Two kinds of flesh/two kinds of righteousness (Exegeting the implicit distinctions of Gal 2:15-16)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Two kinds of flesh/two kinds of righteousness (Exegeting the implicit distinctions of Gal 2:15-16)

Post by gryan »

Gal 2:15-16
We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles, knowing that a person is not justified from out of the works of the law, except by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ; even we (both Paul and Cephas), too, have believed in Christ Jesus in order that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law. Because not all flesh will be made righteous by the works of the law.

Two Kinds of Righteousness under the "faith of Christ" banner: out of, and not out of "works of the law".

“Except” -- describing a (formerly?) legitimate path of combining “works of the law” and “faith of Christ. (“Except” construed as advocated by James Dunn: Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians).

Two kinds of flesh.

“all flesh”, meaning both kinds of flesh mentioned in Ephesians: “Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcision (that done that done in the flesh by human hands).
--See ”"All flesh or no flesh at all? A fresh look at Gal 2:16" https://repository.divinity.edu.au/2846 ... sitory.pdf

Jerome’s interpretation of Gal 2:16 (Commentary on Galatians) correctly IMO assumes such a distinction between two kinds of flesh:

“But the flesh spoken of in the mystery of the resurrection, “All flesh will see God’s salvation,” is justified through faith in Jesus Christ. According to the more common understanding, it used to be that the only flesh redeemable by the Law were those who lived in Palestine. Now, however, all flesh is justified by faith in Jesus Christ, as the churches are being established all over the world.”

Plausible?
Last edited by gryan on Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Two kinds of flesh/two kinds of righteousness (Exegeting the implicit distinctions of Gal 2:15-16)

Post by Irish1975 »

Is this Dunn’s translation?

“The faithfulness of JC” is overtly a “subjective genitive” reading of πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, as though Paul were invoking a faith once held by the man Jesus of Nazareth. But this interpretation has no basis in the theology of Galatians, where the apostle is clearly only interested in the belief εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, the type of Pauline faith by which the one who possesses it is made righteous. The second clause of verse 16 makes this explicit.

I also don’t know what to make of the double negative in the final sentence of this translation:
Because not all flesh will not be made righteous by the works of the law.
ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ

What is wrong with the familiar “ for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” ?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Two kinds of flesh/two kinds of righteousness (Exegeting the implicit distinctions of Gal 2:15-16)

Post by gryan »

@ Irish1975

Thanks for your on point comments.

Dunn, who wrote a book on the theology of Galatians, translated 2:16a "faith in Christ". I'm persuaded that the other side (Hays, Campbell and others) of the "faith of Christ" debate is closer to Paul's meaning. I'm giving Dunn credit for his argument for the meaning of "except" in Gal 2:16 which I find persuasive.

The usual "no flesh" translation of 2:16 is supported by Gal 3:11,

"Clearly no one (οὐδεὶς) who relies on the law is justified before God, because 'the righteous will live by faith.'"

Monaghan, in the linked paper, says that "no one" in 3:11 means no one of you Gentiles. Although I find most of Monaghan's thesis persuasive, I'm only partly, not fully satisfied that that explanation.

I'm pondering.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Two kinds of flesh/two kinds of righteousness (Exegeting the implicit distinctions of Gal 2:15-16)

Post by gryan »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:01 am
I also don’t know what to make of the double negative in the final sentence of this translation:
Because not all flesh will not be made righteous by the works of the law.
That second "not" (which I highlighted and struck out) is an error. I did not intend it. I changed the OP to reflect my intention. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Two kinds of flesh/two kinds of righteousness (Exegeting the implicit distinctions of Gal 2:15-16)

Post by gryan »

gryan wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:56 am Gal 2:15-16
We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles, knowing that a person is not justified from out of the works of the law, except by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ; even we (both Paul and Cephas), too, have believed in Christ Jesus in order that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law. Because not all flesh will be made righteous by the works of the law.
Re: "We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles, knowing that a person is not justified from out of the works of the law, except by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ..." Gal 2:15-16a

This interpretation/translation of Gal 2:15-16a is, as Irish said, "as though Paul were invoking a faith once held by the man Jesus of Nazareth." I agree. I think this understanding of Jesus has a literary echo in GMatt; but I note also how GMatt has a critique of something like Paul's views.

