I’ve just come through a couple of really interesting chapters in Douglas Campbell’s Deliverance of God, ch. 4 on Judaism and ch. 5 on the question of Paul’s conversion. Rather than give summaries or engaging the arguments Douglas 
cares about, I want to draw attention to one major point he makes in which he scores a critical blow against some justification theories and then to one suggestion he makes that I find fascinating.
First, the body blow.
Campbell had noted previously that the role of the Law in what he calls “Justification Theory” is preparatory. It shows that there is a bar that any rational human will realize cannot be cleared. When we recognize this we become frightfully distraught and turn to God to save us by grace.
Such a theory of Law makes the Law downright loathsome. Cf. Luther.
Thus, any person who had been so conditioned by the Law, coming to faith in Christ, would naturally abandon the Law more or less immediately. In fact, it would be impossible to be a Christian without abandoning the Law.
Although Campbell does not draw on Acts or Galatians 2 or Paul’s insistence that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, the very presence 
of a law-keeping, conservative Jewish Christianity, validated by the apostles in Jerusalem if no one else, means that Justification Theory’s reading of place and purpose of the Law has gone seriously wrong. Law-keeping Christianity is a massive problem.
The other interesting suggestion, coming up in a similar vein, was that Paul himself preached law-observant Jesus following in the early years after his conversion. One argument from silence is that the issue of Law did not come up during his first visit to Jerusalem, when he hung out with James and Cephas. The suggestion Campbell makes is that this manifestation of Christianity arose at Antioch, and Paul learned it and adopted it there.
The piece of information that is more tantalizing in this respect is Galatians 5:11: “If I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?” “Still” preach circumcision? When were you preaching it before? Paul never presents himself as a Jewish missionary before his conversion, rather a persecutor of the Jewish-Christian church.
Might he, in his early years, preached a Jewish Christianity even to his Gentile converts? Fascinating thought…
Disclaimer: I received a gratis copy of this book from Eerdmans, though with no stipulations either that I would review it or review it favorably.
On the last point, Dunn reads Gal 5:11 similarly (Epistle to the Galatians, 280-281). Note especially Acts 16:3, which claims Paul circumcised Timothy prior to their missionary work together, and occurred in Galatia itself (Lystra).
Oops, should be 279-280.
Thanks for the references.
On Campbell’s theory, though, Paul’s move to a law-free gospel would have happened prior to Acts 16, no? Or maybe I’m missing your point?
I don’t know, I haven’t read Campbell. I tend to think observance of the Law only became a problem for Paul when he discovered people telling his Gentile converts that they had to “Judaize” to complete their salvation. Perhaps before the incident that sparked the letter to the Galatians, Paul did feel free to uphold the Law among the Jews and ignore it among the Gentiles (or at least, ignore certain parts of it), and the latter only became a matter of principle for him when he felt that the demand of circumcision threatened to imply that Christ was not enough.
Personally, I think such a view can make good sense of Gal 3 (and 5:1-2), but that’s a subject for another day.
I do think the demand element is crucial. See it in ch. 2 twice: Titus was not compelled to be circumcised; why do you compel the Gentiles to Judaize?
But if Paul had been preaching a Law-observant Judaism, then clearly the difficulties would not have arisen in Galatia.
Was he preaching a law-neutral (take it or leave it) position? I don’t get that sense.
To me, a key factor with Timothy (which is Acts, though, not Paul!) was that he was Jewish. That’s categorically different from the issue of Paul’s gentile converts.
I think “preaching circumcision” is likely an exaggeration (perhaps he is quoting his opponents), but if you can take seriously the claim that he became “everything to everyone,” it doesn’t seem unlikely that he was willing to take or leave the Law’s “boundary markers” as the situation dictated, at least up until the incident in Galatia.
Of course, any such suggestions must be speculative, but it’s an interesting possibility.
As long as our Paul is developing, though, Ken, at what point did he adopt his “all things to all people” attitude? Before 1st Cor. may not mean before some other point, so that might merely beg the question.
Great convo so far, btw. Thanks, you two.
Let me see if I’m understanding this correctly: under the first point is Campbell claiming that the traditional Lutheran view of the Law is wrong because there was a Jewish Christian community who upheld the Law? Therefore, the Law in itself was not “loathsome,” but where the Jewish Christians got it wrong was forcing that Law upon the Gentiles? Is this what he’s communicating?
Also, although I totally disagree with the Lutheran view of the Law (i.e. it’s only purpose is to show us how bad we are so we can turn to God & choose grace), does the Law not at least have some type of pedagogical purpose, even if this is not the sole purpose of the Law? For instance, the commands & teachings (i.e. “law”) of Jesus, inherently good & righteous and meant to show me how to live & reflect God’s character, do show me where I fall short & need assistance from the Spirit. I don’t do these things naturally & I need help to obey them, whether it be from the community or the Spirit or whatever. His commands aren’t a curse or loathsome, but they do have some type of pedagogical purpose, do they not?
