Journal of Beliefs & Values

Vol. 29, No. 2, August 2008, 139150

Religion, identity and ethnicity: the contribution of Paul the Apostle1

William S. Campbell*
University of Wales, Lampeter, UK
Journal
10.1080/13617670802289544
CJBV_A_329121.sgm
1361-7672
Original
Taylor
202008
29
ws.campbell@lamp.ac.uk
WilliamCampbell
00000August
and
&
ofArticle
Francis
Beliefs
(print)/1469-9362
Francis
2008
&Ltd
Values (online)

The argument of this article is that although the Christian legacy of Western societies
suggests continuity with the values of the apostle Paul, particularly in relation to
universalism, the perception needs to be reconsidered. This arises from a perceived
conflict between universalism and particularism, such that particular identities, not the
least those associated with faith, are regarded as somehow threatening universal values
such as equality, human rights and freedom. Recent interpretation of Pauls letters
indicates that the universality of his gospel is not to be confused with sameness in its
adherents but seeks for both, Jews and gentiles, equality in abiding difference. It emerges
thus that Paul recognised particularity while still proclaiming a universal gospel. There
is a need therefore to clarify which values emanate directly from the New Testament and
those which have developed in its interpretation in subsequent history. This alternative
perception of Paul indicates that there is within the Christian tradition a paradigm which
accommodates the perceived universal scope of the gospel and the positive recognition
and appreciation of particular identities.
Keywords: ethnicity; identity; universalism/particularism; anti-Judaism

The Pauline legacy in Christian history and interpretation

If Paul had had a son, would he have had him circumcised? To answer such a question quickly
immerses one in the quagmire of ethnic, racial and identity issues that have tended to surround
the image of early Christianity, and which in fact still do. The image of Paul is central to
such discussions since he is credited with moving early Christianity out of its cradle in
Judaism to become a universal, transcendent religion beyond the particularities of history
and culture. In the process of enhancing the portrait of Christian faith and of Paul, Judaism
has become an ever-present and essential foil. In alleged contrast to the tribalism of the parent
religion with its inherent attachment to a small and disputed territory, and its limitation to a
specific group of people claiming ancestry from Abraham, the Christian faith supposedly
rises above the particularity of geographical location, addresses the entire world and removes
all divisions whether of class, gender or ethnicity. Paul is reputedly the architect of this
achievement, and is correspondingly lauded or hated accordingly. Added to this, since there
has never been complete accord even among scholars as to his actual contribution, he has
continued to be a divisive figure, whose theological statements are frequently viewed as
contradictory. Does he truly support the emancipation of slaves or of women, and is he not
really the father of anti-Judaism and therefore implicated via this in the rise of anti-Semitism?
Part of the problem with the image of Paul is his location at the beginnings of Christians
theologising about Jesus after their founders death when an overview of the impact of his
life and message first became possible, and when the claims to his messiahship began to
*Email: ws.campbell@lamp.ac.uk
ISSN 1361-7672 print/ISSN 1469-9362 online
2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13617670802289544
http://www.informaworld.com

140

W.S. Campbell

become more developed. Crucial however to the portrait of Paul is his self-designation as
apostle to the gentiles. He is not regarded as the first to welcome gentiles into the Jesus
movement, but he was certainly the first theologian of this development, and as such the
theologian par excellence of issues of continuity and discontinuity between Judaism and
emergent Christianity. As such he stands at the borders of the two faiths, and borders are
notoriously unstable places to inhabit, though they can also be the focal points for change.
Whereas Jesus is recognised as having lived all his life within the parameters of Judaism,
and of continuing, despite opposition, to adhere to his ancestral religion until his untimely
death on a Roman cross, Paul, on the other hand, represents in popular church culture the
archetypal, even sectarian, convert who forsook one religion to enter another to become the
champion of gentile Christ-followers in opposition to Jews and Judaism.
It is not surprising that such a radical person as Paul has remained a focal point for
controversy. Yet we must be clear that Paul and his complicated letters and controversial
behaviour are only part of the problem. An equally significant barrier to his thinking
emerges from the expectations built upon his legacy and the uses to which this has been put.
Even in the early years of emergent Christianity, as the secondary Pauline epistles indicate,
Paul soon became a paradigm for the truth of the gospel about Jesus, and his battle to allow
the gentiles access to the Jesus movement without being forced to become adherents of
Jewish patterns of life was used as a means of elevating gentile forms of the movement
above the Jewish, something which Paul himself certainly never intended, if we take
seriously his criticism of gentile pride in Romans 11 in boasting over (Jewish) branches
being broken off. Granted, later when the Gospels appeared in their final form, there was
much material attributed to the lips of Jesus which offered a radical critique of some Jews,
especially the Pharisees. In the course of the gradual separation of Christianity and Judaism,
these critical statements became fodder for disputes about the self-designations of the two
religions in their relation to one another. Augustine viewed the apostle Paul as the author of
a universal faith and the Jews, having failed to recognise the messiah the first time around,
as having been condemned to wander the earth homeless (see Hasan-Rokem and Dundes
1986, 110) until the second coming of Christ when they would convert and be saved. As
such they served as a warning and as a symbol for those who reject Christ.
Martin Luther, at the time of the Reformation, built on Augustines portrait of Paul with
the added ingredient that the failings of the contemporary Catholic church were retrojected
back into the first century CE as typical of the Judaism that rejected Christ. After Luther, it
was difficult to see Jews without this association of the works of merit opposed by the
reformer though in a different time and place. In any event, stereotypes of Jews and Judaism
as exemplifying the worst forms of human sin tended henceforth to accompany the narrative
of Paul and the interpretation of his thought.
This was accentuated in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when theories of
languages and their history were combined with theories of human development. Thus F.C.
Baur, writing in the mid-nineteenth century, explained the emergence of Christianity, a
universal religion, from the particularistic ethnic religion of Judaism by the fact that Paul
broke through the barriers of Judaism under the influence of Hellenism. The resulting
tensions between Jewish Christians and gentile are evident in Pauls letters. For Baur it is
Pauls pioneering thought and action that enabled the emergent church to rise out of the
particularism of Judaism into the universal idea of Christianity. Again, as previously in
Luther, the image of Jews and Judaism suffered denigration, though in this instance in terms
of ethnic and racial qualities.
Once again, it is Paul who is understood as the transition point between an old, exclusive,
ethnic Judaism and a new, inclusive, universal Christianity. Paul stands for faith, ethics and

