The Law’s Universal Condemning and Enslaving Power: Reading Paul, the Old Testament, and Second Temple Jewish Literature (Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement) [1 ed.] 9781575069791, 1575069792

Citation preview

The Law’s Universal Condemning and Enslaving Power Reading Paul, the Old Testament, and Second Temple Jewish Literature

Bryan Blazosky Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 24

The Law’s Universal Condemning and Enslaving Power

Blazosky Final.indd 1

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements Editor

Richard S. Hess, Denver Seminary Associate Editor

Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary Advisory Board Donald A. Hagner Leslie C. Allen Fuller Theological Seminary Fuller Theological Seminary Bruce K. Waltke Donald A. Carson Knox Theological Seminary Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Blazosky Final.indd 2

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Law’s Universal Condemning and Enslaving Power Reading Paul, the Old Testament, and Second Temple Jewish Literature

Bryan Blazosky

eisenbrauns   |  University Park, Pennsylvania

Blazosky Final.indd 3

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Blazosky, Bryan, 1983– author. Title: The law's universal condemning and enslaving power : reading Paul, the Old Testament, and Second Temple Jewish literature / Bryan Blazosky. Other titles: Bulletin for biblical research supplements. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns, [2019] | Series: Bulletin for biblical research supplement | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “Explores Paul's view of the Mosaic law's relationship to Gentile Christians, and explores the logic of Paul's approach, comparing his view on this issue to views found in the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish literature”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: lccn 2019013654 | isbn 9781575069791 (cloth : alk. paper) Subjects: lcsh: Paul, the Apostle, Saint. | Bible. Epistles of Paul—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Jewish law. | Gentiles ( Jewish law) Classification: lcc bs2655.l35 b63 2019 | ddc 227/.06—dc23 lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019013654 Copyright © 2019 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802-1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-​free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.

Blazosky Final.indd 4

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Contents

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. The Research Question   2 II. The Need  2 III. The Methodology: What This Book Is Not   21 IV. The Methodology: What This Book Is   22 V. The Significance  24 Chapter 1. The Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 I. Pre-Law Narratives  26 II. The Mosaic Covenant   30 III. The Plight of the Canaanites in Leviticus 18 and 20   35 IV. Deuteronomy and the Curse of the Law   41 Chapter 2. The Prophets and the Writings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 I. Gentiles and Law in the Former Prophets   51 II. Gentiles and Law in the Latter Prophets   54 III. Gentiles and Law in the Writings   72 IV. Conclusions on the Theology of the OT concerning Gentiles and Law   75 Chapter 3. The Second Temple Jewish Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 I. Surveying the Secondary Literature   79 II. My Approach to the Jewish Literature   81 III. The Law in the Jewish Literature   82 IV. Gentiles and Law in the Jewish Literature   90 V. Conclusion  112

v

Blazosky Final.indd 5

4/11/19 5:28 PM

vi

Contents

Chapter 4. Galatians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 I. An Analysis of the First Person Plural Personal Pronouns in Galatians  115 II. Gal 3:10–14 on Gentiles and the Law’s Condemnation   119 III. The Law’s Inextricable Bond with Ἁμαρτία, Σάρξ, Στοιχεῖα, and Κόσμος in Galatians   125 IV. Concluding Reflections on Paul’s View of Gentiles and Law in Galatians  133 Chapter 5. Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 I. The Law and Gentile Condemnation in Rom 1:18–3:20   137 II. The Law and the Enslaving Powers of Darkness in Rom 5:12–8:17   154 III. A Summary of Paul’s View of Gentiles and Law in Romans  162 IV. Comparing and Contrasting Gentiles and Law in Romans and Galatians   163 Chapter 6. 1 Corinthians and the Disputed Pauline Epistles . . . . . . . . . . 165 I. Clarifications on whether Νόμος Divides or Unites Humanity   166 II. Confirmation of the Union of Θάνατος, Ἁμαρτία, and Νόμος: 1 Cor 15:55–57   169 III. Confirmations of the Universal Extent of the Law’s Condemning Power  171 IV. Conclusion  185 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 I. The Book in Review   187 II. Paul’s View of Gentiles and Law   187 III. Paul’s View in Relation to the OT and the Second Temple Jewish Literature   189 IV. My Proposal in Relation to Current Proposals on Gentiles and Law   190 V. Areas for Further Study   191 VI. Concluding Reflections  192 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Blazosky Final.indd 6

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Tables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

The Repetition of Leviticus 18–19 in Leviticus 20:1–21   38 A Comparison of Parallel Stipulations in Leviticus 18–19 and Leviticus 20   38 Parallel Content in Deuteronomy 27:15–26 and Leviticus 18:6–23 and Leviticus 20:2b–21   46 Reasons for the Condemnation of Specific Nations in the Latter Prophets  55 The Text of Isaiah 24:5–6   66 The MT and LXX of Isaiah 24:5   98 The Language of Paul’s Quotation of Deuteronomy 27:26 in Galatians 3:10   120 Examples of Jewish Terminology Applied to Gentile Deliverance   124 Examples of Paul’s Use of 1PPs when Speaking of the Death of Jesus  124 Chiastic Structure of Romans 2:6–11   140 Proposal #1 of the Argument of Romans 2:12–14   142 Proposal #2 of the Argument of Romans 2:12–14   143 Pronominal Shifting in Romans 6:1–3, 14–16; 7:1, 4   158 Paul’s Uses of Δόγματα in Ephesians 2:15a and Colossians 2:14a   179 Comparison of 1 Timothy 1:9–10 to Exodus 20:3–16   183

vii

Blazosky Final.indd 7

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Blazosky Final.indd 8

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Acknowledgments

In many ways, this monograph, a revised version of my Ph.D. thesis at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia, began with an informal conversation I had with Brian Rosner at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in San Francisco in November of 2011. I had been curious for some time about whether Gentiles were under the curse of the law of Moses or if the curse of the law extended only to Jewish sinners. As we discussed this issue and the difficulty of discerning Paul’s mind on it, little did I know that Brian would become my Ph.D. supervisor or that this question would become the catalyst for this study. I have been blessed to have Brian as a mentor during the entire writing process. He is a model of Christian scholarship, and his feedback, encouragement, and critiques have proved invaluable to this work. In addition, my secondary advisor, Michael Bird, has been a great guide and has taught me much not only about publishing scholarly work but also about Australian humor. Along with my advisors, I owe much gratitude to Craig Blomberg for his insightful and meticulous work as an editor for this series, as well as Duncan Burns for his excellent work in preparing the manuscript for publication. In addition to these men, my family and friends, as well as former colleagues and students from Northland International University, have contributed much not only to this monograph but to me as a follower of Jesus. My parents have been a constant source of encouragement throughout my life, but especially over these last several years of work. Along with them, Brent Belford—my cousin, close friend, and fellow Ph.D. student—has labored with me almost the entire way through graduate and postgraduate work. It is hard to imagine having gone through this process without him. To these and many others not mentioned, I thank you for helping me see Christ and for pushing me toward him. Most of all, I am thankful for my wife. Tricia, words cannot sufficiently express my gratitude for your love, support, and friendship, as well as your faithfulness as a mother to our several small children during these years. In the midst of many transitions, including the closing of a church and of the university where I had been teaching, you have never wavered in your love and support or in your commitment to help me run the race set before me. Tricia, thank you. This work is dedicated to you. Seni çok seviyorum.

ix

Blazosky Final.indd 9

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Blazosky Final.indd 10

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Abbreviations

AB ABD AGJU AIL AJSR ANE ANTC ANTZ ApOTC BDAG BECNT BETL BGT BHS BibInt BJS BKAT BNTC BSac BST BZABR BZAW BZNW CBQ CEJL CNT CNTUOT ConBNT CRINT CTR DCLS DSD

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Ancient Israel and Its Literature Association for Jewish Studies Review Ancient Near East/ern Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte Apollos Old Testament Commentary Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Bibleworks Greek Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983 Biblical Interpretation Series Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Black’s New Testament Commentaries Bibliotheca Sacra The Bible Speaks Today Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Coniectanea Neotestamentica or Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Criswell Theological Review Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Dead Sea Discoveries xi

Blazosky Final.indd 11

4/11/19 5:28 PM

xii

Abbreviations

EBC Expositor’s Bible Commentary EBib Etudes bibliques EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament ERT Evangelical Review of Theology ESV English Standard Version EuroJTh European Journal of Theology FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament GNT Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999 HBS History of Biblical Studies HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament HTKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HTKNT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching ICC International Critical Commentary Int Interpretation JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JLAS Jewish Law Association Studies JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JTS Journal of Theological Studies JTSA Journal of Theology for South Africa KD Kerygma und Dogma KJV King James Version LHBOTS The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LNTS The Library of New Testament Studies LSTS The Library of Second Temple Studies LXX Septuagint MT Masoretic Text NAB New American Bible NAC New American Commentary NCCS New Covenant Commentary Series NET New English Translation NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994–2004 NIBC New International Biblical Commentary

Blazosky Final.indd 12

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Abbreviations NICNT NICOT NIGTC NIV NIVAC NLT NovT NovTSup NRSV NSBT NTL NTS OTL OTP OTT PBM PCNT PNTC PRS ResQ RSV SBLAB SBLDS SBLSymS SBM SBS SBT SHBC SHR SNTSMS SOTSMS SpAMA SR ST SUNT SUNYSJ SVTP TBN THKNT TNTC TrinJ TynBul TZ VT VTSup WBC

Blazosky Final.indd 13

xiii

New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Version NIV Application Commentary New Living Translation Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum New Revised Standard Version New Studies in Biblical Theology New Testament Library New Testament Studies Old Testament Library Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985 Old Testament Theology Paternoster Biblical Monographs Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament Pillar New Testament Commentary Perspectives in Religious Studies Restoration Quarterly Revised Standard Version Society of Biblical Literature Academia Biblica Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Stuttgarter biblische Monographien Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary Studies in the History of Religions Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies in Philo of Alexandria and Mediterranean Antiquity Studies in Religion Studia Theologica Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments SUNY Series in Judaica: Hermeneutics, Mysticism, and Religion Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigraphica Themes in Biblical Narrative Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Trinity Journal Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary

4/11/19 5:28 PM

xiv WTJ WUNT ZECNT ZNW

Blazosky Final.indd 14

Abbreviations Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Introduction

Paul’s theology of the Mosaic law and its relationship to believers has been one of the most discussed fields in all of biblical studies. Despite this focus, little has been written about Paul’s view of how the law relates to Gentile unbelievers. Though scholars may deal with the topic when explaining Romans 2 or Galatians 3, few have endeavored to synthesize what Paul says, especially with respect to condemnation and slavery. Paul is clear that the Mosaic law was Israel’s unique possession. To them belongs “the giving of the law” (Rom 9:4).1 “The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2). Gentiles are those “who do not have the law” (Rom 2:14) while Jews “have the written code and circumcision” (Rom 2:27). But does it follow that Gentiles are thus excluded from the law’s condemnation? Could Gentiles be enslaved by a law not given to them? Did Christ redeem Gentiles from the law’s curse? Pauline scholars answer these questions in a variety of ways, but rarely are those answers fully developed. In 1987, Lloyd Gaston commented: “It is remarkable that in the endless discussion of Paul’s understanding of the law, few have asked what a first-century Jew would have thought of the law as it relates to Gentiles.”2 Two decades later, Hyun-Gwang Kim commented that, to his knowledge, not one monograph dealt comprehensively with the question of whether Paul depicted Gentiles as under the law and its curse.3 In 2010, after discussing seven continued “pressure points” in the Paul and the law debate,4 Andrew Das noted two more issues which also could have been 1.  Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical quotations are from the ESV. 2.  Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 23; italics original. 3.  Hyun-Gwang Kim, “Redeemed from the Curse: Paul’s Understanding of the Law and Gentiles in the Light of Hellenistic Judaism” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008), 6. Kim writes: “I could locate neither a monograph nor an article that deals comprehensively with the question as to whether or not Gentiles are under the law and its curse in Paul.” Apart from Kim’s own contribution, this remark holds true today. Another possible exception is David VanDrunen, Divine Covenants and Moral Order: A Biblical Theology of Natural Law, Emory University Studies in Law and Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014). The difference is that VanDrunen does not approach the study with a focus on Paul; rather, his goal is to present a biblical theology of natural law, a natural law that is intricately connected to the Noahic covenant. 4.  A. Andrew Das, “Paul and the Law: Pressure Points in the Debate,” in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle, ed. Mark D. Given (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 99–116. The seven issues that Das discusses are Paul’s Jewish milieu, the question of legalism, the meaning of the

1

Blazosky Final.indd 1

4/11/19 5:28 PM

2

Introduction

mentioned. “One might also inquire whether and to what extent gentiles are ‘under’ the Law. The precise factors that led to Paul’s approach to the Law are yet another difficult question. Pauline scholarship clearly remains a field for adventure and intrigue.”5 This monograph seeks to meet the first need, while also providing a test case for how Paul’s approach to the law may have been shaped by the Old Testament (OT) and Second Temple Jewish literature.

I. The Research Question The driving question of this work is simple. Are Gentile unbelievers condemned by and enslaved under the Mosaic law? Closely related are two subordinate questions. Why does Paul think what he does about this issue, and how does Paul’s understanding relate to perspectives within the OT and Second Temple Jewish literature?

II. The Need In light of the simplicity of the research question and the abundance of secondary literature, it is legitimate to ask whether there is a need for such a book. In response, I offer four considerations. First, there is recognizable tension within the Pauline corpus on this question. Second, though much is written on Paul and the law, there is insufficient scholarly treatment of this particular question. Third, those who discuss this issue to some extent have reached nothing near a consensus on how to handle this question. Fourth, there is often a lack of clarity or consistency within scholars’ own positions on this issue. A. The Tension within the Texts To say that Paul’s view of the law is complex is an understatement. The same could be said of his perspective on the relationship of the law to unbelieving Gentiles. Whether an interpreter accepts only the Hauptbriefe or all thirteen letters ascribed to Paul in the New Testament, the tension created by the texts themselves is easily discernible. Even a cursory examination of a few relevant texts brings this complexity to light. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do “works of the law,” Jewish ethnic exclusivity, the debate concerning the need for perfect obedience, the meaning of νόμος in Paul, and the role of the law as a norm. 5.  Ibid., 114–15.

Blazosky Final.indd 2

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Introduction

3

them”…. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. (Gal 3:10, 13–14)

This critical text raises several questions. Were Gentile Christians formerly under the curse of the law? Or do “we” and “us” in 3:13–14 refer only to Jews or Jewish believers? If Gentile believers were under the law’s curse, how can this be? If only Jewish people were, why is Jewish redemption a prerequisite for Gentile reception of the Spirit? Later, in the same chapter, Paul emphasizes the enslaving, imprisoning power of sin and the law of Moses: But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (Gal 3:21–26)

This text raises the question of the precise relationship of sin and the law in Paul’s writings. Are there people who are under sin but not under law? When Paul says that “we were held captive under the law,” is he describing only Jewish believers, or is he describing the past of all Christians? Furthermore, the pronominal shifting must be explained. Why does Paul move from “we” to “you” in 3:25–26? Is he suggesting that the Galatian believers were formerly “under the law”? Similar tension is present in Romans. In Rom 2:12–16, Paul speaks of the final condemnation of sinners and the criteria by which they will be judged: For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:12–16)

At first glance, this passage affirms that the Mosaic law will not be used as a criterion at the final judgment of Gentile sinners (those who sin “without the law”). But how does 2:14–15 play into this issue? In those verses, the law of Moses at least appears to have some role in condemning or excusing some Gentiles. Paul

Blazosky Final.indd 3

4/11/19 5:28 PM

4

Introduction

later writes that the law “speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God” (3:19). How is this passage related to 2:12–16, and what is Paul’s logic within 3:19? To whom exactly does the law speak, and how do the law’s words result in the culpability of humanity? As Romans unfolds, Paul repeatedly interjects brief comments about the role of the law and its relationship to sin (3:20; 4:13–15; 5:13–14, 20–21; 6:14–15), before developing his perspective on the law in Romans 7. After illustrating how death alters one’s relationship to the law (7:1–3), Paul makes this application to his readers: Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (Rom 7:4–6)

Once again, there is pronominal shifting. Is Paul shifting referents from the Jewish experience to the Gentile experience? Is this entire section addressed exclusively to Jewish Christians (perhaps “those who know the law” in 7:1), or does 7:1–6 include the primarily Gentile readership? Who has been put to death to the law? As Romans 7 progresses, sin’s abuse of the law becomes even more prominent. Sin uses the law to enslave and kill. “Apart from the law, sin lies dead” (7:8b). Again, the question is raised of whether someone could be under sin but not under the law. This initial survey is sufficient to demonstrate the recognizable tension within the Pauline corpus on the relationship of unbelieving Gentiles to the Mosaic law. The texts themselves push against one another to such an extent that the need for further analysis and synthesis of the relevant textual material is merited. B. The Lack of Sustained Treatment In spite of this tension, there is a surprising lack of sustained scholarly treatment of this issue. Within commentaries on a specific passage, one may, of course, find discussions on who is ὑπὸ νόμον or who is cursed by the law. The need at this point, however, is for comprehensive analysis and reflection on this research question. Even within Paul and the law monographs, this question often receives little to no treatment. For example, though Tom Schreiner’s The Law and Its Fulfillment, Frank Thielman’s Paul and the Law, and Jason Meyer’s The End of the Law are all

Blazosky Final.indd 4

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Introduction

5

quite helpful,6 it is difficult to find any references to this issue in these works. Other works such as E. P. Sanders’s Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, Heikki Räisänen’s Paul and the Law, Andrew Das’s Paul and the Jews, Stephen Westerholm’s Perspectives Old and New on Paul, and Brian Rosner’s Paul and the Law all address the issue,7 but even in these cases, discussions are typically brief and questions concerning why Paul thinks what he does or what implications his view may have are usually unexplored. C. The Lack of Consensus regarding Gentiles and Law in Paul More important than the lack of sustained analysis, however, is the demonstrable lack of consensus on how to handle this question. For good reason Das mentions this topic as a continued “pressure point” in Paul and the law studies. Section headings from various monographs illustrate the complexity: “Gentiles under the law?” (Räisänen);8 “All are under the law” (Sanders);9 and, “Gentiles are not ‘under the law’” (Rosner).10 Instead of seeking to detail every scholar’s position, I first provide representatives of those who claim that Gentiles were under the law and those who affirm the opposite. Second, I explore briefly how these scholars explain their views and discuss some of the significant implications drawn from these positions. The most effective way to categorize scholars is to begin with their comments on one central text: Gal 3:13.11 When Paul says that Christ “redeemed us from the curse of the law,” are Gentile believers included in the “us”? Does this text communicate that all believers were formerly under the curse of the Mosaic law? 6.  Thomas R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993); Frank Thielman, Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994); Jason C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009). 7.  See esp. E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983; repr., 2009), 68–69, 81–86; Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 18–23; A. Andrew Das, Paul and the Jews, Library of Pauline Studies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 120–28. For his analysis of Rom 2:12–15, see A. Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 178–82. See also Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 414–17; Brian S. Rosner, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God, NSBT 31 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013), 51–56. 8. Räisänen, Paul, 18. 9. Sanders, Paul, the Law, 81. Similarly, see a section entitled, “The Gentiles are hypo nomon,” in Brice L. Martin, Christ and the Law in Paul, NovTSup 62 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 100–104. 10. Rosner, Paul, 51. 11.  In cases where works have been influential on Paul and the law studies but where no clear position on Gal  3:13 can be found, I have searched for other clear statements to categorize the interpreter.

Blazosky Final.indd 5

4/11/19 5:28 PM

6

Introduction

1. Position #1: Gentile Believers Were Not under the Law or Its Curse Writers who contend that “us” in Gal 3:13 refers only to Jews or Jewish believers include Jean-Noël Aletti, John Barclay, Hans Dieter Betz, Hendrikus Boers, David A. deSilva, Terence Donaldson, William Dumbrell, Ferdinand Hahn, Richard Hays, In-Gyu Hong, Bruce Longenecker, Scot McKnight, D. W. Robinson, David Ian Starling, Todd Wilson, Ben Witherington III, Michael Wolter, and N. T. Wright. A natural corollary is the view that only Jews were ὑπὸ νόμον in 3:22– 23 or 4:4–5. Thus, these authors answer “No” to the question of whether νόμος condemns and enslaves Gentiles. Others who have not specifically addressed the pronouns in 3:13 but have expressed general agreement with this position include Linda Belleville, Mark Nanos, and Brian Rosner. Though there are many disagreements about other elements of Paul’s theology of the law, these scholars agree that only Jews could be “under the curse of the law” or “under the law.” Christ redeemed Jews from the law’s curse so that the blessing promised to Abraham could be given to the Gentiles in Christ. This interpretation of 3:13–14 leads to a natural follow-up question. If Christ redeemed only Jews from the law’s curse, why was this Jewish redemption a necessary precondition for the blessing going to Gentiles? Two related explanations offered by Donaldson and Wright have garnered the most support. In his 1986 article on the curse of the law,12 Donaldson argues for reading the first person plural pronouns in Galatians as referring exclusively to Jews. Donaldson remarks: [T]here was within first century Judaism a pattern of thinking about the Gentiles— a pattern of which Paul was demonstrably aware—which corresponds exactly to the pattern in vv. 13–14a, viz. the strand of eschatological expectation that anticipated a massive turning of the Gentiles to Yahweh as a consequence of the end-time redemption of Israel.13

For Donaldson, “There are two steps between ‘cross’ and ‘Gentiles’ in 3.13 f.: Christ through the cross redeemed Israel from the curse of the law so that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus.”14 Donaldson, despite having nuanced his view of the eschatological pilgrimage considerably since 1986,15 12.  Terence L. Donaldson, “The ‘Curse of the Law’ and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13–14,” NTS 32 (1986): 94–112. For an earlier example of a similar argument to Donaldson’s, see D. W. Robinson, “The Distinction between Jewish and Gentile Believers in Galatians,” ABR 13 (1965): 29–48. Cf. Bruce W. Longenecker, “Sharing in Their Spiritual Blessings?,” in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 64–72. 13.  Donaldson, “‘Curse,’” 98–99. 14.  Ibid., 97. 15.  Terence L. Donaldson (“Paul within Judaism: A Critical Evaluation from a ‘New Perspective’ Perspective,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle, ed. Mark D.

Blazosky Final.indd 6

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Introduction

7

has remained essential to the popularity of this reading of 3:13–14, having been followed in large part by Caneday, Wilson, Witherington, and others.16 Wright’s reading, adopted by McKnight and Hays, generally corresponds to Donaldson’s but has a unique focus on the deuteronomic themes of exile and restoration. In The Climax of the Covenant, Wright argues that the curse of the law in Galatians 3 refers to the historical exile of Israel, and that Jesus—in his death on the cross—took upon himself the culmination of that exile. Jesus’s death brought an end to Israel’s curse and cleared the way for the Abrahamic blessing to flow to the Gentiles. Wright states: Because the Messiah represents Israel, he is able to take on himself Israel’s curse and exhaust it. Jesus dies as the King of the Jews, at the hands of the Romans whose oppression of Israel is the present, and climactic, form of the curse of the exile itself. The crucifixion of the Messiah is, one might say, the quintessence of the curse of exile, and its climactic act. The context thus demands the first person plural for which Paul has been criticized by some and misunderstood by others: he is not here producing a general statement of atonement theologically applicable equally, and in the same way, to Jew and Gentile alike. Christ, as the representative Messiah, has achieved a specific task, that of taking on himself the curse which hung over Israel and which on the one hand prevented her from enjoying full membership in Abraham’s family and thereby on the other hand prevented the blessing of Abraham from flowing out to the Gentiles.17

Since 3:10–14 contains the only two Pauline uses of the “curse” language found in Deuteronomy 27–30, this interpretation is of great significance to Wright’s theology and has become a staple of his works on Paul, including both Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision and his magnum opus, Paul and the Faithfulness of God.18 Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015], 281–82) writes: “In my earliest attempts to explore Paul’s concern for non‑Jews, I thought that it could be understood as a fairly straightforward consequence of Jewish anticipations of the ‘eschatological pilgrimage of the nations’ or, more generally, Jewish restoration theology. Eventually, however, I found myself forced to abandon this approach in favor of a more complex reordering of Paul’s convictional world.” 16.  Cf. David Ian Starling, Not My People: Gentiles as Exiles in Pauline Hermeneutics, BZNW 184 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 215; cf. 51–52. Starling also adopts the basic framework presented by Donaldson and Wright but with a slightly different emphasis. For Starling, a key theme of Galatians and Romans is the equivalence of Israel’s situation under the law with the already established plight of Gentiles. Thus, on the one hand, the law excludes Gentiles; on the other hand, the law “plunges Israel and individual Israelites into a predicament of ‘death’ that is every bit as desperate as the plight of the Gentiles” (215). 17.  N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 151. 18.  N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 122–25; N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 863–67.

Blazosky Final.indd 7

4/11/19 5:28 PM

8

Introduction

2. Position #2: Gentile Believers Were under the Law and Its Curse On the other hand, writers who affirm that Christ redeemed Gentile believers from the curse of the law in Gal 3:13 include Jürgen Becker, J.  Christiaan Beker, Martinus C. de Boer, F. F. Bruce, William Dalton, Andrew Das, Andrea van Dülmen, James Dunn,19 Hans-Joachim Eckstein, Lloyd Gaston, John G. Gager, Hans Hübner, Kari Kuula, J. Louis Martyn, Brice Martin, Douglas Moo,20 Franz Mussner, Heikki Räisänen, Joachim Rohde, E. P. Sanders, Dieter Sänger, Tom Schreiner, Vincent Smiles, Stephen Westerholm, and Jarvis Williams. Though these authors agree on this point, there is no consensus among them concerning why Paul thinks this way. Though more views could be presented, the following eight proposals provide a starting point for the discussion.21 1. Räisänen and Kuula: A Pauline Contradiction. In Paul and the Law, Heikki Räisänen suggests that Paul’s view of the law cannot ultimately be synthesized since it contains inherent contradictions. In his analysis of Galatians, he sees Paul as clearly placing Gentiles under the curse of the law; yet, “if nomos denotes the Mosaic law of Sinai, it by definition concerns the Jews, but not the Gentiles.”22 After Räisänen works through the frequent pronominal shifting in Gal 3:13–5:1, he remarks: This accumulation of parallel cases [of inconsistency] proves that we are not just faced with occasional careless phrasing. Rather, we have to conclude that when Paul spoke of redemption from the curse of the law or of liberation from the power of the law, he did not always imply that the situation of the Gentiles was any different from that of the Jews…. One cannot avoid noticing “a strange oscillation of the concept of law in Paul”—an oscillation between the notion of a historical and particularist Torah and that of a general universal force.23

Räisänen concludes concisely: “The solution is for Paul clearer than the problem.”24 19.  James Dunn’s perspective is difficult to categorize. In his commentary on Galatians, Dunn argues that the “us” in Gal 3:13 includes Gentiles. Yet, he also argues that Gentiles are not included as “under the law” in Gal 3:23–4:5. See James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 176, 196–201, 216. Perhaps the most appropriate description of Dunn’s view may be that Gentiles are under the curse of the law but not under its jurisdiction or oppression. 20.  See Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 211–14. Moo is placed here in light of this commentary, wherein he reads “us” as inclusive of Gentile believers. Cf., however, Douglas J. Moo, “‘Law’, ‘Works of the Law’, and Legalism in Paul,” WTJ 45 (1983): 81. This reading in the commentary appears to be a change from the 1983 article, wherein he held that Paul differentiates Jewish and Gentile experience through his use of first and second person pronouns in Galatians 3–4. 21.  This survey is primarily of significant works on Galatians or Romans and of monographs on Paul and the law. Since an interpreter’s view often touches more than one category, I have chosen the category most reflective of the author’s emphasis. For the sake of brevity, some other options are not included in the main text but in the notes on the most closely related proposal. 22. Räisänen, Paul, 18. 23.  Ibid., 21. 24.  Ibid., 23.

Blazosky Final.indd 8

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Introduction

9

More recently, in a two-volume work on Galatians and Romans, The Law, the Covenant and God’s Plan, Kari Kuula reevaluates Paul’s writings and essentially reaffirms the basic ideas of Räisänen but with a more thorough textual analysis. Kuula suggests that, in Galatians, Paul alters between presenting νόμος as a “particularist” Jewish Torah and νόμος as a universal force with Gentiles in its sphere. Why does Paul include Gentiles at times under the law’s dominion? Kuula concludes that, “since Paul is of the opinion that Christ is the savior of all, he lapses into suggesting that the law is the problem of all.”25 Likewise, in his treatment of Romans 6–7, Kuula writes: Paul seems to regard the possibility of being under the law as pertaining not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles. The pronouns change with no clear reason…. This oscillation between pronouns—similar to that found in Galatians—indicates that no difference between Jews and the Gentiles is being suggested here. Both were under the law before their conversion.26

Again, the resolution is that the problem resides with Paul. Kuula states: “There is no need to explain away these tensions or contradictory statements, nor any possibility of doing so. They simply show that Paul was not aiming at consistency in his treatment of the law, as long as the persuasiveness of his general aims was not endangered.”27 2. Sanders and Westerholm: Paul’s Unconscious Jewish Presuppositions. As with Räisänen and Kuula, Sanders also sees inconsistency in Paul’s treatment of the human plight, especially with respect to how the law relates to Gentile unbelievers.28 But what sets Sanders apart is his explanation for why Paul places Gentiles under the law. Paul does this, Sanders suggests, because of his Jewish worldview. “There is no doubt that, at one level, Paul was quite conscious of the fact that Jews 25.  Kari Kuula, The Law, the Covenant and God’s Plan, Vol. 1, Paul’s Polemical Treatment of the Law in Galatians, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 72 (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1999), 56. 26.  Kari Kuula, The Law, the Covenant and God’s Plan, Vol. 2, Paul’s Treatment of Israel and the Law in Romans, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 85 (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2003), 209. 27. Kuula, Law, 2:260. As a possible alternative to Paul’s being contradictory within the same letter, it could, at least in theory, be argued that Paul changed or developed his view on the research question between Galatians and Romans. Though none applies this idea directly to this question, Beker, Hübner, and Tobin all suggest that Paul’s view of the law changed or developed between these letters. Perhaps one could suggest that Paul initially radicalized the law in Galatians into an enslaving universal power, but, upon further reflection, recast his vision of the law in Romans. 28.  E. P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977], 474) writes that Paul’s “description of the human plight varies, remaining constant only in the assertion of its universality.” Sanders also remarks: “For Paul, the conviction of a universal solution preceded the conviction of a universal plight.”

Blazosky Final.indd 9

4/11/19 5:28 PM

10

Introduction

but not Gentiles were under the law”; yet, Paul “generally writes on the basis of Jewish presuppositions.”29 Sanders adds: [W]ith regard to the human plight, he could conceivably have offered another formulation. Thus, for example, he could have conformed the Jewish situation to the pagan one by saying that Jews had made an idol of the law. He kept the Jewish perspective and made the Gentile problem fit it, with virtually no explanation of how former idolaters were “under the law.”30

Westerholm, though not directly asserting inconsistencies in Paul’s thought, agrees with Sanders that the best way to explain Paul is to appeal to Paul’s unconscious Jewish presuppositions.31 Westerholm concludes that Paul did speak of Gentiles as “under the law” and as having been put to death to the law but that he did not do so intentionally. The most likely explanation remains that of Sanders…. Paul’s own presuppositions are Jewish. He speaks naturally, and probably without reflection, of Abraham as “our forefather according to the flesh” (4:1), or of the wilderness generation as “our fathers” (1 Cor. 10:1), even when he is writing to churches predominantly Gentile. Similarly, he at times depicts the plight of all humanity in terms borrowed from, and (strictly speaking) appropriate only to, the Jewish situation (“under the law”). Quite likely the generalization took place unconsciously.32

3. Gaston: Only Gentiles Are Ὑπὸ Νόμον. An alternative has been put forward by Lloyd Gaston that only Gentiles were ὑπὸ νόμον. Driven by a desire to counter antiSemitism,33 Gaston reevaluates Paul’s relationship to Judaism. Gaston concludes that Paul did not turn from Judaism, nor was he “converted” from it; rather, Paul was simply called from within Judaism to preach Christ to Gentiles.34 Thus, Paul 29. Sanders, Paul, the Law, 82. 30. Ibid. 31.  Westerholm (Perspectives, 417) comments: “It seems safest to conclude that Paul does picture Gentiles as sharing the Jewish dilemma; he has not systematically maintained the distinction between Jews who are under the law and Gentiles who are not.… That their situation, in Paul’s mind, was analogous to that of Jews is clear enough (cf. Rom. 1:18–3:20; Gal. 4:1–11). Still, since Paul raises no argument in its defense, his usage of the phrase ‘under the law’ to include Gentiles was likely an unconscious generalization.” 32.  Ibid., 416. 33.  Gaston (Paul, 2) remarks: “It is the task of exegesis after Auschwitz precisely to expose the explicit or implicit anti‑Judaism inherent in the Christian tradition, including the New Testament itself. It is a task in which I have willingly participated, and when I began I expected to find anti‑Judaism particularly present in Paul. That is not, however, the conclusion to which my own studies have led me.” 34.  Ibid., 6.

Blazosky Final.indd 10

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Introduction

11

never attacked Judaism or sought to convert Jews. Instead, Gaston argues, “Paul affirms the new expression of the righteousness of God in Christ for the Gentiles and for himself as Apostle to the Gentiles without in any sense denying the righteousness of God expressed in Torah for Israel.”35 Critical to Gaston’s understanding is his differentiation between νόμος as the gracious covenant made with Israel and νόμος as the “law” that curses Gentiles outside the covenant. For Gentiles who are not partakers of the gracious covenant, the law can only curse them, condemn them, and hold them in slavery.36 Likewise, Gaston maintains that Paul’s ministry and letters were directed exclusively at Gentiles.37 Thus, rather than “us” referring exclusively to Jews, Gaston claims that “we” and “us” in Galatians 3–4 refer exclusively to Gentiles.38 4. Kim and Tobin: The Equivalence of Natural and Mosaic Law. A fourth possibility is that Paul’s position corresponds to Hellenistic Jewish authors who understand the Mosaic law as the written form of a universal natural law.39 Tobin writes: [Paul] understands the Mosaic law in a way similar to that found in some strands of Hellenistic Judaism. The law was explicitly revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. But for Hellenistic Jews such as Philo of Alexandria, this same law was also reflected in 35.  Ibid., 79. For a helpful, concise summary of Gaston’s position, see Colin G. Kruse, Paul, the Law, and Justification (Leicester: Apollos, 1996), 42–43. 36.  See esp. Gaston, Paul, 25–34. 37.  Ibid., 22. In Gaston’s view, Paul and the church in Jerusalem agreed on a division in mission fields. Paul would go exclusively to the Gentiles. “I assume that Paul kept this agreement throughout his career, confining his preaching strictly to Gentile God-fearers and never encouraging Jews to abandon the Torah, so that he was innocent of the accusations which led to his final arrest.” Later he comments: “Paul says nothing against the Torah and Israel but simply bypasses them as not directly relevant to his gospel.… For Paul, Jesus is neither a new Moses nor the Messiah; he is not the climax of the history of God’s dealing with Israel, but he is the fulfilment of God’s promises concerning the Gentiles, and this is what he accused the Jews of not recognizing” (33). 38.  Ibid., 29. For perhaps the most thorough expansion and reaffirmation of many of Gaston’s key arguments, see John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 209–69. More recently, see John G. Gager, Reinventing Paul (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 77–99. Cf. Caroline Johnson Hodge, “Apostle to the Gentiles: Constructions of Paul’s Identity,” BibInt 13 (2005): 284–85. Finally, for a developed argument of how “we” in Galatians could refer exclusively to Gentiles, see William Dalton, “The Meaning of ‘We’ in Galatians,” ABR 38 (1990): 33–44. 39.  Cf. Jürgen Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, trans. O. C. Dean Jr. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 397. Becker suggests a similar explanation for how Gentiles could be under the curse of the law: “The law is the Sinai Torah and at the same time an expression of world order (Gal. 3:24; 4:8–11) and of the human social constitution (Rom. 2:14–15; 13:3–5). Therefore in Rom. 5:20 the apostle regards the law as given to all descendants of all people.” VanDrunen’s position is perhaps best placed here as well, given his heavy emphasis on natural law as a key to understanding humanity’s guilt. See VanDrunen, Divine Covenants, 329–66. Though VanDrunen is more hesitant to say that Gentiles are condemned by the Mosaic law than either Tobin or Kim, he, nevertheless, agrees that all humanity is under the curse of the law in Gal 3:10–14 and that Gentiles are “under law” in several Pauline passages.

Blazosky Final.indd 11

4/11/19 5:28 PM

12

Introduction the structure of the universe and was embedded in nature (φύσις) itself. For Philo, the world is in harmony with the Mosaic law, and the law with the world…. The two “laws” are ultimately identical.40

Similarly, after comparing Paul with various Hellenistic Jewish authors, HyunGwang Kim concludes that, though Paul “does not explicitly explain how Gentiles are under the law,” his logic is most reflective of the Hellenistic Jewish view that natural law and Mosaic law were virtually equivalent.41 Kim points to Philo and works such as Sirach and 4 Ezra for confirmation that Gentiles were “under the law.”42 5. Martyn: Paul’s Apocalyptic Reshaping of the Human Plight. The last several positions all have in common an emphasis on the role of apocalyptic in Paul’s view of humanity’s plight. Though J. Louis Martyn’s treatment of apocalyptic in Galatians is not fully embraced by every author included below, his work has proven influential and serves as an effective entry point into the discussion. Following Ernst Käsemann and J. Christiaan Beker who stress the prominence of apocalyptic thinking in Paul’s theology, Martyn furthers their work by highlighting the central role apocalyptic plays in Galatians. In Galatians, the old order has become obsolete in light of the dawning of God’s new creation through Christ.43 Thus, the crucial question Paul brings before the Galatians is, “What time is it?”44 At the heart of Paul’s apocalyptic framework is the crucifixion, “the event that has caused the time to be what it is by snatching us out of the grasp of the present evil age (1:4). Paul’s perception of Jesus’ death is, then, fully as apocalyptic as is his hope for Jesus’ Parousia.”45 40.  Thomas H. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 114. Poirier’s position, though distinct from Tobin and Kim, likewise highlights the connection between the Mosaic law and natural law found within Hellenistic Jewish circles; see John C. Poirier, “Romans and the Universality of Law,” NovT 38 (1996): 344–58. Poirier does not believe that Paul states that Gentiles are “under the Mosaic law” per se, but his position is worth noting here since he argues that “the point of Rom 1:18–3:20 is that ‘all are under a law’” and that “this way of arguing…was a standard Hellenistic Jewish argument” (348). Later, Poirier remarks: “Israel’s special revelation is not the debut of law in the universe, but merely a privileged expansion of what God had made known to the nations through their inventory of nature” (351). He concludes with this bold claim: “This notion of the universality of law underlies all that Paul argues for in Romans, and is perhaps the most necessary concession for the reader to make in trying to understand Paul” (357–58). 41.  Kim, “Redeemed,” 155–56. 42.  Ibid., 158. 43.  J. Louis Martyn, “Apocalyptic Antimonies in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 31 (1985): 410–24. For Martyn, this cosmic upheaval resulted in the radical realignment of what used to be in polarity. Now, the flesh is not opposed by the law; rather, “the Law proves to be an ally of the flesh” (416). 44.  Ibid., 418. 45.  Ibid., 421.

Blazosky Final.indd 12

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Introduction

13

Martyn senses that Paul now sees more clearly the singularity of the human plight. Being Jew or Gentile makes no difference. “Before the advent of Christ, humanity was an enslaved monolith; in Christ, humanity is becoming a liberated unity.”46 Paul’s grasp of the eschatological nature of the Christ event led him to reevaluate and reframe the distinctions he formerly upheld, even with respect to who was enslaved “under the law.”47 6. De Boer and Smiles: The Law as a Power of the Old Age. Following the trajectory established by Martyn, Martinus de Boer and Vincent Smiles highlight the connection Paul makes between the Mosaic law and the powers of the old age. In de Boer’s treatment of Gal 3:10–14, he explains that those under a curse “are still stuck ‘in the present evil age’ (1:4), where malevolent powers hold all human beings ‘under’ their control, one of the cosmic powers evidently being the law itself (3:23; 4:4–5, 21).”48 For de Boer, those under the law “are all human beings, Gentiles as well as Jews…. The universal scope of God’s redemptive activity in Christ thus corresponds to—and addresses—the universal scope of the human predicament.”49 Smiles emphasizes, even more strongly, the law’s inextricable bond with the powers of darkness. According to Smiles, Paul attacks the law directly, portraying it as a hostile power of the old age. In Gal 3:10–13, the law is “portrayed as a power in opposition to God.”50 In Paul’s experience, the law had repeatedly been “a weapon in the hands of those who opposed Paul’s gospel…. It should be no surprise, therefore, that in this letter the law is portrayed as a power of ‘the present evil age’ (1:4b).”51 Not only is the law joined with the evil powers, it is just as capable of crushing 46.  J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 336. In agreement with Martyn, especially as it relates to Gal 3:13, see François Vouga, An die Galater, HNT 10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 75. For a response to Martyn which maintains a distinction between Jewish and Gentile slavery, see David deSilva, Global Readings: A Sri Lankan Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 166. “I would agree that Paul regards all people as enslaved prior to Christ’s coming, but not as a ‘monolith.’ They were all in prison, but in separate cells. Only now in Christ are the various prison doors opened, so that Jews (‘under Law’) and Gentiles (‘under [other] stoicheia’) mix in a single body in freedom.” 47.  Though not a direct discussion of the law’s relationship to Gentiles, for a similar emphasis on the necessity of using “a retrospective approach” to understand Paul’s gospel, see esp. Douglas A. Campbell, The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 172–75. 48.  Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 198. In the same section, de Boer affirms the law’s universal reach. “A presupposition of the appeal to Deut 27:26 appears to be that the law has universal applicability: at the last judgment all human beings are to be judged by that standard, both those who observe and those who do not observe the law, thus both Jew and Gentile” (200–201). 49.  Ibid., 264. Similarly, Sang Meyng Lee, The Cosmic Drama of Salvation: A Study of Paul’s Undisputed Writings from Anthropological and Cosmological Perspectives, WUNT 2.276 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 266–76. 50.  Vincent M. Smiles, The Gospel and the Law in Galatia: Paul’s Response to Jewish Christian Separatism and the Threat of Galatian Apostasy (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 192. 51.  Ibid., 207.

