Sat 11 Mar 2006
Paul, the Galatians, and circumcision (NT 1.6)
Posted by Phil Harland. Categories: Paul of Tarsus , New Testament course seriesThis week we’ve been talking about Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the issue of circumcision (= “works of law” in Paul’s letter) as a symbol of belonging in the people of God. Paul was addressing a situation where other leaders of the Jesus movement had come to Galatia and were requiring, naturally, that Gentiles be circumcized and follow the Torah in order to belong to a Jewish movement. It seems that Paul (a trained Pharisee) is somewhat of an oddball (so to speak) within second temple Judaism and the early Jesus movement, not in his notion of including Gentiles but rather in his not requiring that such Gentiles be circumcized in order to express their belonging within this Jewish Jesus movement.
Paul presents a somewhat complicated argument (in Galatians 3) using the sequence of Abraham’s (Abram’s) relations with Yahweh in order to show that the primary covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15) was established before the introduction of circumcision (Genesis 17), and that uncircumcized Gentiles can become “sons of Abraham” by doing what the uncircumcized Abraham did in Genesis 15: believing that what God says he will do will indeed happen (in Abraham’s case the promise was for innumerable heirs or offspring despite his childlessness to that point). Circumcision was not required of a Gentile in order to be a son of Abraham, argues Paul, since Abraham’s circumcision was only subsequent to the primary promise and covenant. The methods of biblical interpretation that Paul employs are very much Jewish midrash, but the conclusions he comes to regarding Abraham and the covenant are very different than what most other Jews engaging in midrash of Genesis would have concluded (Jews who would more likely focus more attention on Genesis 17, the circumcision of Abraham).
Coincidentally Mark Goodacre has a post today that addresses some related issues and also points to an online article by Paula Fredriksen that is definitely worth a read: “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1991): 532-64. The views expressed in that article, particularly the notion that Paul’s position (Gentiles not required to be circumcized in order fully to join the group) is the normative one in the Jesus movement generally, differ from my own expressed above, however.
Email Phil
Subscribe to this blog
Subscribe to my podcast
Blog visitors since 2005:
March 12th, 2006 at 7:37 am
It seems that Paul… is somewhat of an oddball (so to speak) within second temple Judaism and the early Jesus movement, not in his notion of including Gentiles but rather in his not requiring that such Gentiles be circumcized in order to express their belonging within this Jewish Jesus movement.
But if Fredriksen is right (and I think she is), then Paul isn’t the oddball; he’s just sticking to original practice in the Christian movement.
March 12th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Yes, if Fredriksen is right on that point. I do not think that Paul’s view (on this or on a number of other things) is normative for most of the earliest Jesus movements. My reference to the article does not suggest agreement, though I suppose I should have taken more time (if I had it) to spell that out in full and to engage in a critique of aspects of that article. Still, I think it is “worth a read” despite my disagreements with it. Phil
March 25th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Read the book “James, the brother of Jesus”. Paul was at direct odds with the leaders of early Christanity. The fact that he never “physically met Jesus”, and that he only interacted with the Christ Jesus on a supernatural level, leads me to believe that he created a version of Christianity that was completely hellenized and he was at odds with the Jerusulam leadership
October 27th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
[…] We lack any sign of reconciliation between Paul and the followers of Jesus in Galatia, however (as discussed, in part, by Mark Goodacre). In a previous post on Paul, the Galatians, and circumcision (NT 1.6) I have discussed these rocky relations with the Galatians as well as the other teachers who Paul views as opponents to his own “good message”. If the absence of any mention of donations for the poor at Jerusalem in Paul’s latest letter — that to the Romans in the mid-late 50s CE — is any indication then it seems that the Galatians continued to follow leaders of the Jesus movement other than Paul. Not only has Paul seemingly lost the support of the Galatians by this time (they are not mentioned as contributors to the collection), but he is even worried that the leadership at Jerusalem itself may not accept the financial gift from the Achaians (Corinth and Cenchreae are in this region) and the Macedonians (Thessalonica and Philippi) which he had hoped would lessen tensions between Paul with his Gentile mission and the groups of Jewish followers of Jesus at Jerusalem. For in Romans, Paul states: “At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem with aid for the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem; they were pleased to do it, and indeed they are in debt to them, for if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings. When therefore I have completed this, and have delivered to them what has been raised, I shall go on by way of you to Spain; and I know that when I come to you I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of Christ. I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints, so that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company” (Romans 15:25-32 [RSV]). […]