Journal of Beliefs & Values

141

spirit, transcending bodily particularities and historical circumstances contrasting with the
correspondingly constructed foil of Judaism as works-oriented, legalistic, and materialistic
(see Johnson Hodge 2007, 7). For the sake of an image of Paul to correspond to nineteenthcentury idealism, first-century Judaism has been radically misrepresented and, with the
gradual recognition of this denigrating construction of the other for the sake of Paul, it is
not surprising that this form of Pauline interpretation usually dubbed Paulinism, emanating
particularly from liberal Protestant scholarship, has had to be comprehensively adjusted, if
not entirely reformulated.
It was only in the years immediately prior to the Second World War that dissenting
voices were raised against the prevalent Paulinism by scholars such as G.F. Moore, J.W.
Parkes and W.D. Davies (see Sanders 1977, 3359). This gained momentum in the postHolocaust period when J. Munck (see 1954, 6986) wrote to dismantle the Baur legacy as
formulated by the Tbingen school. Krister Stendahl of Harvard (1963, 1976) in particular
drew attention to the introspective conscience of the West inherited from Augustine and
the over-theological interpretation of Paul as a Christian theologian rather than an apostle
concerned with the relation of two peoples Jews and gentiles in the purpose of God.
James Barr also helped to reveal the bias inherent in scholarly attitudes to Judaism when he
drew attention to the inherent weaknesses of what might be termed uniform dictionary
definitions of words abstracted from their semantic field in his innovative study of The
semantics of biblical language (1961). In this way Judaism, particularly rabbinic Judaism,
had been grossly misrepresented as a decline of earlier purer forms of Judaism, of which
Christianity was now recognised as the rightful heir. Barrs criticisms were particularly
directed against the huge project that produced the Theological dictionary of the New
Testament (Bromiley 196476)2 in which whole theological systems tend to be seen as
implicit in single Greek words. The outcome of this is that the link between language and
its social dimensions is lost and the relation between words and external events or realities
becomes a kind of magic (Meeks 2001, 18). Thus, following on the tendency to generalise
or psychologise terms such as Jews, Gutbrod claims that the joudaios (Jew) in Paul is a
type, a spiritual or religious magnitudenot a specific adherent of this nation and religion.
Paul is thinking of an abstracted type rather than individual representatives.The joudaioi
(Jews) are always those who decide against, and reject, both God and His community (see
Johnson Hodge 2007, 445). This representation involves using the term Jew both symbolically and unhistorically, and at the same time claiming that Jews in history continuously
reject Christian faith. It is only a small step from this to the words of Ernst Ksemann, the
great Tbingen NT scholar, who could, even in the very different intellectual climate of
1961, still write of the hidden Jew in all of uswho validates rights and demands over
against God (1969, 186). It was this view of Paul in his relation to Judaism that was the
catalyst for a radical new interpretation of Paul that has steadily gained momentum since
the early 1970s. As noted, Krister Stendahl of Harvard was one of the initiators of this,
followed by E.P. Sanders, both of whom called for a revision in the Christian scholarly
consensus of Judaism as a legalistic religion of works rather than grace.
Paul within his Jewish heritage
Obviously there is a great deal of intellectual and cultural history between Paul and the
contemporary interpretation of his letters. This introductory sketch I have given will enable
us to see that there is nothing neutral or value free in such interpretation. The interpretation
of Paul, as of every ancient author, is influenced by the subjectivity of the interpreter. One
of the most significant differences between the first century CE and our own concerns the

