δέ, πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς οὐ μὴ τελέσητε.

But I say, walk by the spirit and you shall never gratify the craving of the flesh!

17 ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκός,

For the flesh craves against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,

ταῦτα γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται, ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε.

for these are in opposition to one another, lest those things that you might desire, these things you actually do.

18 εἰ δὲ πνεύματι ἄγεσθε, οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον.

But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law.

19 φανερὰ δέ ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, ἅτινά ἐστιν πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια,

The works of the flesh are obvious, they are: fornication, impurity, self-abandonment,

20 εἰδωλολατρία, φαρμακεία, ἔχθραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις,

idolatry, sorcery, hatred, discord, envy, rage, selfish ambition, disunity, factions,

21 φθόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις,

jealousy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these,

ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν, καθὼς προεῖπον ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν.

[of] which I am warning you, as I said before, that those who do such things will not [inherit? obtain? acquire?] the kingdom of God.

22 ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἀγάπη χαρὰ εἰρήνη, μακροθυμία χρηστότης ἀγαθωσύνη, πίστις

But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, generosity, compassion, fidelity,

23 πραΰτης ἐγκράτεια· κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος.

gentleness, self-control; against these things there is no law.

24 οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ [Ἰησοῦ] τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις.

But those [who are] of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh along with [its] desires and cravings.

25 Εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν.

If we live by the spirit, let us also conform to the spirit.

26 μὴ γινώμεθα κενόδοξοι, ἀλλήλους προκαλούμενοι, ἀλλήλοις φθονοῦντες.

Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Initial Observations and Questions

• What most impressed me in translating this passage was just how much the passage concerns itself with how to handle interpersonal conflict. In the past, I never thought much about the list of words under “works of the flesh” and “fruit of the spirit.” Instead, they were just a bunch of bad words and good words, respectively. But the majority of both lists have something to do with how one interacts with and respects other persons (as opposed to the ones about sexual morality, etc.). Verse 26 comes back to that theme. It seems like this emphasis fits into the more sociological perspective of the NPP. But I know that the OPP wouldn’t deny the need for these things.
• What is Paul saying here? Is he saying that following the law is akin to the “works of the flesh”? Is he saying that if you follow the law, then you inadvertently fall into the “works of the flesh”? Is focusing on following the law placing your focus on what you do, rather than living by the spirit?
  <
  /li>
• Just prior to this passage, Paul says that the “whole law” is summed up in the single commandment: love your neighbor as yourself. But they should take care not to bite and devour one another. He’s referring to conflict. Who is the conflict between? Is it between those who would follow the “Judaizers” (the circumcision crowd) and those who would follow Paul (the uncircumcision crowd)? That’s what is suggested by 5:6 and 6:15, circumcision and uncircumcision don’t mean anything, but “faith working through love” and a “new creation.” These lists seem to be giving some practical reflection on what those phrases mean.
• If we look at if from a NPP angle, Paul is criticizing the schism between the two factions and preaching a new way of being, a way of including one another and serving one another. If we look at it from an OPP angle, Paul is saying that living by the spirit is so much better than living under the law.
• I’m definitely going to have to take a closer look into verse 21, but verses 18 and 23 will need some sustained reflection as well. At first glance it would seem to me that “under” the law (v. 18) is referring back to the law being the παιδαγωγὸς (3:24-25), but I will have to think through the implications of that.

That’s all for my initial thoughts. Now, I’m going to dive into some more lexicons, the relevant commentaries, and look for appropriate articles. Feel free to critique, correct, or question anything thing I have here. Also, if anyone has thoughts about how to make the Greek font look nicer, please let me know.

There is a criticism of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) that has come up in our Paul and the Law class several times (first initiated by Dr. Hagner himself) which I find both troublesome and intriguing. It goes like this: in its attempts to absolve 1st century Judaism of a legalistic image, the NPP has instead accused Paul’s Jewish opponents of being racist.