Blazosky Final.indd 13

4/11/19 5:28 PM

14

Introduction

humanity.52 The law curses all who disobey it and deceives all who look to it for help by promising life it cannot impart. Given the law’s link to the old age, all who belong to that age are subject to the law’s curse and in need of redemption.53 7. Das and Schreiner: Gentiles within the Realm of the Law. Andrew Das and Tom Schreiner likewise connect Paul’s eschatology to his perspective on the law. Das notes: “The Spirit’s arrival in the work of Christ has shattered the old dominion of the Law. The apostle’s problem with the Mosaic Law ultimately stems from his apocalyptic vantage point.”54 In regard to the pronominal shifting in Galatians 3–4, Das remarks: Paul’s pattern of pronominal shifting between the first and the second person, as one commentator [Martyn] has noted, appears to be a deliberate stylistic device. The apostle is thereby underscoring the point that all people, whether Jew or Gentile, are under the same plight from the Mosaic Law with its curse for disobedience. Paul signals this all-inclusive emphasis in the very first verses of the letter when he speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ as the one “who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age” (1:4).55

The dawning of the new age as a result of Christ’s victory and the Spirit’s arrival led Paul to reconceptualize the human plight and the role the law played in that plight. In his Galatians’ commentary, Schreiner similarly connects Paul’s apocalyptic outlook to his view of the law. In line with Paul’s contrast between the flesh and the Spirit in Galatians, “we see the same eschatological contrast between the law and 52.  Ibid., 208: “The curse of the law is effective in precisely the same way as ‘the evil age’ and all of its powers are effective.” See also Philipp Vielhauer, “Gesetzesdienst und Stoicheiadienst im Galaterbrief,” in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann, ed. Johannes Friedrich, Wolfgang Pöhlmann, and Peter Stuhlmacher (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976), 543–55. Vielhauer’s perspective, with his emphasis on the union of law, sin, and death, also fits well within this category. See esp. his discussion of how Paul intentionally uses στοιχεῖα in Galatians 4 to expose the law as a “universal versklavende Macht” of this age (553). 53.  Though not asserting the same distance between God and the law as Smiles, Brice Martin also stresses the bond between the law and other powers of darkness. See Martin, Christ, 69. For Martin, recognizing the prominence of “flesh” in Paul’s conception of the human predicament is crucial. Since all unbelievers are in the flesh, all are enslaved to the powers of darkness. Martin writes: “The law, sin, death, and flesh are the reasons for the dilemma of man.… The law is aligned with sin and death, but at the root of sin is the problem of flesh.” Cf. also Klyne Snodgrass, “Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the Law,” JSNT 32 (1988): 93–113; Robert B. Sloan, “Paul and the Law: Why the Law Cannot Save,” NovT 33 (1991): 35–60. Though Snodgrass and Sloan do not address the question of Gentile unbelievers and the Mosaic law directly, their shared emphasis on “spheres of influence” and how the Mosaic law is often portrayed as being in the “sphere of influence” of sin and evil powers could lead to an understanding similar to Martin, de Boer, and Smiles. 54. Das, Paul and the Jews, 34. 55.  Ibid., 127. Cf. A. Andrew Das, Galatians, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia, 2014), 330–31.

Blazosky Final.indd 14

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Introduction

15

the gospel. The Mosaic law belongs to the former era and believers are no longer under the law (see esp. 3:15–4:7). To be under the law is to be enslaved to the power of sin (3:10, 22, 23, 25; 4:3, 21–31; 5:18). Such slavery belongs to the former age.”56 Schreiner, along with Das, affirms that the law curses all who disobey it, including Gentiles.57 Likewise, Schreiner follows Das in reading the first person plural pronouns in Galatians 3–4 as inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles. Perhaps most clearly, in commenting on Christ’s redemption of those “under the law” so “we” could receive adoption (cf. 4:4–5), Schreiner remarks: “Paul’s argument here would be intolerably awkward if the first person plural were restricted only to Jews. Instead, he envisions Gentiles (like the Jews) to be under the law, in the sense that they too lived under the dominion of sin.”58 Schreiner suggests that the multiple uses of “under” in Galatians 3–5 are mutually interpretive. “To be ‘under law’ is to belong to the old age of salvation history, where one is under the power of sin and under a curse.”59 What sets Das and Schreiner apart from others who point to Paul’s apocalyptic thinking, however, is how they emphasize that everyone is within the law’s realm and is, therefore, accountable for breaking it. Schreiner’s treatment of Rom 2:12–16 is representative. “The Jews believed that they were superior to Gentiles because they possessed the Torah, and thus Paul wants to show in these verses that Gentiles also have heard the law.”60 Later, Schreiner affirms that “the main clause indicates what Paul is driving toward in verse 14: even though the Gentiles do not have the Mosaic law, they in effect possess the law.”61 Likewise, Das explains how the law’s curse could be on Jew and Gentile by linking Gal 3:13 to Romans 2.62 The curse of the Law thus stands over all humanity and not just the Jews. Although the Gentiles do not possess the Law, what the Law says of God’s will applies to them as well…. Paul’s reasoning is expressed more fully and clearly elsewhere in Rom 2:6–16, esp. 14–16, where the Gentiles are accountable for the Mosaic Law insofar as it has been written in their hearts.63 56.  Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 395. 57.  Ibid., 215. 58.  Ibid., 271. 59.  Ibid., 389. 60.  Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 117. Similarly, see Das, Paul and the Jews, 181. “All people, even Christians, will be judged according to the standard of the Mosaic Law according to Paul.” Later, Das remarks that “both Jews (those ‘in the Law’) and Gentiles (those ‘apart from the Law’) will be impartially judged according to the standard of whether they have done what the Law requires (v. 12).” 61. Schreiner, Romans, 121–22. 62.  Cf. also Franz Mussner, Der Galaterbrief, HTKNT 9 (Freiburg: Herder, 1974), 223–26. 63. Das, Paul and the Jews, 124. For a similar reading of the law’s universal validity in Rom 2:14–15, see Karin Finsterbusch, Die Thora als Lebensweisung für Heidenchristen: Studien zur Bedeutung der Thora für die paulinische Ethik, SUNT 20 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 15–21.

Blazosky Final.indd 15

4/11/19 5:28 PM

16

Introduction

Schreiner’s clearest remarks come in his popular work, 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law. In response to the question, “Are Gentiles under the Law?” Schreiner answers affirmatively. In regard to Rom 3:19, Schreiner writes: “Previously this interpretation [that Jews alone were in the law’s realm] seemed persuasive to me, but I now incline to the notion that Gentiles are included in those who are in the realm of the law.”64 Schreiner offers two reasons. First, in Rom 2:12–16, Paul argues “that the moral norms of the law are etched” on all human hearts. Second, “the catena of sins listed in Romans 3:9–18 focus on the moral infraction of which all people are guilty, including the Gentiles.”65 Schreiner summarizes his understanding in this way: Even though Gentiles did not technically live under the Mosaic law, they are still considered to be in the realm of the law, for they have the law written on their hearts and know what God expects of them. Such a view seems to be reflected in Galatians, where the desire of the Gentiles to submit to the law is described as a return to paganism. Such an indictment makes sense if Paul sees the Gentiles in a sense to be under the law.66

8. Moo: Israel’s Experience as Paradigmatic of All Human Experience. Finally, though Moo is in general agreement on matters such as the importance of 64.  Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2010), 78. Similarly, see James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 136–37: “Paul evidently regarded the law as a standard of universal judgment. Gentiles would be subject to judgment in accordance with the same standard.… The law could thus be said to stand as the measure of God’s requirement and judgment for the world of humankind as a whole (2.16; 3.6). And Paul could wind up his indictment appropriately: the law stops every mouth and makes all the world liable to God’s judgment (3.19)—Jew first, and also Gentile” (italics original). 65. Schreiner, 40 Questions, 78–79. 66.  Ibid., 80. Though neither Schreiner nor Das espouses a Reformed tri‑partite division of the Mosaic law, the positions have some connecting points and lead to similar conclusions (although unlike Das and Schreiner, a typical Reformed tri‑partite view does not emphasize apocalyptic nearly as much in explaining Paul). According to the Westminster Confession, the “moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof ” (WCF, 19.5). John Calvin’s “first use” of the law, which is to expose and condemn sinners (cf. Institutes 2.7.6–8), also fits with seeing the Mosaic law as cursing all who disobey (though Calvin in his commentary on Gal 3:13 reads “us” as referring only to Jews). Similarly, Machen, though reading “us” in Gal 3:13 as referring specifically to Jewish Christians, maintains that, in line with Rom 2:14 and the Westminster Shorter Catechism, the “curse of God’s law” did indeed rest on all humanity, “and from that curse both Jew and Gentile were redeemed by Christ.” See J. Gresham Machen, Notes on Galatians, ed. John H. Skilton (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1977; repr., Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006), 179. For an example of how an appeal to the “moral law” could be used to explain how the Mosaic law can curse all people, see Philip Graham Ryken, Galatians, Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2005), 106–18. This appeal to “moral law” is also similar to the view that the Mosaic law is equivalent to the natural law.

Blazosky Final.indd 16

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Introduction

17

apocalyptic in Paul,67 two of Moo’s emphases deserve special attention. First, Moo connects his understanding of Paul and the law, more than most, to salvation history. For example, in discussing Rom 6:14, Moo suggests that “Paul is thinking of ‘law’ and ‘grace’ as contrasting salvation-historical ‘powers.’ ”68 The fact that Paul brings the law unexpectedly into the argument in Romans 6 “reveals the extent to which Paul’s presentation of his gospel in this letter never moves too far from the salvation-historical question of Old Covenant and New, Jew and Gentile.”69 Drawing in salvation history to explain Paul’s treatment of the Mosaic law is a recurring theme in Moo’s writings. Moo’s second distinctive emphasis, which touches on Gentiles and law most directly, is that he regularly speaks of Israel’s experience with the law as para­ digmatic of humanity’s.70 In his discussions of Gal 2:19–20; 3:13–14; 3:23–25; and 4:3–5, Moo analyzes the balanced arguments for whether or not Paul includes Gentiles in discussions of death to law, redemption from the law’s curse, or enslavement to the law. In the end, Moo always affirms that Gentiles are included or makes a caveat in this direction. Moo’s primary explanation for how Paul extends the law’s influence to Gentiles is that Israel’s experience is representative of humanity’s. “While never rising to the level of an explicit claim, what Paul says about the law in many contexts clearly presupposes that he thinks the Mosaic law and Israel’s experience with it are paradigmatic of the experience of all people.71 Even in Gal 3:23–25 where Moo sees the first person pronouns as referring only to Israel, Moo quickly qualifies: “Nevertheless, the sequence of Paul’s argument, as he applies this salvation-historical sequence to the situation of the Galatians (see esp. 4:4–9), reveals that he somehow views 67.  Moo, while generally affirming Martyn’s thesis, does not follow him entirely. See Moo, Galatians, 31–32: “Martyn’s emphasis on the epochal significance of the Christ event is certainly justified: Paul’s quarrel with the agitators can be boiled down to a difference of opinion over just how disruptive the Christ event is for the history of salvation. But for all the appropriate attention that Martyn gives to this ‘apocalyptic’ focus, his denial of any real salvation history in Galatians goes too far.” 68.  Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 389. 69.  Ibid., 387. 70.  While VanDrunen’s view may fit best in a “natural law” category, VanDrunen is also similar to Moo on the idea that Israel’s experience under law is paradigmatic of all human experience. See VanDrunen, Divine Covenants, 354: “For Paul, Israel under the law was a microcosm.… Israel was a world‑in‑miniature, exemplifying the situation of all peoples, who have knowledge of God’s law and are obligated to it, yet live in fundamental rebellion against it and stand under its judgment” (italics original). 71. Moo, Galatians, 168. This statement comes from Moo’s treatment of Gal 2:19 and “death to the law.” Similar ideas are expressed elsewhere. In regard to Gal 3:13, Moo writes: “Paul implicitly associates Gentiles with the plight of Israel that has resulted from its failure to obey the law of Moses” (213). Likewise, Moo comments later that Paul “holds the traditional Jewish view of the law as the body of commands given uniquely to Israel. When he discusses the history of the law, then—as he does in verses 23–25—his focus is on the experience of Israel. But as his larger argument reveals (see esp. 4:1–7), this history is one in which Gentiles such as the Galatians also participate in some way” (249).

Blazosky Final.indd 17

4/11/19 5:28 PM

18

Introduction

this salvation-historical sequence as relating to and even in some sense including the Gentiles.”72 Perhaps Moo’s most direct statement on Gentiles and law is in his comments on Rom 7:4. “We can understand how a Jew who became a Christian would ‘die to the law,’ for the Jew would have grown up under the authority of that law. But how could it be said of Gentile converts that they would need to ‘die to the law’?” Moo answers: While Paul never makes the matter clear, we suggest that Paul views the Jewish experience with the Mosaic law as paradigmatic for the experience of all people with “law.” Israel stands in redemptive history as a kind of “test case,” and its relationship with the law is ipso facto applicable to the relationship of all people with that “law” which God has revealed to them (cf. 2:14–15). In 7:4, then, while being “put to death to the law” is strictly applicable only to Jewish Christians, Paul can affirm the same thing of the whole Roman community because the experience of Israel with the Mosaic law is, in a transferred sense, also their experience.73

D. The Lack of Clarity or Consistency within Proposals The tension in the texts, the lack of sustained treatment on the topic, and the absence of scholarly consensus provide a sufficient basis to argue for the need for this monograph. Yet, one final point deserves mention, namely, that there is a general lack of clarity or consistency within several proposals. First, Terence Donaldson, a catalyst for interpreting the first person pronouns in Galatians as referring exclusively to Jews, suggests that Rom 7:1–6, however, has universal dimensions. With respect to this text which speaks of death to the law and being released from captivity to the law, Donaldson writes: “While a Jewish frame of reference clearly pervades the whole, equally pervasive is the assumption that this Jewish experience can be generalized and applied to Gentiles as well.”74 In Rom 7:5, Paul “gives no reason to believe that he is addressing only the Jewish Christians in Rome.”75 Later, he writes: “On the one hand, the law was put forward 72.  Ibid., 241. 73. Moo, Romans (NICNT), 417. Moo’s focus on Israel’s experience as being paradigmatic of humanity’s experience is somewhat analogous with that of Peter Oakes, Galatians, PCNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015), 137: “The Jewish law’s rule becomes a representative of all cosmic constraint prior to Christ. Redeeming of those under law could then be representative of redeeming all under cosmic constraint.” 74.  Terence L. Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 147. While Donaldson has modified his stance on the eschatological pilgrimage theme, to my knowledge Donaldson has not altered his view on the referent of the first person pronouns in Galatians 3–4. Thus, these comments are offered about the apparent inconsistency in his treatment of Romans with respect to the extent of the law’s condemning power. 75.  Ibid.; italics original. Similarly, see Terence L. Donaldson, “Jewish Christianity, Israel’s Stumbling and the Sonderweg Reading of Paul,” JSNT 29 (2006): 27–54. In Donaldson’s fine critique of the “two‑covenant” view proposed by Gaston and others, in which Gaston highlights the law’s

Blazosky Final.indd 18

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Introduction

19

as an undifferentiated universal entity, binding on Jew and Gentile alike; on the other, it was described in such as a way as to downplay or eliminate those aspects that served to differentiate Jew from Gentile.”76 Since Rom 7:4–6 presents the law as a binding power and has pronominal shifting reflective of Galatians 3–4, it is difficult to understand how Donaldson can argue that Paul includes Gentiles in Rom 7:4–6 but excludes them in Galatians 3–4. Second, Wright follows this pattern as well. In Galatians 3–4, it is vital for Wright that Paul separates the Jewish and Gentile plight with respect to the Mosaic law; yet, in his Romans commentary, Wright argues that Romans 7 speaks of the Roman believers as having been put to death to the law. In commenting on Rom 7:1–6, Wright states: But who is it, then, that has “died”? The previous chapter gives a clear, unambiguous answer, and indeed repeats it seven times: “we died to sin” (6:2); we “were baptized into Christ’s death” (6:3)…. It might seem tedious to list all these, were it not for the fact that chap. 6 is so little invoked to explain 7:4, and that commentators who have referred to 6:6 to do so are frequently waved away by those who insist on treating chap. 7 as though it were an entirely separate discussion.77

Wright goes on to argue that, once we link the law with sin, the “you” who died in 7:4 must be “the person ‘in Adam.’ ”78 To be fair, Wright seeks to explain Paul’s statements by suggesting that the majority of the believers in Rome were formerly God-fearers or proselytes and thus were “in some sense ‘under the law.’ ”79 It is still difficult, however, to understand how Wright can hold that Paul describes the Roman believers as formerly “under the law” and yet can assert so strongly that, in Gal 3:10–14, Paul “cannot mean that the Gentiles were ‘under’ a law they never possessed.”80 condemning role with respect to only Gentiles, Donaldson emphasizes that Paul sees the law as condemning both Gentiles and Jews. He writes: “Paul’s post‑Damascus view of the law is just a universalized version of that strand of Jewish thought to which Gaston has drawn our attention” (43). 76. Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 148. A similar point could be made concerning Thielman’s view. See Thielman, Paul. Thielman seems to follow Donaldson’s reading of Gal 3:13–14: “In Christ’s crucifixion, then, the curse that the law pronounced on Israel was focused on Christ, whose death atoned for Israel’s covenant violations. With this action, Paul says in verse 14, the eschatological period of God’s redemption began” (129). Thus, Thielman seems to view the curse of the law as something exclusive to Israel, yet elsewhere Thielman is clear that Gentiles are condemned by the law (see his treatment of Rom 2:14–15 on 171 and Col 2:14 on 220–21). To be fair, Thielman suggests that, in regard to Gal 3:13, Paul “would have assumed that if Israel stood under the law’s curse the Gentile could surely fare no better” (277). Perhaps this appeal to an a fortiori argument is how Thielman would explain the passages in Romans and Colossians as well. 77.  N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” NIB 10:559. 78. Ibid. 79.  Ibid., 10:558. 80. Wright, Climax, 143. Interestingly, after arguing that only Jews are under the law in Galatians 3, Wright makes this concession in the notes: “Gentiles are only in that state by a peculiar sort

Blazosky Final.indd 19

4/11/19 5:28 PM

20

Introduction

Third, Rosner, sensing the need to synthesize Rom 7:1–6 with Paul’s statements elsewhere, argues contra to most interpreters (including Wright and Donaldson) that Rom 7:1–6 describes Jewish Christians exclusively: Romans 6 and 7 function respectively as exposition of Paul’s gospel to both Jews and Gentiles and defence of that law-free gospel in the light of Jewish objections. In the latter, as Paul makes clear in the first verse, he is not addressing all believers but rather “brothers and sisters…who know the law” (7:1), that is, Jewish believers…. This information is not directly applicable to Gentile believers, who are set free from sin through Jesus Christ (see ch. 6), but not from the law, since they were never under it in the first place.81

Rosner’s desire to read Paul holistically on this point is commendable. Yet, this reading appears to be in tension with his subsequent treatment of 1 Timothy 1—a text few scholars incorporate in this discussion. Rosner argues convincingly that Paul’s view is that the law is used properly when it is used as law to expose and condemn the lawless.82 Yet, if Rosner is correct on this point, it is not clear how this position corresponds to what Rosner argues elsewhere concerning the relationship of Gentiles to the Mosaic law. Finally, though Schreiner and Moo exercise wise caution in their wording, their repeated uses of “in a sense” or similar phrases to describe if Gentiles are under the law could use greater precision. Schreiner writes: “Paul, in a sense, places Gentiles under the law.”83 “Even though the Gentiles were not technically under the law, the life of the Jews under the law and the life of pagans in idolatry coalesce for Paul. In one sense, therefore, the Gentiles can be understood to be under the law.”84 Paul’s warning against returning to the law “makes sense if Paul sees the Gentiles in a sense to be under the law.”85 Similarly, Moo suggests that, even when there is a more explicit focus on Israel’s history in Gal 3:23–25, “the sequence of Paul’s argument…reveals that he somehow of extension, which is only seen (in my judgment) in Colossians 2.14 f.” Yet, if Paul includes Gentiles as under the law in Colossians 2 by “a peculiar sort of extension,” is it plausible that he does the same in Gal 3:10–14? In his commentary on Colossians, Wright clarifies that the law stands against Jews and Gentiles in different ways. See N. T. Wright, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon, TNTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), 117. The law “shut up the Jews under sin and shut out the Gentiles from the hope and promise of membership in God’s people” (italics original). Nothing in Col 2:11–15, however, suggests such a distinction between how the χειρόγραφον stands against Jewish and Gentile sinners. 81. Rosner, Paul, 55. 82.  Ibid., 73–76. 83.  Schreiner, 40 Questions, 79; italics added. 84.  Ibid.; italics added. 85.  Ibid., 80; italics added.

Blazosky Final.indd 20

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Introduction

21

views this salvation-historical sequence as relating to and even in some sense including the Gentiles.”86 In regard to Rom 7:4–6, Moo writes that, “while being ‘put to death to the law’ is strictly applicable only to Jewish Christians, Paul can affirm the same thing of the whole Roman community because the experience of Israel with the Mosaic law is, in a transferred sense, also their experience.”87 It is understandable why these caveats are made; and, in fact, it may be that this kind of wording is as specific as interpreters can be. Nevertheless, the goal of understanding Paul more precisely drives this work. What exactly is Paul’s view and why does he hold it?

III. The Methodology: What This Book Is Not Before articulating my methodology, it is most helpful to discuss first what this book is not. This book is not a comprehensive treatment of Paul and the law, or even Gentiles and law. Rather, this book addresses the law’s relationship to unbelieving Gentiles. Even when the law’s relationship to Jews and Christians is discussed, the focus remains on unbelieving Gentiles and the former condition of Gentile Christians. Second, this book is not a comprehensive treatment of how the OT and Second Temple Jewish literature speaks about Gentiles. Many helpful studies about Jewish attitudes toward Gentiles have been done,88 but this focus is broader than mine. Issues of how Jews related to Gentiles practically or how some Jews held out eschatological hope for some Gentiles are typically tertiary to my objectives. The central concern is how the OT and Jewish literature deal with Gentile condemnation. What, if anything, does the Mosaic law have to do with the current plight of Gentiles or their final condemnation? Third, this book is not an examination of every way Paul’s view of the law may have been shaped by the OT and his Jewish contemporaries. Studies have been done on how Paul’s teaching on matters such as “works of the law” or justification relates to the Jewish literature; my goal is simply to compare and contrast Paul’s view of the law on this one question with the perspectives found within the OT and Second Temple Judaism. 86. Moo, Galatians, 241; italics added. 87. Moo, Romans (NICNT), 417; italics added. 88.  For the broader discussion of Jewish attitudes toward Gentiles and of Paul’s view of the use of the law in Gentile churches, see Markus Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000); David C. Sim and James S. McLaren, eds., Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, LNTS 499 (London: T&T Clark, 2013); Peter J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles, CRINT III.1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990).

Blazosky Final.indd 21

4/11/19 5:28 PM

22

Introduction

IV. The Methodology: What This Book Is Having made these disclaimers, I am now able to articulate my methodology and procedure. The first and second chapters are a biblical theological study of the OT presentation of the plight of the nations and their relationship to the Mosaic law.89 Selections from the Torah, Prophets, and Writings are examined in regard to why the nations experience God’s wrath and how the Mosaic law relates to those nations. The third chapter surveys the diverse body of Second Temple Jewish literature in regard to the same issues. Since it is fairly common within Second Temple Judaism to view some or all of the nations as subject to God’s wrath,90 I examine the reasons given for why the nations deserve judgment. What is the basis for their condemnation, and, specifically, are Gentiles held accountable for breaking the law of Moses? In regard to the documents covered, though priority is given to those which predate Paul or are contemporary with him, writings from after 70 CE or even into the next few centuries are occasionally referenced if they directly address my topic. Some of these later texts may represent ideas already in circulation in Paul’s day. One such witness is that of the early rabbinic literature, which, ostensibly, preserves traditions from earlier centuries. These kinds of sources, when used with caution, can provide additional insight into the range of positions found within Judaism on Gentiles and the law. The fourth through sixth chapters contain the heart of this monograph. As with any Paul and the law monograph, Romans and Galatians form the backbone of this study. The fourth chapter is, thus, an analysis and synthesis of Galatians on Paul’s view of the human plight, especially with reference to the Mosaic law. The fifth chapter, on Romans, mirrors the chapter on Galatians. In the sixth chapter, five related passages are examined and compared with the findings from Galatians and Romans. These passages are 1 Cor 9:19–23; 1 Cor 15:56; Eph 2:13–15; Col 2:8–23; and 1 Tim 1:8–10. Though Pauline authorship of the latter three texts is often rejected, these passages are included in light of their relevant content and their mark on the Christian tradition, as well as my own view that solid arguments can still be made for their 89.  With respect to the OT, I include only books commonly accepted as canonical by all traditions within Christendom. The apocrypha is treated with other Second Temple Jewish literature in chapter 3. 90.  For a helpful discussion of the respective strengths and weaknesses of different nomenclature to describe Judaism during the Second Temple period, see James D. G. Dunn, “Judaism in the Land of Israel in the First Century,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 2: Historical Syntheses, ed. Jacob Neusner, HdO 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 229–32. My desire is to address both the Hebrew canon in its final form, as well as the extant Jewish literature from approximately 300 BCE to 200 CE.

Blazosky Final.indd 22

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Introduction

23

authenticity. Even those who reject Pauline authorship often concede that these letters are related to Paul in some way; but, no matter one’s position, I suggest it is worthwhile to examine how these texts relate to Romans and Galatians on the question of the law and Gentiles. Do these texts affirm, contradict, complement, or clarify what Paul says elsewhere? In the final chapter, my conclusions are drawn together from the Pauline section about what Paul’s view is, as well as the logic that holds his view together. Next, I compare Paul’s view with my findings from the OT and the Second Temple Jewish literature. Furthermore, I discuss how my proposal fits within current scholarship. Finally, this work concludes with reflections on the relevance of this study of Gentiles and the Mosaic law to biblical theology, Pauline studies, and the church.

V. The Significance As the final word in this introduction, it is important to acknowledge and to deal initially with the question of the relevance of this discussion. While not wanting to overstate the case, I would like to note several contributions this monograph makes. Three contributions can be considered of secondary importance. First, by dealing with some of the contested Pauline epistles, light is shed on whether the view of the law in these letters contradicts Galatians and Romans. Second, this work provides a measure of clarity on the legitimacy of using the Mosaic law in the evangelization of Gentiles. Third, the treatment of Paul’s view on this question across his writings contributes to the question of whether there is development in Paul’s view of νόμος in his writings. Furthermore, this book makes three primary contributions to Pauline scholarship and one to biblical theology. First, since this topic is often cited to highlight the incoherence of Paul’s view of the law, the textual analysis and synthesis advances the discussion of consistency in Paul. Second, the exegetical foundation in Paul’s writings for viewing Jewish redemption from the curse of the law as a precondition for Gentile inclusion is based on texts directly related to this topic. Thus, this monograph provides substantive input concerning whether this position is sustainable exegetically. Third, this monograph offers a test case for examining not only how Paul’s view of the law compares to that of the OT and Second Temple Jewish literature, but also the degree to which those views may have shaped Paul. In addition, with respect to biblical theology, this monograph reexamines the scope and role of the Mosaic covenant. Finally, in regard to the value for the church, extended reflection on the human plight ought to provide an impetus for impartial evangelistic zeal and love.

Blazosky Final.indd 23

4/11/19 5:28 PM

24

Introduction

Furthermore, as in Romans 1–3 where Paul details the human plight, this book ought to lead to an increased appreciation for the glory of Christ and his cross. By pondering the situation from which the church has been rescued, this book calls for worship and increased gratitude to the one delivered up for our sins and raised for our justification.

Blazosky Final.indd 24

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Chapter 1

The Torah

Introduction As a former Pharisee and a leading apostle, Paul’s life from birth to death was saturated in the OT. His theology and mission were undoubtedly shaped more by these texts than any other. Yet, it is often difficult to determine to what extent the OT shaped Paul’s perspective on the Mosaic law. With respect to matters such as the goodness of the law (Rom 7:12) or its being entrusted uniquely to Israel (Rom 2:17–20; 9:4), there is obvious continuity. But on issues such as the law’s imprisoning power (Gal 3:23; Rom 7:4–6) or temporary jurisdiction (Gal 3:19–25), it is less clear how Paul’s understanding relates to or has been influenced by the OT. The same could be said concerning his view of how the law relates to Gentile sinners. Thus, the next two chapters explore the presentation of Gentile condemnation in the OT in the hope that the OT may shed light on this point of tension in Paul and the law studies. A few matters concerning my approach to the OT and my terminology deserve mention at the outset. First, the canonical shape of the OT is the point of departure for this study.1 Though matters related to the date, composition, redaction, and reception of various books are addressed as necessary, the overall goal of understanding how the OT may have shaped Paul justifies focusing on the content and canonical shape of each text. 1.  In referring to the “Hebrew canon,” the traditional divisions of the Tanakh (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) are in view. For an analysis of key issues such as the completion and recognition of the Hebrew canon, with thorough engagement with the secondary literature, see Stephen G. Dempster, “Canons on the Right and Canons on the Left: Finding a Resolution in the Canon Debate,” JETS 52 (2009): 47–77. Dempster overviews the majority “left” position (a “minimalist” view) and the minority “right” position (a “maximalist” view) and argues well for the minority position that there was a recognized canon, in the sense of a “final closed list” (50), “within most circles in Judaism at least by the first century BC” (69). Also, cf. Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008). For Dempster’s discussions on the Tanakh’s structure and literary shape, see Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible, NSBT 15 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 15–51. For similar canonical approaches to the one taken here, see John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 197–252; Brevard S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 1–19. For a contrast to the kind of approach promoted by Childs, see esp. John Barton, The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology: Collected Essays of John Barton, SOTSMS (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007), 43–51.

25

Blazosky Final.indd 25

4/11/19 5:28 PM

26

Chapter 1

Second, with respect to terminology, although other descriptions can also be used profitably, for the sake of simplicity, this work uses the traditional (though anachronistic) title, “Old Testament,” to refer to the collection of books received by Jewish and Christian traditions alike. In addition, just as there is debate concerning whether the LXX translation of ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ as νόμος is legitimate,2 it is also debatable whether “law” is a helpful way to describe Genesis through Deuteronomy.3 For the sake of clarity and consistency, “Torah” is used to refer to the collection of the five books of Moses; whereas, “Mosaic law,” “law,” “law code,” and “legal code” are used synonymously to refer to those portions of the Torah particularly focused on the legal statutes given to Israel, most of which are found in Exodus 19–Numbers 10 and Deuteronomy 4–30.

I. Pre-Law Narratives Though this study could begin with the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant, the pre-law narratives provide a more fruitful starting point, as these accounts shed light on the relationship of prior covenants to the Mosaic covenant, the extent of human awareness of divine expectations, and the culpability of human beings before their Creator.4 A. Pre-Law Commandments and Accountability Within ten verses of God’s infusion of life into humanity (Gen 2:7), the first command is issued, accompanied by a threat of death for disobedience (2:16–17). 2.  For example, see Neusner’s critical assessment of the LXX on this point. Jacob Neusner, “Does Torah Mean Law?,” in Judaism and Ethics, ed. Daniel Jeremy Silver (New York: Ktav, 1970), 155–60. 3.  It is also important to recognize that the “Torah” (i.e. the Pentateuch) contains much more than legal instruction (e.g., patriarchal narratives, songs, prophecies). Furthermore, ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ can communicate something more general than “law” often connotes, namely, “instruction” or “direction” (see HALOT). Nevertheless, as Schreiner (“The Commands of God,” in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity, ed. Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 66) notes, “In the majority of instances the Torah refers to what the Lord commanded Israel to do.” For an overview of this issue and the history of interpretation, see Stephen Westerholm, “Torah, Nomos, and Law: A Question of ‘Meaning,’” SR 15 (1986): 327–36. 4.  For a helpful approach to the composition and extent of the Torah, as well as the function of the pre‑law narratives, see John H. Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), esp. 22–42. Cf. also John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). R. W. L. Moberly’s discussions in The Theology of the Book of Genesis, OTT (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) on how to explain the relationship of the patriarchs to the Mosaic law are also insightful (esp. 124–25). Moberly notes that both Paul and the rabbis recognized tension on this issue but drew different conclusions. Whereas the rabbis suggested that the patriarchs (Abraham in particular) observed the law before it was written, Paul uses the same narratives to “relativize” the law.

Blazosky Final.indd 26

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Torah

27

Shortly after the flood, God lays out stipulations concerning blood and murder (9:3–6). In the case of murder, those who shed blood will receive just retribution (9:6). To Abraham and his house, God commands circumcision. Refusal results in being “cut off ” (17:9–14). In addition to these mandates, many texts reveal an implicit awareness of divine expectations regarding matters such as murder (e.g., Cain), immorality (e.g., Joseph), or worship (e.g., sacrifices). God even testifies of Abraham that he “obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (26:5).5 With respect to accountability in the pre-law period, Cain is cursed for murder, the flood generation for violence, those at Babel for rebellion, and Sodom for wickedness.6 God’s judgment falls on disobedient individuals and groups alike, whether connected to Abraham (e.g., Er and Onan in Gen 38) or not (e.g., Sodom, Pharaoh). Although the relevant material is limited, the early biblical narratives suggest that humanity had a basic awareness of divine expectations and was held accountable for sin before the Mosaic law. B. Reflections on Curse, Sin, and Death in the Pre-Law Period Topics such as sin, death, and curse are also introduced in Genesis. Though Adam and his wife are not said to be “cursed” directly, they clearly are subject to the curse in view of their death sentence and banishment from Eden.7 Next, Cain is “cursed” directly by God on account of murder (Gen 4:11), followed by Canaan and his offspring on account of Ham’s uncovering of Noah’s nakedness (9:25). A curse 5.  On the importance of Gen 26:5 to the view of the Mosaic law within the Torah, see John H. Sailhamer, “The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch,” WTJ 53 (1991): 249–54. Also, see R. W. L. Moberly, “The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah,” VT 38 (1988): 304–5. Moberly suggests that there is not only similarity between Gen 26:5 and Exodus, but also between Abraham’s test in Genesis 22 and Exodus. The significance is “that Abraham supremely exemplifies the meaning of living by torah. He as an individual demonstrates the quality of response to God that should characterize Israel as a whole” (305). Cf. also Ego Beate, “Abraham als Urbild der Toratreue Israels: Traditionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu einem Aspekt des biblischen Abrahamsbildes,” in Bund und Tora, ed. Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger, WUNT 92 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 31–32. Beate sees Gen 26:5 as both looking back to Genesis 22 but also as reflective of deuteronomic “Redestil,” given its list of synonyms for legal stipulations (32). For Second Temple works on Gen 26:5, see Jon D. Levenson, Abraham between Torah and Gospel (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2011), 19–32. 6.  For further discussion of the assumed universal applicability of a divine moral order in the pre‑law narratives, see esp. Christine Hayes, What’s Divine about Divine Law? Early Perspectives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015), 25–28. 7.  In Genesis, the language of “curse” occurs thirteen times (the ‫ ארר‬root [9×]; the ‫ קלל‬root [4× in the sense of “curse”]). For an extended treatment of sin and curse as unifying themes of Genesis 1–11 and Genesis 12–50, see Robert R. Gonzalez Jr., Where Sin Abounds: The Spread of Sin and the Curse in Genesis with Special Focus on the Patriarchal Narratives (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009).

Blazosky Final.indd 27

4/11/19 5:28 PM

28

Chapter 1

is then placed on all who curse Abraham in 12:3 (cf. 27:29). In this case, it is the mistreatment of God’s chosen instrument of blessing that results in a divine curse. Along with this “curse” motif, the theme of sin is also developed throughout Genesis. Particularly noteworthy is how personally the Creator is affected by sin. In the cases of Adam, Cain, and the flood generation, God is grieved by wickedness, for human sin is directly against God (cf. 13:13; 20:6; 39:9).8 The most intriguing usage of “sin” [‫ ]חַ ּטָ את‬is its first appearance. After Cain’s offering is rejected, God offers hope and a warning: “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin [‫ ]חַ ּטָ את‬is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it” (4:7).9 Cain’s fall and this introduction of ‫ חַ ּטָ את‬are inex­ tricably connected. ‫חַ ּטָ את‬, seeking to crush Cain, leads him to murder, resulting in his banishment and curse (4:11–12). As is evidenced in the subsequent genealogy, ‫ חַ ּטָ את‬overpowers not only Cain but his entire line (4:16–24). Death’s far-reaching influence is likewise unmistakable throughout Genesis. The eightfold repetition of “and he died” reverberates throughout Genesis 5. Likewise, throughout the flood account, the text repeatedly emphasizes the universal scope of God’s judgment. “Everything that is on the earth shall die” (6:17). “And all flesh died” (7:21). “Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died” (7:22), and eventually, in 9:29, even the one born to rescue humanity “died.” C. The Stipulations and Scope of the Pre-Law Covenants Along with these themes, Genesis also unveils the significance of “covenant.” God establishes two highly significant covenants in the early narratives, the first with Noah in Genesis 9 and the second with Abraham in Genesis 15.10 8.  Cf. the story of Abimelech in Genesis 20. On the somewhat ambiguous relation of non‑Israelite nations to God, particularly in Genesis, see Charlie Trimm, “Did YHWH Condemn the Nations When He Elected Israel? YHWH’s Disposition toward Non-Israelites in the Torah,” JETS 55 (2012): 521–36. 9.  The LXX differs from the MT in Gen 4:7. Rather than highlighting sin’s desire to pounce on Cain, the LXX focuses on Cain’s failure to sacrifice correctly. For discussion of the textual issues and the interpretive traditions on Cain and Abel, see Joel N. Lohr, “Righteous Abel, Wicked Cain: Genesis 4:1–16 in the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the New Testament,” CBQ 71 (2009): 488–90. 10.  Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum (Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012], 155–61) suggest that the Noahic covenant is a confirmed version of an earlier covenant with creation. For an effective counterargument to this position, see Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose, NSBT 23 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007), 69–76. Williamson critiques the common “Reformed” understanding that “any relationship involving God must be covenantal”; instead, he argues that, “rather than establishing or framing such a divine–human relationship, a covenant seals or formalizes it” (75). Regardless of whether it is legitimate to identify a covenant in Genesis 1–2, it is worth noting that there was a clear divine stipulation, accompanied by a threat of death. Furthermore, the breaking of this (covenant?) stipulation resulted in a curse that affected humanity.

Blazosky Final.indd 28

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Torah

29

1. Stipulations of the Noahic Covenant Having promised never again to destroy humanity as through the flood (8:21–23), God blesses Noah and reveals his expectations for life in the new land (9:1–7). These mandates are followed by the establishment of an everlasting covenant (9:8–17). The stipulations of 9:1–7 fall into three categories.11 First, humanity is called to be fruitful and to fill the land (9:1, 7). Second, though every animal and plant is given to humanity for food, consumption of blood is prohibited (9:2–4). Third, there is a divine directive against violence, a chief cause of the deluge (9:5–6; cf. 6:11–13). “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” (9:6a). 2. Scope of the Noahic Covenant In 9:8–17, the scope of the covenant is stressed. The covenant “members” are repeatedly identified as not only God and Noah but also Noah’s offspring and every living creature (9:9–10, 12, 13, 15–17). Furthermore, this covenant is to be in effect “for all future generations” (9:12), as it is an “everlasting covenant” [‫( ] ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬9:16). 3. Stipulations of the Abrahamic Covenant As with Noah, a covenant is also made with Abraham (Gen 15). To Abraham, however, God promises more than the preservation of humanity. Instead, God promises Abraham offspring, land, and, in the broader context, that he will be a conduit through which divine blessing will come to the world (Gen 15; cf. 12:1–3; 22:17–18). Also in contrast to Genesis 9, there is a conspicuous absence of stipulations in Genesis 15. The covenant ceremony likewise stresses God’s unilateral commitment to Abraham (15:9–21). In the broader context, however, certain mandates are closely connected to God’s plans for Abraham. Beginning with the demand to leave his homeland (12:1), God’s call to Abraham is to a life of obedience. Likewise in Genesis 17, God charges Abraham to walk faithfully and “be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you” (17:1). Circumcision is then instituted as a covenant sign. Every male of Abraham’s house who refuses the sign “shall be cut off from his people” (17:14). 4. Scope of the Abrahamic Covenant In line with the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant is to be “throughout their generations” (17:7, 9), since it is an “everlasting covenant” [‫] ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬ 11.  Though connected to the Noahic covenant, none of these stipulations is mentioned again in Gen 9:8–17 where the covenant is established. For a helpful overview of the obligations within the Noahic covenant, see VanDrunen, Divine Covenants, 115–23. It is debatable, however, whether VanDrunen is correct in describing the “human obligations within the Noahic covenant as natural law” (128; italics original). Cf. the assessment of VanDrunen’s position in chapter 2.