142

W.S. Campbell

link between religion and ancestry or ethnicity. In contemporary parlance in the West, it is
normal to view religion as a choice, but this obscures the fact that in Pauls time to be a
Jew predominantly meant to be born in Judea, or by extension those who came from Judea,
although it was also possible for gentiles to become proselytes by circumcision and
adoption of Jewish customs. A distinction could also be drawn between those Jews who
were faithful to the God of Israel, and those who were Jews by practice as well as by
fleshly descent. But this did not change the fact that a lasting distinction was maintained
between Jews and gentiles, particularly on the Jewish side. Because of loyalty to the God
of Israel, and their abhorrence of the idolatry which typified the gentiles, the Jews viewed
the world as essentially comprising two groups, those faithful to the God of Israel and the
rest whatever their ethnic origin, be it Ethiopian or Egyptian. Exclusive loyalty to their
God was what made the Jews regard themselves as distinctive. This was expressed in
worship and everyday life, but could be narrowed down to the male identity marker of
circumcision. This custom was by no means limited to Jews, but it was so significant for
them that even Paul can use circumcision as a synonym for the Jewish people. Thus
Christ became a servant to the circumcision according to his letter to the Romans (15:8).
The other description derived from this is the uncircumcision, another label for
describing non-Jews or gentiles. The author of the Letter to the Ephesians can readily
refer to inter-ethnic labelling when he says, We who are called the uncircumcision by the
circumcision made with hands (2:11) (see Campbell 2008b).
Certain other titles were favoured self-designations by Jews, e.g. descendants of Israel
or Israelites. The latter sometimes seems to be used by Paul to indicate a favourable
reference to Jewish loyalty to God, and some scholars tend to view this as evidence for the
beginnings of the distinction between Judean ethnic affiliation and faithful devotion of a
Jew as a religious person. This concern arises partly from the debate among contemporary
biblical scholars as to whether gentile Christ followers can legitimately be described as
Israel or new Israel following, e.g., the reference in Galatians 6:16 to the Israel of God.
If the title Israel denotes all those who are faithful to God, whether as Jews or Christfollowers, then the way is open to describe all faithful believers as one group of people
called Israel or new Israel, who thus transcend the ethnic limitations of Jewish religion. The
Christian church has been viewed as transcending such ethnic and other divisions. Rather
than as a place where both Jew and gentile are equal before God and in society, it is depicted
as a place where there can be neither Jew nor gentile. The idealism visible in such a
construction is clear, and Paul is credited with this modern perception. This would effectively make Paul quite an exception in his own world, and it would be difficult to avoid the
conclusion that Jews rightly regarded him as the enemy of his ancestral faith.
More careful attention to the text of Pauls letters and the context they belong and relate
to suggests otherwise. First, Paul claims as his own preferred self-designation that he is a
loyal devotee of the God of Israel, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, born of Hebrew/Aramaicspeaking parents (2 Cor. 11:22), circumcised and brought up in the most thorough Jewish
education, both in the Diaspora but, more importantly, also in Jerusalem, even though Luke
also claims Roman citizenship for him in Acts 16:37. Paul does not say in his letters that he
was a Jew or an Israelite, but that he is this an ongoing and valued identity (see, e.g.,
Romans 11:1; Philippians 3:5). Despite some scholars use of modern conversion language
to describe Pauls Damascus road experience, which presupposes the transfer out of one
religion into another, this encounter did not move him out of his ancestral faith any more
than it did the prophets Jeremiah (Jer. 1:510) or Ezekiel (Ezek.12). Despite being called
to preach the message of the Christ-movement to gentiles, this revelation did not make Paul
a gentile, even less an enemy of Israel. This has proved hard for interpreters of a previous

