οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Re: ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ (Gal 2:16b)

Christopher J. Monaghan wrote:

"Is Paul saying that no Jew will be saved? By no means! It is for this reason that translating the text as 'not all flesh will be justified by works of the Law' is a better reading avoiding the otherwise inevitable conclusion that translating πᾶσα σὰρξ as 'no flesh' leads to. Might it be that Gal 2:16 could simply be a statement of fact, that is, not all flesh – all humanity, would become Jewish?"
https://repository.divinity.edu.au/2846 ... sitory.pdf

Having tentatively accepted Monaghan's interpretation of οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ, I'm attempting an alternative to Runge's (2019. High Definition Commentary: Galatians.) discourse analysis of Gal 2:14a-16.
This is how I'm seeing the flow of Paul's logic:

εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων

Εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐκ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς,
πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν;

Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί, εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι

οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου
ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,
except through the faith of Christ,
a person [i.e. a Jew by birth] is not justified by works of law,
"WORKS OF THE LAW + FAITH IN CHRIST = JUSTIFICATION" (Runge)

καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν,
ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ
Καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου,
Even we [i.e. Paul and Peter, Jews by birth] believed in Christ Jesus
so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ
and not by the works of the law
"FAITH IN CHRIST (WITHOUT WORKS OF THE LAW) = JUSTIFICATION" (Runge)

ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.
Because all flesh will not be justified by works of the law.
i.e. Paul was living like a Gentile since "not all flesh – all humanity, would become Jewish" (Monaghan, contra Runge's "no flesh" reading).

Paul's reason for living like a Gentile (breaking away from "works of the law" and relying on the "faith of Christ" alone) was his recognition that "not all flesh" was going to become Jewish. The "all" in "all flesh will not..." links back to the opening "all" of this discourse unit ("I said to Cephas in front of them all..."). In refusing to participate in Peter's withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentiles, Paul was loyal to his mission to "all"-- "all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." Nevertheless, Paul does not deny that some Jews by birth had been "justified" through a combination of works of the law and participation in the the faith of Christ.

Is this a credible analysis of Paul's discourse?
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: January 29th, 2022, 5:22 pm Is this a credible analysis of Paul's discourse?
I don't think your post is actually a discourse analysis, you seem to be focusing on the logical flow that results if the passage is understood the way you prefer, not focusing on the user of language beyond the sentence boundary. And the words you highlight are highlighted in the English, not in the Greek. I don't think you address Runge's discourse analysis directly, you say that you are providing "an alternative to Runge's (2019. High Definition Commentary: Galatians.) discourse analysis of Gal 2:14a-16", but that's not how Runge divides it into discourse units, here's Runge's outline:

Screen Shot 2022-01-30 at 15.02.13.png
Screen Shot 2022-01-30 at 15.02.13.png (38.48 KiB) Viewed 4026 times
So I don't think you are providing an alternative discourse analysis to Runge's or directly addressing the discourse analysis that Runge provides. I think you are basically asking whether Monaghan is right here:
Re: ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ (Gal 2:16b)

"Is Paul saying that no Jew will be saved? By no means! It is for this reason that translating the text as 'not all flesh will be justified by works of the Law' is a better reading avoiding the otherwise inevitable conclusion that translating πᾶσα σὰρξ as 'no flesh' leads to. Might it be that Gal 2:16 could simply be a statement of fact, that is, not all flesh – all humanity, would become Jewish?"
https://repository.divinity.edu.au/2846 ... sitory.pdf
You then outline the logical flow that would result from accepting Monaghan's interpretation.

But maybe that's the best place to start. Is Monaghan's reading a better reading? If so, why?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Since the OP refers to Runge's analysis of this verse, here it is:
Paul concludes verse 16 by offering a sobering assessment of works apart from faith: no flesh will be justified by works of the law. Here is the statement represented as an equation:

WORKS OF THE LAW (WITHOUT FAITH IN CHRIST) ≠ JUSTIFICATION

There is no mention of faith, but there doesn’t need to be any for the implications of this statement to be reconciled against the preceding logical alternatives. It is not a matter of whether one is a Jew or Gentile here; “no flesh” suitably covers all of the bases.