The second point is interesting & one I’ve not considered. However, I do think it is important to distinguish what you mean by “Law” here. Paul clearly upholds many aspects of the Law in other contexts. For instance, he quotes the Decalogue or portions of it a few times (e.g. quoting the command to honor parents in the latter part of Galatians). He even quotes an OT casuistic law on one or two occasions (e.g. not muzzling an ox). On account of this, can it really be said that Paul no longer “preached the Law” after the incident at Antioch? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that perhaps Paul no longer preached the Jewish identity markers or something along those lines, particularly circumcision? The “Law” would then not be the OT Law in its entirety, but a short-hand way of referring to a few aspects of the Law. Am I way off with this?
Luke, I think its much more complex than this. You equated commands and teachings of Jesus with “the law,” but they are not. The Law comes from Moses. And there’s little indication that Paul knows much about Jesus’ teachings. Law here is not “instruction in general,” a crucial point to remember.
I would say that even the laws Paul does cite he does not offer as commendable because they are the Law but on other grounds. The ox being muzzled is an interesting case because Paul totally transforms the command into something it wasn’t talking about at all: remuneration of itinerant missionaries.
In general, I do think that the identity markers are central: Gentiles don’t have to become Jewish to become part of the people of God. But these identity markers were indicators / gateways into a full-orbed obedience to the OT Law.
Daniel,
Thanks for the response. I understand your point about my usage of the term “law.” I tried to communicate the difference by making it a lowercase “l” and not saying “Law,” which would refer to the Mosaic Law. I guess I was using it more in the sense of “commands” or “imperatives,” but your point is well-taken. Paul does mention “the law of Christ” a few times, but that wasn’t in the context of your post or I assume Campbell’s book.
But does Paul not mention how good & holy the Law is (Rom 7:12), that he delights in the law (7:22), that we are to uphold the Law (3:31), and to fulfill the law by loving one another (13:10; Gal. 5:14)
It just seems to me like Paul uses “law” in a variety of senses (badges, entire Law, law of Christ, etc), sometimes it’s great & sometimes it’s not; and on that basis we should state what we mean when we say “law” and not just use it as a blanket statement. I just don’t see how there’s any way Paul’s use of the term “nomos” is monolithic across the entire corpus of Pauline literature (not that this is what you’re claiming). It’s much more complex than this. There are so many continuities with the Mosaic Law and the “law of Christ” I just don’t know how you can help but distinguish between the Mosaic Law form-critically & clarify what Paul means when he refers to the “law.”
You said: “I would say that even the laws Paul does cite he does not offer as commendable because they are the Law but on other grounds.” Like what?
I guess I’m just a bit confused by your comment. On the one hand you seem to be saying the traditional Lutheran view is wrong, but on the other it seems like you’re saying to me Paul is not commending the Mosaic Law, almost as if he’s against it or something, and his “gospel” is now “law-free.” Then you seem to agree with Campbell against the Lutheran interpretation on the basis that there was a Jewish Christian community who upheld the Law, but then seem to argue that if it’s “gospel” according to Paul it has to be “law-free.” I’m just not seeing how all this works out. Are you claiming complete discontinuity between Paul’s Gospel & the Mosaic Law?
I heard Doug present this reading of Gal. 5:11 at SBL in Boston and it has stuck in the back of my mind ever since. I do see some validity to it, especially since Paul seems to have initially gone on a gentile mission at least a decade after his conversion. He’s certainly ministering in the Antioch church, under the leadership of Barnabas and others, before the mission, but this begins sometime around 45 CE. During the previous decade or so, after being ejected from both Damascus and Jerusalem, is it that Paul is in Tarsus, ministering in a Jewish congregation, preaching faithfulness to Torah/faithfulness to Jesus, since within Judaism these would be nearly identical? Only when he goes on a gentile mission (again, under Barnabas’s leadership) does it become evident that faithfulness to Jesus outside the limits of Judaism does not look like faithfulness to Torah in the same way that it does for Jews.
Just thinking out loud here, but Campbell’s suggestion has forced me/helped me to see how thinks might be configured otherwise.
I’m much more disposed to enjoy all this ‘Theology’ through your ‘Storied’ perspective, Daniel. Thanks for doing these review posts.
Here’s another argument from silence: Paul’s commission against the damascene Jews wasn’t because of any stance they had against the Law. Acts says they were in trouble because they called on the name of the Lord. Thus, if Paul’s introduction to christianity was via the Damascene brethren, we’d have that much (more) reason to think the Damascene church had a Judaizing position on Gentile conversion. (Neither Jesus nor Ananias mention the C-word or the L-word in Acts 9.)
I think what began changing things for Paul was simply his discovery of the church in Antioch. That’s why Stephen is so critical. Things had to go north ASAP… imho.
But maybe that’s all obvious.(?)