Blazosky Final.indd 29

4/11/19 5:28 PM

30

Chapter 1

(17:13, 19). In regard to membership, however, there are differences between the covenants. Whereas the Noahic covenant includes all creation, there is a clear possibility of people being outside the Abrahamic covenant, indicated at the outset of the narrative by the curse on those not rightly related to Abraham (12:3). Membership in the Abrahamic covenant is more limited, being restricted to those connected to Abraham (Gen 17). Nevertheless, the beneficiaries of God’s dealings with Abraham include far more than those in Abraham’s house (12:3). Thus, the potential blessing of the covenant extends beyond the original recipients, while a curse extends to all those who reject Abraham. D. A Summary of the Pre-Law Period In summary, four observations can be made concerning the pre-law period. First, divine commands are clearly present during this time. Second, human beings are held accountable for disobedience both individually and collectively, whether connected to the line of promise or not. Third, the influence of sin, death, and the curse extends to all humanity from Genesis 3 onward. Finally, two eternal covenants are especially significant in the pre-law period: the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants. The former includes all creation, while the latter is restricted to those connected to Abraham, though its beneficiaries include more than those in Abraham’s house. At the same time, the Abraham narrative contains not only a promise but also a divine curse on all those not rightly related to Abraham. Thus, the blessing of the covenant is extended beyond the original recipients, while a curse is likewise extended to all those who wrong Abraham, whether in his house or not.

II. The Mosaic Covenant In fulfillment of Gen 15:13–14, God, having seen Israel’s oppression, remembers his covenant and rescues his people out of Egypt (Exod 1–14). Within one chapter of this deliverance, the first reference to God’s commandments for his newly redeemed people occurs (Exod 15:26). In language that echoes Abraham’s obedience in Gen 26:5, Israel is called to obey God’s laws in order to avoid the destiny of the Egyptians. Israel must “listen” [‫ ] ִּת ְׁשמַ ע‬to God’s “voice” [‫] ְלקֹול‬, pay attention “to his commandments” [‫] ְל ִמ ְצֹותָ יו‬, “and keep all his statutes” [‫]וְ ׁשָ מַ ְרּתָ ּכָ ל־חֻ ּקָ יו‬. Egypt, having oppressed Abraham’s offspring, had been cursed by God (cf. Gen 12:3). Now, Abraham’s offspring must obey like Abraham to avoid the same fate as the Egyptians.

Blazosky Final.indd 30

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Torah

31

A. The Preamble to the Mosaic Covenant Upon Israel’s arrival at Sinai in Exodus 19, the first mention of a covenant with Israel appears. The divine preamble to this covenant in 19:4–6 shapes much of what is to come not only in Exodus but throughout Israel’s history:12 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Exod 19:4–6a)

As in 15:26, Israel’s call is to obey God’s voice. This time, however, the promise is positive. Whereas 15:26 simply affirms that Israel will not be judged like Egypt if they obey, 19:5–6 holds out the hope of being God’s “treasured possession” [‫] ְסגֻּלָ ה‬, a “kingdom of priests” [‫]מַ ְמלֶ כֶ ת ֹּכהֲנִ ים‬, and a “holy nation” [‫]גֹוי קָ דֹוׁש‬. In this preamble, there is a joint emphasis on Israel’s uniqueness as well as the universal lordship of Israel’s God. Though “all the earth” belongs to God (19:5), Israel alone is to be God’s ‫ ְסגֻּלָ ה‬.13 Israel is to be a ‫ גֹוי קָ דֹוׁש‬among the nations and is to serve as a ‫ מַ ְמלֶ כֶ ת ֹּכהֲנִ ים‬for the good of the nations.14 As Moses himself (and, later, the priests) mediated the knowledge of God and his ways,15 so Israel would serve a mediatorial role as a priestly kingdom, bringing light to those in darkness.16 12.  Christoph Dohmen (Exodus 19–40, HTKAT [Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004], 64) remarks: “In der ersten Gottesrede am Sinai, zu Beginn der Sinaiperikope, findet sich die entscheidende Beschreibung der Identität Israels.” Cf. also Christopher J. H. Wright (The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006], 224) who writes: “This is a key missiological text.… It is as pivotal in the book of Exodus as Genesis 12:1–3 is in Genesis.” 13.  “Treasured possession” [‫ ]הָּלֻגְס‬occurs only eight times in the MT, four of which likely allude to Exod 19:5 (Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Ps 135:4). Ludwig Schmidt (“Israel und das Gesetz: Ex 19,3b–8 und 24,3–8 als literarischer und theologischer Rahmen für das Bundesbuch,” ZAW 113 [2001]: 178–80) unnecessarily posits a contradiction between Exod 19:5 and Deut 7:6 in regard to the order of divine election and Israel’s call to obedience. Though elements of Exod 19:3b–8 are dependent on Israel’s obedience, Israel’s election is not sourced in their obedience here or in Deuteronomy 7, provided that one takes the preceding exodus narrative into account. 14.  In contrast to “treasured possession” [‫] ְסגֻּלָ ה‬, “kingdom of priests” [‫ ]מַ ְמלֶ כֶ ת ֹּכ ֲהנִ ים‬is absent elsewhere in the MT. For discussion of the need for obedience by Israel for this special call to be realized, see Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 62–64. For overviews of the debate on the meaning of ‫הנִ ים‬ ֲ ‫ּכ‬ ֹ ‫מַ ְמלֶ כֶ ת‬, see John I. Durham, Exodus, WBC 3 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 263; William H. C. Propp, ed., Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2A (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 157–60. 15.  Moses’s mediatorial role is described in Exod  18:13–24. With respect to the priesthood, Lev 10:11 illustrates that priests also mediate God’s revelation. Cf. Wright, Mission, 329–33. 16.  For the unfolding of Israel’s call to bring light to the nations, see Deut 4:5–8; 1 Kgs 4:31–34; Isa 42:6 and Isa 49:6; cf. also Rom 2:17–20 and 1 Pet 2:9.

Blazosky Final.indd 31

4/11/19 5:28 PM

32

Chapter 1

B. The Mosaic Covenant in Comparison with the Noahic and Abrahamic Covenants In response to 19:4–6, the people answer: “All that the LORD has spoken we will do” (19:8). The Lord then instructs Moses to prepare Israel for a divine encounter and to threaten the people repeatedly with death to ensure their cooperation (19:12–13, 21–24). In 20:1–17, God speaks ten “words” [‫ ]הַ ְּדבָ ִרים‬to Israel. These words, grounded in his redeeming work, unveil his expectations for his covenant people.17 After multiple expansions and applications of these words, Israel reiterates: “All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do” (24:3). After Moses reads aloud “the Book of the Covenant,” Israel declares once more its commitment to obey. The covenant is sealed as Moses sprinkles “the blood of the covenant” on the altar and on the people (24:4–8). 1. The Nature of the Covenants On the one hand, the Noahic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic covenants all contain stipulations.18 On the other hand, the inauguration of the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants strikes a much different chord than Exodus 19–24. Though Noah’s burnt offerings in Gen 8:20–21 set the stage for the covenant in Genesis 9,19 the scene is quite different than in Exodus 24 where Moses sprinkles blood on the people in response to their promise to obey. Even more so, Exodus 24 differs from Gen 15:12–21 where the torch and firepot pass through the divided animals while Abraham is in a deep sleep.20 Thus, there is a sharper emphasis on human obligation within the Mosaic covenant. Another potential difference between the covenants is in regard to whether the Mosaic covenant is an “everlasting covenant.” As already noted, ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬is used 17.  For an overview of the Decalogue with extensive interaction with the secondary literature, see Daniel I. Block, “The Decalogue in the Hebrew Scriptures,” in The Decalogue through the Centuries: From the Hebrew Scriptures to Benedict XVI (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 1–27. Block’s suggestion that the Decalogue is better described as a “covenant document” rather than as a “legal code” is helpful in that it draws attention to the theological foundation of the Decalogue and the relational framework of God’s dealings with Israel. These stipulations “summarize the divine Suzerain’s expectations of his vassal” (8). Block summarizes the call of the Decalogue well: “In short, the Decalogue calls on the head of the household to be covenantally committed to YHWH, his household, and his neighbors so that he will resist seeking his own advantage and seek the interest of others” (11). 18.  The question of the “conditional” or “unconditional” nature of biblical covenants has been frequently discussed. For my purposes, it is sufficient to note that obedience is important in each. For example, in both Genesis 17 and Genesis 9, a similar structure highlights the importance of obedience. Note the “as for me…as for you” [‫]אֲנִ י ִהּנֵה…וְ אַ ּתָ ה‬, in Gen 17:4 and 17:9 (NIV). Though not as explicitly, something similar occurs in Gen 9:9 (see ‫ ַואֲנִ י ִהנְ נִ י‬: NRSV, “As for me”). On Genesis 9, see Steven D. Mason, “Another Flood? Genesis 9 and Isaiah’s Broken Eternal Covenant,” JSOT 32 (2007): 184–86. 19.  See Williamson, Sealed, 61–62. Williamson’s suggestion is quite plausible that this offering of sacrifices in Gen 8:20 ought to be viewed as the beginning of the “actual ratification of the Noahic covenant” (61). This scene in Genesis 8, however, still differs significantly from Exodus 24. 20.  For a comparison of the rite in Genesis 15 with other ANE treaty texts, see Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15,” JSOT 19 (1981): 61–78.

Blazosky Final.indd 32

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Torah

33

with respect to both the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants (Gen 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19). Yet, this phrase is not used in the Torah to describe the Mosaic covenant directly. Whether the Mosaic covenant is, nevertheless, to be understood as a ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬is not clear. On many occasions, an ordinance from the law will be described as a “statute forever throughout your generations” [‫]חֻ ּקַ ת עֹולָ ם ְל ֹדרֹתֵ יכֶ ם‬ (e.g., Lev 3:17; 10:19; 23:14; 24:13).21 Furthermore, on two occasions, a specific aspect of the law code is called a ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬: first, the Sabbath, which is to be observed “throughout their generations as a covenant forever” (Exod 31:16); and, second, the setting out of the bread every Sabbath. “It is from the people of Israel as a covenant forever” (Lev 24:8). Thus, the Torah itself does not apply the phrase ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬to the Mosaic covenant; yet, the Torah also does not suggest that the Mosaic covenant is distinct from the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants on this point. This measure of ambiguity is not surprising, however, since it is difficult to imagine an early Israelite thinking of the Mosaic covenant as being temporary. As long as Israel would be in the land, these laws, and the overarching covenant, would govern God’s children; and, as God made clear to Abraham at the institution of circumcision, God would give the land to Abraham’s descendants “for an everlasting possession” [‫]לַ אֲחֻ ּזַת עֹולָ ם‬ (Gen 17:8). 2. Comparing the Warnings and Stipulations within the Covenants With respect to threats and stipulations, three observations can be made. Though all three covenants contain positive promises, the Mosaic covenant has a much higher concentration of negative threats than the previous covenants.22 In Genesis 9, the only warnings concern violations of stipulations connected to blood. In connection with the Abrahamic covenant, there is only one threat of judgment: to be “cut off ” for failure to practice circumcision (Gen 17:14). In the Mosaic covenant, however, this threat of being “cut off ” is ever-present (24× in Exodus–Numbers).23 The Mosaic covenant’s focus on the consequences of disobedience is strikingly dissimilar from previous covenants. 21. Though ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬occurs only six times in the Torah, the phrases ‫ חֻ ּקַ ת עֹולָ ם‬and ‫חָ ק־עֹולָ ם‬ occur thirty‑two times. 22.  For helpful comments on the inseparable relationship between the Mosaic covenant and the law code, see Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974; repr., Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 382. In reflecting on Exodus 19, Childs writes: “The law and the covenant belong together. Regardless of the critical problems involved in respect to the original relation of ch. 20 to ch. 19, seen from the context of the canon there can be no separation theologically between the two. It is abundantly clear that the two have been joined in the final stage of the text’s development and so read by the subsequent tradition.” 23.  Niphal forms of ‫ ּכָ ַרת‬occur twenty‑five times in Exodus–Numbers. Those who break Passover or Sabbath regulations, murder, or do various sins or acts of immorality will be “cut off.” Apart from Num 11:33, each use reflects the same kind of warning as Gen 17:14, namely, that of being “cut off ” for disobedience. Similarly, the hiphil of ‫ ּכָ ַרת‬is used four times in this sense in Leviticus 17–20. In each case, God promises that he himself will cut off the disobedient (Lev 17:10; 20:3–6).

Blazosky Final.indd 33

4/11/19 5:28 PM

34

Chapter 1

Second, the specificity and prevalence of commands in the Mosaic covenant are far greater than in the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants. In the Abrahamic covenant, Abraham is called to “be blameless,” and his house is to practice circumcision. It is difficult, however, to find any other specific requirements for future generations. The Noahic covenant contains more stipulations; yet, the stipulations are fairly basic and few in number. The Mosaic covenant, however, contains a markedly disproportionate number of stipulations. Finally, the content of the commands connected to the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants is subsumed in the covenant made at Sinai. The stipulations concerning blood found in Gen 9:1–7 are discussed and expanded in the Mosaic covenant (e.g., Lev 17:10–14). The prohibition of violence is also conveyed in the sixth commandment and developed heavily in the proceeding chapters of Exodus. The command to circumcise male offspring on the eighth day, the only clearly abiding stipulation of the Abrahamic covenant, is likewise reiterated in the Mosaic covenant in Lev 12:3.24 3. Comparing the Scope of the Covenants In regard to the scope of the covenants, the Noahic covenant is established between God and all creation, the Abrahamic between God and those in Abraham’s house, and the Mosaic between God and some of Abraham’s offspring. Yet, as with the Abrahamic covenant, the intended beneficiaries of the Mosaic covenant include more than the initial covenant members. God, as the owner of all the land, called Israel to serve as a ‫ מַ ְמלֶ כֶ ת ֹּכהֲנִ ים‬for the good of the nations. The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants also have an interesting parallel in terms of being “cut off ” or being outside the covenant. In Genesis 12, a curse is placed on all who curse Abraham. To be an outsider and reject what God is doing through Abraham results in a curse. Later, in Genesis 17, even those within Abraham’s house are threatened with being “cut off ” for failure to practice circumcision. Thus, those from inside Abraham’s house who do not follow in Abraham’s steps may become like those outside the covenant. Likewise, the narrowing of God’s plan to Israel results in the exclusion of others from divine blessing unless they embrace the covenant. To be an outsider and remain an outsider is, in effect, to be “cut off ” and under judgment. Thus, the repeated threat to an Israelite is that of being “cut off ” from the people. A disobedient insider may end up in the same position and under the same judgment as those already outside the covenant. 24.  It should be noted, however, that circumcision receives little attention in the Mosaic covenant. In no other text in Exodus 19 through the end of Deuteronomy is physical circumcision discussed or mandated. What is mandated, however, is heart circumcision (Deut 10:16; 30:6; cf. Lev 26:41).

Blazosky Final.indd 34

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Torah

35

III. The Plight of the Canaanites in Leviticus 18 and 20 Between Exodus 24 and the departure from Sinai in Numbers 10, numerous laws are instituted, governing the priesthood, tabernacle, and sacrificial system, as well as issues related to cleanness, sex, and interpersonal relationships. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of this legal material is focused exclusively on Israel’s conduct.25 Hardly any texts speak to how these laws relate to those outside of Israel. The key exception, however, is Leviticus 18–20, in which one finds the clearest intersection between the plight of disobedient Israelites and that of the Canaanite nations, as well as the strongest juxtaposition of the statutes of the Canaanites and those given to Israel. Located between sections on the Day of Atonement and blood regulations in Leviticus 16–17 and the holiness of priests and offerings in Leviticus 21–22, Leviticus 18–20 forms a single unit emphasizing the holiness of God, the need to keep God’s statutes, and the necessity of turning away from the sinful deeds of the nations.26 The central chapter begins with a call to holiness (19:2), followed by a reapplication of the majority of the Decalogue.27 Also, for the only time in the Sinai narrative, Israel is commanded to love: to love their neighbor and the sojourners 25.  Foreigners who live among Israel or who pass through Israel form a fascinating subcategory with respect to the legal code. In several cases, sojourners are required to practice certain stipulations when among Israel. Sojourners are required to observe the Passover (Exod 12:43–49), the Sabbath (Exod 20:10), and the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29). Furthermore, sojourners must follow several stipulations related to sacrifices and blood in Lev 17:8–16. In Lev 18:26, sojourners must keep the divine ‫ חֻ ּקֹות‬and refrain from the abominations mentioned in 18:6–23. Later in Leviticus, a death penalty is to be carried out on Israelite and sojourner alike for blaspheming “the name of the LORD” (24:16) and for murder (24:21–22). In the final use of ‫ ּגֵר‬in the Torah, the priests are charged to gather the people every seven years to read the law. Moses says: “Assemble the people, men, women, and little ones, and the sojourner [‫ ]ּגֵר‬within your towns, that they may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God, and be careful to do all the words of this law” (Deut 31:12). Not only are ethnic Israelites to hear and obey the law, so also are the sojourners among them. This brief survey of the ‫ ּגֵר‬in the Torah suggests that the legal code can be both valuable and, to some degree, binding on people who were not original members of the Mosaic covenant, at least while in the land. For the current state of research on the relationship of sojourners to the law in the Torah, see Reinhard Achenbach, Rainer Albertz, and Jakob Wöhrle, eds., The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, BZABR 16 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011). 26.  On the unity of Leviticus 18–20, see Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Leviticus, ApOTC 3 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007), 369–71; Adrian Schenker, “What Connects the Incest Prohibitions with the Other Prohibitions Listed in Leviticus 18 and 20?,” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler, VTSup 93 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 174–79. Schenker notes that one function of the repetition of the land’s vomiting out of its inhabitants in Leviticus 18 and 20 is that it “makes out of Leviticus 18–20 a unit, giving all the commandments of these three chapters the weight of conditions necessary for the possession of the land” (176–77). 27.  The only clear omission in Leviticus 19 from the Decalogue is the seventh commandment, concerning the prohibition against adultery.

Blazosky Final.indd 35

4/11/19 5:28 PM

36

Chapter 1

as themselves (19:18, 34). Israel’s call to holiness is based on God’s holiness and is grounded in the declaration repeated fifteen times in Leviticus 19: “I am the LORD.”28 The outer chapters, Leviticus 18 and 20, reinforce the necessity of obedience by underscoring God’s view of sinful nations.29 Israel’s need to keep God’s “statutes” [‫ ]חֻ ּקֹות‬remains central throughout the unit (18:4–5, 26; 19:19, 37; 20:8, 22); but, in Leviticus 18 and 20, the call to obey God’s ‫ חֻ ּקֹות‬is framed by warnings not to follow the ‫ חֻ ּקֹות‬of the nations (18:3, 30; 20:23), lest Israel receive the same judgment as those nations. A. An Examination of Leviticus 18 Leviticus 18 can be divided into three sections: an introduction (18:1–5), a section of statutes (18:6–23), and a call to obedience, accompanied by a divine threat (18:24– 30). In the introduction, Israel is commanded not to act like the Egyptians or those in Canaan; rather, Israel must keep God’s ‫חֻ ּקֹות‬, through which a person will find life (18:4–5).30 In 18:6–23, these statutes are disclosed. Numerous sexual sins, along with the worship of Molech (18:21), are prohibited.31 The section of statutes leads to the summative call to obedience and the threat for disobedience in 18:24–30: Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes [‫ ]חֻ ּקֹות‬and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do 28.  After only two occurrences of “I am the LORD” prior to Leviticus 18, this phrase occurs forty‑seven times in the last ten chapters, with over half of these being in Leviticus 18–20. 29.  See Mary Douglas, Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 234. “The reader is faced by a trilogy of chapters, 18 and 20 repeating each other, and between them chapter 19, which must be considered to be of central importance if only because of the way it is framed by the other two. The two supporting chapters, 18 and 20, repeat each other like a song chorus or procession, chanting the same anathemas against the evil things that are done in the religions of Egypt and Canaan.” Cf. Mary Douglas, “Justice as the Cornerstone: An Interpretation of Leviticus 18–20,” Int 53 (1999): 341–50. 30.  On the meaning and later usage of Lev 18:5b, consult Preston M. Sprinkle, Law and Life: The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in Paul, WUNT 241 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Cf. Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 314–53. 31.  For a study of the sexual laws in Lev 18:6–23, their relationship to 18:1–5 and 18:24–30, and their role in establishing the boundaries within Israelite society and among the nations, see Doug C. Mohrmann, “Making Sense of Sex: A Study of Leviticus 18,” JSOT 29 (2004): 57–79.

Blazosky Final.indd 36

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Torah

37

them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs [‫ ]חֻ ּקֹות‬that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God. (Lev 18:24–30)

At least three points are noteworthy in 18:24–30. First, not only has the land become unclean through the sins of the nations, but also the nations themselves have “become unclean” by doing the sins prohibited in 18:6–23. It is on account of their sinful deeds that God is thrusting out these nations (18:24). Second, the statement that the nations “have become unclean” [‫ ]נִ ְט ְמאּו‬in 18:24 should be read in light of the immediate and larger contexts. This verb [‫]טָ מֵ א‬ occurs eight times in 18:20–30. Adultery causes one to become “unclean” [‫] ְלטָ ְמאָ ה‬ (18:20). Similarly, immoral acts with animals makes one “unclean” (18:23). Thus, Israel is warned not to make themselves “unclean” by doing these sins (18:24a). This warning is grounded in the declaration that the nations have “become unclean” through these things (18:24–25). In the broader biblical context, language of “uncleanness” is prominent in Leviticus. After only three uses in Genesis through Exodus (all in Gen 34), the verbal and adjectival forms of ‫ טמא‬occur one hundred thirty-two times in Leviticus.32 Prior to Leviticus 18, being “unclean” is, presumably, only a possibility for Israelites and sojourners. Likewise, in 18:20 and 18:23, the prohibitions against sexual immorality and the accompanying threat of becoming “unclean” are, seemingly, only for Israel. The unexpected claim—unparalleled in the Torah—is that the nations in the land have “become unclean” through practicing these abominations (18:24–25). A final note from 18:24–30 is that, if Israel fails to obey God’s ‫חֻ ּקֹות‬, they will experience the same fate as the nations. As the land has vomited out its current inhabitants, so it will be with Israel. “For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people” (18:29). Those who break God’s laws will be “cut off.” Disobedient covenant members are once again threatened with the prospect of being treated as those outside the covenant. B. An Examination of Leviticus 20 What is found in Leviticus 18 is confirmed and expanded in Leviticus 20. Leviticus 20 contains an introduction (20:1–2a), statutes (20:2b–21), and a call to obedience, accompanied by warnings (20:22–27). The overlap in content is extensive, with thirteen statutes in 18:6–23 being reiterated or expanded in 20:2b–21 (Table 1). 32.  The language of “clean” and “unclean” is ubiquitous in Leviticus, occurring well over two hundred times (‫ טהר‬root: 74×; ‫ טמא‬root: 150×). For a thorough discussion of Jewish views of Gentile impurity, see Jonathan Klawans, “Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism,” AJSR 20 (1995): 285–312. Klawans suggests that “ritual impurity did not generally apply to Gentiles at all until the tannaitic period” but that Gentiles were viewed as being “morally impure from a much earlier date” (288).

Blazosky Final.indd 37

4/11/19 5:28 PM

38

Chapter 1 Table 1. The Repetition of Leviticus 18–19 in Leviticus 20:1–21 Leviticus 20

Theme

Leviticus 18–19

20:1 20:2–5 20:6 20:7–8 20:9 20:10 20:11 20:12 20:13 20:14 20:15–16 20:17 20:18 20:19–20 20:21

Introduction Molech worship Necromancy Call to holiness Honoring parents Adultery Immorality with father’s wife Immorality with daughter-in-law Homosexual acts Taking a woman and her mother Bestiality Taking a sister Intercourse during period Immorality with aunt Taking a brother’s wife

18:1; 19:1 18:21 19:26, 31 (cf. 20:27) 19:1 (cf. 20:26) 19:3 18:20 18:8 18:15 18:22 18:17 18:22–23 18:9 18:19 18:14 18:16

Table 2. A Comparison of Parallel Stipulations in Leviticus 18–19 and Leviticus 20 The stipulation in Leviticus 18–19 You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God. (18:21) Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God. (19:31)

The same stipulation in Leviticus 20, with an explicit threat Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. (20:2) If a person turns to mediums and necromancers, whoring after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut him off from among his people. (20:6)

A few differences also emerge, however.33 First, Leviticus 20 condemns a wider range of sins than Leviticus 18. Not only is the condemnation of Molech worship expanded (20:2–5), Leviticus 20 also prohibits necromancy (20:6; cf. 19:31), as well as the mistreatment of parents (20:9; cf. 19:3a). Interestingly, these additional statutes in Leviticus 20 which are not in Leviticus 18 mirror Leviticus 19 (Table 1). 33.  Another contrast between Leviticus 18 and 20 relates to the forms of the commands. In Leviticus 18–19, the forms typically resemble one another, even though the content rarely overlaps. Simple commands (e.g., “You shall” or “Do not”) occur over eighty times in Leviticus 18–19. In 20:2b–21, however, the normal pattern for stipulations is a condition followed by a promise of judgment (see Table 2).

Blazosky Final.indd 38

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Torah

39

Second, although 20:2b–21 reflects previous material, an explicit threat of judgment is added to each stipulation (Table 2).34 This constant repetition illustrates the seriousness of each sin. Violation of even one statute results in a devastating penalty. Finally, the most important contribution of Leviticus 20 to Gentile condemnation comes in 20:23. Though Israel is the recipient of 20:2b–21, 20:23 clearly affirms that the nations are under judgment for these sins: “And you shall not walk in the customs [‫ ]חֻ ּקֹות‬of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them” (20:23). As in 18:24–30, God’s disgust with the nations is grounded in their practice of the abominations prohibited in 20:2b–21. C. The Proposals on Leviticus 18 and 20 The ramifications of Leviticus 18 and 20 for Gentile condemnation are typically not explored in great detail in the secondary literature. Nevertheless, a few proposals related to the general topic are worth mentioning briefly. First, Jacob Milgrom, noting the significance of non-Israelite nations being called “unclean,” connects the accountability of these nations particularly to the land. Milgrom writes: One may not deduce from the application of the root ṭm’ to non-Israelites that the pollution incurred is noncultic: non-Israelites living on the land are required to observe all the prohibitive commandments (Num 15:27–31), including the cultic ones (see esp. Num 19:13, 20…). H [The Holiness Code], however, adds noncultic sins, such as sexual violations, to the ambience of ṭāmē’.35

In my view, Milgrom is correct to note the significance of the land to the accountability of the Canaanites to divine statutes. Yet, this observation needs to be supplemented to be particularly useful in constructing a theology of Gentile condemnation. Adrian Schenker, on the other hand, suggests that the authors of Leviticus 18 and 20 saw these ethical instructions as “common sense.” Because of this, the nations who transgressed these statutes were worthy of judgment. These stipulations “were regarded as obvious. According to the authors, these were rules for 34.  This is not to suggest that there are no threats in Leviticus 18–19. In 18:24–30, there are explicit warnings about individuals being “cut off ” (18:29) and about Israel, as a nation, being “vomited out” of the land if they rebel (18:28). The difference is that, in Leviticus 20, each statute is connected explicitly to a threat of judgment, which is true of only one statute in Leviticus 18–19 (see 19:8). 35.  Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1579; italics added.

Blazosky Final.indd 39

4/11/19 5:28 PM

40

Chapter 1

social life that YHWH recalled here, but which were, or could have been, accessible for everybody.”36 It is questionable, however, if the stipulations in these chapters would have been “common sense” to these nations. Furthermore, even if the other nations were aware that these deeds were sinful, much more would need to be said about how these nations could become “unclean” and how this account in Leviticus relates to the broader topic of Gentile condemnation. VanDrunen’s treatment of Gentile accountability in Leviticus 18 and 20 is more nuanced than those previously mentioned and is also much more comprehensive.37 According to VanDrunen, this passage teaches that “pagan nations were held accountable to God via the natural law.”38 Israel’s situation under the Mosaic law is, thus, “analogous to the condition of the Canaanites under the natural law.”39 Or, as he writes later, “Israel, in falling into the sins described in Leviticus 18 and 20 and being judged for it, was a kind of microcosm of the nations under the natural law.”40 In essence, VanDrunen seeks to highlight the noticeable similarities between the expectations for Israel and the nations in this text, while also attempting to distinguish how the Mosaic law relates to both.41 In my treatment of Amos 1–2 in chapter 2, VanDrunen’s position will be assessed in greater detail; yet, two comments can be made at this point concerning this “natural law” proposal on Leviticus 18 and 20. First, the kinds of distinctions that VanDrunen maintains regarding Israel’s being under the Mosaic law and the nations’ being under natural law do not appear to be of any real concern to the biblical author. The text is very straightforward in its presentation of the judgment of the sinful Canaanites and in its pronouncement of threats on Israel if they disobey. Second, given the ubiquitous usage of “unclean” throughout Leviticus, it is difficult to understand how this text could describe the nations as “unclean” and not be evoking the Mosaic law. 36.  Schenker, “Incest Prohibitions,” 177. 37. VanDrunen, Divine Covenants, 302–16. 38.  Ibid., 302. 39.  Ibid. It is important to note that VanDrunen is not sharply differentiating the content and consequences of the Mosaic law from those of natural law. For example, VanDrunen concludes his analysis of these chapters in this way: “Leviticus 18 and 20 also confirm my claim that the Mosaic law was, in part, an application of the natural law in a way fit for Israel’s unique situation. Israel’s moral situation under the Mosaic law in many ways reflected the situation of their neighbors under the natural law” (316). The point I am highlighting is how VanDrunen consistently distinguishes the Mosaic law’s role in condemning the nations from its role in condemning Israel. 40.  Ibid., 312. Similarly, “As God intervened in history periodically to bring devastating judgment against pagan nations for their egregious violations of the natural law…, so also God would send devastating judgment against Israel for their disobedience to the Mosaic law” (307). 41.  VanDrunen (ibid., 313) seems to suggest that, if the nations did not know of the Mosaic law, then they could not be judged for violating it. Thus, their judgment must be based on something else which they did know. He writes: “Since the Canaanites had no access to the Mosaic law, God must have judged them on the basis of their knowledge of the natural law” (313).

Blazosky Final.indd 40

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Torah

41

D. The Implications of Leviticus 18 and 20 Leviticus 18 and 20 offer the best example in the Torah of how the culpability of the nations relates to the statutes in the Mosaic law. With respect to Israel, failure to obey God’s ‫ חֻ ּקֹות‬will result in experiencing the same judgment as the nations, namely, being vomited out of the land. Furthermore, disobedient covenant members will be “cut off ” from the people, being placed in the same position as those outside the covenant. With respect to Egypt and the nations of Canaan, Leviticus 18 and 20 point toward seeing these nations as accountable for violations of God’s ‫חֻ ּקֹות‬. Nevertheless, an important caveat must be made. The text is not commenting on these nations after these statutes were revealed through Moses. Instead, the emphasis is that these nations became unclean by doing these sins before Israel even reached Sinai. Thus, the text does not explicitly state that these nations were directly indicted for breaking Israel’s laws. At the same time, the text does affirm that the nations have “become unclean” through practicing what is prohibited in 18:6–23. Given the prominence of being “unclean” in Leviticus, describing other nations as such places these nations in a parallel position to disobedient Israelites. Leviticus 20 affirms and develops this perspective as it widens the range of stipulations, connects severe penalties to each violation, and asserts that God detests these nations precisely because “they did all these things” (20:23). In summary, just as disobedient covenant members are threatened with exclusion, so those outside the covenant are condemned for failure to live according to divine statutes. In Leviticus 18 and 20, there is a merging of the plight of a rebellious Israel and that of a pagan nation, and of a disobedient insider and that of a sinful outsider.

IV. Deuteronomy and the Curse of the Law After Leviticus 18–20, the most significant words in the rest of the Torah concerning the condemnation of other nations are found in Deuteronomy. A. The Uniqueness of Israel After decades of death in the wilderness, Israel nears Canaan. Moses, nearing death, rehearses Israel’s history (Deut 1–3) and calls a new generation to heart obedience to the law (Deut 4–31), a challenge grounded in Israel’s election. God has chosen Israel as “a people of his own inheritance” (4:20). Though heaven and earth belong to God, “the LORD set his heart in love” on this nation “above all peoples” (10:15; cf. 7:6–8; 32:8–9).

Blazosky Final.indd 41

4/11/19 5:28 PM

42

Chapter 1

The continual reminder of this unique status is Israel’s possession of God’s statutes. It is by keeping his commandments that Israel will be known among the nations as “a wise and understanding people” (4:7). One can search “from one end of heaven to the other” and never find another nation which has received such revelation (4:32–33). B. The Judgment of the Nations The uniqueness of Israel shapes much of Deuteronomy’s teaching concerning other nations.42 Because Israel is God’s beloved, others are under judgment when they mistreat Israel or present a spiritual threat to them. As with Sihon and Og (2:24–3:11), all who oppress Israel deserve judgment (cf. 25:17–18; 32:43). In 30:7, Moses even speaks of a day when God “will put all these curses” on those who persecuted Israel. With respect to the nations of Canaan, however, these are to be eradicated not for oppressing Israel but for Israel’s well-being. No mercy is to be offered these nations since they would cause Israel “to serve other gods” (7:4; cf. 12:2–4; 29:16–18).43 In 20:10–18, a distinction is even made between cities “very far” from Israel and those in the land. The former may be offered peace; but, for the latter, Israel must “save alive nothing that breathes” (20:16). Annihilation is necessary to preserve Israel’s holiness (20:18). In each of these texts, the threat for Israel is always related to idolatry. The key question for our purposes is whether the nations themselves are condemned for idolatry or whether their idolatry is only condemned inasmuch as it may lead Israel astray. Most texts only imply that the nations themselves are accountable for idolatry; yet, two passages affirm explicitly that God both hates their idolatry and is judging them for it.44 In 12:29–31, to protect Israel, Moses forbids inquiry into how the Canaanites worship. Moses warns: “You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods” (12:31; cf. Lev 18:21; 20:3). 42.  On the one hand, a link exists between God’s choice of Israel and the rejection of other nations. If Israel is unique and if the law—which is integral to life and blessing—belongs to Israel, then to be outside of Israel suggests that one is severed from God and life. On the other hand, Deuteronomy never grounds the judgment of Gentiles in this way (i.e. I am condemned because I am not an Israelite); rather, their judgment is always sourced in sin. Perhaps the most pointed text in this regard is Deut 9:4–5, wherein Moses warns Israel not to think that it is because of Israel’s righteousness that God is judging the nations. On the contrary, “it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out.” 43.  Cf. Exod 23:23–33; 34:13–16. 44.  Cf. Deut 4:15–19 and 7:24–25 which also appear to condemn the Canaanite nations for idolatry.

Blazosky Final.indd 42

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Torah

43

In 18:9–12, the text is clearer that the abominable actions of the Canaanite nations not only stir up God’s hatred but are, in fact, a direct cause of divine judgment: When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you. (Deut 18:9–12)

In a similar way to Leviticus 18 and 20, necromancy and sacrificing one’s children are abominations. Moreover, “whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD” (Deut 18:12a; cf. Lev 18:29). God detests both the idolatrous practices and the people who participate in them; therefore, God “is driving them out” (18:12b).45 C. The Curse of the Law in Deut 27:26 One final passage, Deuteronomy 27–30, deserves consideration in light of its significance not only to OT theology but also to Pauline theology. In no other text are the threats for disobedience to the law more prevalent, with “curse” language occurring nearly thirty times.46 Thus, even though other nations are peripheral in the section, Deuteronomy 27–30 is critical to understanding “the curse of the law.” 1. Individual and National Dimensions of the Curses In Deuteronomy 27, Moses tells Israel what to do upon entering Canaan.47 The people are to stand on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal (27:11–13), while the Levites proclaim curses on the disobedient (27:14). After eleven specific curses (27:15–25), the Levites are to pronounce the summative curse: “‘Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen’” (27:26). In Deuteronomy 28, the focus shifts to the nation. In 28:1–14, God promises blessings for obedience. Israel will be set “high above all the nations” (28:1) and will see their enemies defeated (28:7). In 28:15–68, however, diverse curses for 45.  For a similar emphasis to Deuteronomy 18 and Leviticus 18 and 20, see 11QTa LX, 16–21. 46.  In both the ESV and NIV, “curse” language occurs twenty‑eight times in Deuteronomy 27–30. The Hebrew words behind these translations are the nouns ‫( אָ לָ ה‬6×; 3× as “curses” in ESV), ‫( ְמאֵ ָרה‬1×), and ‫( ְקלָ לָ ה‬6×), as well as the verb ‫( אָ ַרר‬18×). In contrast, these words occur only six times elsewhere in Deuteronomy, and three of those look ahead to the ceremony at Gerizim and Ebal (see 11:26–29). 47.  On the literary integrity of Deuteronomy 27, see Daniel I. Block, “‘What Do These Stones Mean?’ The Riddle of Deuteronomy 27,” JETS 56 (2013): 20–22.

Blazosky Final.indd 43

4/11/19 5:28 PM

44

Chapter 1

disobedience fill the text, culminating in 28:36–68 with the threat of being thrust from the land. In Deuteronomy 29, the corporate and individual emphases of Deuteronomy 27–28 come together.48 Israel must remember God’s works and obey his words (29:2–9); otherwise, the nation will be “uprooted” and will face “all the curses written in this book” (29:27–28). Yet, near the chapter’s center, there is a warning that no group or individual is exempt from this demand for obedience or from being cursed for disobedience: Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or clan or tribe whose heart is turning away today from the LORD our God to go and serve the gods of those nations. Beware lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit, one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, “I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.” This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike. The LORD will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. And the LORD will single him out from all the tribes of Israel for calamity, in accordance with all the curses of the covenant written in this Book of the Law. (Deut 29:18–21)

Thus, in Deuteronomy 27–30, the focus oscillates between disobedience on a national level with its consequences and disobedience on a personal level with its consequences. For the nation, the curses involve widespread disasters, culminating in exile. For an individual, the curses involve facing death, never being forgiven, being “cut off ” from the covenant people, and having one’s name blotted out from under heaven. 2. Causes for the Curses in Deuteronomy 27 Most teaching concerning what the curses involve is derived from Deuteronomy 28–29. In those chapters, however, few specifics are given as to what brings about the curses. Instead, general reasons, such as failure to “obey the voice of the LORD” (28:15, 45, 62), are typically provided. The specific causes come from 27:15–26. 48.  The distinction between an Israelite and Israel must not be overstated, however. If Israel as a whole prospers for obedience, individuals must not forget the necessity of their own obedience (e.g., Achan). If Israel is suffering for sin, individuals may find hope that their covenant faithfulness will not be forgotten (e.g., Daniel). For discussion of the difficulties in interpretation of Deut 29:18 as well as how later interpreters understood the relationship of the judgment of an individual and that of the nation, see Jan Joosten, “The Interpretation of Deuteronomy 29:17–18 in the Hellenistic Period: Septuagint, Qumran and Parabiblical Literature,” in Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran, ed. Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz, FAT 2/35 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 107–20.

Blazosky Final.indd 44

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Torah

45

In each verse, a curse is pronounced for a specific moral infraction. Every person who practices idolatry or participates in shedding blood is cursed (27:15, 24–25).49 Those who dishonor their parents (27:16), take their neighbor’s property (27:17), or commit sexual immorality (27:20–23) are cursed.50 Furthermore, each person who mistreats the needy—whether the blind, sojourners, orphans, or widows—is cursed (27:18–19). 3. A Comparison between Leviticus 18 and 20 and Deuteronomy 27 Deuteronomy 27 has several points of contact with Leviticus 18 and 20.51 First, each list is preceded by a call to keep God’s ‫( חֻ ּקֹות‬Lev 18:4–5; Deut 27:10). Second, the curses of Deuteronomy 27, as developed in Deuteronomy 28–29, involve the same consequences as the threats in Leviticus 18 and 20 (e.g., being “cut off ” or exiled).52 In addition, the statutes contain much common content. At least five of the eleven statutes from Deut 27:15–26 parallel Leviticus 18 and 20 (Table 3). Each prohibition in Deuteronomy 27 concerning sexual immorality is reflected in Leviticus 18 and 20. Furthermore, the three principal sins prohibited in Leviticus 18 and 20—idolatry, sexual sin, and dishonoring parents—all result in a curse in Deuteronomy 27. It is also noteworthy that statutes concerning moral infractions are the exclusive focal point of both sections, as opposed to the many other statutes given through Moses for the governance of Israel and their cultic practice. Notwithstanding these similarities, Deut 27:15–26 also contains four important differences when compared to Leviticus 18 and 20. First, the range of sins condemned in Deuteronomy 27 is broader, encompassing murder, theft of property, and mistreatment of the needy. Second, with respect to idolatry and murder, Deutero­nomy 27 declares a curse on those who practice these sins “in secret” 49.  The curse upon one who secretly murders a neighbor in Deut 27:24 is reflective of the first curse pronounced directly on a human, namely, the curse on Cain for the murder of Abel in Gen 4:11. 50.  The use of “uncovering” [‫ ]ּגָלָ ה‬used in Deut 27:20 for dishonoring a “father’s bed” (NIV) or uncovering a “father’s nakedness” (ESV) reflects Leviticus 18 and 20. Of the twenty‑seven piel forms of ‫ ּגָלָ ה‬in the Torah, the first twenty‑four are in Leviticus 18 and 20, all in reference to sexual sin. Furthermore, though “nakedness” [‫ ]ּכָ נָף‬in Deut 27:20 is not identical to “nakedness” [‫ ]עֶ ְרוַת‬in Gen 9:22–23 (3×) and Leviticus 18 and 20 (32×), the concepts overlap significantly. HALOT suggests that ‫ ּכָ נָף‬in Deut 27:20 is a euphemism for ‫עֶ ְרוַת‬. Thus, there may be a link between the curse on Canaan for Ham’s uncovering of his father’s nakedness in Gen 9:22–25, the judgments on Israelites and Canaanites in Leviticus 18 and 20 for uncovering nakedness, and the curse in Deut 27:20 for uncovering a father’s nakedness. On Genesis 9 and Leviticus 18, see Allen P. Ross, “The Curse of Canaan,” BSac 137 (1980): 223–40. 51.  For further comparison, see Douglas, Leviticus, 234–35. 52.  Though Deuteronomy speaks often of the possibility that Israel will face judgment, this judgment is not typically presented, as in Leviticus 18 and 20, as parallel to the judgment of other nations. The one clear exception is in Deut 8:19–20 where there is a solemn warning concerning the consequences of idolatry in Israel: “Like the nations that the LORD makes to perish before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God” (8:20).