Journal of Beliefs & Values

143

generation to appreciate, but it makes good sense today when Paul is understood within his
own context rather than that of differing periods of subsequent history. It seems strange not
to make a positive link between Pauls own adherence to and support for Jewish patterns of
life and the historical fact of the dogged persistence of Jewish Christians in the early
centuries. But the fact is that the image of Paul as the champion of the gentiles became very
quickly the almost exclusive image of the apostle in the church, and continues to be
dominant even today.
Pauls concern for gentiles arose out of his zeal for his ancestral faith, not out of opposition to it. He did not view his work relating to gentiles as being in opposition to Jews, so
that he must needs favour either Jew or gentile. His perspective was an inclusive one: Not
only the Jew but the gentile also. Historically this inclusive aspect of Pauls message has
been often ignored and more frequently misunderstood. His founding of communities
mainly for gentiles has been regarded as proof that he was in opposition to the synagogue,
and completely opposed to any continuing practices of Judaism within the emergent
Christian faith. The fact that Jewish Christian communities continued to exist for several
centuries after Paul has not been given the recognition it deserved. Daniel Boyarins recent
studies, particularly his major work, Borderlines: the partition of Judaeo-Christianity
(2004), demonstrate the ongoing links between the two faiths until well after the reign of
the Emperor Constantine. Some of the most vitriolic tirades against Judaism emanated from
the great fourth-century bishop John Chrysostom because his church members would persist
in attending Jewish festivals, a fact that tells us that the actuality of two completely separate
religions is something that historically took some centuries to be realised and, in some
regions, took much longer to emerge than in others.
Faith and ancestry in Paul
One reason for Pauls stance being easily misunderstood is that he has been depicted as the
one who created the Christian faith out of a decadent Judaism. But there is no real evidence
that the outcome into two separate faiths is at all what Paul intended. His concern was
that gentiles should share in the promises of Abraham, but not by first becoming Jews (see
Stanley 1996). Rather they could be accepted as gentiles by virtue of the coming of Christ,
in whom the blessing of Abraham is come upon the gentiles (Galatians 3:14). By affiliation
to the Christ-movement, as gentiles, they could become joint-heirs with faithful Jews of the
promise, and share in the blessings pertaining to it. Pauls gentile believers met mostly in
the homes of members, as probably did most Jews at this period since purpose-built synagogues were not yet generally in operation. What Paul envisaged was communities of
Christ-following gentiles existing in parallel to faithful Jews, both of these groups maintaining their separate identities and somewhat differing ways of life, accommodating one
another without assimilation, but united in a common commitment to following Christ. Just
as Peter became the leader of the Christ-movement in Jewish communities, so Paul viewed
himself as apostle to the gentiles, not in competition or opposition to Peter, but in parallel
missions focusing upon differing groups of people. If we can accept Pauls testimony (Galatians 2:615) or Lukes (Acts 15:6-16), both Paul and Peter believed that the promises to
Abraham were for the whole world, in Jewish terms for both Jews and non-Jews, i.e.
gentiles. Abraham was hailed as not only the father of the Israelites but also of many nations.
This universal outreach was not meant as the end of Jewish identity and culture, but the
beginning of a diverse people comprised of Jewish and non-Jewish groups both living in
faithfulness to their ancestor Abraham. Contrary to modern concepts of universalism, early
Christian leaders viewed universalism as emanating out of the particularism of Judaism, not

144

W.S. Campbell

in a necessary or essentialist opposition to it. As has been recently clearly demonstrated, not
only was there notable gentile interest in Judaism, but second-temple Jewish tradition
welcomed this interest, responding with a variety of views about the religious status and
possibilities of gentiles (see Donaldson 2007, 113).
The logic of this connection to the ancestor Abraham lies in concepts of adoption or
aggregation to the house or lineage of Abraham. Though not actively engaged in seeking
converts, Jewish groups welcomed proselytes, i.e. gentiles who would fully adopt a Jewish
pattern of life including circumcision for males, food laws, etc. Circumcision and gentile
reaction to what was sometimes viewed as disfigurement of the body and the resultant
social stigma could be a deterrent to men, but Judaism did have a strong attraction,
especially for women. Adherents to the synagogue, or God worshippers, if not proselytes,
were numerous. The Christ-movement for gentiles led by Paul offered to such people,
already sympathetic to and influenced by Jewish faith, a viable connection to a noble ancestor. Pauls thesis is that by joining the Christ-movement through baptism, gentiles become
connected by faith to Christ and thus become children or sons of Abraham, (Johnson 2007,
66ff.). Just as Abrahams faith was reputed to have enabled him to father a son who would
guarantee the survival of his house to all, so too gentile Christ-followers are adopted so that
they become, through affiliation with Christ, gentile sons of the patriarch, with rights to a
share in the promised inheritance. (Despite the patriarchal framework and the emphasis
upon sons, in Pauls case this language also includes women within the promise as it
previously did within Judaism.) Christ is both the one who provides the link with Abraham
and also the one who shares Abrahamskindshaft (Abrahams house or lineage) with them as
the firstborn of many brothers who are described as joint-heirs with him. Gentiles are
thus perceived as linked to Israel, though the nature of this link is not always clearly stated.
But this is where Paul differs from our expectations of him. He nowhere calls gentiles
Israelites and he has no overarching term for what we might in modern theology call
people of God; where Paul does use the Greek word laos, as in Romans chapter 11, it
refers to the Israelites or to all peoples rather than to all Christ-followers. Here is one of the
determining factors in Pauls contribution to ethnic thinking. Not only does he not dismiss
ethnic factors, but he is extremely aware of these, as signified in his description of Jews as
the circumcised (Rom. 15:7) and all others as the foreskin, i.e. uncircumcised gentiles.
Despite his inclusiveness, and despite being apostle to the gentiles, he maintains a distinct
identity for Jews and gentiles in Christ even in face of this, their significant common
allegiance to one Lord (see Campbell 2008a).
The nineteenth and twentieth centuries tended to want to view Paul as the one who put
an end to Jewish identity and religion within the church, and some viewed him as the
creator of a new humanity that is neither Jewish nor gentile (see Lieu 2002, 183209; Park
2003). The latter is based on a (mis)reading of a verse in a post-Pauline NT letter, Ephesians 2:1415, where there is a reference to Christ as offering peace by making two groups,
probably Jews and gentiles, into one, so that he might create in himself one new anthropos
(man) from the two. This new anthropos concept should be read as a reference to the
removal of inter-ethnic hostility, rather than, as it has often been interpreted, the replacing
of ethnic Jews and gentiles by a non-ethnic humanity, the idealist solution. The latter
reading represents the perspective that tribal affiliations and identities are to be overcome
in the emergent universal church (or global church in contemporary terminology) so that its
members are all one (and the same) in Christ. The potential for misunderstanding is
increased by the reference to two becoming one. The best reading of this is that it points
to a harmonious coexistence (cf. the theme of peace) by those who are and remain different,
rather than the implied solution of replacing difference with sameness and thus avoiding