Matt 5:17f
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

------------------

The combination of observing Jewish law and also participating in the "faithfulness of Jesus" was found by Paul to be functional for some "flesh", that is, for Jewish followers of Jesus. However, he did not consider that combination a workable way of life either for Gentile followers of Jesus or for him in his mission to the Gentiles. He did not think they should be compelled become Jewish in order to follow Jesus. In other words, such a combination fell short of the goal of serving "all flesh." That is why Paul says this:

"...even we (both Paul and Cephas), too, have believed in Christ Jesus in order that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law. Because not all flesh will be made righteous by the works of the law."

I think "James, the Lord's brother" was on the side of combining Jewish "works of the Law" with participation in the "faithfulness of Jesus." I think Cephas/Peter saw and understood the validity of Paul's view; and so, he too "used to eat with Gentiles" just like Paul did. Thus, Paul called Cephas a hypocrite for not eating with the Gentile followers of Jesus in Antioch; and for doing so because of fear of "the circumcision" i.e. fear of offending "some from James [the Lord's brother]".

Is this exegesis and contextualization making sense?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Two kinds of flesh/two kinds of righteousness (Exegeting the implicit distinctions of Gal 2:15-16)

Post by gryan »

gryan wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:28 am
gryan wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:56 am Gal 2:15-16
We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles, knowing that a person is not justified from out of the works of the law, except by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ; even we (both Paul and Cephas), too, have believed in Christ Jesus in order that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law. Because not all flesh will be made righteous by the works of the law.
Re: "We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles, knowing that a person is not justified from out of the works of the law, except by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ..." Gal 2:15-16a

This interpretation/translation of Gal 2:15-16a is, as Irish said, "as though Paul were invoking a faith once held by the man Jesus of Nazareth." I agree. I think this understanding of Jesus has a literary echo in GMatt; but I note also how GMatt has a critique of something like Paul's views.

Matt 5:17f
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Re: The "least" in GMatt as a reference to Paul

Meijer wrote:
Ver. 19 stands in so essential a connection with the discourse, that the supposition of Olshausen, that Jesus had in view special acts of an antinomian tendency on the part of some of His disciples, appears just as unnecessary as it is arbitrary. Köstlin and Hilgenfeld find here a very distinct disapproval of the Apostle Paul and of the Paulinites, who break free from the law; nay, Paul, thinks Köstlin, was actually named by Jewish Christians the smallest (Ephesians 3:8), as he so names himself (1 Corinthians 15:9). A purely imaginary combination."
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/5-19.htm

On this point, I agree with Köstlin and Hilgenfeld (whoever they are). I would add that although Apostle Paul and of the Paulinites may be the the object of "distinct disapproval" they are nevertheless included. Perhaps the image of Paul is similarly in view when Matt 25 speaks of "the least of these my brethern" for Paul himself speaks of being "weak" and "naked" and "hungry." My impression is that the people in the community that produced of Matthew's gospel "loved" Paul as one should love even an enemy, and had to reckon with Paul due to his influence, but they may not have liked Paul.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Two kinds of flesh/two kinds of righteousness (Exegeting the implicit distinctions of Gal 2:15-16)

Post by gryan »

Re: The problem of Paul's two kinds of flesh/two kinds of righteousness is echoed in Justin, Dialogue, XXIII

And, furthermore, the inability of the female sex to receive fleshly circumcision,
proves that this circumcision has been given for a sign,
and not for a work of righteousness.
Καὶ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι δὲ τὸ θῆλυ γένος τὴν σαρκικὴν περιτομὴν λαμβάνειν
δείκνυσιν ὅτι εἰς σημεῖον ἡ περιτομὴ αὕτη δέδοται ,
ἀλλ 'οὐχ ὡς ἔργον δικαιοσύνης·

For God has given likewise to women the ability to observe all things which are righteous and virtuous;
τὰ γὰρ δίκαια καὶ ἐνάρετα ἅπαντα ὁμοίως καὶ τὰς θηλείας δύνασθαι φυλάσσειν ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησεν .

but we see that the bodily form of the male has been made different from the bodily form of the female;
Ἀλλὰ σχῆμα μὲν τὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἕτερον καὶ ἕτερον ὁρῶμεν γεγενημένον ἄρρενος καὶ θηλείας

yet we know that neither of them is righteous or unrighteous merely for this cause,
but [is considered righteous] by reason of piety and righteousness.
διὰ δὲ τοῦτο οὐδὲ δίκαιον οὐδὲ ἄδικον οὐδέτερον αὐτῶν ἐπιστάμεθα,
ἀλλὰ δι 'εὐσέβειαν καὶ δικαιοσύνην.

