Universalism and Particularism according to Campbell and Tucker
William S. Campbell and J. Brian Tucker both speak of a “particularistic” Paul and understand most of scholarship to represent another, “universalistic” view (Tucker, You Belong to Christ, 66–67). In their view, the universalistic stance claims that Paul taught that all believers share one, universal identity in Christ and required that previous identities be somehow eradicated. In practice, the discussion largely concerns the question of Jewish versus Gentile identity, which figures prominently in Paul’s letters, especially in Romans and Galatians. Tucker takes up several prominent modern scholars, whom he categorizes as proponents of universalism, such as Philip Esler, Bengt Holmberg, J.D.G. Dunn, Daniel Boyarin, Judith Lieu, Denise Kimber Buell, and David Horrell. Although all these scholars admit – to a varying degree – that Paul did not call for complete erasure of previous identities for Christ-believers, Tucker still sees them as gravely underestimating the significance of previous ethnic and/or civic identities for Paul. Tucker points out, for example, that the view has led scholars such as Bengt Holmberg and J.D.G. Dunn to downplay Jewish identity by defining it around concrete markers such as circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws, which furthermore are deemed “outward dimensions” of identity (Holmberg, “Jewish versus Christian Identity,” 417). Tucker sees universalism, for example, in Daniel Boyarin’s view, who states that Paul allowed Christ-believing Jews to continue observing the law “until such observance conflicted with the fundamental meaning and message of the gospel as Paul understood it”: (Boyarin, Radical Jew, 112). Wright has argued that for Paul the Christ-event signified God’s new relationship with both Jews and Gentiles simply on the basis of their humanity (Campbell, Creation of Christian Identity, 149–50).
Particularism, then, is what Campbell and Tucker suggest to serve as a correction to universalism. The central idea is that Paul did not require Christ-followers to give up their previous identities. He did not “eradicate ethnic distinctions” or “encourage Gentiles to become Jews” (Tucker, You Belong to Christ, 63). On the contrary, Paul believed in “the retention of one’s particularity in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile” (Campbell, Creation of Christian Identity, 156) and considered “diversity [… to have] a central value” (Tucker, You Belong to Christ, 66). Accordingly, Campbell concludes that, for Paul, “God is thus the God of two distinct entities, both of Israel and the nations” (Campbell, Creation of Christian Identity, 10). Both Campbell and Tucker admit that, after Paul, the church did eventually become a Gentile community with a universalistic outlook and parted with Judaism – but neither believe the process was begun or even foreseen by Paul (Campbell, Creation of Christian Identity, 7; Tucker, You Belong to Christ, 74).
Campbell has focused his studies on ethnic identities as reflected in Romans and Galatians. On this issue Campbell and Tucker agree: they claim Paul offered salvation in Christ “for Jews as Jews and Gentiles as Gentiles” (Creation of Christian Identity, 37). Tucker sees that 1 Corinthians centers on the continu ance of Gentile Roman civic identity. Tucker considers ethnic and civic identifications comparable, since they both represent “subcomponents” of social identity. As for Paul’s own identity, both agree that “Paul, like Jesus, still oper ated within a Jewish symbolic universe” (Campbell, Creation of Christian Identity, 143). Paul is understood to have fully retained his Jewish identity (Tucker, You Belong to Christ, 83), upheld the Mosaic law (Tucker, Remain in Your Calling, 114), and not to have set “his understanding of the power and grace of God specifically in contrast to his own former life” (Campbell, Creation of Christian Identity, 88).
What Exactly Is the Difference between Universalism and Particularism?
That previous identities were not completely eliminated in Christ must be intuitively clear to all who have read the New Testament. Thus, although Paul in Gal 3:28 claims there is “no longer Jew or Greek […] no longer slave or free […] no longer male and female […],” he is still happy to call Euodia and Syntykhe “women” in Phil 4:3, to discourage Christ-believing slaves from pursuing freedom in 1 Cor 7:21 and to encourage Christ-believers to work with their own hands in 1 Thess 4:11. The union of Prisca and Aquila is also accepted without further ado (1 Cor 15:19). As for Jewish identity, it would be unrealistic to claim that, although circumcision was sometimes surgically undone (1 Macc 1:15), matters such as parental lineage or tribe (Phil 3:5) could be made to somehow disappear. To my knowledge, no scholars have denied this reality (Nikki, Opponents and Identity, 202–4). Paul’s words in Gal 3:28 necessarily represent a level other than that of everyday life – be that level eschatological, salvific, or philosophical. Interestingly, Paul’s thinking in Gal 3:28 resembles Stoicism. The Stoics believed that everyone is equal simply on the grounds of belonging to humanity and “different ranks are just like roles composed by the divine Playwright” (Huttunen, “How Fantasy Comes True,” 102). Interestingly, Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor 7 to retain previous identities has considerable technical similarities to Stoic philosophy (Huttunen, ibid., 103).