Where does this come from? You see, the NPP understands Judaism in terms of “covenantal nomism” instead of legalism, that is, the Jews had a devotion to the law as part of their covenant with YHWH but they did not believe one must obey it to perfection in order to be “saved.” So what was Paul talking about in the “negative texts” about the law in Galatians and Romans? According to the NPP, Paul is vehemently opposed to certain “works of the law” (like circumcision) which function as “boundary markers” to the Jewish “in-crowd,” so to speak. In other words, the form of Judaism that Paul opposes is one that is exclusively “nationalistic,” in which one must perform these works to be initiated into this “nation.” Thus, the Jews of Paul’s time were not legalistic, but close-minded and nationalistic. In our class, Hagner used the word “racist” as a pedagogical tool to make it “easier to understand.”

What it does, I think, is make the antagonistic bias against the NPP “easier to understand,” not the NPP itself. There are a number of questions that make this “racism” language problematic. First, it obviously has a loaded, negative connotation in the context of US social and political history. What we think of first is the enslavement and oppression of Africans and their decedents. We think of the struggle for civil rights. We think of all our “melting pot” conflicts between Caucasian, Black/African-American, Latino/a, Asian, etc. persons (such as gang violence between Black gangs and Latino gangs). The term feels violent and bordering on vulgar. When Hagner characterizes the NPP view of Paul as calling Judaism “racist,” he is putting a very negative slant on the NPP view.

Secondly, even if we try to be objective about the term “racism,” extracting its historical baggage, does it even work descriptively? I’m no sociologist, but I’m not sure we can say that we’re talking about a hatred or antagonism against other “races.” To get some help here with definitions, I looked to some basic references. The Encyclopedia Britannica Online suggests that to use the term may even be anachronistic, Race is:

the idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences. Genetic studies in the late 20th century denied the existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that “races” are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century.

Furthermore, it may be defined generally more by physical characteristics:

In the United States, for example, the term race generally refers to a group of people who have in common some visible physical traits, such as skin colour, hair texture, facial features, and eye formation. Such distinctive features are associated with large, geographically separated populations, and these continental aggregates are also designated as races, as the “African race,” the “European race,” and the “Asian race.”

The Britannica article on race does go on to say that there are some secondary uses of the term, but most scholarship of the term has focused on uses regarding “biophysical characteristics.” Britannica’s entry for “racism” builds on this understanding of “race”:

any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races,” that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some races are innately superior to others.

Perhaps one could make a case for racism existing in early Judaism, though I imagine that similar ideologies of superiority would be found in almost any group of the time period that we know of. But the question is whether this is what the NPP is arguing that Paul was saying about his opponents. I think not. It seems that they are saying that Paul is reacting against a type of Judaism which is extremely dedicated to a particular understanding of their covenant with YHWH. In this understanding, performing these “boundary marker” works of the law were necessary for inclusion in their dedicated and covenantal group. Paul says that those “boundary marker” works are not necessary for inclusion, only faith in Christ. It may be exclusivism, but it’s not racism.

I have two final comments. First, I do want to acknowledge that it is worth questioning how much ground is gained in Jewish-Christian relations if we stop accusing Judaism of one fault, but assign it another. Even if we don’t call that fault the harsh “racism” term, it’s still not very friendly. Along with that, implied in this critique is a good question: should Jewish-Christian relations even be a determining factor in our exegesis? Secondly, however, the use of this comment in our class is just one part of an overall antagonistic atmosphere opposed to the NPP. Snide and snarky jabs are made at the NPP authors every week from all over the classroom. Perhaps it is all in good fun, but the negativity grates on my conscience. I feel we should approach these issues with more openness and humility. I don’t care if the scholars we’re reading don’t seem humble in their writings; I don’t think we should stoop to polemical and pejorative language. It may be fun, but it doesn’t seem right.

Thanks for reading through my venting!

