A “NoN-ETHNIC” PEoPlE? 117 to a phenomenon that lies outside the conceptual domain of birth, Paul invites his audience to consider the ways in which their own experi- ence is both similar to and different from what they otherwise know about the concept of birth. The tension thus created, between similar and different, is the locus of the metaphor’s potential to create and convey meaning. The meaning created in Galatians is a re-imagined conception of the kind of identity one shares as member of Abraham’s covenant and family. By claiming that the audience are really descen- dants of Abraham (Gal 3,29), while also maintaining a very specific interpretation of what this does and does not mean (Gal 4,21-31), Paul forces his audience to consider the ways in which they stand in a position which is both similar to and different from someone who putatively did descend physically from Abraham. Finally, it is also important to emphasize that a metaphorical in- terpretation of Paul’s use of kinship language in no way implies the ir- relevance of ethnicity for identity in Christ. Quite to the contrary, I would actually argue that a metaphorical reading of Paul allows us to retain and rearticulate several of Buell’s and Hodge’s legitimate con- cerns regarding the significance of ethnic reasoning for identity as fol- lowers of Jesus. According to my understanding of metaphors, they are characterized by an interaction between two conceptual domains. This interaction is constitutive of the meaning for which the metaphor- ical statement is a carrier, the implication of which is that one cannot silence one of the conceptual domains of the metaphor without loss of meaning. Metaphors, in other words, cannot be reduced to paraphrases that spell out their “real” meaning in clear language. However, if this is a true description of what metaphors are, it implies that Buell and Hodge are correct in at least two regards. First of all, they are correct to argue that Paul’s construction of identity in Christ is irreducibly bound up with notions of ethnicity. one cannot simply put notions of kinship, peoplehood and blood lines to one side, if one wants to un- derstand what it means, according to Paul, to be in Christ. Second of all, they are correct to argue that there is something irreducibly Jewish about the kind of identity a person, according to Paul, shares in Christ. one cannot, without serious loss of meaning, overlook the fact that claiming identity as a “descendant of Abraham” anchors one firmly within a specifically Jewish tradition 56. 56 Helpfully emphasized by HoDGE, If Sons, 131.