Journal of Beliefs & Values

145

conflict. This perspective, sometimes designated as an ideology of a third race has

frequently been associated with anti-Judaism and a strong Christian imperialism that
regards Jews and all others as inferior by comparison. This posited third race can be too
easily transmuted to the idea of a super race. It is also associated with the concept of the
replacement of the Jewish people as children of God by the Christian church, a new Israel
in place of the old. Apart from such replacement by a new humanity from two previously
existing entities being empirically impossible, the occurrence of Pauline texts such as there
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for
you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28, RSV trans.) tends to encourage such forms
of thinking, especially where people express themselves in theological categories rather
than in plain English. The fact that male and female cannot be obliterated should of itself
give an indication that Paul did not intend the removal of these actualities themselves,
though there is some ambiguity as to whether he wants slaves to take their freedom if they
can get it by manumission, etc.(1 Cor. 7:21). It seems that, by stressing that in Christ slaves
are free and free persons are slaves of Christ, Paul renders the civil status of both as of
secondary importance, and thus is able to advise acceptance of slavery, while also advising
against becoming slaves of men (1 Cor. 7:223). But certainly there is no consensus that he
thought slavery could be abolished, however undesirable it may have been.
In opposition to some early Christian pining for an ideal state (even prior to the world
to come in which people were thought to neither marry nor give in marriage), in which
gender differences are overcome, Paul confirms these gender differences as an abiding part
of the created order. Thus a parallel statement to the effect that there is neither Jew nor
Greek cannot refer to empirical reality any more than can there is neither male nor female;
the latter may possibly refer rather to an ontological or theological assertion. A better reading is to view this in the context of the Pauline communities as a relational statement
social relations within this special sphere in Christ are not determined by these differences,
and it is only the hostility from such that must be overcome. The emphasis falls on the fact
that, though difference remains, the hostility that arises from such differences is done away
in Christ, and this applies even to slavery, as Pauls letter to Philemon demonstrates. A
runaway slave is here to be re-accepted no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a
beloved brother (Philemon 1516). Yet again the confusion resulting from interpreting
one as the same rather than as harmony in abiding difference is evident. It seems that
Onesimus may have to remain a slave, but is to be treated as more than this as a brother.
Pauls rhetoric of comparison in relation to Judaism
Support for this reading of such Pauline texts on ethnicity can be found at many other
places in Pauls letters, most obviously in connection with references to circumcision.
Christian readings of Pauline texts have tended to expect to find derogatory comparisons
between Christianity and Judaism. Apart from the fact that the term Christianity was as yet
uncoined in Pauls lifetime, such comparisons would suggest that the apostle was
inherently anti-Jewish, a typical sectarian who had to denigrate his previous affiliation to
promote contemporary self-confidence. Granted, Pauls critiques of opponents, some of
whom were likely to have been Jews or Jewish Christians, could be, and at a later period
was (mistakenly), read as opposition to Judaism as such rather than as opposition to
Christ-following gentiles being forced also to become Jews. But, on the contrary, Paul
operates in the Christ-movement as a reformer within his ancestral faith, rather than claiming all the heritage of Judaism exclusively for his new movement. Again, since we know
that the Pauline communities were predominantly gentile, in origin at least, we need to ask:

