All symbolic capital is false…

If the issue here were the gaining of salvation by self-reliant works (Luther) it is hard to see why Paul would discount both circumcision and uncircumcision. Circumcision could be figured as a work aimed to elicit God’s favor, but it is not clear how leaving oneself uncircumcised is a “work” in this or any other sense. Yet Paul equally discounts both circumcision and uncircumcision. Similarly if the issue were “nationalistic imperialism” or the “restriction” of the covenant to Jews alone (Dunn), why is uncircumcision also here devalued? It seems Paul’s target is neither ethnocentrism nor the false opinion that good works can gain benefit from God. He subverts any form of symbolic capital that operates independently of Christ.—J. M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 393 (emphasis original)