Blazosky Final.indd 45

4/11/19 5:28 PM

46

Chapter 1

Table 3. Parallel Content in Deuteronomy 27:15–26 and Leviticus 18:6–23 and Leviticus 20:2b–21 Deuteronomy 27

Theme

Leviticus 18 and 20

27:16 27:20 27:21 27:22 27:23

Dishonoring parents Immorality with father’s wife Bestiality Immorality with sister Immorality with mother-in-law

20:9 (cf. 19:3a) 18:8; 20:11 18:22–23; 20:15–16 18:9; 20:17 20:14 (cf. 18:17)

(27:15, 24). Third, in Deuteronomy 27, each curse is accompanied by a public “Amen.”53 Fourth, there is no mention of other nations in Deuteronomy 27 and no contrast between their ‫ חֻ ּקֹות‬and the divine ‫חֻ ּקֹות‬. 4. The Curse of the Law and Other Nations in Deuteronomy 27–30 Given the last two points, it is reasonable to suggest that the law’s “curse” can fall only on those who willingly accept the covenant and its stipulations. In other words, only a disobedient Israelite could truly experience the “curse of the law.” Despite the plausibility of this reading, it is also not difficult to understand how 27:26 could lead toward a broader application. When Deuteronomy 27–30 is read holistically, the basis for the curses expands. In 27:26, a curse is on those who disobey the laws of 27:15–25. In Deuteronomy 28–30, however, obedience to “all the words of this law that are written in this book” is required to avoid the curses (28:58; cf. 29:20–21, 27; 30:10). Likewise, the frequent repetition of “cursed be anyone who…” [‫ אָ רּור‬with a participle] could be understood more broadly than “cursed be anyone in Israel who…,” especially since nearly half of 27:15–25 describes known practices of the Canaanites (cf. Lev 18 and 20).54 Furthermore, though not definitive, there is evidence in Deuteronomy 30 that the curses can be experienced by non-Israelites since part of Israel’s great hope is that, one day, God will put “all these curses” on their enemies (30:7). Finally, it is difficult to articulate the sense in which a disobedient Israelite could be “cursed” but a disobedient foreigner could not be, given what the “curse” 53.  For the significance of the communal “Amen” to Deuteronomy 27, see Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, trans. Dorothea Barton, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 167. Von Rad notes that “the congregation does not only acknowledge its agreement with Yahweh’s wrath against the law‑breaker; it also places itself at his disposal to give effect to it by disassociating itself from such law‑breakers.… Thus the curse becomes effective only through the community’s word of acceptance.” 54.  Something similar could be said of Deut 21:22–23 where Israel is commanded not to allow an executed criminal to remain on a tree overnight since “a hanged man is cursed by God” (21:23). The focus of this text is presumably on the curse upon an Israelite rebel who is hanged, but it would seem reasonable to suggest that a non‑Israelite criminal who is hanged on a tree could also be viewed as “cursed by God.”

Blazosky Final.indd 46

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Torah

47

entails. To be “cursed” is to be “cut off ” from the covenant people (29:18–21).55 As noted previously, to be “cut off ” from Israel and the covenantal blessings is precisely the status of those already outside the covenant. Thus, it is not unlikely that a holistic reading of Deuteronomy 27–30 could lead toward a broader application of the “curse” of 27:26. D. The Implications of Deuteronomy In Deuteronomy, Israel is reaffirmed as God’s treasured possession. The continual reminder of this unique status is Israel’s possession of the divine statutes in their legal code. Given this divine love for Israel, those who oppress Israel or pose a spiritual threat to them are worthy of judgment. Nevertheless, other nations are not condemned simply for Israel’s good. Rather, Deuteronomy grounds their judgment in their own wickedness. God abhors the idolatrous ways of the nations and all who walk in them. At the same time, Deuteronomy never clearly connects Gentile judgment for wickedness and idolatry to the Mosaic law. The basis of Canaanite accountability—whether it be natural law, Noahic law, Mosaic law, or something else—is left undefined. In the Torah, “the curse of the law” builds on the blessing and curse motifs found early in Genesis and is intricately connected to Deut 27:26. The grounds for the covenantal curses, according to 27:15–25, are moral infractions. This basis for the curse of 27:26 is subsequently widened in Deuteronomy 28–30 to include not only 27:15–25 but all the words written “in this Book of the Law.” Likewise, although the scope of the curse of 27:26 is specifically those at Gerizim and Ebal, the broader context reveals that this curse could reach beyond those involved in this initial ceremony. Finally, the substance of the curse of 27:26 is explicated throughout Deuteronomy 28–30. For the nation, being cursed ultimately means exile. For an individual, to be “cursed” by God is to experience death, to receive no forgiveness, and to be “cut off ” (29:18–21). E. Conclusions from the Torah on Gentiles and Law With respect to the Torah’s perspective on the relationship of non-Israelites to the divine statutes given to Israel, the following conclusions may be drawn. 1. The Pre-law Period. During the pre-law period, human beings are both aware of divine expectations and accountable for sin. This holds true individually and corporately for those in the line of promise and those outside the line. Furthermore, the influence of sin, death, and the curse extends to all humanity during the pre-law period. 55.  Cf. the use of Deut 29:18–19 in 1QS I, 11–19.

Blazosky Final.indd 47

4/11/19 5:28 PM

48

Chapter 1

2. The Mosaic Covenant and Previous Covenants. Whereas the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants are called “everlasting covenants,” the Mosaic covenant is neither clearly temporary nor clearly eternal from the standpoint of the Torah. With respect to commands, the Mosaic covenant is certainly more centered on stipulations and threats than the previous covenants. Furthermore, the stipulations connected to the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants are incorporated into the Mosaic covenant. 3. The Intended Recipients of the Mosaic Law. The legal code within the Torah is specifically given to and binding on Israel. Israel alone embraced the Mosaic covenant and its stipulations. Thus, membership in this covenant is more limited than in the Noahic or Abrahamic covenants, as membership is restricted to a subset of Abraham’s offspring. Nevertheless, the Mosaic covenant is established with a clear understanding of the universal lordship of Israel’s God. Furthermore, Israel’s call as a ‫מַ ְמלֶ כֶ ת ֹּכהֲנִ ים‬ suggests that the knowledge of God’s ways granted to Israel is not intended for Israel alone. As with the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant, the blessing of the Mosaic covenant is to spread beyond the initial covenant members should Israel serve well as a ‫מַ ְמלֶ כֶ ת ֹּכהֲנִ ים‬. 4. The Uniqueness of Israel and the Threat of Exclusion. Israel is a uniquely chosen people, signified especially by possession of God’s statutes. Thus, the threat to Israel for disobedience is to face the fate of the Canaanites, and the threat to disobedient individuals within Israel is to be “cut off ” and treated as those outside the covenant. 5. The Judgment of Other Nations. With respect to other nations in the Torah, the reasons for their judgment are threefold. First, as an extension of Gen 12:3, all who oppress Israel, Abraham’s offspring, deserve judgment. Second, the Canaanites are to be eradicated, at least in part, for Israel’s spiritual well-being. Third, the Torah is clear that the nations of Canaan are condemned for their own wickedness. Their sins include dishonoring parents, idolatry, and sexual immorality. By practicing these sins, the nations have become “unclean.” Having participated in that which God prohibits in Israel, the nations will experience the same judgment with which God threatens his own people. 6. The Curse of the Law. With respect to the “curse” in the Torah, the starting point is that humanity suffers from the curse of Genesis 3. By Genesis 12, all hope of being blessed is in Abraham. The corollary is that rejecting Abraham and God’s work through him means that one is cursed. These twin themes of blessing and cursing form the backdrop for the key section of covenantal curses in the Torah: Deuteronomy 27–30. These curses are always for specific moral infractions, often reflective of Leviticus 18 and 20. For Israel as a nation, the curses culminate in exile. For an individual, the curses involve death, lack of forgiveness, and being “cut off ”

Blazosky Final.indd 48

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Torah

49

from the covenant people. To be “cut off ” is to be placed in the same position as those already outside the covenant, a place where one is excluded from the possibility of experiencing the divine blessing. Just as disobedient Israelites are threatened repeatedly with exclusion from the covenant community, so also, in Leviticus 18 and 20 in particular, those outside the covenant are condemned for failure to live according to divine statutes. In the Torah, there is a merging of the plight of a rebellious Israel and that of a pagan nation, and of a disobedient insider and that of a sinful outsider.

Blazosky Final.indd 49

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Blazosky Final.indd 50

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Chapter 2

The Prophets and the Writings

Introduction Having laid a foundation in the Torah, I may now proceed to analyze the Prophets and the Writings in relation to what they reaffirm from the Torah and what unique contributions they make to a biblical theology of Gentiles and law.

I. Gentiles and Law in the Former Prophets Since the Former Prophets cover several centuries from Israel’s entry into Canaan to their exile, this section provides many historical illustrations that confirm or expand the Torah’s teaching concerning Gentiles and law. In addition, in the fascinating account in 2 Kgs 17:24–41, the interplay between the Mosaic law and pagan nations reflects, albeit from a different angle, the basic themes of Leviticus 18 and 20. A. Reaffirmations of the Torah concerning Israel The positive elements of Israel’s unique status continue to be emphasized in the Former Prophets, especially in the account of Solomon. At the temple dedication, for example, Solomon rehearses Israel’s covenantal status and unique responsibility to the Mosaic law (1 Kgs 8:9, 21, 57–58). Likewise, during Solomon’s reign, there is a partial fulfillment of Israel’s call to bring light to the nations, as people from all over the world come to hear his wisdom (1 Kgs 4:31–34; 10:1–13). As a whole, however, the Former Prophets retell the rise and fall of Israel. Though called by Joshua to obedience to the law ( Josh 23:6–13), Israel is shown from Judges to 2 Kings to be a disobedient people. By the time of Rehoboam, the narrator comments that Judah “did according to all the abominations of the nations that the LORD drove out before the people” (1 Kgs 14:24). The divine statutes of Leviticus 18 and 20 were exchanged for the abominations of the Canaanites; thus, by the end of the Former Prophets, the land vomited Israel out just as it had done the previous inhabitants.

51

Blazosky Final.indd 51

4/11/19 5:28 PM

52

Chapter 2

B. Expansion of the Torah on the Judgment of Gentiles The Former Prophets both confirm the Torah’s teaching on other nations and elaborate on the reasons for their judgment. Many of the threats in the Torah against the Canaanites are carried out through Joshua. Furthermore, God continues to exercise judgment on those who oppress his people, even through the years of rebellion in Judges. These books make their primary contribution, however, by shedding light on the accountability of foreigners to the Mosaic law when they dwell in Israel’s land. 1. The Theological Interpretation of the Fall of Israel (2 Kgs 17:7–23) The most significant text in this regard comes in the narrator’s account of the conquest of Israel by Assyria and the resettlement of the land in 2 Kings 17.1 Having already captured several Israelite cities under Tiglath-Pileser (15:29), Assyria completes its conquest and carries Israel into captivity (17:1–6). Following is a lengthy theological interpretation of the fall of Israel. Relying on Leviticus 18 and 20 throughout, the narrator recounts how Israel “walked in the customs of the nations” [‫ ] ַוּי ְֵלכּו ְּבחֻ ּקֹות הַ ּגֹויִ ם‬previously in Canaan (17:8), especially in their idolatry.2 Pursuing the ‫ חֻ ּקֹות‬of those nations, Israel despised the divine ‫( חֻ ּקֹות‬17:15), choosing to follow “the nations that were around them, concerning whom the LORD had commanded them that they should not do like them” (17:15). Thus, as promised, God thrust Israel out of the land (17:22–23). 2. The Resettlement of the Land (2 Kgs 17:24–41) After this deportation, Assyria places five other people groups in Samaria instead of Israel (17:24).3 These nations, however, did not fear God; thus, God judged them by sending lions among them, a sign related to the covenantal curses in the Torah (17:25).4 The explicit reason for judgment is that these nations “do not 1.  An additional text for consideration is Josh 8:30–35 where the narrator records Israel’s participation in the covenant renewal ceremony prescribed in Deuteronomy 27. The words of the law, including the blessing and the curse, are read before the people as the Leviticial priests are positioned on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. Joshua 8:30–35 twice makes note of the presence of sojourners at this ceremony (8:33, 35). In this text, those who dwell in the land among the Israelites are presented as people to whom the laws, including the blessing and the curse, are both applicable and binding. 2.  This phrase is a direct citation of Lev 20:23 and is reflective of Lev 18:3 and 18:30 as well. For other parallels, compare 2 Kgs 17:11–12 with Lev 18:3, as well as 2 Kgs 17:15–17 with Leviticus 18 and 20 as a whole, and, particularly, Lev 18:21 and 20:2–5. Israel is likewise condemned for following the ways of their wicked kings (2 Kgs 17:8), especially Jeroboam’s (2 Kgs 17:21–23; cf. 1 Kgs 12:25–33). 3.  For discussion of this Assyrian deportation practice and the Assyrian texts which describe it, see Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 11 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 209. 4.  This judgment of foreigners through lions appears to be reflective of some of the covenantal curses in the Torah, specifically in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 32. In the penalties for disobedience

Blazosky Final.indd 52

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Prophets and the Writings

53

know the law of the god of the land” (17:26). As a remedy, the Assyrian king calls for an Israelite priest to return to teach the inhabitants “the law of the god of the land” (17:27). These nations respond by embracing syncretistic practices, fearing the Lord while also serving their own gods. Thus, in the narrator’s view, these people actually “do not fear the LORD, and they do not follow the statutes” (17:34; cf. 17:41). 3. The Implications of 2 Kings 17 Given the uniqueness of this situation, caution must be exercised when teasing out the possible implications of this passage. A few conclusions are, nevertheless, warranted. First, the narrator saw the fall of the Northern Kingdom in terms of Leviticus 18 and 20. Second, the spiritual condition of those placed in the land mirrors Israel’s in 1–2 Kings. Both Israel and these nations were, at best, syncretistic. Lissa Beal summarizes this overarching message of 2 Kings 17 quite well: The chapter clearly indicates that the failure of Israel and Judah places them on par with the surrounding sinful nations (vv. 8, 11, 15). And…the entry of the nations into Israel’s territory brings those nations into identification with Israel. They are to take up Israel’s covenant life, but likewise fail for the same reasons Israel did: failure to follow the commandments, and failure to fear YHWH alone.5

Third, although Leviticus 18 and 20 suggest that the Canaanites were accountable for violations of God’s ‫חֻ ּקֹות‬, those texts, as noted previously, do not comment on these nations after these statutes were revealed. Instead, these nations became unclean before Israel reached Sinai. In 2 Kings 17, however, other nations come into the land after these statutes have been given and are judged directly for violating the Mosaic law while there. Fourth, 2 Kings 17 illumines the intricate connection between the land, the Mosaic law, and divine judgment. In Leviticus 18 and 20, the Canaanites made the land unclean through their abominations. This pollution of the land led to divine judgment. By 2 Kings 17, Israel had polluted the land through disobedience to the Mosaic law, resulting in their own exile. Finally, when a third group enters the land in 2 Kings 17, these nations experience divine judgment for disobeying the law while in the land. That which was implicit in Leviticus 18 and 20 becomes explicit in 2 Kings 17. in Leviticus 26, one of the threats is: “I will let loose the wild beasts against you” (Lev 26:22); whereas, the corollary promise for obedience is: “I will remove harmful beasts from the land” (Lev 26:6). Likewise, in the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32, one of the signs of judgment is related to God’s sending of “the teeth of beasts against them” (Deut 32:24). In addition, 1 Kings provides two examples of how God sends “lions” to exercise judgment against his own prophets (1 Kgs 13:24–28; 20:35–36). 5.  Lissa M. Wray Beal, 1 & 2 Kings, ApOTC 9 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014), 454.

Blazosky Final.indd 53

4/11/19 5:28 PM

54

Chapter 2

II. Gentiles and Law in the Latter Prophets In comparison with the Former Prophets, the Latter Prophets have a markedly greater emphasis on non-Israelite nations. In every book, there is some mention of judgment or mercy being extended to other nations. In Obadiah, Jonah, and Nahum, non-Israelite nations are the main targets of the prophetic warnings. In Isaiah 13–23, Jeremiah 46–51, Ezekiel 25–32, and Amos 1–2, extended texts are devoted to oracles concerning the nations. Furthermore, on several occasions, humanity is viewed collectively as under divine judgment (e.g., Isa 24; Joel 3:1–3, 19–21; Zech 14:12–19).6 In light of the number of relevant texts, this section begins with an overview of the primary nations addressed in the Latter Prophets and the principal reasons given for their judgment. Next, I consider texts where there is substantial overlap in the portrayal of Israel and the nations. These preliminary matters lead into a discussion of how the Mosaic law relates to humanity’s judgment in the Latter Prophets, particularly in Isaiah 24. A. The Primary Nations and the Principal Reasons for Their Judgment Though other nations are also discussed occasionally, eight non-Israelite nations are prophesied against most often in the Latter Prophets: Ammon, Assyria, Babylon, Edom, Egypt, Moab, Philistia, and Tyre.7 At times, no reasons are provided (e.g., Egypt in Isa 19–20; Ammon in Jer 49:1–6). On other occasions, the indictments are quite generic. In Jonah, for example, Nineveh is portrayed as “evil,” but no details are given.8 Several texts, however, reveal specific sins of the nations that result in divine wrath. 6.  See also Isa 26:21–27:1; Hag 2:21–22; and Mal 4:1–3. Furthermore, portions of the oracle against Babylon in Isaiah 13–14 have a universal outlook. Likewise, in Isaiah 34 and 63, Edom is dealt with specifically but appears to serve as a representative of sinful humanity as well. 7.  Following are a few of the key texts listed by nation: Ammon ( Jer 49:1–6; Ezek 25:1–7); Assyria (Isa 10; 37:21–38; Jonah; Nahum); Babylon (Isa 13–14; Jer 50–51; Hab 2:5–20); Edom (Isa 34; 63:1–6; Ezek 35:1–15; Obadiah; Mal 1:2–5); Egypt (Isa 19–20; Ezek 29–32); Moab (Isa 15–16; Jer 48); Philistia ( Jer 47; Zeph 2:4–6; Joel 3:4–8); Tyre (Isa 23; Ezek 26:1–28:19). In addition to these eight, both Damascus ( Jer 49:23–27; Amos 1:3–5) and Sidon (Ezek 28:20–24; Joel 3:4–8) could also be mentioned. 8.  Given the history of these nations’ interactions with Israel, readers would, presumably, already know the kinds of sins committed by these nations. Another example of a generic indictment comes in Micah. In Mic 5:7–15, God promises to exalt his people over the nations (5:7–9), to cut off the sins from among his own people (5:10–14), and to “take vengeance in anger and wrath on the nations that have not obeyed me” (5:15 NIV). Though the nature of this disobedience is unclear, God takes it very personally. Interestingly, in Sifre 343, Micah 5 is cited to support Gentile condemnation for not responding to the law.

Blazosky Final.indd 54

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Prophets and the Writings

55

Table 4. Reasons for the Condemnation of Specific Nations in the Latter Prophets Reason

Texts

Nations

Greed

Amos 1:13–15 Hab 2:5–9 Ezek 26:1–28:19 Isa 13–14; Jer 50–51; Hab 2:18–19 Jer 48 Ezek 25:1–7; Zeph 2:8–10; Amos 1:13–15 Isa 10:25; 37:21–38; Mic 5:5–6; Nahum Isa 47; Jer 50–51 Isa 34; Ezek 25:12–14; 35:1–15; Joel 3:9–21; Amos 1:11–12; Obad 10–15 Ezek 29:6–8; Joel 3:19–21 Ezek 25:8–11; Zeph 2:8–10 Ezek 25:15–17; Joel 3:4–8 Ezek 26:2–3; Joel 3:4–8 Zeph 2:8–10 Isa 10; 37:21–38; Ezek 31:10–11; Zeph 2:13–15 Isa 13–14; 47; Jer 50:31–32; Hab 1:11; 2:4 Jer 49:7–22; Obad 3–4 Ezek 29–32 Isa 15–16; Jer 48; Zeph 2:8–10 Zech 9:5–8 Isa 23; Ezek 26:1–28:19 Amos 1:13–15 Isa 10; Ezek 32:22–23; Nahum; Jonah Hab 2:8–17 Amos 2:1–3 Ezek 26:1–28:29; Amos 1:9–10

Ammon Babylon Tyre Babylon Moab Ammon Assyria Babylon Edom

Idolatry Mistreatment of Israel

Pride

Violence

Egypt Moab Philistia Tyre Ammon Assyria Babylon Edom Egypt Moab Philistia Tyre Ammon Assyria Babylon Moab Tyre

When considered as a whole, five primary reasons for condemnation emerge in the Latter Prophets: greed, idolatry, mistreatment of Israel, pride, and violence (see Table 4).9 Greed and idolatry are related specifically to Babylon in Habakkuk 2. Babylon’s greed “is as wide as Sheol” (Hab 2:5). Thus, Babylon would become spoil for those they plundered (Hab 2:7). In the final “woe” in Habakkuk 2, idolatry brings further condemnation: “Woe to him who says to a wooden thing, Awake; 9.  A few other reasons are also mentioned. In Jer 9:25–26, punishment is promised on Ammon, Edom, Egypt, Judah, and Moab for not being truly circumcised. In Jeremiah 50–51, Babylon is also indicted for destroying God’s temple ( Jer 50:28–29; 51:11). Finally, in Zech 9:7, Philistia is condemned for what appears to be the consumption of blood in connection with idolatrous practices; cf. Thomas Edward McComiskey, “Zechariah,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1162–63.

Blazosky Final.indd 55

4/11/19 5:28 PM

56

Chapter 2

to a silent stone, Arise!” (Hab 2:19).10 Pride, violence, and mistreatment of Israel are more commonly denounced. Five of the nations are indicted for violence, and all eight for pride and harming Israel. Condemnation for violence is especially prominent in Amos 1:3–2:3. In each oracle, judgment is meted out for cruelty, whether toward Israel, as with Edom (1:11–12) and Ammon (1:13–15), or toward others, as with Tyre (1:9–10) and Moab (2:1–3). Throughout the Latter Prophets, and especially in Isaiah, pride is frequently denounced. Though others are also censured for pride, Isaiah connects this sin particularly to Babylon (Isa 13–14; 47).11 Their pride exudes in this idolatrous boast: “I am, and there is no one besides me” (47:8, 11). The king of Babylon says in his heart: “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God…. I will make myself like the Most High” (14:13–14). Thus, the Lord promises to “wipe out Babylon’s name” (13:22) and to bring its pride “down to the grave” (14:11). Finally, the judgment of non-Israelite nations is regularly connected to the mistreatment of Israel. In line with God’s promise to curse those who curse Abraham, little stirs God’s wrath more than when a nation harms his people. Of all nations, Edom comes to be most defined by this sin.12 Because Edom “cherished perpetual 10.  VanDrunen suggests that Hab 2:19–20 is the only text in the Latter Prophets where a non‑Israelite nation is condemned for idolatry; see VanDrunen, Divine Covenants, 165–66. VanDrunen’s desire appears to be to demonstrate that the Noahic covenant is a sufficient basis for explaining the condemnation of the nations in the Prophets. If idolatry is condemned, this is problematic since, in VanDrunen’s view, the Noahic covenant does not address idolatry. This suggestion concerning the Latter Prophets and the idolatry of the nations is unconvincing, however. For example, VanDrunen argues that Babylon’s aspirations to take the place of God are not idolatrous per se. Rather, Babylon’s king is condemned for “his general challenge to the Deity” (181). This kind of challenge reveals “a radical confusion about one’s proper place in the world” (189). Though I understand this line of reasoning, this bifurcation between committing idolatry and attempting to usurp God’s place seems to be an artificial distinction. Furthermore, in a section such as Jeremiah 48 (7, 13, 26, 35), Moab is destined for judgment on account of idolatry. 11.  Moab (Isa 15–16) and Assyria (Isa 10:12–19; 37) are also called out repeatedly for pride in Isaiah. Ezekiel connects pride specifically to Tyre (Ezek  26–28). In Ezekiel  25, four nations are condemned in rapid succession before the book slows to focus on Tyre. Tyre says, “I am perfect in beauty” (Ezek 27:3). Similarly, the prince of Tyre claims: “I am a god, I sit in the seat of the gods, in the heart of the seas” (Ezek 28:2). Thus, the Lord promises to take vengeance on “the beauty of your wisdom” and to “defile your splendor” through “the most ruthless of nations” (Ezek 28:7). On the reasons for judgment in Isaiah 13–23 and the prominence of pride in that judgment, see G. R. Hamborg, “Reasons for Judgement in the Oracles against the Nations of the Prophet Isaiah,” VT 31 (1981): 145–59. Hamborg concludes that, though there are many similarities between the judgments of Israel and the nations, “Isaiah does not regard the nations as standing in relation to Yahweh in the same way that Israel did” (157). It is unfortunate, however, that Hamborg does not discuss how Isa 24:5–6 and the covenant described there relates to Isaiah 13–23. 12.  Not surprisingly, Edom is decried in virtually every collection of judgment oracles. See esp. Douglas Stuart, “Malachi,” in McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 3:1284. “To leave out Edom would be to leave out the most obvious member of the group.”

Blazosky Final.indd 56

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Prophets and the Writings

57

enmity and gave over the people of Israel to the power of the sword,” the Lord declares, “I will prepare you for blood” (Ezek 35:5–6). Though Edom may try to rebuild, God will never relent. Edom is the nation “with whom the LORD is angry forever” (Mal 1:4). B. The Merging of the Plight of Sinful Israel and That of the Sinful Nations Two points are noteworthy concerning the extent to which the judgment of Israel overlaps with that of other nations. The first observation is simply that Israel and Judah are condemned repeatedly for the same sins as other nations.13 In Isaiah 1–12 alone, Judah is shown to be full of greed (5:8), idolatry (1:29; 2:6–8, 18–22), pride (2:9–17; 3:16; 5:15), and violence (1:15, 22; 5:7). Judah’s spiritual condition in Isaiah 1–12 is demonstrably similar to that of the nations in Isaiah 13–23. The second observation is that the prophets often place Israel and Judah on equal footing with other nations in judgment sections. In the oracles of Isaiah 13–23, Israel and Judah both appear among other nations. After oracles against Babylon (Isa 13–14) and Moab (Isa 15–16), Israel appears in the oracle against Damascus in Isaiah 17. The oracle opens with the declaration that Damascus “will become a heap of ruins” (17:1) but expands to include Israel. “The fortress will disappear from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus…. And in that day the glory of Jacob will be brought low” (17:3–4). Later, Judah is designated for judgment in the oracle “concerning the valley of vision” in Isaiah 22. Though Judah is called to “weeping and mourning,” there is “joy and gladness” as the people say, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (22:12–13). Thus, the Lord decrees, “Surely this iniquity will not be atoned for until you die” (22:14). What is striking is that Judah’s judgment occurs in the middle of the final oracles of Isaiah 21–23 against nations such as Babylon (Isa 21) and Tyre (Isa 23). Judah’s placement in lists of nations is also significant in Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 9, Judah is indicted for deception and idolatry. Because Judah has forsaken the law, God promises horrific judgments, including exile (9:13–16). Women are to teach their daughters how to lament because death is going to reign in Zion (9:17–22). No wisdom, might, or riches will deliver; divine judgment will be impartial and inescapable (9:23–24). Against this background, impending judgment is announced against Judah and several other peoples in 9:25–26: 13.  Mistreating Israel is, of course, not a reason for Israel’s judgment. Nevertheless, there are ample examples of how angry God became when those within Israel mistreated one another (e.g., Isa 1:21–23) or when their leaders took advantage of the people (e.g., Isa 3:14–15; 10:1–2; cf. Ezek 34).

Blazosky Final.indd 57

4/11/19 5:28 PM

58

Chapter 2 Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh—Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart. ( Jer 9:25–26)

There will be no distinction between Judah and these other “uncircumcised” nations on this day of wrath.14 Later, Jeremiah is commanded to take the “cup of the wine of wrath” from God’s hand and to make the nations drink from it (25:15–33). Multiple nations are listed, including all those mentioned in 9:25–26. In this case, however, “Jerusalem and the cities of Judah” are the first to drink. The cup is then passed to the nations and, ultimately, to Babylon. All must drink, “for the LORD has an indictment against the nations” (25:31). In the Book of the Twelve, two more examples stand out.15 In Zephaniah, there is frequent shifting between Judah and the world. The prophecy opens with a proclamation of worldwide judgment (1:2–3), followed by an indictment of Judah (1:4–14a) and another pronouncement of universal condemnation (1:14b–18).16 This alteration in focus continues throughout the work ( Judah in 2:1–3; 3:1–5, 7; other nations in 2:4–15; 3:6, 8). Furthermore, in Amos 1–2, the distinction between Israel and the nations is undercut through the eightfold repetition of the statement: “For three transgressions…and for four, I will not revoke the punishment.”17 Judgment is pronounced 14.  Jeremiah 9:25–26 is notoriously difficult with respect to how widespread circumcision was in the ANE. Steiner’s argument that the other nations mentioned practiced a form of circumcision that was viewed as “incomplete” during Jeremiah’s time is very plausible; see Richard C. Steiner, “Incomplete Circumcision in Egypt and Edom: Jeremiah (9:24–25) in the Light of Josephus and Jonckheere,” JBL 118 (1999): 497–505. Steiner’s understanding of the practice of circumcision in the ANE is in line with the earlier work of J. M. Sasson, “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East,” JBL 85 (1966): 473–76. 15.  On how Gentiles are portrayed in the Book of the Twelve, see Anselm C. Hagedorn and Shani Tzoref, “Attitudes to Gentiles in the Minor Prophets and in Corresponding Pesharim,” DSD 20 (2013): 473–88; Daniel C. Timmer, The Non-Israelite Nations in the Book of the Twelve: Thematic Coherence and the Diachronic-Synchronic Relationship in the Minor Prophets, BibInt 135 (Leiden: Brill, 2015). 16.  There is debate concerning whether Zeph 1:14b–18 concerns Judah alone or whether the entire passage shifts back to a worldwide destruction as in 1:2–3. Motyer, for example, reads all of 1:14b–18 as inclusive of humanity. See J. Alec Motyer, “Zephaniah,” in McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 3:922–24. Robertson, on the other hand, suggests that a universal judgment only comes into view in 1:18. See O. Palmer Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 282–88. Regardless, Judah’s judgment is set within a framework of a universal day of judgment. In 1:1–3:8, there is a leveling of the plight of Judah and that of the nations as the book leads toward its climactic proclamation of hope for not only the humble in Judah but also for the nations in 3:9–20. 17.  For a helpful discussion of “transgression” [‫]ּפֶ ׁשַ ע‬, see Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos, ed. Frank M. Cross, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 45–46. Paul notes correctly the “universalistic concept of the God of Israel” in this passage. Furthermore, the

Blazosky Final.indd 58

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Prophets and the Writings

59

in rapid succession on six neighboring nations (1:3–2:3), before the attention is drawn to Judah (2:4–5) and, ultimately, to Israel (2:6–16). These texts demonstrate that part of the prophetic message is that there is no fundamental distinction between Israel and other nations when God comes in judgment. Israel and Judah appear among other nations under divine wrath at the beginning ( Jer 25), middle (Isa 13–23; Jer 9), and end (Amos 1–2) of lists. Zephaniah is slightly different in that the focus oscillates repeatedly between humanity and Judah, but in all of these cases, the prophets pushed against complacency and sought to stir slumbering Israel and Judah to repentance by stripping away all hope of preferential treatment on the day of judgment. C. The Centrality of the Mosaic Law in the Judgment of Israel Having noted the similarities between the judgments of Israel and the nations, the law’s role in condemnation may now be discussed. First to be examined is the law’s foundational role in the judgment of Israel and Judah, followed by the question of whether the law plays any role in humanity’s condemnation in the Latter Prophets. 1. Examples from the Oracles in Jeremiah 46–51 and Amos 1–2 Whereas the law is rarely connected to other nations in the Latter Prophets, the law is appealed to regularly to explain Israel’s condemnation.18 Two examples illustrate this point.19 First, in Jeremiah 1–45, rejection of the law is often presented “revolt” of these nations is best understood as being directly “against God” (45). Though “three” and “four” is used with each nation in Amos 1–2, it is interesting that only one or two sins are cited for most nations. On this issue and the literary shape of Amos 1–2, see Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 24A (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 206–19. 18.  In the Book of the Twelve, there are few explicit references to the Mosaic law. This does not mean, however, that the law is not central to these prophets’ conception of the problems within Israel and Judah. On the foundational role of the law in the these prophetic messages, see Thomas Renz, “Torah in the Minor Prophets,” in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham, ed. J. G. McConville and Karl Möller, LHBOTS 461 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 73–94. Cf. Walther Zimmerli, The Law and the Prophets: A Study of the Meaning of the Old Testament, trans. Ronald E. Clements (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), esp. 46–75. Zimmerli’s work is especially helpful on both the relationship of the prophets to the law, as well as the close connection between the threat of a curse and Israel’s laws. 19.  In addition, Judah’s judgment in Habakkuk is specifically connected to their failure to uphold the law (Hab 1:4). With respect to Babylon’s judgment, however, the law is not pointed to as a basis for their judgment, even for such sins as greed and idolatry (Hab 2:5–20). Similarly, in Zephaniah, the law is only mentioned in the judgment of Judah in Zeph 3:1–5. Likewise, Zech 7:8–14 connects Judah’s judgment directly to the law; yet, Zechariah 9–14, though dealing extensively with the judgment of humanity, makes no appeal to the law (though Zech 14:15–21 may envision a day when other nations would obey the law). Lastly, Hosea, though saying little about other nations, does provide some of the clearest examples in the Latter Prophets of the central role of the law in Israel’s condemnation (Hos 4:4–6; 6:7; 8:1).

Blazosky Final.indd 59

4/11/19 5:28 PM

60

Chapter 2

as the basis for Judah’s fall.20 In the oracles against the nations in Jeremiah 46–51, however, even though the nations are judged for similar sins, the law is never mentioned. Even more strikingly, in Amos 1–2, although six other nations are condemned previously for sins against Israel and humanity, it is not until Judah’s judgment that there is any reference to the Mosaic law.21 Judah will be punished “because they have rejected the law of the LORD, and have not kept his statutes” (Amos 2:4). 2. The Omission of the Mosaic Law from the Oracles against the Nations in Amos 1–2 This contrast in Amos 1–2 is probably the strongest piece of evidence in the Prophets for those who would argue that the nations are held accountable not to the Mosaic law but to some other basis, whether that be the Noahic covenant, natural law, or some kind of international consensus about the rules of warfare.22 For example, VanDrunen, noting that Amos 1–2 presumes the existence of “universally known moral standards” by which nations can be judged, suggests that natural law in connection with the Noahic covenant is the basis for Gentile condemnation.23 According to VanDrunen, if the nations were held accountable to the Mosaic law, this would “raise the serious moral problem of God judging people on the basis of a law he never revealed to them.”24 Furthermore, VanDrunen points out that “the Torah-focus of the judgment against Judah stands in contrast with the previous judgment oracles.”25 VanDrunen’s position is that “some version of natural law is the only plausible explanation” for Gentile condemnation.26 The covenantal overtones in Amos 1–2 are to be explained, in his view, by the link between the Noahic covenant and natural law: God acts as though he is in a preexisting relationship with these foreign nations, and the dilemma sensed by many scholars—covenant relationship or natural law—is 20.  For the law’s role in Judah’s judgment in Jeremiah, see 6:19; 9:13–15; 16:10–13; and 44:1–23. 21.  There is much debate over the Torah’s composition and how ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ is to be understood in a text such as Amos 2:4. For an overview of this discussion with respect to Amos and the prophetic literature, see Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 296–98. Regardless, given my focus on the canonical shape of the OT and Paul’s own reading of Israel’s scriptures, this passage is certainly relevant. For a related discussion of the implied referent of νόμος in the LXX of Amos 2:4, see W. Edward Glenny, A Commentary Based on Amos in Codex Vaticanus, Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 53–54. 22.  For the latter view, see John Barton, Amos’s Oracles against the Nations, SOTSMS 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 54–60; Bockmuehl, Jewish Law, 93. 23. VanDrunen, Divine Covenants, 175. 24.  Ibid., 74. 25. Ibid. 26.  Ibid., 176.

Blazosky Final.indd 60

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Prophets and the Writings

61

a false one. A natural law grounded in the Noahic covenant explains the presence of universal moral knowledge as well as the seemingly covenant-like relationship between God and nations foreign to the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants.27

VanDrunen’s proposal certainly has merits, both in his discussion of Amos 1–2 and in his overall analysis of the OT. It is important to note, however, that such a sharp bifurcation between Gentile condemnation and the Mosaic law—even in Amos 1–2—may not be warranted. First, with respect to the Noahic covenant, there is little in Amos 1–2, apart from a generic emphasis on violence, that would signify that violation of the Noahic covenant is in view. Second, with respect to natural law, it is very questionable whether there is any kind of developed view of natural law within the OT. There may be a foundation for later formulations of natural law, but clear Jewish expressions of natural law do not surface until later Hellenistic Jewish writers.28 Third, even if it could be demonstrated that natural law were in the purview of Amos, if the approaches of subsequent Jewish writers give any indication, it is at least as likely that Amos (or other OT authors) would have linked natural law with the Mosaic law as it is that he would have linked natural law with the Noahic covenant. Bockmuehl, for example, in discussing the juxtaposition of the law and creation in Psalm 19, suggests that it is a text like Psalm 19 “which prepares the way for the overwhelming assumption in Hellenistic Jewish writers that the Torah is selfevidently a law in full accordance with nature, indeed the most perfect expression of such a law.”29 Connecting natural law with the Mosaic law became, according to Bockmuehl, “the mainstream view of natural law in Second Temple Judaism.”30 Thus, even if the oracles in Amos 1–2 do, in fact, rely on some early conception of natural law, this conclusion would not necessitate ruling out the Mosaic law as a factor in condemnation of the nations. Fourth, while it is certainly noteworthy that, in Amos 1–2, the law is only mentioned with reference to Judah, this observation does not necessitate the conclusion that the law has nothing to do with the judgment of any other nation in the oracles. These oracles are clearly not intended to be exhaustive with respect to the grounds of condemnation, especially since each oracle typically contains only one 27.  Ibid., 177–78. 28.  For extended discussion, see Bockmuehl, Jewish Law, 88–97. Bockmuehl notes well that “post‑biblical Jewish views on natural law are in nuce already anticipated in the Torah” (88). But to suggest that there is in Amos 1–2 or Genesis 9 a developed view of natural law seems to border on anachronism. 29.  Ibid., 97. 30. Ibid.

Blazosky Final.indd 61

4/11/19 5:28 PM

62

Chapter 2

or two sins. Furthermore, the law is not even mentioned with reference to Israel in 2:6–16, the primary target of the oracles, a nation that all interpreters would likely agree is held accountable for disobedience to the law. Finally, though the mention of the law does distinguish Judah from every other nation in Amos 1–2 (including Israel in 2:6–16), it is important to recognize that the ‫ פׁשע‬root—used in reference to all eight nations—serves to unify the oracles and demonstrates the fundamental unity of those who rebel against Israel’s God.31 To summarize, nothing in Amos 1–2 clearly delineates the basis of Gentile condemnation. Stressing how Judah may be uniquely accountable to the law may be legitimate, but it is also important to underscore the overarching solidarity of rebellious Judah and other sinful nations. D. Universal Accountability to the Law in Zech 5:1–4? Despite the trend in the Latter Prophets of not linking the law of Moses directly to non-Israelites, two texts may connect the Mosaic law to the judgment of humanity: Zech 5:1–4 and Isa 24:1–6. In Zech 5:1–4, the key question is whether “the whole land” [‫ ]ּכָ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬in Zech 5:3 refers only to Judah or to the whole earth. In Isa 24:1–6, the debate concerns not the scope of the judgment but the referent of “the laws” [‫]תֹו ֹרת‬, “the statutes” [‫] ֹחק‬, and “the everlasting covenant” [‫ ] ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬in Isa 24:5. In the vision of the flying scroll in Zech 5:1–4, an angel identifies the scroll as “the curse [‫ ]הָ אָ לָ ה‬that goes out over the face of the whole land” (5:3). Thieves will be “cleaned out” (ESV) or “banished” (NIV) according to one side of the scroll, and those who swear falsely by God’s name will be judged according to the other side (5:3–4).32 That this “curse” is the curse of the Mosaic law is clear for two reasons. First, this “curse” [‫ ]הָ אָ לָ ה‬hearkens back to Deuteronomy 29–30 where the same language occurs six times in reference to the oaths taken by Israel and the accompanying 31.  Of the sixty occurrences of the ‫ פׁשע‬root in the Latter Prophets, apart from Amos 1–2, all but two are used with reference to Israel or Judah (Isa 24:20 and 66:24 are the only exceptions). Furthermore, the ‫ פׁשע‬root is regularly connected to violation of the Mosaic law (cf. Ezek 18–20; Hos 8:1). As with many other related terms, this Hebrew root is never connected to violations of the Noahic covenant stipulations. 32.  Petterson may be correct that Zech 5:3 is not an affirmation that sinners will be punished; rather, ‫ נִ ּקָ ה‬could be read according to its normal usage of being “unpunished.” In other words, 5:3 may state that the curse has been sent out because sinners have gone “unpunished” in the land. Thus, God will judge these sinners in 5:4 since he is a God who never clears the guilty; see Anthony R. Petterson, “The Flying Scroll That Will Not Acquit the Guilty: Exodus 34.7 in Zechariah 5.3,” JSOT 38 (2014): 347–61. Regardless, the import of the passage in regard to the law’s function in condemnation is the same.