146

W.S. Campbell

what function would anti-Jewish rhetoric actually serve in this context? It would make
sense only if pressure was being put on gentiles to become Jews as well as following
Christ. While there is some evidence that this did happen at certain times and places, it
would be wrong to generalise this to invent a counter-mission to that of Paul as has sometimes in the past been done. It is more likely that those texts where Paul appears to rate
uncircumcision as a superior state to Judaism serve a function other than this.
In two of his most cited references to circumcision, it becomes clear that a comparative
note is usually present. But this is not a straightforward comparison between Christianity
and Judaism or even between Jewish and non-Jewish patterns of life. It is rather a comparison of both circumcision and uncircumcision with being a follower of Christ. Paul says in
1 Corinthians 7:19 neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. If one cites only part of this verse, Paul can be credited
with being anti-circumcision and thus anti-Jewish. To a gentile audience in Corinth, this
would then be heard as an anti-Jewish and pro-Christ statement. It was not Pauls intention
to incite ethnic hostility. Quite the opposite. Thus, reading further in I Corinthians, we find
that he advises his community that everyone should remain in the state in which he was
called (1 Cor. 7:20). This is clearly Pauls summing up of the previous verses: Was
anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks
of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek
circumcision (1 Cor. 7:18). What Paul is doing here is not promoting Jewishness or
gentileness but relativising the importance of both compared with following Christ. And the
fact that he goes on to advise everyone to remain in their ethnic origins shows that he
neither opposes nor promotes circumcision. He is seeking harmony in a situation where
being Jewish or gentile was sometimes promoted and where he himself, both by contrast
and possibly in reaction, is interested only in promoting the Christ-movement for both Jews
and gentiles.
Paul does oppose circumcision in his letter to the Galatians, but it is circumcision for
gentiles and not circumcision generally that he opposes. Paul had earlier founded a group
of churches in Galatia, but now his converts were being pressured to accept circumcision.
Paul adamantly opposed this, because his mission was to bring gentiles as gentiles to follow
Christ, not to make gentiles into Jews, even though Christ himself had lived according to
the Jewish faith. Already, prior to Christs coming, gentiles could have become converts to
Judaism by male circumcision, etc., so, if they were still required to do so after his advent,
what did his coming signify that was new? In fact nothing would really have been changed.
Paul is clear that Jews and gentiles are both called to share in the promise to Abraham. In
the Christ-movement only if gentiles remained gentiles would Abrahams promise to the
nations of the earth be realised. If all had first to become Jews, then effectively the promise
of Abraham was limited to Jews only, and the promise to the nations would thus have been
rendered redundant. So Paul repeats the slogan For neither circumcision counts for
anything nor uncircumcision though this time with a differing conclusion but a new
creation (Gal. 6:15). Here again, in a comparison with following Christ, Paul minimises the
significance of both circumcision and uncircumcision, yet still confirms people in their
origin and identity as circumcised or uncircumcised, i.e. as Jews or gentiles, while refusing
to put one above the other and thus encouraging ethnocentric division.
Since Christianity as a recognised named and separate movement outside Judaism had
not yet fully emerged, it is only with anachronistic hindsight that it can be claimed that
Paul, in his letters, was involved in an odious comparison, setting Christianity above
Judaism. It is true that he did compare being in Christ with all other modes of existence and
rated them as nothing compared with the new life in Christ. But there is no evidence that

Journal of Beliefs & Values

147

Paul was a schismatic sectarian any more than Wesley was, or that he deliberately taught
his communities to devalue Jewish identity and heritage.
Overarching identity for Jew and gentile in Christ?
Yet there is some basis in Christian belief and ongoing strong support for the view that Paul
was the architect of a church in which ethnicity is overcome. The apostle was one of the
most frequent promoters of the idea that Christ-followers form one new entity by their
common allegiance to Jesus as Messiah. Pauls letters are peppered with the phrase in
Christ which might be interpreted as in the Messiah. The Messiah, as the seed of Abraham,
is likewise a house or a lineage in which the faithful find a common leader, ancestor and
identity. According to Paul, they can live or die in and with Christ. By union with him, they
together form one body, one family, one house. They may have differing gifts, exercise
differing functions, even live differing patterns of life according to their origins as Jew or
Greek, but nevertheless they are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). In direct contrast to
the Roman Caesars as Lord, he is the Lord, Jesus the Christ, to whom absolute and final
loyalty is due. Now the issue necessarily arises: does to be in Christ present a new nonethnic affiliation that must displace all other ethnic ties? The tendency in the last two centuries has been to assert exactly this. It seems to solve the issue of anti-Judaism since in Christ,
it is claimed, there can be neither Jew nor gentile. But it has thus solved an issue of prejudice
by giving in to that prejudice and attempting to eliminate the other who is different, and who
could be readily viewed by some as the source of the problem that requires a (final) solution.
The crucial issue is whether Christ-followers were told that differences can and should be
overcome or whether it is the hostility that tends to accompany difference that is to be
overcome. If we were to omit one word in the phrase for you are all one in Galatians 3:28,
another option is seen to emerge. It could then read for you are all in Christ (rather than
all one in Christ). Alternatively, if we do not follow this reading, actually found in P.46
(Eisenbaum 20012, 24n20), a very early papyrus fragment which omits the word one, the
word one can be retained but interpreted not as one meaning the same, but as one in terms
of Gods grace, meaning one in harmony, despite being and continuing to be different.
Philip Esler in his recent important monograph, Conflict and identity in Romans: the
social setting of Pauls letter (2003) clearly recognises that Paul and others in the early
Christ-movement were engaged in mining the scriptural traditions of Israel to promote
differing aspects of sub-group identities in the house churches at Rome. He sees Paul as
working on well-established themes of Israelite tradition such as that genuine Judean status
is an inward matter, internal, not external. Esler concludes that Paul reuses traditions in the
interests of bringing Judeans and Greeks together, being re-categorised in what he envisages
as the overarching identity of the Christ-movement at Rome. However, though belonging to
this new grouping that straddles (ethnic) boundaries requires that it has a distinct identity,
one that will be lodged as social identity in the minds and hearts of its members, meaning
that part of who they are as individuals that derives from belonging to this group, yet such
identity will need to co-exist with whatever remains of the members original Judean and
Greek identities (2003, 13941). Esler is very well aware of the phenomenon of nested
identities. He is clear that ethnicity forms one part of the larger arena for the expression of
self and identity and that these form a salience hierarchy with highly salient identities
being those to which the individual is most committed (2003, 4950, 6061). Nevertheless,
in Eslers view, the original ethnic component or sub-group identity, as Judean or Greek, of
his posited individual Christ-follower is not eliminated despite the fact of its coexistence
with the most salient identity component of being in Christ (2003, 140).

