114 olE JAKoB FIlTvEDT to make a clear distinction between the question of how ethnicity should be conceptualized and the further question of how ethnic terms are used. The conceptualization of ethnicity seems rather to flow quite directly from the way in which ethnic terms are used. The logic seems to be as follows: if ethnic terms are used as part of a rhetoric which highlights mobility and identity transformation, this means that ethnicity as a concept must be understood to be flexible and fluid. Thus, there is no tension between the rhetoric of ethnicity and the definition of ethnicity, since the latter is directly derived from the former. Metaphors, by contrast, derive their force precisely in the tension between how a given concept is normally understood within a given cultural context and the way the concept is employed for rhetorical purposes. vI. Reconsidering a Metaphorical Reading of Paul If we turn now to Paul’s argument in Gal 3,26-29, we can begin by observing that it includes the following train of thought. If someone is baptized, he or she is in Christ. If someone is in Christ, he or she is Abraham’s descendant. If someone is a descendant of Abraham, he or she is heir according to the promise. A crucial question is thus what Paul means by the phrase “descendant of Abraham”. In order to ad- dress this question, I find it helpful to turn to Gal 4,21-31, where Paul explores the deeper significance of the fact that Abraham had two sons 48. one of these sons, the one born of the slave woman, represents slavery. The other son, the one born of the free woman, represents freedom. The two sons stand for two different covenants. The son of the slave woman stands for the covenant at Sinai, and the earthly Jerusalem, whereas the one born of the free woman represents the Jerusalem above. There is also a difference between the two sons, pertaining to the way they were born: “The son of the slave woman was born according to the flesh (kata. sa,rka), the son of the freeborn through a promise (diV evpaggeli,aj)” (Gal 4,23) 49. 48 For defense of the presupposition that Gal 4,21-31 develops the claims of Gal 3,26-29, see BoER, Galatians, 305. 49 My translation. J.l. MARTYN, Galatians. A New Translation with Introduc- tion and Commentary (AB 33A; New York 1997) 435-436, helpfully demon- strates how being born kata. sa,rka carries multiple meanings. on one level, it simply refers to birth by means of the “natural power of procreation”, i.e. physical birth. However, on another level, the term “flesh” obviously also carries negative connotations, suggesting a mode of existence which is according to the norms of the present evil age (Gal 1,4). In all probability, Paul also intends an indirect