Blazosky Final.indd 62

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Prophets and the Writings

63

curses for sin.33 This is seen particularly in the stern warning of 29:20–21 (29:19– 20 MT). “All the curses” [‫ ]ּכָ ל־הָ אָ לָ ה‬will overtake the disobedient (29:20 NIV; 29:19 MT). “The LORD will single him out…in accordance with all the curses [‫( ”] ְּככֹל אָ לֹות‬29:21; 29:20 MT).34 Second, the two sins in Zech 5:3–4 of stealing and swearing falsely by God’s name are applications of the Decalogue, especially the eighth and third (or ninth) commandments.35 The interpretive difficulty in this text concerns the scope of the law’s curse. The curse spreads over “the whole land” [‫( ]ּכָ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬5:3). If ‫ ּכָ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬refers to the world, this text may affirm universal accountability to the law, as well as a universal scope of the law’s curse. If ‫ ּכָ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬refers only to Judah, however, then this vision is less significant to this study. In favor of the former reading, two arguments can be marshalled.36 First, the previous two uses of ‫ ּכָ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬in 4:10–14—both connected to the lordship of Israel’s God—likely refer to the whole world.37 In 4:10, the Lord’s eyes “range through the whole earth.” In 4:14, the two anointed ones stand by “the Lord of the whole earth” (cf. 6:5). It is probable that the Lord’s universal knowledge and reign are in view in this passage. Second, a judgment encompassing both Judah and the nations in 5:1–4 coincides with Zechariah 9–14 where the Lord’s judgment 33.  For how ‫ אָ לָ ה‬can refer to an “oath” and a “curse” for violating an oath, see Num 5:11–31 concerning an unfaithful wife where ‫ אָ לָ ה‬is used four times. See HALOT for the shades of meaning, all of which are related to a “curse.” Cf. Dan 9:11 where Daniel confesses that Israel has broken the law. Thus, “the curse and oath [‫…]הָ אָ לָ ה וְ הַ ְּׁשבֻ עָ ה‬have been poured out on us” (Dan 9:11; cf. Neh 10:29). 34.  Cf. Edgar W. Conrad, Zechariah, Readings: A New Biblical Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 115; Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, AB 25B (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 283; Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8, LHBOTS 506 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 193–94. 35.  The verbal root ‫ גנב‬is used to describe the one who steals in Zech 5:3–4 and to prohibit stealing in Exod 20:15 and Deut 5:19. Though “swearing falsely by God’s name” could be connected to the ninth commandment as well, the focus on God’s name suggests the third commandment is primarily in view. For discussion of other possible allusions, see Stead, Zechariah 1–8, 189–93. Stead may be correct that Zech 5:3–4 contains a “composite allusion” of Jer 7:9; Lev 19:11–12; Exodus 20; and Deuteronomy 5 (192). Cf. Petterson, “Flying Scroll,” 357. For Petterson, the scroll contains “much more than the Decalogue” and represents “the ‘Law of Moses’ more broadly, especially since the scroll is identified as ‘the curse’ (5.3; cf. Dan. 9.11).” Regardless, the important point is that the Mosaic law and its curses are in view in Zechariah 5. 36.  A third possible argument for reading this “curse” as spreading beyond Judah is that Deut 30:7, which also uses ‫אָ לָ ה‬, speaks of a future day when “all these curses” would be placed on Israel’s enemies. 37.  Notice that the HCSB, NIV, and ESV all translate ‫ ּכָ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬as “the whole earth” or “all the earth” in Zech 4:10 and 4:14 but as “the whole land” in Zech 5:3. For examples of those who understand ‫ ּכָ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬as including more than Judah, see Conrad, Zechariah, 112–14; David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 249. Petersen sees ‫ ּכָ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬as “something of a leitmotiv” in Zechariah. Thus, in line with earlier uses, he understands it to encompass all the earth. Yet, Petersen does not suggest that the curse falls on all people. Instead, the point is that “the curse may be sent out against Judahites both in Syria‑Palestine and in the diaspora” (249).

Blazosky Final.indd 63

4/11/19 5:28 PM

64

Chapter 2

falls on both. On a future day, not only will many in Judah be purged (Zech 13), all nations will come under judgment (Zech 14). In spite of the plausibility of this reading of 5:1–4, a few pieces of evidence point in favor of ‫ ּכָ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬being limited to Judah. The sin of swearing falsely “by my name” likely implies a Jewish context. Second, the only explicit use of ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ in Zechariah occurs in 7:8–14 in an indictment directed exclusively at Judah for failures to respond to “the law.” It is plausible that this usage may shed light on the extent of ‫ ּכָ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬in 5:1–4. The primary reason, however, for reading ‫ ּכָ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬as referring only to Judah comes from the following vision concerning the removal of “Wickedness” from “the land” (5:5–11). The “basket” seen by Zechariah is identified as the sin of those “in all the land” [‫( ] ְּבכָ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬5:6). After a woman, “Wickedness,” appears inside the basket (5:7–8), the basket is carried away “to the land of Shinar” where “Wickedness” will find her home (5:9–11). Since “Wickedness” is removed from “the land” and taken to another “land” (i.e. Babylon), “the land” wherein “Wickedness” dwells is most likely limited in scope. When the vision of 5:5–11 is read in conjunction with 5:1–4, a mutual emphasis on the cleansing of Judah emerges. In 5:1–4, the wicked are purged out; in 5:5–11, “Wickedness” is removed from the land. Likewise, Zechariah 13 reveals a similar emphasis on the cleansing of Judah from idolatry. Although two thirds of those “in the whole land” [‫ ] ְּבכָ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ‬will be cut off, the rest of Judah will be refined like silver (13:8–9a). Then, God says, “They will call upon my name, and I will answer them. I will say, ‘They are my people’; and they will say, ‘The LORD is my God’” (13:9b). In summary, upon an initial reading, 5:1–4 may suggest universal accountability to the Mosaic law and a universal scope to the curse of that law. Upon closer analysis, however, 5:1–4 most likely deals only with Judah and with the application of the curse of the law upon the disobedient among the covenant people. Although this passage does not preclude the curse of the law from extending beyond Judah, my conclusion is that 5:1–4 speaks only of the plight of sinners within the covenant community. E. Universal Accountability to the Law in Isa 24:1–6? The second passage in the Latter Prophets which may portray all people as condemned by the Mosaic law is Isa 24:1–6. Following the oracles concerning the nations in Isaiah 13–23 (including Israel in Isa 17 and Judah in Isa 22), Isa 24:1 opens with a proclamation of universal devastation.38 “Behold, the LORD will empty the 38.  There is significant debate over the relationship of Isaiah 24–27 to 13–23, the redactional history of Isaiah 24–27, the date of composition, the question of whether Isaiah 24–27 is apocalyptic, and several other issues. For six commonly accepted points in recent scholarship, see William D. Barker,

Blazosky Final.indd 64

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Prophets and the Writings

65

earth and make it desolate” (24:1a). On this day, social and economic advantages become meaningless. “It shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the slave, so with his master” (24:2a). As the oracles of Isaiah 13–23 revealed the equality of all nations at the judgment, so 24:2 undercuts all social and economic distinctions. In the center of Isaiah 24, there is unexpected singing and rejoicing (24:14–16a). Praise comes “from the ends of the earth,” likely from a remnant of Israel and Judah (cf. Isa 26–27), as well as from survivors from the nations (cf. 24:13).39 The text quickly returns, however, to its theme of devastation (24:16b–23): “Terror and the pit and the snare are upon you, O inhabitant of the earth” (24:17). The earth staggers like a drunken man; “its transgression lies heavy upon it, and it falls, and will not rise again” (24:20). Although some have argued that Isaiah 24 concerns only Judah, the judgment is likely broader.40 Even if “the city” in 24:10–12 refers to Jerusalem, a cosmic judgment pervades the chapter.41 Coming after ten chapters of oracles concerning the nations, Isaiah 24 is the culmination of those judgments.42 Isaiah 24:13 speaks of Isaiah’s Kingship Polemic: An Exegetical Study in Isaiah 24–27, FAT 2/70 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 10. In what Barker describes as a “new consensus,” he lists conclusions such as the literary and theological unity of Isaiah 24–27, the integral connection of Isaiah 24–27 to the rest of Isaiah 1–39, and the “futuristic” rather than “historical” nature of the text. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that, in its canonical context, Isaiah 24–27 is intended to shape the reading of the oracles of Isaiah 13–23; see esp. Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 171–74. Cf. Neil O. Skjoldal, “The Function of Isaiah 24–27,” JETS 36 (1993): 163–72. This section has thematic and semantic overlap with both Isaiah 13–23 and Isaiah 28–33 and highlights not only universal judgment but also God’s mercy in rescuing his people from death. On the recurring motifs in Isaiah 24–27, see Mark E. Biddle, “The City of Chaos and the New Jerusalem: Isaiah 24–27 in Context,” PRS 22 (1995): 7–8. See also Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 347. Blenkinsopp notes correctly: “The juxtaposition of these chapters [Isa 13–23] with 24–27 can be taken to imply that what happens to the nations mentioned by name in chs. 13–23 instantiates and prefigures the general doom now being announced.” 39.  On this difficult interjection of praise in Isa 24:14–16, see Wilson de Angelo Cunha, “A Brief Discussion of MT Isaiah 24,14–16,” Biblica 90 (2009): 530–44. 40.  Some have suggested that Isaiah 24 concerns only the areas discussed in Isaiah 13–23; see John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, trans. William Pringle, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1948), 166; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, rev. ed., WBC 24 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 376–77. Though I suggest that Isaiah 24 points toward a cosmic judgment, its relevance does not change whether this section addresses the judgment of many nations or the judgment of all nations. 41.  My suggestion is not that Judah is excluded in Isaiah 24 but that Judah is not the exclusive focus of this catastrophic judgment. As Isaiah 24–27 unfolds, Israel and Judah do become the focal points, however, in regard to their glorious hope. For an overview of proposals on the identification of “the city,” see Brian Doyle, The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking: A Study of the Use, Function, and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24–27, BETL 151 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 37–45. For identifying Jerusalem as the city of chaos, see Dan G. Johnson, From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988), 29–35. 42.  An interesting comparison can be made between Isaiah 24 and Isaiah 13, which begins the oracles. Though Isaiah 13 is focused on Babylon, there are indications, especially in 13:9–13, that the scope of the oracle is expanded to the judgment of the entire world on the Day of the Lord.

Blazosky Final.indd 65

4/11/19 5:28 PM

66

Chapter 2

Table 5. The Text of Isaiah 24:5–6

BHS

ESV

‫ֹׁשבֶ יהָ ִּכי־עָ ְברּו תֹורֹת‬ ְ ‫וְ הָ אָ ֶרץ חָ נְ פָ ה ּתַ חַ ת י‬ ‫חָ ְלפּו חֹק הֵ פֵ רּו ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם עַ ל־ּכֵ ן אָ לָ ה אָ ְכלָ ה‬ ‫ֹׁשבֵ י אֶ ֶרץ‬ ְ ‫ֹׁשבֵ י בָ ּה עַ ל־ּכֵ ן חָ רּו י‬ ְ ‫אֶ ֶרץ ַוּי ְֶא ְׁשמּו י‬ ‫וְ נִ ְׁשאַ ר אֱנֹוׁש ִמזְ עָ ר‬

The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left.

what will be done “in the midst of the earth among the nations,” and 24:17–23 portrays a divine shaking of heaven and earth. “On that day the LORD will punish the host of heaven, in heaven, and the kings of the earth, on earth” (24:21). Thus, even if Judah is in view in specific texts in Isaiah 24, Judah’s judgment is enveloped in the judgment of humanity. Unlike many prophetic texts, however, Isaiah 24 provides an explicit cause for the condemnation of humanity.43 In 24:5–6, a “curse” devours the earth because its inhabitants “have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant.” Given the scope of the judgment in Isaiah 24 and the high concentration of legal language in the indictment in 24:5–6, this chapter is likely the most important in the Latter Prophets concerning the basis of the condemnation of humanity. The critical issue is the identification of the referent of “the laws” [‫]תֹורֹת‬, “the statutes” [‫]חֹק‬, and “the everlasting covenant” [‫ ] ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬in 24:5. Which laws have been violated? Which eternal covenant has been broken, resulting in a universal “curse” [‫ ]אָ לָ ה‬in 24:6? Two answers are most common: the Noahic covenant with its stipulations or the Mosaic covenant with its commands.44 43.  Carol J. Dempsey (“Words of Woe, Visions of Grandeur: A Literary and Hermeneutical Study of Isaiah 24–27,” in Formation and Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27, ed. J. Todd Hibbard and Hyun Chul Paul Kim, AIL 17 [Atlanta: SBL, 2013], 212) notes correctly the prominence of Isa 24:5b in Isaiah 24: “Verse 5b is the climax not only of verses 4–20 but also of the entire poem (vv. 1–23). Until now, the prophet has given no reason for the divine wrath that is about to befall the people. The prophet has kept his audience in wonderment and suspense to hold their attention and to capture their imaginations. Only now does the poet allow the audience to see the reason behind the divine judgment speech.” 44.  Other views have also been put forward. Dempsey (ibid., 212), recognizing that ‫ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬ may evoke multiple covenants, suggests that the covenant “is most likely a reference to a cosmic covenant first introduced in verses 1–3.” John N. Oswalt (The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 446), though admitting that the Noahic covenant may be in view, suggests that the covenant refers “to the implicit covenant between Creator and creature.” It has also been suggested that the Mosaic and Noahic covenants are both in view or that there is intentional

Blazosky Final.indd 66

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Prophets and the Writings

67

1. The Case for the Noahic Covenant in Isa 24:5–6 Most interpreters favor reading 24:5–6 as a reference to the Noahic covenant.45 Several arguments support this reading.46 First, in Genesis 9, the Noahic covenant is universal, contains stipulations for all humanity, and is explicitly called a ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬. The Mosaic covenant, on the other hand, is limited in scope and is not called a ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬. Second, an allusion to the flood appears in 24:18 where “the windows of heaven are opened” against humanity. This text reflects Gen 7:11 where the deluge is described as a day when “the windows of heaven were opened.”47 Finally, in the broader context, 26:21 suggests that violence is closely connected to humanity’s guilt: “The LORD is coming out from his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity, and the earth will disclose the blood shed on it, and will no more cover its slain” (26:21).48 This bloodshed is reflective of that which led to the flood in Genesis 6; furthermore, the prohibition of violence is central in Genesis 9.49 Thus, 26:21 further supports seeing the Noahic covenant in 24:5–6.50 ambiguity in the text; see Hans Wildberger, Jesaja, vol. 2, BKAT (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 921; Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “The ‘Everlasting Covenant’ and the ‘City of Chaos’: Intentional Ambiguity and Irony in Isaiah 24,” CTR 6 (1993): 237–53. 45.  See Ulrich Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt, HBS 16 (Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 178–84; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 351–52; Childs, Isaiah, 179–80; Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary, trans. R. A. Wilson, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 183–84; Mason, “Another Flood?”; J. Vermeylen, Du Prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique: Isaïe I–XXXV, vol. 1, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1977), 352–53; Williamson, Sealed, 65. 46.  For this line of reasoning, see Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, IBC (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 180–84; VanDrunen, Divine Covenants, 190–96. 47.  The phrases in Isa 24:18 [‫ ] ִּכי־א ֲֻרּבֹות ִמּמָ רֹום נִ ְפּתָ חּו‬and Gen 7:11 [‫ ] ַוא ֲֻרּבֹת הַ ּׁשָ מַ יִ ם נִ ְפּתָ חּו‬are not identical in that ‫ ִמּמָ רֹום‬is used in Isa 24:18 and ‫ הַ ּׁשָ מַ יִ ם‬in Gen 7:11. Nevertheless, the parallel subject and verb, the shared metaphor, and the contextual similarities suggest that Isa 24:18 alludes to Gen 7:11. 48.  Berges (Jesaja, 183) suggests that humanity after Genesis 9 is not released from responsibility for polluting the earth. Thus, it follows that the Lord breaks forth in judgment on earth’s inhabitants for the bloodshed in Isa 26:21. Berges sees this text as evidence that Isa 24:5–6 has the Noahic covenant in view. “Von hier aus wird auch die Aussage von 24,5a verständlicher, wo von der ‘Entweihung der Erde unter ihren Bewohnern’ die Rede ist” (183). Cf. Chisholm Jr., “Everlasting,” 246–47. Chisholm, however, sees the “everlasting covenant” as either the Noahic or Mosaic covenant depending on whether one looks at the text from the point of view of the nations or that of Israel (252). 49.  This scene at the end of Isaiah 26 may not be about widespread violence as in Noah’s day, however, as much as about violence done toward Judah and God’s promise to restore Judah. See the thematic correspondence between Deut 32:39–43 and Isa 26:19–27:1. In any case, it is not particularly clear that the violence discussed in Isa 26:21 is explaining the grounds of worldwide judgment in Isaiah 24. 50.  Numbers 35:33–34 may provide support for connecting bloodshed to defilement of the earth. Cf. Irmtraud Fischer, Tora für Israel — Tora für die Volker: Das Konzept des Jesajabuches, SBS 164 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995), 60. It is important to note, however, that Num 35:33–34 is clearly in reference to the land of Canaan and is a challenge to Israel not to defile their land with violence.

Blazosky Final.indd 67

4/11/19 5:28 PM

68

Chapter 2

2. The Case for the Mosaic Covenant in Isa 24:5–6 The evidence for reading 24:5–6 as a reference to the Mosaic covenant is, likewise, quite strong. Yet, it should be noted that this view is typically connected to a limitation of the scope of Isaiah 24 to Judah.51 The strongest arguments for the Mosaic covenant position on 24:5–6 have to do with the usage of the same terminology elsewhere in the OT. Each of these arguments is double-edged in that the language is repeatedly connected to the Mosaic covenant but never to the Noahic covenant. First, the usage of ‫( אָ לָ ה‬24:6), as noted in the treatment of Zech 5:1–4, is closely connected to the Mosaic law (especially Deut 29–30).52 In the Noahic narrative, however, not only are there no occurrences of ‫ ;אָ לָ ה‬there is also no threat of any curse connected to the covenant. The only use of “curse” language in that context is in God’s promise to “never again curse the ground” [‫ל ֹא־ ֹא ִסף ְלקַ ּלֵ ל עֹוד‬ ‫( ]אֶ ת־הָ א ֲָדמָ ה‬Gen 8:21). Second, the collocation of ‫“[ תֹורֹת‬the laws”] and ‫“[ חֹק‬the statutes”] in 24:5 fits much better if the Mosaic laws are in view. The plural ‫ תֹורֹת‬and all forms of ‫ חֹק‬are used overwhelmingly with reference to the Mosaic commands. Furthermore, of the sixteen collocations of ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ and ‫חֹק‬,53 every other text clearly refers to the Mosaic law (e.g., Ezra 7:10; Neh 9:13–14; Mal 4:4 [3:22 MT]). Perhaps most intriguing is the oracle in Amos 2:4 where Judah is accused of rejecting “the law” [‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ ] and forsaking “his statutes” [‫]חֻ ּקָ יו‬. On the other hand, neither word ever refers to the Noahic stipulations. Third, the verbs “transgressed” [‫ ]עָ ְברּו‬and “broken” [‫ ]הֵ פֵ רּו‬in 24:5 are regularly connected to the Mosaic covenant and its laws.54 For example, in Dan 9:11, Daniel confesses that all Israel “has transgressed your law” [‫ת־ּתֹורתֶ ָך‬ ָ ֶ‫;]עָ ְברּו א‬ therefore, the “curse” [‫ ]הָ אָ לָ ה‬has fallen on them. Likewise, in Hos 8:1, judgment is coming on Israel because “they have transgressed my covenant” [‫יתי‬ ִ ‫]עָ ְברּו ְב ִר‬ and rebelled against “my law” [‫ּתֹור ִתי‬ ָ ]. Similarly, when people “break” a divine 51.  Those in favor of the Mosaic covenant interpretation include Calvin, Isaiah, 2:169–70; Donald C. Polaski, “Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant: The Eternal Covenant (Isaiah 24.5) and Intertextuality,” JSOT 77 (1998): 55–73; Dominic Rudman, “Midrash in the Isaiah Apocalypse,” ZAW 112 (2000): 404–8. For what is likely the most detailed argument for this position, see Johnson, Chaos. Johnson states his three primary assertions succinctly: “The language is cosmic but it is focused on the country of Judah, the covenant is the Mosaic covenant, and the city is Jerusalem” (25). 52.  On the “striking parallels” between Isaiah 24 and Deuteronomy 29–32, see Polaski, “Reflections,” 61. 53.  This search is for the collocation of all forms of ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ and ‫ ֹחק‬. No significant difference is observed whether plurals or singulars are used. There are also twelve verses where ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ and ‫חֻ ּקָ ה‬ occur together, the most important being Gen 26:5 where Abraham is commended for his obedience. 54.  The verb ‫ חָ ְלפּו‬in Isa 24:5 (ESV: “violated”) is never used elsewhere in the MT in connection with the covenantal language in Isa 24:5–6. For examples of “transgressing” the Mosaic covenant, see Deut 17:2; Josh 7:11–15; and Hos 6:7; 8:1. For examples of “breaking” the Mosaic covenant, see Lev 26:15; Deut 31:16–20; Jer 31:32; Ezek 16:59; and Ps 119:126.

Blazosky Final.indd 68

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Prophets and the Writings

69

“covenant,” the Mosaic covenant is almost always in view (e.g., Lev 26:15; Deut 31:16–20; Jer 31:32; Ezek 16:59). The only exception is with reference to the Abrahamic covenant where rejecting circumcision means that one has “broken my covenant” (Gen 17:14).55 Once again, the Noahic stipulations are never said to be “transgressed” or “broken.” Furthermore, it is not clear in Genesis 9 or elsewhere whether the Noahic covenant is something humans can actually “break.”56 Indeed, the only time “broken” [‫ ]הֵ פֵ רּו‬is linked to the Noahic covenant is in these words of hope: “If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night…, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken” ( Jer 33:20–21). As certainly as God will not break the Noahic covenant, so certain it is that God will not break the Davidic covenant. 3. Further Evaluation of Both Positions on Isa 24:5–6 Both positions are defensible; yet, each has weaknesses. Though allusions to the deluge are present in the context, seeing a parallel between the judgments of Genesis 6–7 and Isaiah 24 does not prove that the judgment described in 24:5–6 is for violating the “laws” and “statutes” of the Noahic covenant in Genesis 9. On the contrary, the linguistic evidence strongly suggests that the Mosaic covenant and its laws are in view. The case for the Noahic covenant ultimately depends on two issues: the universal scope of Isaiah 24 and the use of “everlasting covenant” [‫] ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬. Both points fit well with the Noahic covenant reading, yet neither conclusively rules out the Mosaic covenant. In fact, on both points, the strength of the arguments can easily be overstated. With respect to the scope of Isaiah 24, I agree that the scope is wider than Judah. The problem is when interpreters use this conclusion to assert dogmatically that the Mosaic law cannot be in view.57 Caution needs to be exercised here so as not to beg the question. Furthermore, since Israel and Judah are included in Isaiah 13–23, 55.  In addition to Genesis 17, Exod 31:13–17 also discusses a ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬that can be violated. Though this ‫ ְּב ִרית‬is not said to be “broken,” Polaski (“Reflections,” 63–64) correctly notes that the Sabbath, which is a ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬in this passage, can be violated at the cost of being “cut off.” 56.  For the most succinct argument that the Noahic covenant is to be understood as a bilateral covenant which can be broken through indiscriminate bloodshed, see Mason, “Another Flood?” For Mason’s expanded treatment of ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬, see Steven D. Mason, “Eternal Covenant” in the Pentateuch: The Contours of an Elusive Phrase, LHBOTS 494 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008). 57.  For example, Gentry and Wellum (Kingdom, 172) do not really argue against a Mosaic covenant position as much as assert that it cannot be correct. “Since the reference is to all humans breaking the ‘everlasting covenant,’ the Mosaic covenant given to Israel at Sinai is hardly in view.” Though I am not convinced by Polaski’s complex explanation of the intertextuality in Isa 24:5–6, his article represents a careful attempt to understand how a universal scope in Isaiah 24 does not preclude a reference to the Mosaic covenant in Isa 24:5–6; see Polaski, “Reflections,” 60–68.

Blazosky Final.indd 69

4/11/19 5:28 PM

70

Chapter 2

they must be included in 24:1–6. If the Mosaic covenant is excluded from 24:5–6, does this suggest that the Noahic covenant is the basis for the judgment of Israel and Judah as well? With respect to ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬, its usage in Genesis 9 supports the Noahic covenant position in Isaiah 24; yet, the prior analysis of the Torah raised questions about whether Jewish readers might also have understood the Mosaic covenant as a ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬.58 Furthermore, it is not as though the phrase ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬is uniquely connected to the Noahic covenant.59 Of the sixteen occurrences of ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬, only in Genesis 9 does ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬describe the Noahic covenant. The Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants are all described as such, along with the Sabbath and the weekly presentation of bread in the tabernacle: two aspects of the Mosaic legislation. The strongest argument against the Mosaic covenant position is, nevertheless, related to ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬. In my view, the chief difficulty is not whether the Mosaic covenant could be described as ‫ עֹולָ ם‬but in explaining how ‫ ְּב ִרית‬could refer to the Mosaic covenant and include all humanity. It is not implausible to suggest that other nations could be held accountable for breaking statutes in the Mosaic law, but the biblical witness consistently limits membership in the Mosaic covenant to Israel. Perhaps identifying ‫ ְּב ִרית‬in 24:5 as the Mosaic covenant does not necessitate viewing all people as members of the Mosaic covenant;60 even so, the usage of ‫ ְּב ִרית‬in 24:5 is problematic for this position. 4. Drawing Conclusions from Isa 24:5–6 In my view, Isaiah 24 does not reveal conclusively which covenant or laws serve as the basis for the judgment of humanity. In fact, the text is quite ambiguous on this point.61 Nevertheless, Isaiah 24 does make three contributions to this study 58.  For examples of Second Temple Jewish texts where the Mosaic law may be referred to as an eternal covenant, see Pss. Sol. 10:3–5 and Sir 17:11–13; also, cf. Bar 4:1 where wisdom is described as “the book of the commandments of God, the law that endures forever” (NRSV). 59.  Contra Joseph Loete, “A Premature Hymn of Praise: The Meaning and Function of Isaiah 24:14–16c in Its Present Context,” in Studies in Isaiah: The Isaiah Workshop - De Jesaja Werkplaats, ed. Hendrik Jan Bosman and Harm Van Grol (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 229. Loete is incorrect in his assertion that the Noahic covenant “is the only covenant in the Old Testament…explicitly called eternal (Gen. 9:16).” On the other hand, Johnson (Chaos, 27) overstates his case as well when he claims that there is an “overwhelming weight of evidence” in favor of identifying the Mosaic covenant as a ‫ְּב ִרית‬ ‫ עֹולָ ם‬in Isa 24:5. 60.  See the discussion of ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬in the OT in Chisholm Jr., “Everlasting,” 239. Chisholm suggests that ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬may not demand an eternal “agreement” but may instead suggest an eternal “obligation” as in Gen 17:13; Exod 31:16; and Lev 24:8. On this understanding of ‫ ְּב ִרית‬in particular, Chisholm is following Kutsch who argues more ambitiously that ‫ ְּב ִרית‬does not mean “Bund” primarily in the OT but rather “Verpflichtung.” See Ernst Kutsch, Verheißung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973), 6–16. 61.  Chisholm’s suggestion that Isa 24:5–6 is intentionally ambiguous is intriguing. Chisholm notes correctly that different elements of the chapter fit better with different covenants. Furthermore, he notes well that Israel, Judah, and the nations are all included in the scope of the judgment

Blazosky Final.indd 70

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Prophets and the Writings

71

of Gentiles and law. First, Isaiah 24 reveals the plausibility of suggesting that the Mosaic law could factor into the judgment of all people and that the “curse” of the law could reach beyond Israel. Second, Isaiah 24, especially when viewed alongside Isaiah 13–23, reaffirms the Torah’s presentation of the plight of sinners inside and outside of Israel. Third, Isaiah 24 undercuts the importance of societal distinctions on the day of judgment. “It shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the slave, so with his master” (24:2). F. A Summary of the Prophets on Gentiles and Law Throughout the Prophets, Israel continues to be uniquely related to the Mosaic covenant and blessed as God’s chosen people. Likewise, Israel continues to be held uniquely accountable to this covenant and its commands. In fulfillment of the Torah, Israel and Judah suffer for their disobedience to the divine statutes. Like the nations before them, Israel becomes unclean through their sins, resulting in exile from the land. Similarly, the Prophets confirm and expand the Torah’s teaching on Gentiles and law. In the Former Prophets, 2 Kings 17 offers the greatest contribution as it provides an intriguing parallel to Leviticus 18 and 20. The text reveals not only the intricate connection between the land, the law, and divine judgment, but also the possibility that other nations—at least while in the land—can be judged for violating the Mosaic law. That which was implicit in Leviticus 18 and 20 becomes explicit in 2 Kings 17. The Latter Prophets, however, provide the key contributions to Gentiles and law. A crucial part of the prophetic message is that there is no fundamental distinction between Israel and other nations when God comes to judge. Repeatedly, Israel and Judah are set alongside or in the midst of other nations destined for judgment. As in the Torah, the Latter Prophets continue to merge the plights of sinful Israel and the nations. Furthermore, the Latter Prophets reveal five primary sins for which the nations are condemned: greed, idolatry, mistreatment of Israel, pride, and violence. Yet, the question as to why the nations are judged for these sins is rarely addressed. Whereas the law or the covenant is regularly mentioned when Israel’s judgment is under discussion, the Latter Prophets provide little clarity on the basis for Gentile condemnation. The one exception is Isa 24:5–6, wherein a “curse” falls on the entire earth because humanity has transgressed “the laws,” “the statutes,” and the “eternal covenant.” Though the specific covenant and commandments in view cannot be identified with certainty, strong cases can be made for either the Noahic covenant with its stipulations or the Mosaic covenant with its laws. pronounced in Isaiah 24 and thus must be accounted for in the text; see Chisholm Jr., “Everlasting,” 244–49.

Blazosky Final.indd 71

4/11/19 5:28 PM

72

Chapter 2

III. Gentiles and Law in the Writings In comparison with the Torah and the Prophets, the Writings make few unique contributions to Gentiles and law. For this reason, this section contains only a brief summary of what is reinforced concerning the law in the Writings and a few observations on how the Writings may develop the OT theology of Gentiles and law. A. Reaffirmations of the Torah and the Prophets concerning Gentiles and Law In line with Exod 19:4–6, the Writings reaffirm the universal lordship of Israel’s God: “The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein” (Ps 24:1). The Psalmists regularly call on all peoples to submit to the Lord and to praise him for his marvelous works (e.g., Pss 67; 98–99). Not only is this perspective seen among the psalmists, however, but foreign leaders likewise confess the universal kingship of Israel’s God (Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4; Darius in Dan 6:25–27; and Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:21–23). As is revealed in Daniel 2 and 7, Israel’s God is sovereign over all kingdoms and is at work in history to bring about his own universal kingdom. On the other hand, Israel continues to be uniquely related to God through the law (cf. Ps 147:19–20; Esth 3:8). The Writings continue to emphasize not only how the law sets Israel apart from other nations but also the critical role of the law in their judgment. On certain occasions, such as under Josiah (2 Chr 34–35) or Ezra and Nehemiah, the law regains prominence. At other times, such as under Ahaz and Manasseh (2 Chr 28:1–3; 33:1–9), the law is neglected or even utterly rejected, resulting in divine judgment. Two prayers reveal unmistakably the central role of disobedience to the law in Israel’s judgment. Daniel confesses his people’s sins in “turning aside from your commandments and rules” (Dan 9:5). “All Israel has transgressed your law” [‫ת־ּתֹורתֶ ָך‬ ָ ֶ‫ ;]וְ כָ ל־יִ ְׂש ָראֵ ל עָ ְברּו א‬thus, “the curse and the oath that are written in the Law of Moses” [‫תֹורת מֹׁשֶ ה‬ ַ ‫ ]הָ אָ לָ ה וְ הַ ְּׁשבֻ עָ ה אֲׁשֶ ר ְּכתּובָ ה ְּב‬have fallen on them (Dan 9:11). Likewise, Nehemiah confesses that Israel’s entire history has been marked by rejection of the law (Neh 9:16, 26, 29, 34). Thus, God has acted righteously in judgment (Neh 9:27, 30, 33). With respect to other nations, however, there is comparatively little emphasis on their judgment in the Writings. While the Psalms provide the most discussion of the condemnation of other nations, the charges are typically generic (e.g., Pss 9:15–20; 10:15–16; 59:5–13; 68:21, 30). On a few occasions, other nations experience judgment for mistreating Israel (2 Chr 32:19–22; Esth 9; Ps 79:1–10); yet, none of these texts significantly advances that which has already been observed in the Torah and Prophets.

Blazosky Final.indd 72

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Prophets and the Writings

73

B. Developments in the Writings on the OT Theology of Gentiles and Law The one substantial contribution from the Writings comes not through explicit textual links between the law and Gentiles but indirectly through the generalized portrayal of the wicked in much of Psalms and the wisdom literature.62 In other words, there is often a lack of clarity in the Writings as to whether or not the wicked belong to Israel. In the wisdom literature, there is an overarching division between the righteous and the unrighteous. The righteous are those who fear the Lord, obey him, and live in right relationship with others in the community, while the wicked have none of these qualities. What is noteworthy for our purposes is a very simple point, namely, that the wicked tend to be homogenized in this literature. No clear distinction is maintained between sinners from among the covenant people and sinners from outside the covenant. What ultimately divides humanity in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes is one’s response to the Lord and his wisdom. Those who follow wisdom are “blessed” (e.g., Prov 3:13; 8:34), but “the LORD’s curse [‫ ] ְמאֵ ַרת‬is on the house of the wicked” (Prov 3:33).63 The Lord, as sovereign judge, will leave no sinner unpunished, having “made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (Prov 16:4–5). As there is a time for everything, there is a time when “God will judge the righteous and the wicked” (Eccl 3:17–20). In the wisdom literature, one either submits to the Lord or rejects his will: “Here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear 62.  Psalm 119 may contribute to the discussion of the eternality of the law. In 119:89–91 and 119:142–44, there are loose connections between God’s eternal character and the nature of his words and laws; yet, there are two primary texts for consideration. In 119:152, the psalmist writes: “Long ago I learned from your statutes that you established them to last forever” (NIV). In 119:160, the psalmist adds: “All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal” (NIV). With ‫ ְלעֹולָ ם‬occurring in both verses, these texts may provide support that the Mosaic covenant could have been understood as an eternal covenant. 63. Though ‫ ְמאֵ ָרה‬is used also in Deut 28:20 (1 of only 5 uses in the MT), there are insufficient contextual clues in Proverbs 3 to verify that this “curse” refers to the deuteronomic curse. Throughout Proverbs, it is difficult to determine if the Mosaic law is in view in specific texts. From my study, neither ‫ חֹק‬nor ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ clearly denotes the Mosaic law or commands in Proverbs, though the uses of ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ in Proverbs 28–29 could be exceptions. This is not to say that the many references to a parent’s instruction are unrelated to the Mosaic laws. The point is simply that it is difficult to find explicit references to the Mosaic law; thus, there are few direct contributions of Proverbs to the discussion of Gentiles and law. In the LXX, however, it is easier to argue that the Mosaic law is more central in Proverbs. For this argument, see Johann Cook, “The Law of Moses in Septuagint Proverbs,” VT 49 (1999): 448–61. Furthermore, a solid case can be made that the Torah not only influenced the book of Proverbs but also that Proverbs complements the teaching in the Torah. See esp. David L. Brooks, “The Complementary Relationship between Proverbs and Moses’ Law,” CTR 5 (2007): 3–32. For discussion of Job and the Decalogue and specifically how Job 31 may contribute to the topic, see Lindsay Wilson, “Athens and Jerusalem: Job and the Decalogue” (paper presented at the Tyndale Old Testament Study Group, Cambridge, 5 July 2005), 1–11.

Blazosky Final.indd 73

4/11/19 5:28 PM

74

Chapter 2

God and keep his commandments [‫] ִמ ְצֹותָ יו‬, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil” (Eccl 12:13–14).64 In Psalms, the wicked are also often in view as the psalmists regularly cry for deliverance from oppression. Unlike the wisdom literature, however, there are occasional signs in the psalter which allow readers to identify the enemies (e.g., Absalom’s men in Ps 3; the Philistines in Ps 56; Saul’s men in Ps 59). Yet, in many cases, the portrayal of the wicked is so general that identifying whether enemies are from other nations or from Israel is nearly impossible. Even in cases where historical information is offered in titles, the text often moves beyond those circumstances to a more generalized portrayal of the wicked (e.g., Pss 3; 18). Further­more, as the psalms would be used corporately throughout the generations, the descriptions of the wicked would naturally be reappropriated for the new challenges facing God’s people. As in the wisdom literature, humanity is most simply divided in much of the psalter into two categories: those who live in submission to God and those who do not. Those who meditate on and keep God’s laws will be “blessed” (Pss 1; 119), but those who reject God or oppress his righteous ones will experience his wrath: “God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day” (Ps 7:11; cf. Pss 1; 2:5; 110:5). Indeed, his very “soul hates the wicked” (11:5; cf. 21:8–12). Thus, Psalms clearly affirms the accountability of all people to the Lord, yet, the law’s role in this judgment is simply not emphasized. The only psalms that focus on both the wicked and the Mosaic law are two of the so-called Torah psalms. In both Psalm 1 and Psalm 119, the righteous are distinguished from the unrighteous by their love for the law. The wicked, on the other hand, “wander from your commandments” (119:21), “forsake your law” (119:53), “do not live according to your law” (119:85), “go astray from your statutes” (119:118), and “are far from your law” (119:150).65 Yet, whether the unrighteous in these texts include more than the disobedient among Israel is unclear. 64.  As with Proverbs, Ecclesiastes has few, if any, references to the Mosaic law. Thus, even though commonly refers to the Mosaic commandments, there is insufficient contextual evidence to argue that its usage in Eccl 12:13 is specifically in reference to the “Mosaic” commands, although it should be noted that a solid defense can be made that Deuteronomy was quite influential on Ecclesiastes. See Richard Schultz, “‘Fear God and Keep His Commandments’ (Eccl 12:13): An Examination of Some Intertextual Relationships between Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes,” in For Our Good Always: Studies on the Message and Influence of Deuteronomy in Honor of Daniel I. Block, ed. Jason S. DeRouchie, Jason Gile, and Kenneth J. Turner (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 327–43. It is certainly plausible that Jewish readers would associate these “commandments” with the Mosaic law, but Eccl 12:13 neither proves nor disproves universal accountability to the Mosaic law. What this text does reveal is that humanity is under obligation to divine commands and that humanity will be judged in accordance with those commands. 65.  In Psalm 119, ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ and the related words, though including the legal code, have a broader focus on all that the Lord promises and wills. See esp. Alfons Deissler, Psalm 119 (118) und seine Theologie. ‫ִמ ְצוָה‬

Blazosky Final.indd 74

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Prophets and the Writings

75

In summary, while the Writings reaffirm various points from the Torah and Prophets concerning Gentiles and law, the Writings make few unique contributions. The one primary exception concerns how Psalms and the wisdom literature homogenize sinful humanity. Covenant members who rebel are grouped together so closely with evil outsiders that maintaining any meaningful distinction becomes nearly impossible.

IV. Conclusions on the Theology of the OT concerning Gentiles and Law The Torah lays a foundation for how the law relates to Gentiles, while the Prophets—and in a limited way, the Writings—confirm and expand the Torah’s presentation. Following is a summary of the OT theology of Gentiles and law. A. What Is the Relationship of Israel to the Law and to Other Nations? Though all the earth belongs to the Lord, Israel alone is his treasured possession. The continual reminder of this unique status is Israel’s possession of God’s statutes. This privileged status, however, results in increased accountability. Though all peoples are accountable for sin, the Mosaic law exacerbates Israel’s accountability. Israel’s call is to be a ‫ מַ ְמלֶ כֶ ת ֹּכהֲנִ ים‬for the good of the nations. The knowledge granted to them of the Creator and his expectations is to spread beyond the initial covenant members. Nevertheless, if Israel should follow the paths of the nations instead of the divine statutes, there is a constant threat that they will face the same fate as other nations. Thus, throughout the OT, there is a merging of the plight of a rebellious Israel with that of sinful nations, and of a rebellious insider with that of a sinful outsider. B. What Is the Curse of the Law and upon Whom Does It Fall? In the OT, “the curse of the law” is particularly connected to Deut 27:26 and, more broadly, to Deuteronomy 27–30. The substance of the curse of 27:26 is explicated Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der anthologischen Stilgattung im Alten Testament, MThSt (Munich: Karl Zink, 1955), 293. “Der Verfasser von Ps 119 gebraucht also die Termini für das göttliche Sprechen im gleichen Umfang und in der gleichen Variationsbreite wie der Psalter überhaupt. Unser Psalm ist darum nicht ein Gesetzespsalm, sondern ein Psalm vom Worte Jahwes. Dabei ist Wort in seiner umfassendsten Bedeutung zu nehmen. Es umgreift alles Tun Gottes nach außen.” On the enemies in Psalm 119, see Kent Aaron Reynolds, Torah as Teacher: The Exemplary Torah Student in Psalm 119, VTSup 137 (Boston: Brill, 2010), 79–83. Reynolds is likely correct that the enemies “appear only as a foil for the exemplary servant of God” (79).