148

W.S. Campbell

Still, the actual outcome in contemporary life of this reasoned conclusion may be that
some scholars completely ignore the abiding ethnic component in Christian existence for
the sake of stressing an idealist, and in theory, uniform Christian church. Wittingly or unwittingly, this option plays into the hand of imperialists of all kinds and utilises the Christmovement in the support of specific political ends which favour the majority culture, and
the more powerful citizens within it. Since its basis is only in theology rather than in empirical argument (non-ethnic groups being difficult to locate) this view appeals to religious
sentiments despite its lack of realism and solid biblical foundation. The latter is presumed
rather than demonstrated, leaving it to the voices from the margins to plead their case
against the powerful of this world (see Valadez 2007, 30324) of whom Paul found only a
few in the church at Corinth.
I would therefore wish to reiterate that, though it seems perfectly reasonable to speak of
being in Christ as an overarching identity straddling sub-group identities whether as Judean
or gentile, perhaps such a perspective does not sufficiently recognise that in Christ is
itself an abstraction not to be concretely observed except in an enculturated form. As such
it is certainly a strong component of identity, but always existing only in an ethnically,
geographically and politically influenced state, as, for example, European identity today.
To describe this overarching in Christ component as if it were a free-standing entity is
theoretically useful, but to recognise its influence in social reality is more difficult than it
appears in theory. It would seem that the best way to describe this Christ element is not as
something that exists freely as an overarching entity but as something that is inevitably
intertwined with ethnic and cultural components to the extent that we can speak of
Christian existence only contextually, rather than in some envisaged pure form impinging
on society from above. In this sense it might be wiser to speak of trans-ethnic existence in
Christ or even in Europe rather than of a non-ethnic Christianity or a third race, using transethnic not in the sense of fusion or of rising above, but in the sense of including more than
one entity without dissolution or assimilation. Nor is my point here dependent on whether
Europeanness becomes a real identity in the distant future. This is by no means inevitable
or unstoppable, but involves real political decisions about ongoing identity, and as such
needs to be seriously and critically discussed.
Pauls contribution and the contemporary scene
The view argued in this article is that theology always starts with social reality, with the
given in life, however transient and constructed this may be. Theology also has to do with
a vision of ultimate reality and how this impinges on contemporary life. But the move from
what is to what ought to be should not be construed in idealist dismissals of aspects of
society, however imperfect these may be in comparison with posited religious goals. A
reading of Pauls letters suggests not the obliteration or ignoring of ones ethnic or other
origins but rather a transformation of these where the previous existence is neither ignored
nor entirely displaced in some miraculous fashion. Instead of displacement or obliteration
of the past, we find here an ongoing process of transformation and identity construction
following the pattern of life exemplified by Christ. This was, and continues to be,
interpreted and applied differently by differing communities throughout the world. Unity in
diversity should be the goal for Christian communities, rather than an imperialist demand
for conformity in identity. This applies equally to inner Christian differences as well as to
intra-religious and inter-communal differences.
One of the facets of Paul that I have sought to emphasise in this article is his distance
from modern Christianity. Christians too readily make him one of themselves, presupposing

