118 olE JAKoB FIlTvEDT vII. Does the Metaphorical Interpretation Solve Any Problems? one might legitimately wonder whether a metaphorical interpretation of ethnic terms in Galatians solves any problems, or whether this is just a discussion about modern terminology and concepts. In response to this possible objection, I would like to point to three important ways in which a metaphorical reading seems to provide better answers to problems in Paul than does the framework of Buell and Hodge. First, on a metaphorical reading, we do not have to posit ethnicity as a self-contradicting concept in order to explain the tensions in Paul’s argument. In Buell’s and Hodge’s interpretation, Paul would first have to convince his audience that ethnicity is fixed enough to create real problems for the Galatians, and then he would have to make them believe that ethnicity is also fluid enough so that these problems can be solved in terms of ethnic mobility. Although it is possible to imagine concepts which can be perceived to be both fluid and fixed at the same time, without the fluidity undermining the fixity, it is also a difficulty. Concepts preferably lack internal contradictions or unresolved tensions. There is no difficulty whatsoever, however, in imagining that language pertaining to one conceptual domain could be used outside the borders of that con- ceptual domain in order to create new meaning. language is used in this way all the time, and the tension thus created is a resource rather than a problem, in that it allows language to be used in new and creative ways. Thus, a metaphorical reading of Paul more easily explains the paradox Buell and Hodge correctly draw attention to. Second, a metaphorical reading of Paul offers us a better explanation as to why Paul opposed the claim that the Galatians should be circumcised, than does the framework of Buell and Hodge. If Paul was trying to create a concept of collective identity which was both similar to and yet also different from current notions of being a people, this explains why he thought that it was a bad idea for the Galatians to undergo a ritual which would have rendered them, in the eyes of their contemporaries, as members of the Jewish people. If, on the other hand, Paul tried to solve the problem in Galatians in terms of ethnic mobility, thereby allowing non-Jews to come in under a Judean umbrella, as Buell and Hodge propose, it seems that circumcision would have accomplished just this. Third, a metaphorical reading of Paul better explains why also Jews had to be baptized according to Paul. If baptism functions as a ritual of ethnic transformation, and if the goal is to bring non-Jews in under a Judean umbrella, then baptism would not have been relevant for Jews. If, however, baptism initiates one into a collective identity which is both