Paul connects these principles back to the issue at hand in Galatia using a rhetorical question in verse 17. Based on his continued use of “we,” Paul’s attention remains clearly focused on Jewish believers. How can they be found to be sinners when seeking justification in Christ? It has to do with their observance of Jewish ceremonial laws. By abandoning the ceremonial laws in favor of dining with Gentiles, the Jewish believers were found to be sinners by the men from James, hence the suspension of all such activity. So Paul is not referring here to a failure to be justified in Christ since faith and faith alone has been established as the only meaningful variable (v. 16). In fact it is quite the opposite. Having established that observance of the ceremonial law does not affect justification by faith one way or the other, it leaves those who adhere to the law (Jewish believers) no better off than those not adhering to it (Gentile sinners). The word “also” in verse 17 closely connects these nonadhering Jewish believers back to the other sinners referenced in verse 15. Since adherence to the law plays no role in justification, what are the implications for those who stop practicing it? Doesn’t nonadherence to the law still result in sin because Jew and Gentile alike are no longer keeping it. No way!

Verse 18 bolsters Paul’s claim with an analogy. Paul’s law-keeping is described as something that he built up but then destroyed through coming to faith in Christ. Returning to rebuild what he has destroyed renders him a lawbreaker, someone who ostensibly has agreed to live within its bounds and yet fails to do so. The choice to rebuild makes clear that the choice to destroy was wrong, that is, law-breaking. So the crux of the matter here is whether his “destroying” or setting aside of the law as a believer in Christ was legally permissible. The remainder of the verses in this chapter drill down on this question to sort out whose understanding of the law’s purpose is correct.

Runge, S. E. (2019). High Definition Commentary: Galatians (B. Ellis, Ed.; Ga 2:14b–21). Logos Bible Software.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Of course you should study under what circumstances οὐ... πᾶσ is interpreted as "not all/every" instead of "no one", "nothing" etc. Have you done that?
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: January 30th, 2022, 6:32 pm Of course you should study under what circumstances οὐ... πᾶσ is interpreted as "not all/every" instead of "no one", "nothing" etc. Have you done that?
Mounce says this, citing a parallel to this verse in Romans 3:20:
by a Hebraism, a negative with πᾶς is sometimes equivalent to οὐδεις or μηδεις, Mt. 24:22; Lk. 1:37; Acts 10:14; Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:29; Eph. 4:29
For instance:

Matthew 24:22: καὶ εἰ μὴ ἐκολοβώθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι, οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ· διὰ δὲ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς κολοβωθήσονται αἱ ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι.
Luk 1:37: ὅτι οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα.
Acts 10:14 ὁ δὲ Πέτρος εἶπεν, Μηδαμῶς, κύριε, ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον.
Eph 4:29 πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω, ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τις ἀγαθὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας, ἵνα δῷ χάριν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν.

Let's look at some examples that include πᾶσα σὰρξ:

1 Cor 1:29 ὅπως μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ.
Rom 3:20 διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, διὰ γὰρ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας.
Gal 2:16 εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Yes.
cf 1 Cor 1:29 (ὅπως μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ).

μὴ καυχήσηται negates the idea that "all flesh" will boast before God.
But it does not rule out the possibility of some despised "flesh" appropriately boasting in weakness as Paul himself does (2 Cor 11:30). Paradoxically, God "chose the lowly and despised things of the world".

Similarly, with Gal 2:16b (ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ).

οὐ δικαιωθήσεται negates the idea that "all flesh" will be justified ἐξ ἔργων νόμου.
But it does not rule out some "flesh" being justified ἐξ ἔργων νόμου through the faith of Christ (Gal 2:16a).

I hear Paul agreeing with the ideal expressed in Matt. 5:17-20 which I will quote at length:

17Do 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.

Paul knew of some who had fulfilled this difficult teachings of Jesus while at the same time living as law observant Jews, thus exceeding the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. But for his own mission to the Gentiles, he took the path of the "least": "whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".

Logical?
Last edited by Gregory Hartzler-Miller on January 30th, 2022, 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Siebenthal also says (p. 219) "agreeing with Hebrew usage".

Does this mean we can't find grammatical or syntactic rules for this? I wonder if there's some specific allusion to the OT behind this or these, especially οὐ... πᾶσα σὰρξ . The last two words together are certainly from the OT, right?
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: January 30th, 2022, 8:13 pm Siebenthal also says (p. 219) "agreeing with Hebrew usage".