Blazosky Final.indd 75

4/11/19 5:28 PM

76

Chapter 2

throughout Deuteronomy 28–30. For the nation, being cursed ultimately means exile. For an individual, to be “cursed” is to experience death, to receive no forgiveness, and to be “cut off ” (29:18–21). The extent of the “curse” of the law, however, is less clear. There is evidence in the Torah and Prophets that all humanity is “cursed” or will experience the effects of a worldwide “curse” (Gen 3; Isa 24). Furthermore, in Gen 12:3, those who reject God’s chosen means of blessing (i.e. Abraham) are left to suffer a “curse.” The curses of Deuteronomy 27–30 are a natural extension of this earlier “curse” language in Genesis. On the other hand, the “curses” in Deuteronomy 27 are directly applied to the disobedient among Israel, not those among other nations. Israel is the only nation present for the covenant ceremony. Furthermore, Israel alone affirms each curse with “Amen.” At the same time, a few contextual signs in Deuteronomy 27–30 may point toward a wider reading of the reasons for and recipients of the curses of Deuteronomy 27. Similarly, since being “cursed” involves being “cut off ” from the covenant community, it is not implausible to describe those outside the covenant community as “cursed.” C. For Which Sins Are Gentiles Condemned by God? In the OT, Gentiles are condemned for a variety of sins. In the Torah, those who oppress Israel, Abraham’s offspring, deserve judgment. Furthermore, the Torah condemns the nations of Canaan for sins such as dishonoring parents, necromancy, idolatry, and sexual immorality. By practicing these sins, the nations became unclean, made the land unclean, and came under divine judgment. The Prophets reaffirm the condemnation of Gentiles for mistreating Israel and for idolatry, as well as reveal the accountability of the nations for sins such as greed, pride, and violence. D. What Is the Basis of Gentile Condemnation in the OT? Identifying the sins for which Gentiles are condemned is much easier, however, than explaining why the nations are judged for those sins. When Israel’s judgment is under discussion, foundational issues such as their transgression of the law code or their breaking of the Mosaic covenant are brought in to explain the rationale for their judgment. The OT, however, rarely discusses why other nations deserve judgment. In other words, the OT frequently condemns nations for a sin such as violence but rarely addresses the question of why those nations ought to be judged for violence. 1. Criteria for Legitimate Proposals Identifying the basis of Gentile condemnation with certainty may not be possible. What the OT does offer, however, are criteria by which proposals may be evaluated, as well as a consistent presentation of the plight of humanity in the OT.

Blazosky Final.indd 76

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Prophets and the Writings

77

The first criterion for a proposal is that the basis proposed must be capable of being described in the language of Isa 24:5–6. There, “laws” are transgressed, “statutes” are violated, and an “everlasting covenant” is broken, resulting in a divine “curse.” For example, a simple appeal to God’s rights as Creator and to God’s holiness may seem sufficient to explain Gentile condemnation in the Old Testament. Likewise, an appeal to natural law may also seem sufficient. Yet, when language such as “laws,” “covenant,” and “curse” appears, there is an implication that something more specific also plays into humanity’s culpability. There is some kind of covenantal dimension to humanity’s guilt. If one desires to specify which covenant or covenants play into humanity’s plight, there are limited options. Plausible suggestions include the Noahic and Mosaic covenants, as well as the suggestion of an implicit covenant with creation in Genesis 1–3 wherein humanity is bound to the Creator and his expectations. The second criterion is that a proposal must be able to explain how all of the aforementioned sins of the nations can merit judgment. How is it that Gentiles are held accountable in the OT for dishonoring parents, necromancy, immorality, greed, idolatry, mistreating Israel, pride, and violence? A few examples will clarify this point. The promise that rejecting Abraham will bring a curse makes sense of the frequent condemnation of other nations for mistreating Israel. Yet, no one would argue that Gen 12:3 is sufficient to explain the accountability of Gentiles elsewhere for immorality or greed. Likewise, in a text such as Amos 1–2, it may be possible that the nations are judged for violence because they have violated an international consensus on rules of warfare. Yet, no one would argue that this same basis can explain why God condemns nations elsewhere for pride or idolatry. Similarly, the suggestion that the Noahic covenant grounds the judgment of humanity makes good sense of the frequent condemnation of violence in the OT. At the same time, explaining how being condemned for sins such as pride, idolatry, or mistreatment of Israel is rooted in the Noahic covenant is quite difficult. In contrast to these suggestions, the expansive legal code in the Mosaic covenant may adequately explain the condemnation of all of the aforementioned sins, especially idolatry and immorality. Even so, a sin such as pride, or even idolatry, could also be connected to God’s uniqueness as Creator. Likewise, judgment for mistreating Israel is more easily connected to God’s promises to Abraham than to the Mosaic covenant. Furthermore, the kind of international violence condemned throughout the Prophets is more easily connected to the Noahic covenant than to the Mosaic covenant. Applying these two criteria reveals the simple point that defining the basis of Gentile accountability is challenging. This difficulty increases if one attempts to find only one basis (e.g., the Noahic covenant; natural law). In my view, no single basis makes sense of all the exegetical and biblical theological evidence. Instead,

Blazosky Final.indd 77

4/11/19 5:28 PM

78

Chapter 2

the most textually grounded conclusion is that the Creator–creature relationship, the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, and the Mosaic covenant are each critical to explaining Gentile condemnation in the OT. No matter how the issue is handled, however, the demonstrable difficulty in determining the basis for Gentile condemnation should lead toward caution in discarding possible factors, including the Mosaic law. 2. The Consistent Pattern in the OT The final matter for consideration is the standard OT presentation of the human plight. On the one hand, from Israel’s call to the end of the OT, there is a continual emphasis on the uniqueness of Israel. Israel is a chosen people, a holy nation. On the other hand, throughout Israel’s history, there is also a constant threat that Israel will be treated as Egypt or the nations of Canaan should they rebel. At the same time, there are examples within the Torah and beyond that those outside the covenant are condemned for failure to live according to divine statutes as well. Thus, from the Torah to the end of the OT, there is an interplay between the plight of a rebellious Israel and that of a pagan nation, and the plight of a disobedient insider and that of a sinful outsider. In the Prophets, a crucial part of the prophetic message is that there is no fundamental distinction between Israel and other nations when God comes to judge. Repeatedly, Israel and Judah are set alongside or in the midst of other nations destined for judgment. In the Writings as well, Psalms and the wisdom literature further this homogenized presentation of sinful humanity. Covenant members who rebel are grouped together so closely with evil outsiders that maintaining any meaningful distinction between them in terms of divine judgment becomes nearly impossible. In conclusion, nowhere in the OT is there indisputable evidence that Gentiles are condemned for failing to keep the Mosaic law. On the other hand, nowhere in the OT is there convincing evidence that Gentiles are not condemned for failing to keep the Mosaic law. What can be argued is, first, that it is plausible that certain OT texts suggest that the Mosaic law plays a role in divine wrath falling on the nations, and, second, that it is plausible that the OT, when read as a whole, establishes a framework concerning the human plight that would lead naturally to Jewish interpreters sensing universal accountability to the Mosaic law. To those later Jewish interpretations, we now turn.

Blazosky Final.indd 78

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Chapter 3

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

Introduction There is little doubt that one of the pressing issues for Judaism in the first century was the relationship of Jews to Gentiles. To be sure, Jewish experiences with and attitudes toward Gentiles were varied within the Second Temple period; yet, it is clear that Jews, whether living inside or outside of Palestine, dealt regularly with how to relate to and think about Gentiles. Perhaps it is an overstatement to say with Davies that this was “the crucial question” confronted by first century Jews;1 yet, it is not at all surprising that the topic of Gentiles surfaces repeatedly throughout the Second Temple Jewish literature. Indeed, the relationship of Israel to the nations was critical to Israel’s entire history, self-identity, and purpose as a nation. As Michael Bird comments, “The story of Israel could not be told without reference to the nations.”2 Of the many factors that influenced this relationship, perhaps none was more significant than the Mosaic law.

I. Surveying the Secondary Literature In recent decades, there has been an increasing interest in early Jewish literature, particularly sources from 300 BCE to 200 CE. This trend certainly holds true concerning the study of both Jewish perspectives of Gentiles and Jewish views of the Mosaic law. A. Jewish Attitudes toward Gentiles One consistent conclusion from this research is that Judaism in the Second Temple period was not monolithic. Two related resources demonstrate the range of Jewish attitudes toward Gentiles.3 In 2007, in an effort to push against a simplistic view that Christianity had a “universalistic” outlook while Judaism was “particularistic,” 1.  W. D. Davies, “From Schweitzer to Scholem: Reflections on Sabbatai Svi,” JBL 95 (1976): 547. 2.  Michael F. Bird, Crossing over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 5. 3.  For an exhaustive list of resources on Jewish attitudes toward Gentiles, see Terence L. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE) (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 12 note 22.

Blazosky Final.indd 79

4/11/19 5:28 PM

80

Chapter 3

Terence Donaldson, in Judaism and the Gentiles, sought to demonstrate that Judaism in the Second Temple period “was in its own ways just as ‘universalistic’ as was Christianity—indeed, in some ways even more so.”4 Donaldson traced four “patterns of universalism” within Judaism, including an openness to Gentile converts, as well as the view that many Gentiles would be “participants in an eschatological redemption.”5 Given Donaldson’s intent to highlight positive “patterns,” however, his work tends to underemphasize texts which present Gentiles more negatively. Noting this lacuna, James McLaren writes in the introduction to Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity that the compiled essays overview Jewish and Christian attitudes to Gentiles—whatever they may be—instead of providing “an expression of a particular outlook.”6 Thus, this volume complements Donaldson’s work by demonstrating how negatively Gentiles could also be viewed, particularly in Jewish apocalyptic literature. Taken together, these resources reveal the wide spectrum of Jewish attitudes toward Gentiles, ranging from great optimism to deep pessimism. B. Jewish Views of the Law of Moses in Relation to Paul’s View Extensive work has also been undertaken on Jewish views of the law. Especially relevant are those works which compare these perspectives with Paul’s.7 One specific area illumined through this kind of comparison is the relationship of the law to Paul’s ethical instructions. Works such as Peter Tomson’s Paul and the Jewish Law, Brian Rosner’s Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, and the 2012 LNTS volume, The Torah in the Ethics of Paul,8 have clearly demonstrated the value of Second Temple 4.  Ibid., 1. For a helpful discussion of the potential difficulties with the terminology “particularism” and “universalism,” see esp. Anders Runesson, “Particularistic Judaism and Universalistic Christianity? Some Critical Remarks on Terminology and Theology,” ST 54 (2000): 55–75. 5. Donaldson, Judaism, 13–14. Donaldson discusses Jewish views of Gentile “sympathizers,” “converts,” “ethical monotheists,” and “participants in eschatological redemption.” For related discussions of Jewish missionary activity and expectations for Gentiles, see Bird, Crossing; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission: Jesus and the Twelve, vol. 1 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 53–173. 6.  James S. McLaren, “Introduction,” in McLaren and Sim, Attitudes to Gentiles, 3. 7.  The value of Second Temple Jewish literature to certain aspects of Paul’s view of the law is not always the same. For example, E. P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 496) concludes that it was impossible, at least with respect to Christ’s being the end of the law, to “find a background to Paul’s view [of the law] in Judaism, despite the numerous attempts to do so.” Sanders is likely correct that elements of Paul’s views have no precedent. At the same time, it has been demonstrated convincingly that other aspects of Paul’s view of the law are more reflective of his Jewish milieu than previously supposed. 8. Tomson, Paul; Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999); Martin Meiser, ed., The Torah in the Ethics of Paul, LNTS 473 (London: T&T Clark, 2012). Cf. Finsterbusch, Die Thora; Rosner, Paul, 159–205.

Blazosky Final.indd 80

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

81

Jewish literature to understanding how the law shapes Paul’s paraenesis in his letters to Gentile churches. C. The Lacuna in the Secondary Literature Despite the wealth of literature on these and other related issues, there is a gap with respect to Gentile condemnation and the law. Rarely is there sustained treatment of how Jewish authors address this topic or of how Paul’s views may relate to those Jewish sources.9 It is this lacuna in the literature which justifies the need for the present chapter.

II. My Approach to the Jewish Literature Because of the diversity and breadth of Second Temple literature, there are multiple ways to analyze a given topic in this corpus.10 The difficulty with this topic is finding the center between being too narrow and too broad in the analysis. On the one hand, the issue of Gentile condemnation and the law is rarely addressed directly. From my study, fewer than ten sources from 300 BCE to 200 CE explicitly discuss this matter. On the other hand, countless Jewish texts address issues related to this topic. The LXX, for example, sheds light on how Deut 27:26 and Isa 24:5–6 may have been interpreted in this time period. Books like Baruch and Sirach contribute to the discussion of the eternality of the Mosaic covenant, and works such as Philo’s De Abrahamo, Sirach, and Mekilta illumine the discussions about the relationship of the Mosaic law to wisdom, natural law, and the Noahic (or Noahide) laws. Furthermore, texts from all over the Jewish literature address the condemnation of Gentiles to some degree. Recognizing these complexities, the following approach is adopted for this chapter. First, this chapter surveys how various Jewish authors viewed the nature and applicability of the law, topics which have not typically been integrated into the discussion of Gentile condemnation. Second, this chapter turns more directly toward 9.  For brief discussion of this topic, see Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 113–15. For what is likely the most thorough analysis, see Kim, “Redeemed,” 14–60. For two helpful treatments of Gentile condemnation in Jewish apocalyptic literature, see Richard Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1, The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 135–87; Michael P. Theophilos, “The Portrayal of Gentiles in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in Sim and McLaren, Attitudes to Gentiles, 72–91. 10.  Standard approaches include grouping texts by provenance (e.g., Qumran, Palestine, etc.), genre (e.g., apocalyptic, wisdom), interpretive tradition (e.g., rabbinic, Hellenistic), or by dates of composition.

Blazosky Final.indd 81

4/11/19 5:28 PM

82

Chapter 3

the topic of Gentile condemnation and the law, beginning with a brief survey of Gentile condemnation in general before an examination of eight Jewish sources which address both the Mosaic law and Gentile condemnation in the same texts.

III. The Law in the Jewish Literature Though Second Temple Judaism was diverse, every branch of Judaism was unified by a common interest in the Mosaic law. Sanders notes well that “Judaism’s most distinctive point…was the extension of divine law to all the areas of life.”11 That the law was given by God through Moses and that it was to be obeyed by the Jewish people were pillars of, what Sanders calls, “common Judaism.”12 Similarly, John Collins remarks: “The Torah provided a common basis for postexilic Judaism in the sense that all forms of Judaism related to it in one way or another.”13 Thus, not surprisingly, the law is discussed to some degree throughout the entire Second Temple Jewish corpus. Given my aims, the following issues will be addressed, each of which has been discussed previously in the OT chapters: the law’s eternality, the law’s relationship to wisdom, and the law’s relationship to natural law. No section is exhaustive, nor is my purpose to argue that one position prevailed in Judaism. Instead, this survey introduces relevant texts to shed light on Jewish perspectives on these matters before and after Paul. A. The Eternality of the Mosaic Law As noted in the treatment of the OT, it is debatable whether the Mosaic covenant is an “eternal covenant.” Particularly in Isa 24:5, where humanity is said to have “broken the everlasting covenant,” this issue is central in the debates over which covenant is in view. Regardless of one’s conclusion about the OT texts, however, it is clear that several later Jewish writers did, in fact, affirm the eternality of the law and the Mosaic covenant. Four examples sufficiently illustrate this point.14 In De vita Mosis, one of Philo’s chief arguments for the superiority of Moses to other lawgivers is that his laws do 11.  E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE (London: SCM, 1992), 191. 12.  Ibid., 47. Cf. the discussions about “ordinary Jews” and how the Torah was one of the foundational symbols of Israel’s worldview in N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 213–32. 13.  John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 20. David McClister (“Ethnicity and Jewish Identity in Josephus” [Ph.D. diss., University of Florida, 2008], 139) writes: “Jews had something that few other people in antiquity had: a single document to which they could appeal for their self‑identity.” 14.  In CD 3:12–17, there is difficulty in determining the relationship of the institution of a “covenant with Israel forever” and the Mosaic covenant. This “covenant” is with those who “held firm to the

Blazosky Final.indd 82

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

83

not change with changing circumstances (Mos. 2:12–14). Not only are these laws “firm” and “immovable,” they “remain secure from the day when they were first enacted to now.”15 Furthermore, there is “hope that they will remain for all future ages as though immortal, so long as the sun and moon and the whole heaven and universe exist” (Mos. 2:14).16 Second, in Sirach 16–17, the Mosaic covenant is clearly called an “eternal covenant.” In a discussion of wisdom, creation, and humanity’s call to exercise dominion, the author states: “He bestowed knowledge upon them, and allotted to them the law of life. He established with them an eternal covenant [διαθήκην αἰῶνος], and revealed to them his decrees” (17:11–12).17 Sirach 17:13 eliminates any uncertainty about which covenant is in view through its allusion to Israel’s encounter with God at Sinai when “their eyes saw his glorious majesty, and their ears heard the glory of his voice.”18 Two apocalyptic texts serve as final examples concerning the eternality of the law.19 In 4 Ezra 9:29–37, the author discusses Israel’s reception of the law and failure to observe its statutes. “We who have received the law and sinned will perish…; the law, however, does not perish but survives in its glory” (4 Ezra 9:36–37). Likewise, 2 Bar. 59:2 states that, during the days of Moses and Aaron, “the lamp of the eternal law which exists forever and ever illuminated all those who sat in darkness.” In both passages, there is little question that these authors conceived of the Mosaic law as enduring forever. commandments of God” (3:12) in spite of the rebellion of Israel at large and the experience of exile. What may be most likely is that this text speaks of a permanent re‑establishment of the Mosaic covenant with the faithful (presumably, the author’s community). For discussion, see Jonathan G. Campbell, The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20, BZAW 228 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 67–79. 15.  Translations of the works of Philo and Josephus are from the Loeb Classical Library. 16.  Similarly, in Congr. 1:120, Philo suggests that the Decalogue is not only the foundation for the rest of the “particular laws” but also that it is “the perennial fountain of ordinances.” 17.  All quotations from the Apocrypha are from the NRSV. 18.  On the interplay between Israel and humanity in this text, see Marko Marttila, Foreign Nations in the Wisdom of Ben Sira: A Jewish Sage between Opposition and Assimilation, DCLS 13 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 61–62. Marttila remarks: “Ben Sira associated himself in a masterful way with earlier traditions and put them together in a manner which emphasised Israel’s key role as the first recipient of the true revelation, but on the other hand, this wisdom with its universal nature was not confined inside some ethnical or geographical barriers” (62). On the identification of the “eternal covenant” in Sir 17:12 and the difficulty of identifying this covenant as the Noahic covenant, see Johannes Marböck, “Ein Ewiger Bund für Alle? Notizen zu Sir 17,11–14,” in Für immer Verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel, ed. Christoph Dohmen and Christian Frevel, SBS 211 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007), 136–40. 19.  Cf. LAB 11:1–5 (discussed later). For two other possible examples, see Pss. Sol. 10:1–8 and 1 En. 99:1–4. In Pss. Sol. 10:4, the Lord’s remembrance of mercy is connected to “the Law of the eternal covenant” [ἐν νόμῳ διαθήκης αἰωνίου]. It is unclear, however, if the covenant in view is the covenant made with the patriarchs (cf. Pss. Sol. 9:9–11) or if this is a statement about the Mosaic covenant. Likewise, there continues to be much debate about the role of Moses and the Mosaic law in 1 Enoch (discussed later). Thus, the referent of “the words of truth” and the “eternal law” in 1 En. 99:2 is also contested.

Blazosky Final.indd 83

4/11/19 5:28 PM

84

Chapter 3

B. The Mosaic Law and Wisdom A second matter frequently discussed in Second Temple studies is the connection between law and wisdom. In the Letter of Aristeas, part of the justification for translating the Jewish scriptures is that “this legislation, as could be expected from its divine nature, is very philosophical and genuine” (Let.  Aris.  31).20 This epistle underscores the similarities between Jewish and Greek thought (cf. Let. Aris. 15–16) and uses the connection between law and wisdom to heighten its universal appeal. As Schnabel notes: The motivation of the author of EpArist implies also both the universalistic and the particularistic dimension: the law (as well as wisdom, embodied in the law) is the Mosaic law of the Jews which is to be commended to the Gentiles. And the Mosaic law with its wisdom has a universal significance and should be observed by all, whether they are Jews or Gentiles…. The motives of the author also imply a didactic dimension: the Jewish law should be made the basis of all, even Gentile, instruction which has as its goal the perfecting of one’s character.21

Another example is in 2 Bar. 51:1–10 where law and wisdom are repeatedly linked. Glory awaits those who “proved to be righteous on account of my law,” who “planted the root of wisdom in their heart” (51:3). Sadness, however, awaits those who “despised my Law and stopped their ears lest they hear wisdom” (51:4). These ideas are not foreign in apocalyptic or wisdom texts. Nickelsburg notes: “Our survey [of these genres] has identified ways in which texts that are usually categorized as sapiential can equate wisdom with Torah…. Conversely, we have noted wisdom components in the apocalyptic texts, with wisdom and Torah being equated especially in 2 Baruch.”22 Baruch and Sirach also explicitly connect wisdom to the revelation of the law at Sinai. In Baruch, after a rehearsal of Israel’s failure to follow the law and a prayer for mercy, a call is made to Israel to “hear the commandments of life,” to “give ear, and learn wisdom” (Bar 3:9). The author proceeds to praise wisdom and the God of Israel, who not only “found the whole way to knowledge” but also “gave her to his servant Jacob and to Israel, whom he loved” (3:36). This personified wisdom “appeared on earth and lived with humankind” (3:37). Where is this wisdom to be found? “She is the book of the commandments of God, the law that endures forever” (4:1). 20.  All quotations from the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha are from James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1983–85). 21.  Eckhard J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics, WUNT 2.16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 124. 22.  George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Early Judaism: Some Points for Discussion,” in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism, ed. Lawrence M. Wills and Benjamin G. Wright, SBLSymS 35 (Atlanta: SBL, 2005), 26.

Blazosky Final.indd 84

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

85

Similarly, Sirach 24 is a praise of wisdom, but, this time, from the mouth of wisdom herself.23 Wisdom recounts the time when the Creator gave her a command to make her dwelling in Jacob (24:8). In vv. 19–34, wisdom calls out to her hearers to come and eat their fill of her fruit. Those who do so will never hunger (24:21). “Whoeve­r obeys me will not be put to shame” (24:22). Wisdom’s location is then identified explicitly: “All this is the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the law that Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob” (24:23).24 Though these texts demonstrate that some Jewish interpreters developed the connection between law and wisdom in Deuteronomy, the implications drawn from this link were not always the same. Even in Baruch and Sirach, differences exist over whether wisdom is found exclusively or only primarily in Israel.25 Likewise, some writers use the connection between law and wisdom to universalize the law, while others do not. In commenting on 1 Maccabees, for example, Don Garlington writes: The effect of the Torah/wisdom synthesis in other writers was to expand the sphere of the law’s validity, i.e., there was one wisdom for all men, and all were obliged to acknowledge its embodiment in the Jewish Torah. However, there is nothing of this in 1 Macc: the validity of the law is restricted to Israel. Every people has its law, and so Israel has hers also.26

What is significant is that connecting the law and wisdom provided one possible path—which some Jewish authors took—to universalize the applicability of the Mosaic law. C. The Mosaic Law and Natural Law Closely related to these discussions is the relationship of the Mosaic law to natural law. As Christine Hayes notes, “The Deuteronomic association of the revealed Torah with Wisdom, and the Second Temple association of Wisdom with the created order of nature, set the stage for an identification of the Torah with the 23.  In the Sifre on Deut 11:10 as well, there is an intriguing link made between the law and wisdom via a citation of Prov 8:22–23. After describing the Torah as that which is “most precious” and “created before all else,” the Sifre cites the speech of wisdom in Proverbs 8 that “the Lord created me at the beginning of his course, as the first of his works of old” (Sifre 37, Hammer, 70). 24.  On the similarities between Bar 4:1 and Sir 17:12; 24:23, see Shannon Burkes, “Wisdom and Law: Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch,” JSJ 30 (1999): 273–74. 25.  See esp. Sean A. Adams, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: A Commentary based on the Texts in Codex Vaticanus, Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 114–15. As Adams notes, 1 Enoch disagrees with both Baruch and Sirach in that wisdom could not find a particular place to dwell on earth and thus returned to dwell in heaven (115). 26.  Don B. Garlington, “The Obedience of Faith”: A Pauline Phrase in Historical Context, WUNT 2.38 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 127.

Blazosky Final.indd 85

4/11/19 5:28 PM

86

Chapter 3

natural order, an identification that would enable the transference of attributes between the two.”27 Although this identification does not occur until much later, the association of creation and law in a text such as Psalm 19 set the stage for such a move. B­ockmuehl’s comments on this psalm, cited in part in chapter 2, are worth noting in full here: [I]t is precisely this easy juxtaposition of Torah and creation which prepares the way for the overwhelming assumption in Hellenistic Jewish writers that the Torah is self-evidently a law in full accordance with nature, indeed the most perfect expression of such a law. It is in this Psalm, then, that we get a glimpse of what became the mainstream view of natural law in Second Temple Judaism. This view is neither that there is a law of nature given in addition to the law of the Torah, nor that there is nothing but the Torah. Instead, creation itself demands life in accordance with the will of the Creator, and the Torah, or at least the principles it embodies, are the most perfect expression of a law that is in accordance with creation rightly understood.28

Given the breadth of the subject of natural law—not only in Jewish literature but also in Greco-Roman works—it is important to narrow the focus to what is most relevant to the issue of Gentiles and law.29 For our purposes, it is sufficient to focus on the most prominent source for linking the Mosaic law with natural law, namely, Philo. Though there is considerable debate concerning Philo’s role in the development of natural law theory as a whole,30 his equation of the unwritten law of nature 27. Hayes, Divine Law, 30. 28. Bockmuehl, Jewish Law, 97. 29.  For primary sources on the Greek tradition of an unwritten natural law from Sophocles onward, as well as secondary resources on the possible relationship of Philo to pre-Philonic Stoic works, see G. Anthony Keddie, “Paul’s Freedom and Moses’ Veil: Moral Freedom and the Mosaic Law in 2 Corinthians 3.1–4.6 in Light of Philo,” JSNT 37 (2015): esp. 270–72. On natural law in Jewish literature, see Bockmuehl, Jewish Law, 87–111. Bockmuehl highlights works such as Pseudo‑Phocylides, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Letter of Aristeas, as well as the works of Philo and Josephus. Not every writer explicitly connects the Mosaic law and natural law, yet each argues, to some extent, for human morality from the natural order. Also instructive is Bockmuehl’s conclusion that “neither the Dead Sea Scrolls nor rabbinic Judaism show a marked interest in questions of natural law” (103). 30.  For the view that Philo is the crucial figure in the development of natural law theory, see esp. Helmut Koester, “ΝΟΜΟΣ ΦΥΣΕΩΣ: The Concept of Natural Law in Greek Thought,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. Jacob Neusner, SHR 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 521–41. For a helpful critique of Koester which demonstrates that the concept of natural law is found in Cicero two generations before Philo, see Richard A. Horsley, “The Law of Nature in Philo and Cicero,” HTR 71 (1978): 35–59. Cf. Bockmuehl, Jewish Law, 111.

Blazosky Final.indd 86

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

87

with the written law of Moses was certainly ground-breaking.31 A key component of Philo’s position is that the Torah begins not with the giving of the law at Sinai but with creation and the lives of the patriarchs.32 With respect to creation, Philo remarks: His exordium, as I have said, is one that excites our admiration in the highest degree. It consists of an account of the creation of the world, implying that the world is in harmony with the Law, and the Law with the world, and that the man who observes the Law is constituted thereby a loyal citizen of the world, regulating his doings by the purpose and will of Nature, in accordance with which the entire world itself also is administered. (Opif. 3)

Elsewhere, Philo writes that “the Father and Maker of the world was in the truest sense also its Lawgiver” and that “he who would observe the laws will accept gladly the duty of following nature and live in accordance with the ordering of the universe” (Mos. 2:48). For Philo, in addition to the creation narrative, the accounts of the patriarchs are also critical to the development of a proper view of the law: These [the patriarchs] are such men as lived good and blameless lives, whose virtues stand permanently recorded in the most holy scriptures, not merely to sound their praises but for the instruction of the reader and as an inducement to him to aspire to the same; for in these men we have laws endowed with life and reason, and Moses extolled them for two reasons. First he wished to shew that the enacted ordinances are not inconsistent with nature; and secondly that those who wish to live in accordance with the laws as they stand have no difficult task, seeing that the first generations before any at all of the particular statutes was set in writing followed the unwritten law with perfect ease, so that one might properly say that the enacted laws are nothing else than memorials of the life of the ancients, preserving to a later generation their actual words and deeds. (Abr. 4–5)

31.  On Philo’s uniqueness in this respect, see Hindy Najman, “A Written Copy of the Law of Nature: An Unthinkable Paradox,” SPhilo 15 (2003): 54–63. Cf. John W. Martens, One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco-Roman Law, SPhAMA 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 88. 32.  Cf. David M. Hay, “Philo of Alexandria,” in Carson et al., Justification and Variegated Nomism, 1:373. Hayes (Divine Law, 114) remarks: “This is the reason that Moses prefaced the account of the giving of the Law to Israel at Sinai with the story of the creation: to signal that the Law is intended for all world-citizens, not Israel alone.” On the importance of the records of the lives of the patriarchs and Moses himself to Philo’s conception of natural law, see Najman, “Written Copy,” 60–62.

Blazosky Final.indd 87

4/11/19 5:28 PM

88

Chapter 3

For Philo, the patriarchs lived in accordance with the law, and, as Najman states, “the lives of the patriarchs are the law of nature and have the normative force of law.”33 By connecting creation, the patriarchs, and the written Mosaic law with the Greek conception of a universal unwritten law, Philo expanded the scope and appeal of the Mosaic law.34 As John Martens remarks, “In taking over Greek views of law, Philo particularized a universal view of law, the law of nature, and universalized a particular law, the law of Moses.”35 Philo himself would not apply his own view of a universalized law to the topic of Gentile condemnation, yet, it is not difficult to see how this same rationale could have been utilized to ground universal accountability to the Mosaic law. D. The Light of the Law My final remarks on Jewish perspectives of the law deal with the broader issue of the extent of the law’s applicability. Opinions were quite varied; yet, as has already been demonstrated, some writers such as Sirach or Philo tended to universalize the scope of the law. In the case of Philo, he even held out hope that, one day, the nations might abandon their own ways and turn to honoring the laws of Moses alone (cf. Mos. 2:44).36 Josephus also—though perhaps not as explicitly as Philo—reflects similar universalizing tendencies. In Against Apion in particular, Josephus describes Moses as “the most ancient of all legislators” (Ag. Ap. 2:154) and argues not only that the Greek philosophers were indebted to him (2:281) but also that, “as God permeates the universe, so the Law has found its way among all mankind” (2:284).37 There is no doubt that Philo and Josephus were driven, at least in part, by a desire to heighten the appeal of the Jewish laws; nor is there any question that their views of the law were shaped, to some degree, by Greek thought. At the same time, it is not as though no biblical support exists for the idea that the light of the law is intended for all people. As noted in chapter 1, in the preamble to the Mosaic covenant in Exod 19:4–6, Israel was called to serve as a kingdom of priests 33.  Najman, “Written Copy,” 61; italics original. Cf. Martens, One God, 88. 34.  Sidney G. Sowers (The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews [Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1965], 47) states: “To gain a hearing he had to show that the Jewish laws were likenesses of a higher Law which the Hellenistic world recognized as the only basis for valid legislation.” 35. Martens, One God, 129. 36.  For an extended discussion of how Philo universalizes the Sinai narrative throughout De Decalogo 32–49, see Trent A. Rogers, “Philo’s Universalization of Sinai in De Decalogo 32–49,” SPhilo 24 (2012): 85–105. Rogers writes: “To universalize the Law for his Greek audience, Philo omits specific names, the covenant, and some of the cultic aspects of the Law. This muting of specifically Jewish elements promotes broader application of the Law as not being ethnically bound” (104). 37.  On Josephus’s desire to highlight the relationship between Jewish law and Greek thought, see McClister, “Ethnicity,” 258–64.

Blazosky Final.indd 88

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

89

for the good of the nations. It would appear, even there, that the light entrusted to Israel—particularly the light of God’s revelation in the law—was not intended to be restricted to Israel alone (cf. Isa 42:6). In the Second Temple period, it becomes fairly common for Jewish authors to speak of the law as light (e.g., Sir 45:17; T. Levi 19:1; 2 Bar. 17:4; 59:2; LAB 9:8). When this metaphor occurs, there is often an indication that the law’s light is only for Israel. Two texts, however, stand out for how they use this same metaphor to suggest that the light of the Mosaic law is intended to shine beyond the borders of Israel. First, throughout Wisdom of Solomon 17–18, the author recounts Egypt’s judgment at the exodus, with an emphasis on the darkness that enveloped them. In Wis 18:4, justification is provided for why these enemies “deserved to be deprived of light.” The Egyptians deserved judgment because they had oppressed the children of Israel, the very people “through whom the imperishable light of the law was to be given to the world” (Wis 18:4). Luca Mazzinghi writes concerning this text: The Law is light not only for “your sons,” that is to say, for Israel, but actually for the whole world (τῷ αἰῶνι); that takes place, however, by means of the mediation of Israel (δι’ ὧν); the law is, therefore, a reality which, although revealed only to Israel, shines by means of Israel over the whole of humanity…. This clear juxtaposition of universalism and particularism in the light of the event of the Exodus appears, perhaps, as the most significant characteristic of the metaphor of the Law as light offered to us by Wisdom.38

Second, in the Testament of Levi, after challenging his offspring to know and follow the law (T. Levi 13:1–4), Levi speaks of a coming day when his offspring “will act impiously against the Lord” (14:1). When Levi’s descendants wander from the law, it will bring great harm to Israel, since his sons “should be the lights of Israel as the sun and the moon” (14:3). In the following verse, however, Levi challenges his sons to ponder what their impiety will mean not only for Israel but also for the nations. For what will all the nations do if you become darkened with impiety? You will bring down a curse on our nation, because you want to destroy the light of the Law which was granted to you for the enlightenment of every man, teaching commandments which are opposed to God’s just ordinances. (T. Levi 14:4) 38.  Luca Mazzinghi, “Law of Nature and Light of the Law in the Book of Wisdom (Wis 18:4c),” in Studies in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér, JSJSup 142 (Boston: Brill, 2010), 41; italics original. See also Wis 6:4 where leaders “of the ends of the earth” (6:1) are condemned for failing to “keep the law.” Because of its ambiguity, this text is not addressed further, but Mazzinghi may be correct that “we cannot entirely exclude from Wis 6:4 a further allusion to the Mosaic Law” (40).

Blazosky Final.indd 89

4/11/19 5:28 PM

90

Chapter 3

Again, this connection between the law and light is not surprising; but, as James Ware notes about this text, “What is unusual [is that] the beneficiaries of the light of the law include the gentiles (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη).”39 If the sons of Levi fail to obey and teach the law, it will result not only in a curse on Israel but also in judgment on the nations. This survey, while not reflecting every strand of Jewish thinking, sheds light on how certain authors understood the extent of the law’s applicability and value. Interestingly, many of the texts discussed share a positive outlook with respect to the law and Gentiles. In other words, when an author discusses the relationship of wisdom or natural law to the Mosaic law, the goal is typically not to universalize the law in order to condemn Gentiles for breaking it. The goal is, more often than not, to enhance the law’s attractiveness (e.g., Opif. 3; Let. Aris. 15–16; Ag. Ap. 2:281–84). At the same time, in texts where Gentiles are depicted more negatively or where judgment is more prominent, this concept of a universalized law could provide one potential path to the assertion that Gentiles are condemned and cursed for breaking the law.

IV. Gentiles and Law in the Jewish Literature My focus now turns to Jewish perspectives of Gentile condemnation. This section is divided into two parts: an overview of Gentile condemnation, followed by an analysis of eight Jewish texts in which the topics of the law and Gentile condemnation intersect. A. An Overview of Gentile Condemnation Just as in the OT, the Jewish literature provides a variety of reasons for the judgment of Gentiles. Of the many specific sins mentioned, perhaps the two most frequently cited are idolatry and the mistreatment of Israel.40

39.  James P. Ware, The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism, NovTSup 120 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 150–51. See esp. his treatment of T. Levi 14:3–4 and the Jewish roots of this text (notwithstanding obvious Christian interpolations in the book) (147–53). 40.  Pride is also frequently mentioned (e.g., Jdt 9:7–9; Sir 10:6–19; Pss. Sol. 2:30–31), alongside immorality, which is condemned especially in the third and fifth Sibylline Oracles.