----------------

Justin is dealing with the word ἕτερον in the sense of "a different kind" in connection with male and female "flesh". He is saying that they are outwardly different since male anatomy receives circumcision, but female anatomy does not. But he is saying further, that such fleshly differences make no difference in ability to live a righteous life. Therefore he is saying that circumcision should make no difference in the community of Christ.

I hear echos of Paul's use of the word ἕτερον/a different kind, and Paul's distinction of two kind of flesh, in this case male and female flesh, but the analogy extends to Paul's "there can be no Jew nor Greek... no male and female." It appears to me that there are lots echos of Galatians in Justin's Dialogue!
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Two kinds of flesh/two kinds of righteousness (Exegeting the implicit distinctions of Gal 2:15-16)

Post by gryan »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:01 am
Because not all flesh will not be made righteous by the works of the law.
ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ

What is wrong with the familiar “for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” ?
RE: What is wrong with the familiar “for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” ?

That is a great question which I have been pondering.

The burden of proof is on the unfamiliar alternative. It has to be somehow better.

I think the alternative is better in three ways: 1) it takes the reader into a closer reading of this particular verse with its explicit use of the phrase "all flesh" [πᾶσα σάρξ], rather than imposing on this verse the logic of Gal 3:11, ("Now it is evident that no one [οὐδεὶς] is justified before God by the law..."); 2) it resonates with Paul's logic of becoming as with respect to "all flesh"-- "I have become all these things to all [τοῖς πᾶσιν γέγονα πάντα] so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings" (1 Cor 9:22-23); and 3) the logic of "becoming as" for the sake of "all" echoes in Hebrews: "so that... he might taste death for all" (2:11); "And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him (5:9).

In these three dimensions, I think the "not all flesh" interpretation is a better contextual fit. Paul could acknowledge that some flesh had combined the faith of Christ with works of the law, but he had taken the path of faith alone, and not works of the law for this reason: "not all flesh" will become Jewish in the sense of obeying every jot and tittle of the whole law.

Is anyone else convinced? If not, I'm willing hear why not.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Two kinds of flesh/two kinds of righteousness (Exegeting the implicit distinctions of Gal 2:15-16)

Post by gryan »

RE: Echos of Gal 2:16 in Acts

From: "Are Luke and Acts Anti-Marcionite? (pre-proofs version)"
https://www.academia.edu/37608973/Are_L ... s_version_

Isaac Wilk Oliver/de Oliveira wrote:

"In Acts, Paul too echoes the statement in Gal 2:16 when he preaches before a Jewish synagogue in Antiochus of Pisidia: “let it be known to you, fellow (Jewish) brothers, that through this one (i.e., Jesus) release from sins is proclaimed to you from all the things you were not able to be justified in the Law of Moses (ἐν νόμῳ Μωϋσέως δικαιωθῆναι). Whoever puts trust (πιστεύων) in this one will be justified (δικαιοῦται)” (13:38–39). Here, many commentators for various reasons have blamed the author of Acts for failing to comprehend Paul’s teaching on“justification by faith.” Among other things, Acts may imply that Jesus only supplements the Law: Jesus provides forgiveness to the Jewish people only for those things they failed to uphold in the Torah; he does not release them entirely from the Law. Regardless, the Paul of Acts, like the Paul of Galatians, is underscoring limitations that apply to Jews, using similar vocabulary (πιστεύω δικαιόω)."

If my reading of Gal 2:16 is correct, Acts may be an accurate echo. Here is my translation:

Knowing that,
From works of the law, a person is not made righteous,
Except by the faith of Christ Jesus,
Even we,
Believed in Christ Jesus,
In order to be made righteous by the faith of Christ
And not by works of the law
Because by works of the law, all flesh will not be made righteous.

Meaning: Not all flesh will not become righteous from works of the law, only some. As for Jewish "flesh" -- people raised in observant Jewish communities -- Paul knew that a person may be made righteous by a combination of works of the law and faith of Christ.

Paul says "we" (he and Peter) opted to be made righteous by faith of Christ alone, without works of the law. They did so because "works of the law" are only for some, not all flesh.
Post Reply