Does this mean we can't find grammatical or syntactic rules for this? I wonder if there's some specific allusion to the OT behind this or these, especially οὐ... πᾶσα σὰρξ . The last two words together are certainly from the OT, right?
One way to do this is to start here:

https://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.ph ... E%B6%CF%82

Search for LXX only, then search for σὰρξ within results.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Lexicons on πᾶς and negation:
πᾶσα σάρξ (כָּל־בָּשָׂר - used in the OT, also En 1:9; TestGad 7:2; GrBar 4:10; but not in EpArist, Philo, nor Joseph.) all flesh Lk 3:6 (Is 40:5); AcPlCor 2:6 and 16 (s. also 3b below). Mostly w. a neg. (so also En 14:21; 17:6) οὐ (or μή) … πᾶσα σάρξ no flesh = no one Mt 24:22; Mk 13:20; Ro 3:20; 1 Cor 1:29; Gal 2:16 (cp. GrBar 8:7 οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα πνοή). Other sim. neg. expressions are also Hebraistic (s. B-D-F §302, 1; Mlt-H. 433f) οὐ … πᾶν ῥῆμα not a thing, nothing Lk 1:37 (cp. PRyl 113, 12f [133 A.D.] μὴ … πᾶν πρᾶγμα). οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινόν I have never eaten anything common Ac 10:14. Cp. Rv 7:1, 16; 9:4; 21:27. Also in reverse order, πᾶς … οὐ or μή (Ex 12:16; Sir 8:19; 10:6, but s. also GLee, ET 63, ’51f, 156) 18:22; Eph 4:29; 5:5; 2 Pt 1:20; 1J 2:21; 3:15b.—Only rarely is a ptc. used w. πᾶς in this way: παντὸς ἀκούοντος when anyone hears Mt 13:19. παντὶ ὀφείλοντι Lk 11:4 (Mlt-Turner 196f).

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). In A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 782). University of Chicago Press.
C. neg., πᾶς οὐ (μή) = οὐδείς, v.s. οὐ and μή, and cf. M, Pr., 245 f.

Abbott-Smith, G. (1922). In A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (p. 348). Charles Scribner’s Sons.
πᾶς, adj. in the sing. without the article, every, every kind of; in the sing. with the article preceding or following, the whole, all the; in the plur. without the article, all; in the plur. with the article following, all the: pronoun masc. every one, neut. everything; πάντες, all, everybody, πάντα, all things; οὐ πᾶς, &c., not all, i.e. only some, e.g. Mt. 19:11, John 13:10, Rom. 10:16, but also (like πᾶς κτλ.… οὐ) Hebraistically, especially when words intervene between οὐ and πᾶς, &c. (translation Greek), = none, no, Mt. 24:22, Mk. 13:20, Lk. 1:37, Ac. 20:25, Rom. 3:20, Gal. 2:16, 2 Pet. 1:20, 1 John 2:21, Rev. 7:16, 21:27, 22:3: πάντες οὐ = οὐ πάντες, 1 Cor. 15:51: διὰ παντός (‘semper’, ‘omne tempus’, ‘per omnia’, Ambr. expos. ps. cxviii 5 22, 6 30), continually, continuously, always: κατὰ πάντα, in everything, in every respect, Ac. 3:22, 17:22, &c.

Souter, A. (1917). In A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (p. 195). Clarendon Press.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ (A discourse analysis of Gal 2:14b-16)

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

All authorities this far seem to take this as "no one" or similar. I got curious about the said Monaghan. If I found the right person he's catholic. I looked at some catholic English translations and they translate as "no one". For example http://catholicbible.online/side_by_side/NT/Gal/ch_2 which has also Vulgate. Those who know Latin can tell how it has been translated in Vulgate. At the moment I'm skeptical about Monaghan.

I have no other commentaries on Galatians than Thomas Schreiner's ZECNT. He doesn't even discuss about possibility of "not all" which is remarkable because he otherwise discusses several different views on Gal 2:16. He refers to Silva, agreeing with him that here we have an allusion to Psalm 142:2 (LXX).
καὶ μὴ εἰσέλθῃς εἰς κρίσιν μετὰ τοῦ δούλου σου, ὅτι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν.
Here we hardly can say the psalmist would mean that not all living beings would be justified.

(Schreiner uses Silva's Galatians commentary but I have Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament where Silva comments on this. Why didn't I go to that handbook immediately...?)

It's of course theoretically possible that Schreiner and Silva are blinded about οὐ... πᾶσα σάρξ because of their commitment to see the allusion to the Psalm. But you should find better authority than Monaghan to convince me.
Post Reply

Return to “Pragmatics and Discourse”