Blazosky Final.indd 90

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

91

1. Condemnation for Idolatry and Mistreatment of Israel Lengthy sections of Jubilees and Wisdom of Solomon are devoted to the condemnation of idolatry and idolaters.41 As in Habakkuk, 1QpHab XII–XIII derides Gentiles for idolatry and testifies that, on the day of judgment, “God will exterminate all those who worship false gods” (1QpHab XIII, 3). But perhaps in no place is the connection between being a Gentile and an idolater as clear as in the rabbinic literature. Neusner summarizes a typical rabbinic view of Gentiles succinctly: “I cannot overstress the given on which all else is built: to be a gentile is to practice idolatry and to die.”42 The most vitriolic statements against Gentiles, however, often occur in connection with the mistreatment of Israel. The texts speak for themselves:43 “Indeed, the Lord will not delay, and like a warrior will not be patient until he crushes the loins of the unmerciful and repays vengeance on the nations” (Sir 35:22–23); “Cursed are all who speak a harsh word against you; cursed are all who conquer you” (Tob 13:12); “Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; he will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep in pain forever” ( Jdt 16:17). And, as the later Apocalypse of Abraham states: And then I will sound the trumpet out of the air, and I will send my chosen one, having in him one measure of all my power, and he will summon my people, humiliated by the heathen. And I will burn with fire those who mocked them and ruled over them in this age and I will deliver those who have covered me with mockery over to the scorn of the coming age. Because I have prepared them (to be) food for the fire of Hades. (Apoc. Ab. 31:1–3a)

The evils which merit condemnation for Gentiles in the Second Temple Jewish literature are, thus, quite reflective of the findings on this same issue in the OT. 2. The Varied Presentations of the Plight of Jewish and Gentile Sinners The presentation of the plight of sinners in this literature, however, is more varied than in the OT. Whereas the OT merges the plights of rebellious Israel and pagan nations, the Second Temple Jewish literature contains much greater diversity on this topic.44 41.  See Jubilees 20–22 and Wisdom of Solomon 13–14. Idolatry is also frequently condemned in later Jewish apocalyptic works such as Sib. Or. 5:75–85, 274–80; and the Apocalypse of Abraham 8; 31. 42.  Jacob Neusner, Rabbinic Categories: Construction and Comparison, JSJSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 367. 43.  See also Bar 4:30–35; Sir 36:1–13; 2 Bar. 72:1–6; T. Mos. 10:1–8. 44.  In this section, my focus is only on how texts which address condemnation present humanity’s plight. Many texts in both the OT and Second Temple Jewish literature certainly speak optimistically about the future restoration of Israel or the ingathering of the nations, but those texts, though

Blazosky Final.indd 91

4/11/19 5:28 PM

92

Chapter 3

Wisdom of Solomon is well-known for its differentiation of Jews and Gentiles. In Wisdom of Solomon 13–15, the author stresses the foolishness of idolatry. Idolatry leads not only to other sins such as immorality, murder, and theft; idolatry leads ultimately to divine condemnation (Wis 14:12–31). Most significant is the author’s contrast of Gentile idolaters and Israel. Though “just penalties will overtake” the idolaters (14:30), God, in his kindness, will always show mercy to his people. “For even if we sin we are yours, knowing your power; but we will not sin, because we know that you acknowledge us as yours” (15:2). In texts like this, the human plight is divided primarily along ethnic lines. On the other hand, several texts from Qumran provide an alternative to this kind of presentation of the human plight. In his chapter on non-Jews in the DSS, Lawrence Schiffman explains this distinctive feature from Qumran: Most Jews throughout the ages defined themselves over and against non-Jewish majorities. More often than not, these majorities were hostile to the Jews and helped in the erection of the very barriers that the Jews employed to define themselves. In the case of Qumran, the sect defined itself primarily over and against other Jews.45

Because of this tendency to differentiate insiders not simply from Gentiles but also from other Jews, texts from Qumran are often able to shed light on another strand of Jewish thinking concerning the human plight.46 For our purposes, two documents stand out for their contributions: the War Scroll (1QM) and the Rule of the Community (1QS).47 important to the broader question of Israel’s relationship to the nations, are tangential to the research question. 45.  Lawrence H. Schiffman, Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 365. 46.  There is considerable debate over the origin and nature of the Qumran community, as well as the provenance of the texts found at Qumran. For the current state of studies on Qumran and the DSS, see John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). For our purposes, two points are noteworthy. First, in 1QM and 1QS, there are clearly insiders and outsiders. Second, there are clearly Jewish people who are not part of the community described in these documents but who are grouped instead with other outsiders. Thus, these texts are relevant for the theme I am seeking to survey concerning the portrayal of the human plight. 47.  By treating 1QS and 1QM together, I am not intending to communicate that these texts necessarily originated from the same location or that they are intended to have the same function within the Qumran community. At the same time, these texts do share an important similarity with respect to how they group disobedient Jews with the nations. A few other texts from Qumran also make ancillary contributions. The Temple Scroll (11Q 19), which rehearses much of Deuteronomy, is interesting with respect to Gentiles. Michael Wise points out that, in every case where Deuteronomy discusses foreigners or sojourners, 11Q 19 entirely omits the discussion. See Michael O. Wise, “The Temple Scroll,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, ed. Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2005), 595. This phenomenon is likely indicative of the author’s “radical antipathy to Gentiles” (595). In a different maneuver, the pesher

Blazosky Final.indd 92

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

93

In both 1QS and 1QM, disobedient Jews and the nations are so unified that it is difficult to maintain any meaningful distinction between them.48 In 1QS II, 25–III, 12, no one who refuses to enter the yaḥad will be “reckoned among the upright,” for there is no atonement outside of “God’s true society.” Later, the author writes: “All those who despise His word, He shall destroy from upon the face of the earth. Their every deed is an abomination” (1QS V, 19).49 Michael Wise’s introductory remarks to 1QS are insightful: As the work describes it, the association is made up of priests, Levites (a secondary priestly order), “Israel,” and Gentile proselytes. In this context “Israel” means not the generality of Jews, but only those who accept the teachings of the group. Other Jews, along with the surrounding Gentile nations, are considered “Men of Perversity” who “walk in the wicked way.”50

Given the unity of disobedient Jews and the nations, the opening discussion in 1QS concerning initiation of members into the yaḥad is quite instructive: The Levites in turn shall curse all those foreordained to Belial. They shall respond, “May you be damned in return for all your wicked, guilty deeds. May the God of terror give you over to implacable avengers; may He visit your offspring with destruction at the hands of those who recompense evil with evil. May you be damned without mercy in return for your dark deeds, an object of wrath licked by eternal flame, surrounded by utter darkness. May God have no mercy upon you when you cry out, nor forgive so as to atone for your sins. May He lift up His furious countenance upon you for vengeance. May you never find peace through the appeal of any intercessor.” All the initiates into the Covenant shall respond to the blessers and cursers, “Amen, amen.” (1QS II, 4–10)

When this scene—reminiscent of Deuteronomy 27–28—is read in light of the rest of 1QS, it seems most likely that the “curse” pronounced on “all those

on Nahum (4Q169) takes biblical prophecies originally against Gentiles and reapplies them against disobedient Jews. See Hagedorn and Tzoref, “Attitudes,” 504. 48.  Because of the debates over the “sectarian” nature of many texts found at Qumran, rather than using the nomenclature of “non‑sectarian Jews,” I have chosen simply to use “disobedient Jews” as a way to describe those Jews who were viewed as outsiders from the perspectives of the authors of 1QM and 1QS. 49.  Quotations from the DSS are from Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2005). 50.  Michael O. Wise, “Charter of a Jewish Sectarian Association,” in Wise et al., Dead Sea Scrolls, 114. Later, Wise notes: “Everyone not belonging to the group is fated to everlasting damnation…. The charter’s long descriptive passages on hell and the fate of unbelievers are chilling, their detail doubtless a reflection of the almost palpable hatred of outsiders” (115).

Blazosky Final.indd 93

4/11/19 5:28 PM

94

Chapter 3

foreordained to Belial” falls on all who are not part of the yaḥad, whether they be Jews or Gentiles.51 Likewise, in 1QM, there is a clear presentation of the singular plight of sinners.52 From the opening lines concerning the battle against “the forces of the Sons of Darkness, the army of Belial,” the destruction of the wicked is regularly in view. Just as in 1QS II, there are instructions throughout 1QM XIII concerning the pronouncement of blessing on the faithful and curses on the wicked. After victory in battle, the chief priest, Levites, and elders are to “curse Be[li]al there and all the spirits of his forces” (1QM XIII, 1–2). They are to say, “Cursed is Belial for his contentious purpose, and accursed for his guilty dominion. And cursed are all spirits of his lot for their wicked purpose” (1QM XIII, 4). The section ends with the faithful praising the God of Israel for his power “to annihilate all the Sons of Darkness” (1QM XIII, 16). The critical contribution of 1QM to the human plight is the clarity with which the author groups disobedient Jews with sinful nations in its opening lines: For the In[structor, the Rule of] the War. The first attack of the Sons of Light shall be undertaken against the forces of the Sons of Darkness, the army of Belial: the troops of Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, the [Amalekites,] Philistia and the troops of the Kittim of Assyria. Supporting them are those who have violated the covenant. The sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, those exiled to the wilderness, shall fight against them…. Then the]re shall be a time of salvation for the People of God, and time of dominion for all the men of His forces, and eternal annihilation for all the forces of Belial. (1QM I, 1–2, 5)

From the introduction to the end of the scroll, there is no other mention of “those who have violated the covenant.” Humanity is divided into only two parties: the sons of light and the sons of darkness, the people of God and the forces of Belial. The point of this treatment of 1QM and 1QS is not to argue that these authors saw no differences of any kind between apostate Jews and the nations; instead, my aim has been to highlight the fundamental unity of both groups when God comes to judge. Donaldson’s remarks are helpful on this point. While clearly maintaining that the line between disobedient Jews and the nations never disappears for the 51.  This view is in contrast to that found in Rule of the Congregation (1QSa). In the opening lines, the author speaks of an expectation that the rest of Israel will join the yaḥad in the last days (1QSa I, 1–3). 52.  For extended discussion of the fate of the nations in 1QM, see Michael E. Fuller, The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-Gathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts, BZNW 138 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 133–48. Fuller notes well: “The most comprehensive account of a final triumph over the nations in EJL is found in the War Scroll (1QM), a document from Qumran. In many respects, 1QM is the apocalyptic counterpart of 1 Maccabees” (133).

Blazosky Final.indd 94

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

95

Qumran community, Donaldson notes that “they drew the fundamental dividing line not between Jew and Gentile but between their own community and the rest of the human world.”53 Grouping apostate Jews with sinful Gentiles is not, however, equivalent to stating that these two peoples are condemned on identical bases. The pronouncements of Deuteronomy-like curses on all sons of darkness may be suggestive, but neither 1QM nor 1QS ever directly indicts Gentiles for violating any particular set of laws or for breaking any specific covenant. There are, however, several other sources which do connect Gentile condemnation to specific bases. It is to those texts we now turn. B. Specific Texts on Gentile Condemnation and the Law of Moses In this section, eight primary sources which, in my view, speak directly to Gentile condemnation and the Mosaic law are examined.54 First, the LXX reading of Isaiah 24 is considered. Second, five Jewish sources from approximately 200 BCE to 100 CE are examined. Third, this section concludes with a discussion of Mekilta and Sifre on Deuteronomy, which, though later, also speak directly to the topic. Although these sources could be arranged in a variety of ways, given the relatively small number of sources, I have chosen to treat each individually and to arrange the texts primarily in chronological order, using generally accepted positions on the dates of each document.55 As the study proceeds, it will become apparent that texts usually classified as apocalyptic are most prevalent;56 yet, my 53. Donaldson, Judaism, 196. Cf. Johann Maier, “The Judaic System of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Neusner, Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 2, 105; Alex P. Jassen, “Survival at the End of Days: Aspects of Soteriology in the Dead Sea Scrolls Pesharim,” in This World and the World to Come: Soteriology in Early Judaism, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner, LSTS 74 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 202–10. In Jassen’s work on the pesharim, he finds a similar trend. In 1QpHab and 4Q171, for example, “a clear distinction is made between the detested foreigners and the apostate Jews” (202). Yet, Jassen notes later that, “as in related sectarian literature, the Pesharim also subscribe to a dualistic division of humanity, whereby the sectarians are predestined to be among the righteous Sons of Light and all others are likewise predestined to be among the Sons of Darkness” (206). 54.  Another possible example comes from Targum Neofiti, whose date of composition is uncertain. See esp. its discussions of Gen 3:22–24 and Gen 15:17–21 and how gehenna awaits the wicked because of their rebellion against the law. See Martin McNamara, “Some Targum Themes,” in Carson et al., Justification and Variegated Nomism, 1:312, 339–40. 55.  The order has been arranged by comparing introductions in a few standard works, namely, Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011); James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001); OTP. In subsequent discussions, little is typically said about the authors, backgrounds, or purposes of each source. For these matters and extended bibliographies, readers are referred to these works. 56.  It could be argued that most of these works belong to “Hellenistic Judaism.” This description is not very useful, however, since there is no consensus on what “Hellenistic Judaism” denotes. On the potential problems with using this nomenclature, see Lester L. Grabbe, “Hellenistic Judaism,”

Blazosky Final.indd 95

4/11/19 5:28 PM

96

Chapter 3

hope is that, by treating each source on its own merits, each will be heard for its distinct contribution. 1. Isaiah 24 in the LXX Not surprisingly, most observations concerning Hebrew terms related to laws, statutes, and covenants in the MT hold true for corresponding Greek terms in the LXX. To give just one example, the same basic observations about ‫ ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬from the MT can be made about διαθήκη αἰώνιος in the LXX.57 Though both phrases describe several covenants (e.g., Abrahamic, Davidic), only in Gen 9:16 are these phrases clearly in reference to the Noahic covenant. Likewise, neither phrase is used explicitly to refer to the Mosaic covenant, though both are applied to aspects of the Mosaic legislation. There are, however, at least two texts where modifications in the LXX are potentially significant to the discussion of Gentiles and law. In Deut 27:26, whereas the Hebrew text pronounces a curse on anyone who does not observe “the words of this law” [‫ּתֹורה־הַ ּז ֹאת‬ ָ ַ‫ת־ּד ְב ֵרי ה‬ ִ ֶ‫( ]א‬ESV), the curse in the LXX is pronounced on anyone who does not continue “in all the words of this law” [ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόμου τούτου] (NETS). This broader application of the curse of the law in Deut 27:26, signified by the use of πᾶσιν, is not surprising in light of the previous analysis of this text in chapter 1. Indeed, in my view, Paul will broaden the application further in his citation of this same verse in Gal 3:10, yet those discussions are best left for the analysis of Galatians in chapter 4. The one text in the LXX related to Gentile condemnation and the law which deserves more extended treatment at this juncture is Isaiah 24. In a similar way to the MT, the collocation of νόμος, διαθήκη, and ἀρά in Isa 24:5–6 is reflective of the covenantal curse for breaking the Mosaic law in Deut 29:19–21 (29:18–20 LXX). These are the only two textual units which contain all three words in the entire LXX.58 Furthermore, three differences in the LXX of Isaiah 24 suggest that the translator placed greater emphasis on the “law” than can be found in the MT. In 24:16, the wicked are defined by their response to νόμος, even though ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ is not used in any Hebrew text. Whereas the MT reads, “Woe is me! For the traitors have betrayed, with betrayal the traitors have betrayed” (ESV), the LXX describes the

in Neusner, Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 2, 53–55. Cf. also Dale B. Martin, “Paul and the Judaism / Hellenism Dichotomy: Toward a Social History of the Question,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/ Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 29–61. 57.  This claim includes the uses of various cognates of αἰώνιος in the OT. In the apocrypha, Sir 17:12 does use αἰών διαθήκη in reference to the Sinai covenant. At the same time, Sir 44:18 also records that “everlasting covenants” [διαθῆκαι αἰῶνος] were made with Noah. 58.  This claim is based on a search which requires that all three terms occur within one hundred words. Apart from Deut 29:18–20 and Isa 24:5–6, there are no matches in the LXX or the GNT.

Blazosky Final.indd 96

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

97

wicked differently: “But those who reject the law [οἱ ἀθετοῦντες τὸν νόμον] will say, Woe to those who reject” (NETS). The other potentially significant contrasts are found in 24:5 (see Table 6). Whereas the MT contains three charges against humanity, the LXX contains only two. Instead of a third charge that humanity has “broken the everlasting covenant,” this charge in the Hebrew text is subsumed in the second charge in the LXX, with διαθήκην αἰώνιον being used in apposition to προστάγματα. Humanity has “changed the ordinances—an everlasting covenant.”59 This reading places the emphasis on humanity’s response to νόμος and the προστάγματα, words which clearly refer to the Mosaic laws in every other occurrence of the collocation.60 Furthermore, διαθήκην αἰώνιον, being an appositive, is directly linked to προστάγματα, a term employed ubiquitously in the LXX to describe the regulations of the Mosaic law (e.g., Lev 18–20 [7×]; Ezek 18–20 [9×]; Amos 2:4).61 Lastly, in 24:5, though the MT and 1QIsaa both read “laws” [‫]תורת‬, a singular form of νόμος occurs in the LXX.62 Although the possibility of another Vorlage cannot be dismissed (4QIsac, for example, has a singular), it seems more likely that the translator made an intentional decision, especially since this verse contains the only plural of ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ in Isaiah. In any case, this singular form of νόμος is an added difficulty for those who would read 24:5 as a reference to the Noahic covenant. Thus, in my view, there is less ambiguity in the LXX than in the MT concerning the legal language in 24:5–6. Even though 24:1–6 focuses on the condemnation of humanity, the LXX translation of this chapter suggests that, at least in the eyes of the translator, 24:5–6 concerned the Mosaic law and the deuteronomic curse. 2. 1 Enoch Though portions of 1 Enoch may be classified as wisdom,63 the book as a whole is generally considered “apocalyptic.”64 Both 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra are classified similarly, and the Sibylline Oracles, though distinct, are often viewed in connection 59.  For a parallel to this concept of “changing the ordinances,” see 1 Macc 1:49 where Jews were challenged to violate their law and to “change all the ordinances” [ἀλλάξαι πάντα τὰ δικαιώματα]. 60.  Νόμος and πρόσταγμα occur together twelve times in the LXX (e.g., Lev 19:37; Neh 9:13–14; Amos 2:4). Only in Isa 24:5 is there any doubt about which laws and statutes are in view. 61.  The only other use of προστάγματα in Isaiah is in Judah’s song of victory in Isaiah 26. God is to be praised because his “ordinances [προστάγματά] are a light upon the earth” (Isa 26:9b). 62.  On the use of νόμος language in Isaiah 24, see Wilson de Angelo Cunha, LXX Isaiah 24:1–26:6 as Interpretation and Translation: A Methodological Discussion, SCS 62 (Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 131–56. 63.  Cf. VanderKam, Introduction, 89. VanderKam treats portions of 1 Enoch in his section on apocalyptic literature, while treating 1 Enoch 83–90, 37–71, and most of 91–108 with wisdom literature. Apart from 1 Enoch 37–71, most of this work is believed to have been written by 160 BCE. 64.  For a thorough introduction to Jewish apocalyptic literature and the history of interpretation, see John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 1–52. Cf. Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” 135. Bauckham’s description of apocalyptic is instructive: “The apocalypses are a literature of revelation in which seers receive, by heavenly agency, revelation of the mysteries of creation and the cosmos, history and eschatology.”

Blazosky Final.indd 97

4/11/19 5:28 PM

98

Chapter 3

Table 6. The MT and LXX of Isaiah 24:5

BHS & ESV

LXX & NETS

‫ֹׁשבֶ יהָ ִּכי־עָ ְברּו תֹורֹת‬ ְ ‫וְ הָ אָ ֶרץ חָ נְ פָ ה ּתַ חַ ת י‬ ‫חָ ְלפּו חֹק הֵ פֵ רּו ְּב ִרית עֹולָ ם‬

The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant.

ἡ δὲ γῆ ἠνόμησεν διὰ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας αὐτήν διότι παρέβησαν τὸν νόμον καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὰ προστάγματα διαθήκην αἰώνιον And the earth behaved lawlessly because of those who inhabit it, because they transgressed the law and changed the ordinances—an everlasting covenant.

with these works as well. Since all are treated below, it will be helpful to begin with a standard definition of this genre as put forward by the SBL Genres Project: “Apocalypse” is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.65

Jewish apocalypses are also known for their views of Gentiles. As Michael Theophilos remarks, “The overwhelming attestation of, references to, and portrayals of Gentiles in Jewish apocalyptic literature is that of their ultimate judgment and final destruction.”66 There is no doubt that 1 Enoch is relevant to this discussion as it identifies a basis for the judgment of Gentiles. The problem is that it is not clear whether this basis is the Mosaic law or some other law. This entire discussion is complicated by the lack of consensus over whether 1 Enoch reveals the existence of a competing form of Judaism (“Enochic Judaism”), which portrayed Enoch as the central revelatory figure, while decentralizing Moses and the revelation given through him.67 65.  John J. Collins, ed., Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, Semeia 14 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 9. Cf. the reflections on this definition in Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 1–52. See also Michelle Fletcher, “Apocalypse Noir: How Revelation Defined and Defied a Genre,” in The Book of Revelation: Currents in British Research on the Apocalypse, ed. Garrick V. Allen, Ian Paul, and Simon P. Woodman, WUNT 2.411 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 115–34. 66.  Theophilos, “Portrayal,” 91. 67.  For proponents of the view that “Enochic Wisdom” is an alternative to the Mosaic law, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom: An Alternative to the Mosaic Torah?,” in Hesed Ve-Emet, ed. Jodi Magness and Seymour Gitin, BJS 320 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 123–32; John J. Collins, “How Distinctive Was Enochic Judaism?,” Meghillot 5–6 (2007): 17–34; Helge S. Kvanvig, “Enochic Judaism—A Judaism without the Torah and the Temple?,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 163–77. For helpful critiques, see Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” 140–42; Paul Heger, “1 Enoch—Complementary or Alternative to Mosaic Torah?,” JSJ 41 (2010): 29–62. Heger’s critique of the “Enochic Judaism” proposal is fairly convincing (esp. 32–36). Heger notes that the emphasis on Enoch and the

Blazosky Final.indd 98

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

99

For our purposes, rather than seeking to navigate the debates over the existence of or nature of “Enochic Judaism,” I will simply highlight texts which are potentially significant to the question of Gentile condemnation and the Mosaic law, understanding that any conclusions from 1 Enoch about the law must be made with caution. First Enoch opens with an announcement of a universal judgment, which, in some respects, is connected with Mount Sinai. The “God of the universe” will come from his dwelling, “march upon Mount Sinai,” and exercise “judgment upon all” (1 En. 1:3–7). God will bring peace to the elect but “will destroy the wicked ones and censure all flesh on account of everything that they have done” (1:9). Collins is correct that a “mere reference to Sinai” does not necessitate that the Mosaic law is in view.68 But, as Andreas Bedenbender notes, “Wo aber der Sinai ist, wird das mosaische Gesetz, die Tora, nicht weit sein.”69 Indeed, it is difficult to see how the author could open with references to Sinai and judgment without intending a connection to be made between the two. Bauckham remarks: “The reference to Sinai as the location of the theophany (1 En. 1:4) is borrowed from Deut 33:1, but did not have to be had the author not wished to evoke the giving of the Law by which God will judge the world.”70 Likewise, in the broader context, in contrast with creation’s unwavering obedience to divine rule in 2:1–5:3, the ungodly are indicted for disobedience in 5:4–7:71 But as for you, you have not been long-suffering and you have not done the commandments of the Lord, but you have transgressed and spoken slanderously grave and harsh words with your impure mouths against his greatness. Oh, you hardhearted, may you not find peace! Therefore, you shall curse your days, and the years of your life shall perish and multiply in eternal execration; and there will not be any mercy unto you. In those days, you shall make your names an eternal execration unto all the righteous; and the sinners shall curse you continually—you together with the sinners. But to the elect there shall be light, joy, and peace, and they shall lack of explicit references to the Mosaic law do not necessarily indicate that there was “a dissident group of Enochic Judaism that abandoned the Torah, preferring Enoch’s revelation” (29). An easier explanation for the infrequent references to the Mosaic law is that the authors of 1 Enoch sought to maintain the “fictitious” view that Enoch wrote this work. “Both the Mosaic Torah and Israel were not mentioned in 1 Enoch to avert the slightest suspicion of its authenticity as a writing generated by Enoch before the institution of Israel and the revelation of the Torah” (37). 68.  Collins, “Distinctive,” 30. 69.  Andreas Bedenbender, Der Gott der Welt tritt auf dem Sinai: Entstehung, Entwicklung und Funktionsweise der frühjüdischen Apokalyptik, ANTZ 8 (Berlin: Institut Kirche & Judentum, 2000), 228. Cf. Heinrich Hoffmann, Das Gesetz in der frühjüdischen Apokalyptik, SUNT 23 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 129. “Die Nennung des Berges Sinai impliziert die Gabe der Tora.” 70.  Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” 142. 71.  It is worth noting that 1 En. 5:4–7 is not as far removed from 1 Enoch 1 as it may seem since 1 En. 2:1–5:3 contains only eight verses.

Blazosky Final.indd 99

4/11/19 5:28 PM

100

Chapter 3

inherit the earth. To you, wicked ones, on the contrary, there will be a curse. (1 En. 5:4–7)

The reference to “the commandments of the Lord” (5:4) and how transgression of these commands brings a “curse” in 5:4–7 may also suggest that violation of the Mosaic law is the cause of judgment in 1 Enoch 1. This support, however, is only valid if 5:4–7 refers to the Mosaic law rather than the cosmic order—an equally disputed point.72 In my view, the reference to Sinai in 1:4 and to “commandments” in 5:4 are mutually interpretive.73 Furthermore, the discussion of nature’s submission to divine rule (2:1–5:3) does not necessitate that “the commandments of the Lord” (5:4) refer to the cosmic order as well.74 As Bauckham remarks: [T]he example of the works of creation which never deviate from obeying God’s commandments to them cannot supply humans with the content of what God requires of them. The meaning is that, by contrast with nature’s obedience to God’s commands to them, the apostates are disobedient to God’s commands to them (in the Torah).75

Parallel discussions could be had on other judgment texts in 1 Enoch, particularly in 1 Enoch 91–107. One example occurs in the section of woes in 1 Enoch 94–103: “Woe unto you who alter the words of truth and pervert the eternal law!” (99:2a).76 Not surprisingly, there is debate not only about the target audience of this woe but also about the referent of the “eternal law.”77 The need at this point, however, is to forego further discussion in order to make a few concluding observations on 1 Enoch. First Enoch is clearly relevant to the study of the basis of Gentile condemnation. Nickelsburg observes wisely that “the centrality of judgment in 1 Enoch implies a corpus or collection of laws and commandments that formed the criteria for that judgment.”78 The question is which “collection of laws” is in view. For Nick72.  In favor of the Mosaic law in 1 En. 5:4, see Hoffmann, Gesetz, 131; Heger, “1 Enoch,” 46. In favor of the cosmic order, see Kvanvig, “Enochic Judaism,” 171; Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom,” 126. 73.  Rightly, Bedenbender, Der Gott, 228. 74.  Heger, “1 Enoch,” 46. 75.  Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” 142 note 42; italics original. As can be seen from this remark, Bauckham understands the disobedient in 1 En. 5:4–9 as apostate Jews. 76.  From 1 Enoch 94–103, thirty‑two woes are pronounced against sinners. Throughout these judgments, as is often the case in OT wisdom literature, the identity of the “sinners,” the “fools,” and the “wicked” is not specified. In many cases, it appears that apostate Jews are the target (e.g., 1 En. 94:8; 96:7; 99:14a), but, in at least 1 En. 99:6–9, Gentile idolaters are included among those destined for destruction. 77.  For extended discussion of 1 Enoch 99, as well as its possible relationship to Isa 24:5, see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, CEJL (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 363–81. 78.  Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom,” 125.

Blazosky Final.indd 100

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

101

elsburg, Collins, and others, the laws are not the Mosaic laws.79 For Bauckham, Heger, and others, the Mosaic law is in view, even if only implicitly in most cases. Although a definitive case cannot be made, it is, at the very least, plausible that the Mosaic law is presented in 1 Enoch 1–5 as a basis for the judgment of humanity. Furthermore, 1 Enoch contributes to how Jewish authors conceived of the human plight. Again, in commenting on 1 Enoch 1–5, Bauckham remarks well: Our text presupposes its readers know what is involved in keeping the Law properly and focuses on the fundamental distinction between those who live by it and those who reject it. This is also why there is an absolute and apparently exclusive division of people into the righteous and the wicked, a characteristic that continues in the rest of the Enochic tradition and in other apocalypses too.80

This “absolute” division of humanity into the righteous and the wicked is not uncommon. Just as in the OT, these texts merge the plights of disobedient Jews and sinful Gentiles. Thus, on the one hand, 1  Enoch is a potential witness not only to universal accountability to the law of Moses but also to the singularity of the plight of sinful outsiders, whether they be Jew or Gentile. On the other hand, because of the continuing debates over when 1 Enoch refers to the Mosaic law, conclusions from 1 Enoch on the law and Gentile condemnation must be drawn with a measure of caution. 3. Third Sibylline Oracle The third Sibylline Oracle is one of the earliest Jewish texts to make an explicit connection between Gentile condemnation and the Mosaic law.81 Throughout this oracle, as well as in many of the Sibyllines,82 the judgment of foreign nations is a constant theme. Babylon, Assyria, Rome, and several others are condemned for numerous sins, including the destruction of the temple (Sib. Or. 3:300–302, 327–330), violence (3:36, 311–13, 350–52), sexual immorality (3:37–38, 595, 761–66), and idolatry (3:601–6). It is the law’s role in the condemnation of these nations, 79.  In his commentary, however, Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001], 50) does seem open to the possibility that 1 Enoch 1 may allude to the Mosaic covenant. Part of Nickelsburg’s hesitancy seems related to the question of this monograph. He writes: “Since God will judge ‘all flesh’ (i.e., Jews and Gentiles), however, the Sinaitic covenant and Torah cannot be the only point of reference” (50). 80.  Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” 144. Cf. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 354–61. 81.  Though portions of this work may be dated as late as the latter part of the first century BCE, much of the third Sibylline Oracle was likely composed in the mid‑second century BCE. 82.  See Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” 186: “Typically the Sibyllines contain many oracles of destruction on nations, places, cities and empires, condemned for their various misdeeds, and reviews of world history culminating in an imminent climax of judgment leading to a golden age on earth.” See also his discussion on the assumption in the eighth oracle “that God’s law is for Gentiles as well as Jews” (187).

Blazosky Final.indd 101

4/11/19 5:28 PM

102

Chapter 3

however, that merits the most attention. Two passages best display the sibyl’s viewpoint: 3:218–90 and 3:573–623. The first discussion of the law in this oracle occurs in a unit focused on the people of Israel (3:218–90). The text opens with praise for Israel (3:218–64), shifts to Israel’s disobedience and exile (3:265–82), and concludes with the hope of Israel’s restoration (3:283–90). In the initial section of praise, the sibyl recounts how Moses led Israel to Sinai. From there, “God also gave forth the Law from heaven, having written all just ordinances on two tablets and enjoined them to perform it. And if anyone should disobey he would pay the penalty by law, whether at human hands or escaping men; he would be utterly destroyed in all justice” (3:256–60). In the following unit, the author applies this threat to the nation: Your whole land will be desolate; your fortified altar and temple of the great God and long walls will all fall to the ground, because you did not obey in your heart the holy law of the immortal God [ἀθανάτοιο θεοῦ ἁγνῷ νόμῳ], but in error you worshiped unseemly idols and you did not fear the immortal Begetter of gods and of all men but were not willing to honor him. But you honored the idols of mortals. (Sib. Or. 3:273–79)

Thus, the Mosaic law, “the holy law of the immortal God,” was given to Israel, threatened Israel with exile for disobedience, and condemned Israel for idolatry. In 3:573–623, the text also begins with praise for the Jewish people (3:573–600). In this case, however, the focus shifts to the disobedience of the nations and their condemnation (3:601–18), before holding out hope for the restoration of the earth (3:619–23). In the opening unit, the sibyl looks forward to when there will again be a “sacred race of pious men” (3:573) who share “in the righteousness of the law of the Most High” (3:580). This righteous race is then contrasted with the unholy, idolatrous nations: They do not honor with empty deceits works of men, either gold or bronze…such as mortals honor with empty-minded counsel. For on the contrary, at dawn they lift up holy arms toward heaven, from their beds, always sanctifying their flesh with water, and they honor only the Immortal who always rules, and then their parents. Greatly, surpassing all men, they are mindful of holy wedlock, and they do not engage in impious intercourse with male children, as do Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Romans, spacious Greece and many nations of others, Persians and Galatians and all Asia, transgressing the holy law of immortal God [παραβάντες ἀθανάτοιο θεοῦ ἁγνὸν νόμον], which they transgressed. (Sib. Or. 3:586–600)

Blazosky Final.indd 102

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

103

The sibyl then proceeds to prophesy judgment on humanity: “Therefore the Immortal will inflict on all mortals disaster…because they were not willing to piously honor the immortal begetter of all men, but honored idols made by hand” (3:601–6). Although other texts could also be mentioned,83 these two passages demonstrate the sibyl’s portrayal of Gentiles and law. On the one hand, the law was given to Israel and threatened Israel with judgment, particularly exile and temple destruction. On the other hand, the Mosaic law, “the holy law of the immortal God,” grounds the condemnation of Gentiles for their idolatry and immorality. A few other recent interpreters have made similar observations. Theophilos writes that “all people (including Gentiles) are required to keep the ‘just ordinances on the two tablets’ (3.257; cf. 3.195). The nations, however, have failed miserably, and hence stand under divine judgment (3.599–600).”84 Likewise, Bauckham remarks that “the Sibyllines in general…take for granted that the basic ethical commandments of the Torah are also God’s commandments to all people.”85 Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, however, while acknowledging that it may seem that the sibyl condemns Gentiles for breaking the Mosaic law, finds this interpretation “untenable.” The reasons given for this conclusion are noteworthy: According to III 599–600 and 686–687, pagans will be rebuked for their disobedience to the law of God. This criticism would be undeserved if by “law of God” the Mosaic law was meant. How could a pagan know the law which had been given exclusively to the Jews? In other words, in these passages, “law of God” must refer to an ethical and religious law known to all people.86

Buitenwerf ’s view is that it appears that “the expression ‘law of God’ sometimes refers to Moses’ law, sometimes to natural law.”87 Buitenwerf concedes, however, that the only distinction “is between a more and a less concrete form of one and the same law.”88 83.  Cf. Sib. Or. 3:669–700; 3:757–59. In this latter text, see esp. 3:686–87 where the wicked are judged “because they knew neither the law nor the judgment of the great God.” 84.  Theophilos, “Portrayal,” 77. 85.  Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” 186–87. 86.  Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting, SVTP 17 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 339–40. Collins (Apocalyptic Imagination, 152) remarks that “the sibyl treats the law in practice as if it were natural law. Other nations can be condemned for failing to observe it (vss. 599–600).” Suggesting that the law is treated “as if it were” natural law is different, however, than claiming, as Buitenwerf does, that the sibyl uses “law of God” to refer to natural law. 87. Buitenwerf, Sibylline, 340. 88.  Ibid. Buitenwerf goes on to suggest that “Moses’ law was taken by the author as a specimen or expression of natural law” (341). At the same time, Buitenwerf affirms that the author “did not see a fundamental difference between Jewish law and natural law” (341).

Blazosky Final.indd 103

4/11/19 5:28 PM

104

Chapter 3

In my view, this appeal to natural law to argue against Gentile accountability to the Mosaic law in the Sibylline Oracles—one also used with various OT texts— lacks textual warrant and comes close to begging the question with respect to the law’s potential role in Gentile condemnation. Bringing in natural law to remove any connection between the Mosaic law and Gentiles seems strained; or, as Stanley Stowers says more bluntly, “It would be wrong to force a theory of natural law upon the third Sibyl.”89 What can be demonstrated is that the author of the third Sibylline Oracle held that both disobedient Jews and idolatrous Gentiles were worthy of divine judgment for their transgression of the Mosaic law. Donaldson’s summary of the law in this oracle is a fitting conclusion: “Thus for the Sibyl the law of Moses functions as a universal law centred on three essential elements: monotheism, with its corollary, the rejection of idolatry; worship at the Jerusalem temple; and a set of basic moral injunctions.”90 4. Pseudo-Philo’s LAB Although Sirach and the works of Philo offer much to the general discussion of Gentiles and law,91 the next source wherein the law and Gentile condemnation clearly intersect is Pseudo-Philo’s Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (LAB hereafter).92 This source illustrates how several themes concerning Gentiles and law can be interwoven. After retelling portions of Genesis in LAB 1–8, the author begins to draw the reader’s attention to the family of Moses in LAB 9. [B]ehold now he [Moses] who will be born from him [Amram] will serve me forever, and I will do marvelous things in the house of Jacob through him and I will work through him signs and wonders for my people that I have not done for anyone else; and I will act gloriously among them and proclaim to them my ways. And I, 89. Stowers, Romans, 114. 90. Donaldson, Judaism, 162. 91.  In my judgment, Sirach, a second-century BCE work, though offering much to the discussions of the eternality of the law and the universal scope of the law, never directly connects Gentile condemnation to the law. As is often the case in the OT, when Gentiles are condemned in Sirach for sins such as pride (Sir 10:12–18) or mistreating Israel (Sir 35:21–36:13), the basis of their judgment is undefined. Sirach 10:19 does condemn human offspring “who break the commandments”; yet, in this text, as with many other Jewish wisdom texts, it is uncertain whether the Mosaic commands are in view. On the other hand, in Sir 41:5–10, where a woe is pronounced on “the ungodly, who have forsaken the law of the Most High God,” the Mosaic law appears to be in view, but the text more likely speaks of the judgment of apostate Jews than of humanity as a whole or of Gentiles in particular. Rightly, see Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 474–75. 92.  Though a later date is possible, LAB was likely composed before 70 CE. Harrington suggests that LAB may have even been composed during the lifetime of Jesus; see D. J. Harrington, “PseudoPhilo: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 2:299.

Blazosky Final.indd 104

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

105

God, will kindle for him my lamp that will abide in him, and I will show him my covenant that no one has seen. And I will reveal to him my Law and statutes and judgments, and I will burn an eternal light for him. (LAB 9:7–8)

After recounting Moses’s birth and role in the exodus (9:11–10:7), the author then shifts the focus to Sinai in LAB 11, the principal text on Gentiles and law in this work.93 My analysis centers on 11:1–5 and its impact on four law-related themes: the eternality of the Mosaic covenant, the law’s relationship to Israel, the scope of the law’s light, and the extent of the law’s condemning power. In 11:5, the author’s perspective on the eternality of the Mosaic covenant is unmistakable: And behold the mountains burned with fire, and the earth quaked, and the hills were disturbed, and the mountains were rolled about, and the abysses boiled, and every habitable place was shaken, and the heavens were folded up, and the clouds drew up water, and flames of fire burned, and thunderings and lightnings were many, and winds and storms roared, the stars gathered together, and angels ran on ahead, until God should establish the Law of his eternal covenant with the sons of Israel and give his eternal commandments that will not pass away. (LAB 11:5)

In this text, Israel’s encounter with God at Sinai is depicted as an event that shakes heaven and earth.94 In the latter portion, the author explicitly affirms the eternality of the Mosaic covenant and its laws. At Sinai, God instituted “the Law of his eternal covenant” and issued “his eternal commandments that will not pass away” (11:5; cf. 32:7). Furthermore, this text is equally clear on Israel’s unique relationship to the law. This eternal covenant is established specifically “with the sons of Israel” (cf. 11:3). In this same context, however, the author also affirms that the light of the law was intended by God to shine beyond Israel. God himself affirms: “I will give a light to the world and illumine their dwelling places” (11:1). This light is the same “eternal light” God promised to kindle for Moses in 9:8. The law, though established with the children of Israel, was given by God to illumine the world (cf. 51:3). Thus, the Mosaic law is eternal, established with Israel, and intended for the good of the world. In the rest of 11:1–2, the author reveals one more aspect of his 93.  The Mosaic covenant is significant throughout LAB, not only in these early chapters. On the “ten flashbacks” in LAB to the Mosaic covenant, see Erich Engler, “Reward and Punishment in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum” (Ph.D. diss., McMaster University, 2012), 120–22. 94.  On the tendency in LAB to underscore “the cosmic scope” of the Sinai events, see Kristine J. Ruffatto, “Visionary Ascents of Moses in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: Apocalyptic Motifs and the Growth of Visionary Moses Tradition” (Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 2010), 120–24.

Blazosky Final.indd 105

4/11/19 5:28 PM

106

Chapter 3

view of the law, namely, his perspective on the extent of the law’s condemning power. And in the third month after the sons of Israel had gone forth from the land of Egypt, they came into the wilderness of Sinai, and God remembered his words and said, “I will give a light to the world and illumine their dwelling places and establish my covenant with the sons of men and glorify my people above all nations. For them I will bring out the eternal statutes that are for those in the light but for the ungodly a punishment.” And he said to Moses, “Behold I will call you tomorrow…and I will put my words in your mouth, and you will enlighten my people, for I have given an everlasting Law into your hands and by this I will judge the whole world. For this will be a testimony. For even if men say, ‘We have not known you, and so we have not served you,’ therefore I will make a claim upon them because they have not learned my Law.” (LAB 11:1–2)

Though the law is of great benefit to the righteous, the law results in condemnation “for the ungodly” (11:1). “By this,” God declares, “I will judge the whole world” (11:2). Furthermore, efforts to offer excuses based on alleged ignorance of the divine statutes, instead of leading to pardon, only increase the guilt of the transgressors.95 On the one hand, this view of the law in LAB is not novel in terms of the Second Temple period. As Eckart Reinmuth notes, “Der Verfasser des LAB teilt die in der frühjüdischen Literatur vielfältig bezeugte Auffassung, daß das Gesetz unteilbar, universal und ewig gültig ist.”96 Yet, the clarity with which LAB fuses the law’s eternality, Israel’s unique relationship to the law, and the law’s universal validity is striking. With respect to Gentile condemnation specifically, what tends to remain implicit elsewhere becomes explicit in LAB: Israel’s law is able to condemn more than Israel. 5. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch Before turning to rabbinic discussions of Gentiles and law, two more apocalyptic works deserve mention: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.97 These sources—both composed after the destruction of the temple—contain many strong words of condemnation against Gentiles. The most relevant comments in 4 Ezra are found in 4 Ezra 7 in an extended discussion between Ezra and Uriel concerning the fate of humanity. Throughout the chapter, Ezra struggles with the horrific plight of sinners. Uriel, however, 95.  Rightly, Engler, “Reward,” 246. “For all humanity, claims of an ignorance of God’s ‘everlasting Law’ increases rather than mitigates culpability in the divine court.” 96.  Eckart Reinmuth, “Beobachtungen zum Verständnis des Gesetzes im Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo),” JSJ 20 (1989): 169. 97.  Both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch can be dated to sometime near 100 CE.

Blazosky Final.indd 106

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

107

repeatedly affirms that few will be spared, while multitudes will be condemned. Fourth Ezra 7:19–25 illustrates the tenor of this chapter and, in many ways, of the entire book: He [Uriel] said to me [Ezra], “You are not a better judge than the Lord, or wiser than the Most High! Let many perish who are now living, rather than that the law of God that is set before them be disregarded! For the Lord strictly commanded those who came into the world, when they came, what they should do to live, and what they should observe to avoid punishment. Nevertheless they were not obedient, and spoke against him; they devised for themselves vain thoughts, and proposed to themselves wicked frauds; they even declared that the Most High does not exist, and they ignored his ways. They scorned his law, and denied his covenants; they have been unfaithful to his statutes, and have not performed his works. That is the reason, Ezra, that empty things are for the empty, and full things are for the full.” (4 Ezra 7:19–25)

This text is a microcosm of 4 Ezra 7. The outlook for humanity is bleak, and the impending judgment is on account of disobedience to the law (e.g., 7:34–38, 46–48, 70–79; cf. 8:55–56). As Donaldson writes, “Gentiles were culpable, because although they knew God’s requirements, they scorned them and refused to follow them.”98 Admittedly, as is also the case with respect to other Jewish texts, there is occasional disagreement over the precise meaning of “law” in a given text in 4 Ezra.99 Yet, for our purposes, two points are most significant. First, the “law” is portrayed by both Ezra and Uriel as universally valid and binding. Second, even though the “law,” especially in Uriel’s view, may correspond to wisdom or the natural order, there is no bifurcation between the Mosaic law and the “law” in 4 Ezra. In other words, whether a given usage of “law” in 4 Ezra 7 denotes the Mosaic law or simply includes the Mosaic law in its purview, the text witnesses to the Mosaic law’s universal condemning power. While similar portrayals are found elsewhere, one potentially unique contribution of 4 Ezra comes from a vision about a divine son who would judge the nations (4 Ezra 13). Ezra is told that this conqueror would not only reprove the nations 98. Donaldson, Judaism, 181. Theophilos (“Portrayal,” 83) writes: “Although the Law is portrayed as a divine gift to Israel (3.19; 9.31), 7.21 makes clear that all people (including the Gentile nations) were offered the Law but deliberately rejected it” (italics original). That this passage includes all sinners, see Michael Edward Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 194–95; Steven D. Fraade, “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch with the (Dis‑) Advantage of Rabbinic Hindsight,” in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, ed. Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini, JSJSup 164 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 373. Fraade notes correctly: “4 Ezra, like other apocalyptic writings, is interested less in differentiating Israel from the nations than in distinguishing the righteous and wise from everyone else” (373). 99.  On the debates over the uses of “law” in 4 Ezra, see esp. Karina Martin Hogan, “The Meanings of Tôrâ in 4 Ezra,” JSJ 38 (2007): 530–52.