Journal of Beliefs & Values

149

that the best insights of modern life must already appear in the New Testament. The best
that we can hope for here is that these insights are, at the least, potential developments of
what was implicit in it and also hopefully consistent with it. Paul did not write for our day
but for his own, and his statements are directed at first-century community issues. But how
then can his insights be used for today? These are valuable when we can disentangle our
own particular readings and uses of them from what they meant for their addressees in the
first century. What we have noted is that Paul does not actually say that the Christ-followers
should leave their ethnic identity behind and move on to some other similar affiliation. The
Christ-movement for Paul did not function to erase ethnicity but to enable all peoples whether
as Jews or Greeks to enjoy the blessings of God as Jews or Greeks and to apply the pattern
of Christs life to their own differing social settings. Diversity was not ruled out but positively
recognised and affirmed. Unlike modern conceptions that peace is feasible only where people
assimilate and conform to some imperialist or colonial template, there is an openness and
freedom that originates in the concept that God wishes to bless all the nations of the world
in their diversity rather than under the domination of some overarching pattern of conformity.
This openness to the other is extremely important in historic Christian cultures where people
of differing origins, of many faiths and of none currently reside side by side.
Neither culture nor identity can remain static, but identity construction in positive relation
to the other in an inclusive society can offer hope for all, except to those who imagine that
a static society is somehow realisable or sustainable.
The objection will emerge that affirmation of ethnic and cultural difference is an invitation
to ethnic cleansing or separate development, etc. An imperialistic domination that
demands conformity as the price of peace must not be allowed to hide the fact that there is
no easy road to coexistence and harmony in a very differentiated world. In fact, it could be
argued that imperialism itself is only a successful particularism elevated to universal practice
(Ubieta 2001, 279). The denial of ethnic and cultural diversity in some forced conformity
might well be seen as part of the problem that encouraged ethnic cleansing in the former
Yugoslavia and elsewhere. But the acknowledgement of difference is not the same as
demanding separate groups or even separate churches for, for example, black and white. But
neither does it rule out the possibility that certain people might wish to worship in a particular
mode or in their own native language, as, e.g., Welsh or Gaelic, so long as others in a free
society who might wish to do so with them are not prohibited. A problem in the UK at the
moment is that a distorted perception of secularism is demanding sameness at the expense
of real diversity, and hence viewing differences arising from faith as a threat to a stable
society. Genuine equality is not sameness, whether secular or religious, but actually presupposes abiding differences. There was and is diversity in humanity. Pauls vision was of a
radical new humanity, not without ethnic diversity, but transformed within its own ethnic/
cultural heritage, rather than delivered and thus removed entirely from this. Only when this
is properly acknowledged and appreciated will there be a real opportunity for people to find
their own fulfilment and self-understanding in peaceful coexistence, not in denial of the
religious, cultural and ethnic difference that exists within any given society, but in an open
acceptance of the other as legitimately different and thus having the right, and hence deserving
the opportunity, to contribute their peculiar grasp of life and reality to the rest of their society.

Notes
1. This article is dedicated to the memory of Krister Stendahl, Mellon Professor of Divinity Emer-

itus, Harvard University, who was a pioneer in seeking a less theological, less anachronistic and
more inclusive understanding of Paul Stendahl, born in 1921, died on 15th April 2008.

150

W.S. Campbell

2. The Theologische Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament was edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, in

10 volumes, the first of which appeared in 1932. I do not have an actual date for Gutbrods article
in the dictionary.

Notes on contributor
William S. Campbell is Reader in Biblical Studies at the University of Wales Lampeter.

References
Barr, J. 1961. The semantics of biblical language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boyarin, D. 2004. Borderlines: The partition of Judeo-Christianity. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Bromiley, G.W. ed. 196476. Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans.
Campbell, W.S. 2008a. Paul and the creation of Christian identity. London and New York: T&T
Clark.
. 2008b. Unity and diversity in the church: Transformed identities and the peace of Christ
in Ephesians. Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies 25, no.1:
1531.
Donaldson, T.L. 2007. Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish patterns of universalism to 135 CE. Waco,
TX: Baylor University Press.
Eisenbaum, P. 20001. Is Paul the father of misogyny and anti-Semitism? Crosscurrents 50, no. 4:
50624.
Esler, P.F. 2003. Conflict and identity in Romans: The social setting of Pauls letter. Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press.
Hasan-Rokem, G., and A. Dundes. 1986. The wandering Jew: Essays in the interpretation of a
Christian legend. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Johnson Hodge, C. 2007. If sons, then heirs: A study of kinship and ethnicity in the letters of Paul.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Ksemann, E. 1969. Paul and Israel. In New Testament questions of today, 1837. London: SCM.
Lieu, J.M. 2002. Neither Jew nor Greek: Constructing early Christianity. London and New York:
T&T Clark.
Meeks, W. 2001. A Nazi New Testament professor reads his bible: The strange case of Gerhard
Kittel. In The idea of biblical interpretation: Essays in honour of James L. Kugel, ed. H. Najman
and J.H. Newman, 51344. Leiden: Brill.
Munck, J. 1954. Paul and the salvation of mankind. London: SCM Press.
Park, E.C. 2003. Either Jew or Gentile: Pauls unfolding theology of inclusivity. Louisville, KY, and
London: Westminster John Knox.
Sanders, E.P. 1977. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. London: SCM Press.
Stanley, C.D. 1996. Neither Jew nor Greek: Ethnic conflict in Graeco-Roman Society. Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 64: 10224.
Stendahl, K. 1963. Paul and the introspective conscience of the west. Harvard Theological Review
56: 199215.
. 1976. Paul among Jews and gentiles. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.
Ubieta, C.B. 2001. Neither xenoi nor paroikai, sympolitai and oikeoi tou theou Eph. 2.19 Pauline
Christian communities: Defining a new territoriality. In Social scientific models for interpreting
the Bible, ed. J.C. Pilch, 26080. Atlanta: SBL.
Valadez, J.M. 2007. The continuing significance of ethnocultural identity. In Identities, affiliations
and allegiances, ed. S. Benhabib, I. Shapiro and D. Petranovic, 30324. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.