I am taking two courses this Winter that have so far had some interesting parallels, especially in regard to legalism. My “Paul and the Law” class is taught by Don Hagner, along with some very capable doctoral students giving presentations. It is an introduction for me into the New Perspective debate on Paul (I will refer to the New Perspective as the NPP and the Old Perspective as the OPP–Not to be confused with: “You down with OPP? Yeah, you know me”). I’ve had a vague sort of concept of it, but now I’m starting to learn some of the basics. The NPP is trying to say that the OPP is colored by a “Lutheran” understanding of Paul. That is, the OPP is allegedly reading too much of a Reformation-like “justification by faith” emphasis into Paul. Therefore, the OPP (typically consisting of more conservative Protestants) is projecting their negative attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church (at least as it was in the 16th Century) into their understanding of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism.

The NPP authors, as I understand, consist of something of a not well-defined historical trajectory including W. D. Davies to Krister Stendahl to E. P. Sanders to N. T. Wright to James Dunn. This group would instead argue that the primary issue in the Pauline corpus, particularly Galatians and Romans, is a reaction against a “national righteousness” consciousness or simply a “national pride” that hindered them from accepting Gentiles into their fold. Paul’s arguments on “justification by faith,” therefore, should be understood as part of the Jewish-Gentile debate and not the central core of his theology (if that can even be found!).

The OPP seeks to prove that Judaism was legalistic in the time of the NT. That way we can say that Paul was reacting against that legalism and not just a closed-minded “national identity.” Both sides use rabbinic literature to make their case, but it is notoriously difficult to determine what from rabbinic literature (Mishnah, Talmuds, Midrashim, etc.) backdates into the first century. If the rabbinic documents do lean on the legalistic side, maybe Judaism was reacting against a perceived libertarianism in Christianity. It is hard to know.

If so, it would be similar to the reaction of the early church towards the Docetic and Gnostic threats in the second century. In my class on “Early Church History,” taught by James Bradley, we are learning that though elements of “grace” can be found in the Apostolic Fathers, we see a distinct move towards legalism. Bradley suggests that this is a reaction to the perceived libertarianism in Gnosticism. If the NT documents are a reaction against legalism, can the established, orthodox church really be considered 100% orthodox when it has gone too far towards legalism? Then again, one of the complications here is that the early church does not have an established NT canon. So it is somewhat anachronistic to judge the early church against the standards of the NT documents as we understand them today.

Isn’t ironic that if the NT does indeed emphasize grace over a “covenantal nomism” that the church itself was drawn towards legalism not too long into its beginnings? The Reformation “Lutherans” no doubt saw themselves as recovering the biblical vision of grace after a much longer period of legalistic leanings had taken place. To me, though, it seems so much more messy than an either-or dichotomy. Looking at Paul (let alone the entire NT canon), even Galatians itself, we can see a concern for both grace and ethics. I wonder if it could be both the OPP and the NPP. It seems rather presumptuous for us to proclaim that there was only one characteristic of Second Temple Judaism that a Christian Jew (or Jewish Christian, as Hagner would say) like Paul is reacting against, and that we know what it is for sure.

I know that the major concern for OPP people is that it leads to a dual path for salvation for Jews and for Christians. Hagner is adamant that there is only one way. I think that starting with that theological presumption taints our reading of the material. It only proves the point for me that OPP followers are reading the NT with Luther & Augustine colored glasses. I think theology should come after our exegesis of the texts.

It should be interesting for me to think through the issue from the perspective of Anabaptism after a close reading of the relevant texts. Anabaptism has some history with legalism and my own predisposition, I think, would be for the NPP. After a brief search for articles relating directly to an Anabaptist perspective on the NPP, not much turned up. I did discover that John Toews’ commentary on Romans shares the NPP and two articles that rely on the NPP from an Anabaptist perspective can be found here and here. But I have to try not to make prejudgments here. If I do end up on the side of the NPP, I don’t want to get there uncritically.

By the way, for more on the New Perspective, check out The Paul Page.