Blazosky Final.indd 107

4/11/19 5:28 PM

108

Chapter 3

for their ungodliness but also “destroy them without effort by means of the law” (13:38). Karina Hogan comments rightly: “Since this multitude is composed of ‘all the nations’ (13:33–34), the interpretation probably means that the tôrâ will be the standard by which all the nations of the world will be judged, in keeping with Uriel’s statement in 7:20–24.”100 The final apocalyptic work to be discussed is 2 Baruch, a work whose “central message,” according to Collins, “is quite clearly the need to observe the law.”101 Blessing is offered to those who obey the law, while judgment awaits those who disregard it. Bauckham remarks well that, in 2 Baruch, “the distinction between righteous and sinners comes down to a fundamental acceptance or rejection of the law.”102 The author of 2 Baruch is clear that the law belongs to Israel and determines their fate. These thoughts shape Baruch’s prayer in 2 Bar. 48:22–24: “Your Law is with us…. We are all a people of the Name; we, who received one Law from the One. And that Law that is among us will help us” (cf. 59:2). Baruch reminds the depleted tribes of Israel of this reality in 77:3: “To you and to your fathers the Lord gave the Law above all nations.” Thus, to avoid experiencing the fate of the previous generations, the people before Baruch must obey Moses’s voice (77:4–7; 84:1–6). The centrality of the law to Israel’s existence, however, does not mean that the law is valid only for Israel. On the contrary, 2 Baruch repeatedly affirms that the law determines the fate of all people.103 In 48:26–50, for example, Baruch is told that judgment is coming on humanity since “each one walked in his own works and did not remember the Law of the Mighty One” (48:38). Because of this rebellion, “the Judge will come and will not hesitate. For each of the inhabitants of the earth knew when he acted unrighteously, and they did not know my Law because of their pride” (48:39–40). Thus, Baruch confesses to the Lord: “Concerning all of those, their end will put them to shame, and your Law which they transgressed will repay them on your day” (48:47).104

100.  Ibid., 547. Cf. also Michel Desjardins, “Law in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra,” SR 14 (1985): 35. 101. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 275. Cf. Matthias Henze, “Torah and Eschatology in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, TBN 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 201–15. 102.  Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” 180. For another angle on the definitive role of obedience to the law in the judgment, see the treatment of proselytes and apostates in 2 Baruch 41–42. Bauckham summarizes well: “the obedience of the apostates before their apostasy is not counted in their favor, while the disobedience of the proselyte before their conversion is not counted against them in the judgment” (179). 103.  Cf. 2 Bar. 15; 54:13–14; 59:2; 82. 104.  For further discussion, see Donaldson, Judaism, 250–51.

Blazosky Final.indd 108

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

109

Fourth Ezra and 2 Baruch express similar viewpoints concerning both the law’s unique relationship to Israel and the law’s universal validity. Furthermore, both works underscore the law’s instrumental role in the final condemnation of humanity. In 4 Ezra 13:38, a son comes to judge the world by means of the law; and, in 2 Bar. 48:47, it is the law itself which will repay every transgressor on judgment day. 6. Mekilta and Sifre The final texts come from two early rabbinic sources, Mekilta and Sifre on Deuteronomy.105 Both passages present the idea that the nations were offered the law but rejected it. Furthermore, both allude to a common rabbinic view, namely, that Gentiles are obligated and accountable, not to the Mosaic laws, but to the Noahic laws. In Mek. Baḥodesh 5, there is an extended discussion about the relationship of the law to the nations. The text reads: “And it was for the following reason that the nations of the world were asked to accept the Torah: In order that they should have no excuse for saying: Had we been asked we would have accepted it. For, behold, they were asked and they refused to accept it” (Lauterbach, 2:316). As the discussion unfolds, Edom, Ammon, and other nations come to be offered the law. In each case, they ask what the law contains. Upon learning that the law prohibits sins vital to their identity, they refuse to accept it. Israel, however, responds unanimously that they will do everything in the law. At this point, Rabbi Simon b. Eleazar comments: “If the sons of Noah could not endure the seven commandments enjoined upon them, how much less could they have endured all the commandments of the Torah!” (Lauterbach, 2:317). After further discussion of the Noahic laws, another question is asked about why the law was not given in Israel’s land. Again, the focus turns to the nations. The law was given in the desert “in order that the nations of the world should not have the excuse for saying: Because it was given in Israel’s land, therefore we have not accepted it” (Lauterbach, 2:318). A related account in Mek. Baḥodesh 1 offers an additional reason: The Torah was given in public, openly in a free place. For had the Torah been given in the land of Israel, the Israelites could have said to the nations of the world: You have no share in it. But now that it was given in the wilderness publicly and openly 105.  Even though Mekilta and Sifre on Deuteronomy were not completed in their final form until perhaps the fourth century, many of the traditions in these sources reach back to the first two centuries CE. Citations from Mekilta are from Jacob Z. Lauterbach, ed., Mekilta de‑Rabbi Ishmael, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933); citations from Sifre are from Reuven Hammer, ed. and trans., Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986).

Blazosky Final.indd 109

4/11/19 5:28 PM

110

Chapter 3 in a place that is free for all, everyone wishing to accept it could come and accept it. (Mek. Baḥodesh 1, Lauterbach, 2:294)

In Sifre 343, there is a parallel account concerning the offer of the law. As in Mek. Baḥodesh 5, this discussion is closely connected to the statement in Deut 33:2 that “the Lord came from Sinai.” After a view is presented that the law was spoken originally in four languages,106 the next interpretation reaffirms many of the themes in Mekilta: When God revealed Himself to give the Torah to Israel, He revealed Himself not only to Israel but to all the nations. He went first to the children of Esau and asked them, “Will you accept the Torah?”…. And thus it was with every other nation—He asked them all, “Will you accept the Torah?,” as it is said, All the kings of the earth shall give Thee thanks, O Lord, for they have heard the words of Thy mouth (Ps. 138:4). One might think (from this verse) that they heard and accepted (His offer); therefore Scripture states elsewhere, And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the nations, because they hearkened not (Mic. 5:14). It was not enough for them that they did not hearken—they were not even able to observe the seven commandments that the children of Noah had accepted upon themselves, and they cast them off. (Sifre 343, Hammer, 352–53)107

In light of these texts, a few observations are in order. First, although these passages state that the Mosaic law was presented to the nations, it does not follow in these or many other rabbinic works that the law continued to belong to the nations. As Philip Alexander remarks, “The Torah may have been offered to all but once it was accepted by Israel it became, so to speak, her exclusive property.”108 In Sifre, for example, for a Gentile to seek a relationship with the law is compared to adultery. As Sifre 345 records, “The Torah is betrothed to Israel and has therefore the status

106.  On the subsequent rabbinic traditions which taught that the law was also translated into seventy languages and that “every nation sent secretaries (notarii) to make copies of these translations,” see Sacha Stern, Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings, AGJU 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 211. 107.  For a careful comparison of these two accounts in Mekilta and Sifre, see Steven D. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy, SUNYSJ (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 33–37. Though the accounts are quite similar, Fraade is likely correct that the account in Sifre places more emphasis on God’s “extra effort” to offer the law “to each and every nation,” which, conversely, results in an even more negative portrayal of the nations (35). 108.  Philip S. Alexander, “Torah and Salvation in Tannaitic Literature,” in Carson et al., Justification and Variegated Nomism, 1:291. For the view that there was “a school of thought in the early rabbinic period that held that its book, the Torah, was indeed intended for all people,” see Marc Hirshman, “Rabbinic Universalism in the Second and Third Centuries,” HTR 93 (2000): 101–15.

Blazosky Final.indd 110

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

111

of a married woman in relation to the nations of the world, as it is said, Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?” (Hammer, 357–58).109 Second, although Mekilta and Sifre do indicate that the nations are responsible for rejecting the law, it should also be noted that these sources are not focused on Gentile condemnation. Steven Fraade, in comparing Sifre and Mekilta to 4 Ezra, remarks well: “The point of these early rabbinic traditions is not to justify the final, imminent destruction of the world’s human inhabitants…as it is for 4 Ezra, but to justify Israel’s ongoing self-understanding as being the sole recipients and observers of Torah.”110 Thus, while the nations’ rejection of the Mosaic law could be viewed as a factor in their condemnation, this explicit application is not made in either Mekilta or Sifre.111 Lastly, these texts both allude to a prevalent rabbinic presentation of the law and Gentiles, namely, that there is another set of laws—the Noahic laws—to which the nations are accountable. Again, Philip Alexander comments well on this rabbinic view: “There is little suggestion that the nations are now or ever will be obliged to keep the Torah. They are required only to keep the seven commandments to the sons of Noah.”112 Mekilta and Sifre, while not developing this view, do suggest that appealing to Noahic law could be one potential path forward in explaining Gentile accountability. 7. A Brief Excursus on the Noahic Laws Throughout this chapter, little attention has been given to Noahic law as a basis for Gentile condemnation. The reason is simply that, prior to rabbinic literature, this view hardly surfaces. Bockmuehl notes that Jubilees 7 “is the earliest extant Jewish text that explicitly links Gen 9 with a universal ethic for the children of Noah,”113 yet it is not until the rabbinic literature that Jewish thinking on Noahic laws is given fuller expression. 109.  For further discussion of this passage, see Fraade, Tradition, 57–58; Magnus Zetterholm, “Jews, Christians, and Gentiles,” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell, ed. Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker, LNTS 428 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2010), 250. On the exclusive relationship of Israel to the law throughout the rabbinic literature, with a helpful list of primary sources, see Stern, Jewish Identity, 74–75. 110.  Fraade, “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch,” 374. 111.  For the different implications drawn from this account of the nations’ rejection of the law, see Stern, Jewish Identity, 211. Stern comments that one version “takes this refusal of the Torah as exonerating the nations from punishment for any subsequent transgression; but according to another version, also found in the Babylonian Talmud, this refusal constitutes an indictment against the nations: once the nations rejected the Torah, the Almighty ‘released them and threw them into Gehenna’” (italics original). Exodus Rabbah 5:9, which also comments on Deut 33:2, is a good example of the view that the acceptance of the law resulted in life for Israel, while the rejection of the law by the nations resulted in their death. 112.  Alexander, “Torah,” 291. Later, Alexander comments: “Torah is binding only on Israel. The nations are measured by a less demanding code, the commandments to the sons of Noah” (299). 113. Bockmuehl, Jewish Law, 156. This text, though not fully developing the idea of Noahic law, does place greater emphasis on Noah as a mediator of divine laws than can be found in Genesis 6–9.

Blazosky Final.indd 111

4/11/19 5:28 PM

112

Chapter 3

In t. ‘Abod. Zar. 8:4–8 in particular, the “seven religious requirements” given to the children of Noah are delineated. These commands include matters such as idolatry, blasphemy, and fornication, and these requirements play an important role in future discussions of Jewish relations to Gentiles in rabbinic literature (cf.  b. Sanh. 56a–59b).114 Bockmuehl summarizes the role of Noahic law in rabbinic discussions well: Briefly put, the topos of Noachide Law in rabbinic thought governs relations between Jews and non-Jews, and is thus a kind of functional equivalent to the Romans ius gentium. Its basis lies in the conviction that God gave certain pre-Sinaitic laws equally to all humankind, laws that may therefore form the ethical foundation of Jewish dealings with Gentiles.115

From my study, I have found no sources prior to the rabbinic literature wherein Noahic law is clearly presented as a basis for Gentile condemnation.116 Thus, this kind of contrast between Noahic laws for humanity and Mosaic laws for Israel seems to have developed well after the time of Paul and, certainly, well after the OT.117 114.  See esp. b. Sanh. 59a–b for rabbinic debates on the relationship of the Mosaic and Noahic laws and on how many of the Noahic laws were actually binding on Gentiles. Similar rabbinic discussions continued throughout the centuries. For two helpful treatments, the former on Moses Maimonides and the latter on Genizah fragments on Gentile responsibility to the Mosaic law, see Dov I. Frimer, “Israel, the Noahide Laws and Maimonides: Jewish–Gentile Legal Relations in Maimonidean Thought,” in The Jerusalem Conference Volume, JLAS II (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 89–102; Haggai Ben-Shammai, “Some Genizah Fragments on the Duty of the Nations to Keep the Mosaic Law,” in Genizah Research after Ninety Years: The Case of Judaeo-Arabic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 22–30. 115. Bockmuehl, Jewish Law, 150. 116.  It is also questionable whether the rabbinic literature connects Noahic law and natural law. Contra David Novak, Natural Law in Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 191. Rightly, Christine Hayes (Divine Law, 328–70) argues that early rabbinic literature does not equate natural law with Noahide or Mosaic laws. “Pre‑Sinai norms, including the Noahide laws, are not represented in rabbinic literature as invariable laws of universal application embedded in nature and discoverable by human reason, or as objectively valid moral goods that obligate us.” Though some laws may have been understood as “logical” and “self‑evident,” “the dominant rabbinic conception of the norms guiding humans prior to Sinai is positivistic: these norms were given to Noahides and the patriarchs by God, just as the Mosaic Law was given to Israel by God” (370). 117.  This is not to say that the laws given to Noah have no bearing on ethics in the NT or in Pauline literature. See esp. Bockmuehl, Jewish Law, 145–73. But, as Bockmuehl notes, there is insufficient evidence to claim that Paul was familiar with a Noahide law construct since “the Noachide Commandments as such were probably not explicitly formulated before the second century” (167). Similarly, in the decrees given from the Jerusalem Council, it is certainly possible that the Noahide laws form part of the background for some of these decrees. Cf. Emmanuelle Steffeck, “Some Observations on the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15.20, 29 (and 21.25),” in The Torah in the New Testament: Papers Delivered at the Manchester–Lausanne Seminar of June 2008, ed. Michael Tait and Peter Oakes, LNTS 401 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 133–40. Yet, it is important to note that these decrees are about how Gentile believers are to function in places wherein many Jews live. The basis of Gentile accountability is simply not part of this discussion in Acts 15.

Blazosky Final.indd 112

4/11/19 5:28 PM

The Second Temple Jewish Literature

113

V. Conclusion As would be expected with any study of the Second Temple Jewish literature, this analysis has uncovered a variety of opinions on matters related to the law and Gentiles. In this concluding section, I seek to relate key findings from this diverse body of literature to the previous analysis of the OT and to summarize the specific contributions the Second Temple literature makes to the discussion of the role of the law in Gentile condemnation. A. The Law in the Second Temple Jewish Literature The treatment of the OT raised questions concerning the eternality of the law, the extent of the law’s validity, and the law’s relationship to wisdom and natural law. The Second Temple Jewish literature sheds light, to some degree, on each issue. With respect to the law’s eternality, it is clear that several authors did not hesitate to call the Mosaic law or the Mosaic covenant eternal. This observation, while not proving that the “eternal covenant” in Isa 24:5 is the Mosaic covenant, further demonstrates the plausibility of such a view, especially since the LXX of Isaiah 24 appears to interpret the text in this way. On the extent of the law’s validity, certain OT passages suggest that the law’s scope extends beyond Israel. Although 1 Maccabees and later rabbinic writings restrict its applicability to Israel, there is also a universalizing tendency in many writers (e.g., Philo, Sirach). Furthermore, LAB, Wisdom of Solomon, and the Testament of Levi, in line with Exod 19:4–6, affirm that the light of the law was intended to shine beyond Israel. Two common paths toward universalizing the law are to link the Mosaic law with wisdom or with natural law. Both connections could be supported, to some degree, by the OT wisdom literature or a text like Psalm 19. It should be noted, however, that many authors universalize the law not to condemn Gentiles for breaking it but to highlight the law’s value. At the same time, it is only a small step from positing a universalized law to asserting that Gentiles could be condemned for transgressing that law. B. Gentile Condemnation and the Law in the Second Temple Jewish Literature The condemnation of the nations, just as in the OT, is a frequent theme in the Second Temple Jewish literature. In a work such as Wisdom of Solomon, Israel as a whole is strongly differentiated from the nations. In sources such as 1QS and 1QM, however, the differentiation is between insiders, comprised of faithful Israelites, and outsiders, consisting of both disobedient Jews and the nations. This latter perspective is most similar to the kind of homogenized presentation of sinners found throughout the OT, and especially in the Latter Prophets and the Writings.

Blazosky Final.indd 113

4/11/19 5:28 PM

114

Chapter 3

With respect to the sins for which Gentiles are judged in the Jewish literature, there is considerable overlap with the OT, especially in regard to the prominence of idolatry and the mistreatment of Israel. Furthermore, just as in the OT, it is also rare in Second Temple Jewish sources for a specific basis for Gentile condemnation to be mentioned. The authors often simply assume Gentiles are accountable for their sins rather than articulate the reasons for their culpability. At the same time, there are Jewish texts which do connect Gentile condemnation to a particular basis. The common proposal in OT studies that the Noahic covenant serves as this basis, however, is not well-represented in Jewish literature before 100 CE. This distinction between Noahic laws for humanity and Mosaic laws for Israel appears to be a later rabbinic development. This is not to say that there is no OT evidence for this theory, but it is important to note the paucity of textual support in early Jewish literature and to exercise caution so as not to impose a later construction of Noahic law onto the OT. Furthermore, even in the rabbinic literature, the point of discussing Noahic law was not to explain Gentile condemnation but to inform Jewish–Gentile interaction. With respect to the proposal that natural law grounds Gentile accountability, the key issue is not whether Jewish authors espoused a universal natural law. Clearly, some did. The crucial question is whether they saw natural law in contradistinction to the Mosaic law. In other words, did natural law serve as an alternate basis for Gentile condemnation? It is possible that 1 Enoch could be read this way, though my analysis suggested otherwise. Regardless, the more common approach to natural law in Second Temple Judaism was certainly not to bifurcate natural law and the Mosaic law but to merge them together. Particularly in Philo, the Mosaic law was not distinct from natural law but was, instead, the written form of the unwritten law of nature. In any case, the texts from the Second Temple Jewish literature which speak most directly to the basis of Gentile condemnation point neither to natural law nor Noahic law as that basis. The clearest affirmations, found in the Sibylline Oracles, LAB, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, are that sinful Gentiles are condemned for the same reason as disobedient Jews, namely, for breaking the Mosaic law. Furthermore, it will be through this law that God will judge the whole world (cf. LAB 11; 4 Ezra 13). Given the breadth of Jewish perspectives on many issues, there is not as much diversity as one might expect on this question. This is likely due, at least in part, to the limited number of texts which directly address the topic, as well as to the reality that this topic is discussed mostly in the same genre, namely, apocalyptic. At the same time, the value of these texts to understanding the relationship between Gentiles and law should not be discounted, especially given the lack of a clear alternative in the Second Temple Jewish literature. What was implicit in several OT texts on the condemnation of Gentiles becomes explicit in several Second Temple Jewish texts: the law of Moses, though given to Israel, has the ability to condemn more than the covenant members.

Blazosky Final.indd 114

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Chapter 4

Galatians

Introduction Chapters 4 through 6 contain my analysis of the Pauline corpus on the law and Gentile condemnation. Galatians, considered in this chapter, and Romans, in the next, form the backbone of my analysis. In chapter 6, five related passages are examined and compared with the findings from Galatians and Romans: 1 Cor 9:19–23; 15:56; Eph 2:13–15; Col 2:8–23; and 1 Tim 1:8–10. Regarding Galatians and Romans in particular, my goal is not to provide a comprehensive treatment of the Mosaic law. Instead, these chapters turn quickly to the critical texts and themes related to the human plight and the role of the law in that plight.

I. An Analysis of the First Person Plural Personal Pronouns in Galatians Much of Paul’s letter to the Galatians centers on the relationship of Gentiles to the Mosaic law. For our purposes, no verse is more important than Gal 3:13; and, as was demonstrated at length in the literature survey in the introduction, there is nothing near a consensus about the scope of those formerly under the law’s curse. When Paul says that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,” to whom is he referring? In order to identify the referent of these pronouns, it is first necessary to examine the first person plural personal pronouns (1PPs) in the letter as a whole.1 In at least Gal 1:6–9, the 1PPs exclude the Galatians. Paul uses “you” to refer to the Galatians and “we” in reference to himself and, perhaps, his co-workers. Galatian­s 1:9 reads: “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” In addition, in 2:15–16, Paul clarifies that “we” refers to “Jews by birth” and not “Gentile sinners.”

1.  This analysis of 1PPs includes both explicit occurrences of 1PPs as well as implicit uses in which “we” is included in first person plural verbs.

115

Blazosky Final.indd 115

4/11/19 5:28 PM

116

Chapter 4

Elsewhere in the letter, however, Paul clearly includes the Galatians when using 1PPs. This inclusive use is most evident in the greeting and conclusion. As Paul closes his letter, he writes: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers” (6:18). For “our” not to include the Galatian believers would be quite unlikely in this conclusion, especially since Paul calls them his “brothers.” More significant is 1:3–4: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.” Again, it is highly unlikely that Paul excludes the Galatians when he says “our Father,” “our God,” and “our sins,” especially since similar 1PPs are found in the greetings to every Pauline epistle. Jesus gave himself for both Paul’s and the Galatians’ sins. None of these readings is disputed. The difficulty is in identifying the referents of the 1PPs in Galatians 3–4, where Paul speaks frequently of the Mosaic law. In 3:21–4:11 in particular, there are reasonable arguments for and against reading the 1PPs as being inclusive of the Galatians. In 3:21–22, Paul states that the law was unable to give life (3:21); rather, the scripture imprisoned “everything” under sin, so that the promise could come “to those who believe” (3:22). The key 1PPs surface in 3:23–25: “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” Because of these references to the law and its function in salvation history, it is plausible that the 1PPs refer exclusively to Jews or Jewish Christians.2 Yet, in my judgment, while the past of Jewish believers is certainly in view as well—perhaps even primarily—several factors suggest that these 1PPs also include the Galatian believers.3 First, the flow of the argument from 3:21–22 to 3:23–25 suggests this reading.4 In 3:21, Paul asserts that νόμος is not against God’s “promises” [ἐπαγγελιῶν]. Instead, “the Scripture [ἡ γραφή] imprisoned everything under sin” so that the “promise” [ἐπαγγελία] could be given to “those who believe” (3:22). Though Paul uses γραφή instead of νόμος in 3:22, the direct link between what νόμος does not do to the 2.  For the many proponents of this position, the reader is referred to the literature survey on the interpretation of 3:13 in the introduction. For a particularly helpful presentation of this view that Paul differentiates the referents of the first and second person pronouns, see Robinson, “Distinction.” 3.  Rightly, Schreiner (Galatians, 246) remarks that “the first person ‘we’ in this context focuses on Israel since Paul refers to salvation history and to Israel’s experience under the law. Still, it does not seem that Gentiles are entirely excluded, for in 4:1–11 Paul lumps the Gentiles with Israel and places them under the law as well.” Cf. Moisés Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 178; Moo, Galatians, 241. Moo is more hesitant to say that Paul includes Gentiles in 3:23–25 than in 3:13–14 or 4:4–9; yet, in regard to 3:23–25 as well, Moo writes that Paul “somehow views this salvation‑historical sequence as relating to and even in some sense including the Gentiles” (241). 4.  Rightly, Andrea van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus, SBM 5 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968), 46–47.

Blazosky Final.indd 116

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Galatians

117

“promises” in 3:21 and what γραφή does do for the “promise” in 3:22 suggests that γραφή and νόμος are to be understood similarly (if not synonymously).5 In 3:23–25, Paul further develops these same themes from 3:21–22, especially how γραφή, via νόμος, formerly imprisoned believers so that they could eventually receive God’s promise through faith. In 3:21–22, the focus is universal. The scripture “imprisoned” [συνέκλεισεν] “everything” so that the promise could come to “those who believe” [τοῖς πιστεύουσιν] (3:21). In 3:23–24, “we” were “imprisoned” [συγκλειόμενοι] until the arrival of “faith” [τὴν πίστιν]. Νόμος was “our” guardian so that “we” might be justified “by faith” [ἐκ πίστεως]. The smoothest reading is that the “we” who were “imprisoned” ὑπὸ νόμον but are now justified through “faith” in 3:23–24 are the same people who were formerly “imprisoned” ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν but now “believe” in 3:22.6 Second, reading the 1PPs in 3:23–25 as referring to both Jewish and Gentile believers is confirmed by 3:26: “we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (3:25–26).7 Since 3:26 grounds 3:25, the “you” in 3:26 is best understood as part of the “we” in 3:23–25.8 Paul shifts to 5.  In favor of reading νόμος and γραφή synonymously, see John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 105; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 4th ed., NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 180; Sanders, Paul, the Law, 66, 87; Kuula, Law, 1:48–52. Schreiner’s suggestion (Galatians, 244) that γραφή refers to scripture as a whole is also possible. Similarly, Linda L. Belleville, “‘Under Law’: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3:21–4:11,” JSNT 26 (1986): 56–57. Regardless of whether γραφή and νόμος are synonymous, the context of 3:21–25 at least points toward seeing γραφή as speaking specifically through νόμος. See esp. Moo, Galatians, 239. Moo comments well that γραφή has “in view the testimony of Scripture in general, with a focus perhaps on how the OT as a whole functions, via the law, to bring everything under sin’s power” (italics added). 6.  Bruce (Galatians, 181–82) comments: “ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεθα συγκλειόμενοι is remarkably parallel to the confinement of v 22, but here, instead of sin as the jailor, law is the warden or custodian—a distinction without much of a difference.… To be ὑπὸ νόμον in the sense of v 23 is another way of expressing the experience of being ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν in the sense of v 22.… As Gentiles and Jews alike are ‘confined under sin’ in v 2, so Gentiles and Jews alike are ‘confined under law’ here.” Cf. Vouga, Galater, 87. Contra Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 41 (Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 145; Michael Bachman, Anti-Judaism in Galatians? Exegetical Studies on a Polemical Letter and on Paul’s Theology, trans. Robert L. Brawley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 78–80; Donaldson, “‘Curse,’” 95–99. Rightly, Martin, Christ, 100–104. Martin remarks: “Meaning depends on context. At Gal 2:15 Paul explicitly says ‘we Jews.’ This does not mean that ‘we’ always refers to ‘Jews’ in Galatians. Unless otherwise indicated it would be natural to see ‘we’ as referring to Paul and his Galatian readers and ‘you’ as referring to his Galatian readers who are mainly but not exclusively Gentile” (103). 7.  On Paul’s portrayal of a “guardian” [παιδαγωγός] in 3:24–25 as “an image of restraint and imprisonment,” see Das, Paul and the Jews, 154. On the background of παιδαγωγός, see esp. David J. Lull, “‘The Law Was Our Pedagogue’: A Study in Galatians 3:19–25,” JBL 105 (1986): 486–96; Richard N. Longenecker, “The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians,” JETS 25 (1982): 53–61; Michael J. Smith, “The Role of the Pedagogue in Galatians,” BSac 163 (2006): 197–214; Norman H. Young, “Paidagogos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor,” NovT 29 (1987): 150–76. 8.  Rightly, Ronald Y. K. Fung (The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 167) remarks: “The statement ‘we are no longer under a custodian’ (v. 25b, RSV) is explained

Blazosky Final.indd 117

4/11/19 5:28 PM

118

Chapter 4

“you” simply to highlight his emphasis: the Galatians’ status. The following paraphrase captures Paul’s point: “No believer is still imprisoned by νόμος or under its guardianship since all believers, and you in particular, are now full sons of God in Christ through faith.” Third, 4:1–7—which clearly draws on 3:21–29 for its discussions of guardians, sons, and heirs—strengthens the case for reading the 1PPs throughout 3:21–4:7 as inclusive of all believers. Paul first offers an illustration in 4:1–2 about the similarities between an heir during his childhood and a slave. Paul’s application follows: In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. (Gal 4:3–7)

The “we” who were enslaved to “the elementary principles” in 4:3 are the same people who were “under the law” whom God’s Son redeemed in 4:4–5a. The Son redeemed those who were “under the law” so that “we” could receive “adoption as sons” [υἱοθεσίαν]. There is little doubt that 4:3–5 has the same group of people in view. The following verses demonstrate that the Galatians are part of that group. Paul ties “you are sons” (4:6a) directly to the Spirit’s being sent into “our hearts” (4:6b) and to the purpose clause “that we might receive adoption as sons” (4:5b).9 He then concludes with the direct application of the initial illustration: “so you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God” (4:7). To argue that none of the 1PPs in 4:1–7 includes the Galatians is not convincing.10 Since the linguistic and thematic correspondence between 4:1–7 and 3:21–29 is so strong, the shift from 1PPs to 2PPs in 4:1–7 sheds light on how to understand by the sentence, ‘you are all sons of God in union with Christ Jesus’ (v. 26); this suggests that ‘we’ includes ‘you.’ Now the following context (vv. 27–29, especially v. 28) shows that ‘you’ refers to all Christians irrespective of race, status, or sex; this in turn suggests that the ‘we’ of the previous verses also refers to both Jews and Gentiles” (italics original). 9.  For an ancillary argument that 4:1–7 includes the Galatians, see Brian S. Rosner, “‘Known by God’: The Meaning and Value of a Neglected Biblical Concept,” TynBul 59 (2008): esp. 216–18. Rosner traces the concept of being “known by God” (cf. 4:9) in the OT and Second Temple Jewish literature and notes that being “known by God” is closely connected with being “adopted” into God’s family. This connection further supports that the “adoption” that “we” receive in 4:5 includes the same people who are said in 4:9 to have been “known by God” in 4:9, namely, the Galatians. 10.  Nevertheless, many attempts have been made to do so. E.g., Belleville, “‘Under Law,’” 68–69; Roland Bergmeier, Gerechtigkeit, Gesetz und Glaube bei Paulus: Der judenchristliche Heidenapostel im Streit um das Gesetz und seine Werke, Biblisch-theologische Studien 115 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2010), 61–66; Donaldson, “‘Curse,’” 96–97; Kruse, Paul, 95; Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),

Blazosky Final.indd 118

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Galatians

119

the same shift in 3:23–29. Paul is able to move freely between pronouns because he is not differentiating the former plight of Jewish and Gentile believers through his use of 1PPs in 3:21–4:7. Finally, 4:21–5:6 further confirms these observations. Paul introduces the Hagar and Sarah allegory with a challenge to the Galatians: “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?” After describing the two women, the covenants they represent, and their children, Paul asserts: “Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise” (4:28). After citing Sarah’s call to cast out the slave and her son, Paul applies the allegory: “So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you” (Gal 4:31–5:2). When Paul says that Christ set “us” free, the 1PPs must include the Galatians for the second person imperatives—“stand firm” and “do not be subjected again”—to be cogent (5:2). Paul’s warnings are based on the reality that Christ has set all believers free from slavery to νόμος (5:1).

II. Gal 3:10–14 on Gentiles and the Law’s Condemnation With these observations in mind, it is time to return to the debated interpretation of 3:10–14. In the broader context of 3:1–14, Paul argues from the Galatians’ experience and from Scripture that the Galatian believers are already true children of Abraham. No νόμος observance is required; in fact, reliance upon νόμος would undermine not only their position as Abraham’s children but, more importantly, the death of Jesus. In 3:10–14, Paul explains why the people of faith are the only ones who are blessed with Abraham (3:6–9). It is because those “who rely on works of the law are under a curse” (3:10a).11 In Paul’s view, νόμος cannot bring the Abrahamic blessing; νόμος can only curse, as affirmed in Deut 27:26: “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them” (3:10b).12 286. Though there are variations in how this argument is made, the typical reading is that Jews were under one form of the στοιχεῖα (i.e. the Mosaic law) while Gentiles were under another (i.e. idols). 11.  On this reading of the transition between 3:9 and 3:10, see esp. Mussner, Galaterbrief, 223. 12.  Although Paul’s logic in 3:10 continues to be hotly contested, the most likely explanation, in my view, is still the “traditional” perspective. Every person who relies on νόμος is cursed because νόμος curses every person who does not do everything written in it, and no one does all of it. This reading fits best with 5:2–4 where to accept νόμος is to be obligated to all of it and to be severed from Christ and all his death brings. Therefore, each person who relies on νόμος will be cursed for any disobedience, since, apart from Christ’s death, there is no possibility of forgiveness for sin. Rightly, Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 134–35; Moo, Galatians, 202–5. Marion L. Soards and Darrell J. Pursiful (Galatians,

Blazosky Final.indd 119

4/11/19 5:28 PM

120

Chapter 4

Table 7. The Language of Paul’s Quotation of Deuteronomy 27:26 in Galatians 3:10

BHS & ESV (Deut 27:26) ‫אָ רּור אֲׁשֶ ר ל ֹא־י ִָקים‬ ‫ּתֹורה־הַ ּז ֹאת‬ ָ ַ‫ת־ּד ְב ֵרי ה‬ ִ ֶ‫א‬ ‫לַ עֲׂשֹות אֹותָ ם וְ אָ מַ ר‬ ‫ּכָ ל־הָ עָ ם אָ מֵ ן‬

“Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.” And all the people shall say, “Amen.”

LXX & NETS (Deut 27:26)

UBS & ESV (Gal 3:10)

ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ὃς οὐκ ἐμμενεῖ ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόμου τούτου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτούς καὶ ἐροῦσιν πᾶς ὁ λαός γένοιτο. “Cursed be any person who does not remain in all the words of this law to do them.” And all the people shall say, “May it be!”

ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά. “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

Paul’s wording in this citation is worth careful examination (see Table 7).13 Most noteworthy are Paul’s use of “everyone” (following the LXX) and his shift from “the words of this law” (MT and LXX) to “all things written in the Book of the Law.”14 Paul uses a text about a curse for disobeying νόμος and broadens its application: “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law.” SHBC [Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2015], 135) propose that Paul uses Deut 27:26 to argue against the partial law observance promoted by his opponents. “Law observance is an all‑or‑nothing way of life.” Contra Christopher D. Stanley, “‘Under a Curse’: A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3.10–14,” NTS 36 (1990): 481–511; Richard B. Hays, “The Letter to the Galatians: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” NIB 11:257. Hays asserts that Paul cannot be teaching that it is impossible to fulfill νόμος or that νόμος calls for perfect obedience. He calls this view a “ridiculous caricature of Judaism.” Paul, however, is not explaining Judaism; rather, Paul is arguing that, if the Galatians turn to νόμος, they will be obligated to keep the whole νόμος. Christ’s death would mean nothing for them, and therefore they would face either the need for perfect obedience or a curse for disobedience. For defenses of this understanding, see Moo, Galatians, 204–5; Schreiner, Galatians, 203–7, 212–14; Das, “Paul and the Law,” 99–116. Das holds that Paul teaches that νόμος demands perfect obedience without teaching that Judaism itself was legalistic. The resolution comes through the salvation historical shift that occurred with the coming of Christ. Thus, “Paul is not making the claim that Judaism is legalistic. He has simply reconceptualised God’s grace in terms of Christ and thereby left the law’s commands without their corresponding provisions for failure and sin” (110). In personal correspondence with Michael Bird, he noted helpfully that it may be better to speak of the law’s demand for “comprehensive” obedience so that whatever the law requires, whether “perfection or intention,” no one is able to do it. 13.  For a survey of views on 3:10 and the function of Paul’s citation of Deut 27:26, see Stanley, “‘Under a Curse,’” 481–86. 14.  The phrase “written in the Book of the Law” may come from Deut 28:58 or 29:21. The former pronounces judgment on Israel and the latter on disobedient individuals. Particularly relevant to Deut 27:26 and to Gal 3:10 is Deut 29:21 (29:20 LXX) which reads: “The LORD will single him out from all the tribes of Israel for calamity, in accordance with all the curses of the covenant written in this Book of the Law.”

Blazosky Final.indd 120

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Galatians

121

By itself, this citation does not demand that all believers were formerly cursed by νόμος. Though the comprehensive language may point in this direction, Paul could simply be saying that, if the Galatian believers turn to νόμος, they will now be under the curse of the law. The rest of the paragraph is needed to understand whether Paul teaches that the Galatians were formerly under the law’s curse. After contrasting Hab 2:4b with Lev 18:5b (3:11–12), Paul returns to the theme of “the curse of the law” and connects this curse directly to the crucifixion. Christ died to redeem “us” from the curse of the law (3:13). Christ bore this curse and removed it by hanging on the tree. Through Christ’s crucifixion, the curse that ought to have been on those who disobeyed νόμος (3:10) fell on him and was exhausted (3:13). When read together, the two citations from Deuteronomy, being linked by ἐπικατάρατος, imply that those redeemed from the curse in 3:13 were formerly under the curse pronounced in 3:10. Thus, the “curse” of Deut 27:26, in Paul’s view, is not merely potential but is an actual curse that used to be on those whom Christ has now redeemed. This reading brings us back to the key question of whether the Galatians are included in the “us” in 3:13. As demonstrated previously, the 1PPs are capable of either reading. As discussed in the introduction, Wright is well-known for reading these pronouns as exclusively referring to Israel.15 With respect to Gentiles and the law, Wright comments: The gentiles were not “under the curse of the law”; the law of Moses did not apply to them, nor was their being cursed by it ever suggested in Deuteronomy, nor was any such curse on non-Israelites ever a problem blocking the way for the Abrahamic promises to flow to the world. Verse 13 only makes sense if the Messiah somehow represents Israel, so that he can appropriately act on their behalf and in their place.16

Thus, Wright’s basic reading of 3:13 to 3:14 is that Christ’s death ends Israel’s exile, thereby rescuing them from their failure to the covenant (3:13). At the same time, and most importantly for the Galatians, the removal of Israel’s covenantal curse (“us” in 3:13) clears the path for Gentiles to obtain the promises made to Abraham (3:14a), while also opening the door for Jewish believers (“we” in 3:14b) to covenant renewal (3:14b).17 15.  For his exegesis, see Wright, Climax, 137–56. Cf. also Wright, Justification, 122–25; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 863–67. 16. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 865; italics original. 17.  Similarly, see Jean-Noël Aletti, “L’argumentation de Ga 3,10–14, une fois encore: Difficultés et propositions,” Biblica 92 (2011): 198–200; Hays, “Galatians,” 11:260–62. For responses to Wright’s position, see Kim, Paul, 136–41; Mark A. Seifrid, “Blind Alleys in the Controversy over the Paul of History,”

Blazosky Final.indd 121

4/11/19 5:28 PM

122

Chapter 4

Although this reading may be attractive, the case is stronger for reading the 1PPs in 3:13 inclusively for several reasons. First, as already discussed, 1:4, 4:3–7, and 4:30–5:1 contain similar themes about Christ’s work; and, in each case, the 1PPs in those texts are best read inclusively. Especially in 1:4, the Jewish terminology of “rescue” (cf. ἐξαιρέω in Exodus and Acts 7:34) is applied directly to both Jewish and Gentile sinners. Jesus “rescued us from this present evil age.” Thus, to argue that only Israel (or Jewish Christians) is in view in 3:13 because of the 1PPs or because of the Jewish terminology is, at least, neither essential nor in line with the closest parallels in the letter. Second, the movement of the argument from 3:13 to 3:14 suggests that the 1PPs include the Galatians. In 3:14, Paul develops two purposes for Christ’s death. Christ bore the curse for “us” so that, in him, the Abrahamic blessing could come to Gentiles, the ones particularly in view in this section (3:14a). It is unnecessary to argue that this ἵνα clause indicates that the redemption of “us” in 3:13 must precede Gentile blessing (i.e. Christ redeemed Israel from exile so that the blessing could then flow to Gentiles). Instead, Paul is simply specifying why Christ died for the Galatians: so that they could receive the Abrahamic blessing. Thus, if the Galatians now turn from Christ to the law, they would undermine the very purpose of Christ’s curse-bearing death (cf. 2:21). Furthermore, Christ bore the curse so that “we” could receive the promised Spirit through faith (3:14b). This “we” is best read as including the Galatians since their reception of the Spirit was the starting point of this section (3:1–5). Since the Galatian believers have the Spirit among them (3:1–5, 14), they need nothing more to be full members of the people of God. They are already Abraham’s true children. If this “we” in 3:14b includes the Galatian believers, it is unnecessarily difficult to maintain that the 1PPs in 3:13 do not include the Galatians.18 Third, Paul’s frequent pronominal shifts, rather than distinguishing Jewish and Gentile Christians, undermine this very distinction which Paul’s opponents are TynBul 45 (1994): 86–92; Norman H. Young, “Who’s Cursed: And Why? (Galatians 3:10–14),” JBL 117 (1998): 83–84; Westerholm, Perspectives, 366–84; Timothy G. Gombis, “The ‘Transgressor’ and the ‘Curse of the Law’: The Logic of Paul’s Argument in Galatians 2–3,” NTS 53 (2007): 81–93; Schreiner, Galatians, 206–7. Schreiner rightly points out that Paul never uses the language of exile and that, if Paul had exile in mind, the Galatians could have made a different application. If Israel suffered the curse for failing to keep the Torah, “then ‘We will keep Torah and avoid the curse’” (207). 18.  Rightly, Hans-Joachim Eckstein, Verheissung und Gesetz: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2,15–4,7, WUNT 86 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 151–54. Cf. Joachim Rohde, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, THKNT 9 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989), 145. Contra Hays, “Galatians,” 11:262; John W. Taylor, “The Eschatological Interdependence of Jews and Gentiles in Galatians,” TynBul 63 (2012): 291–316. Taylor’s article has perhaps the most plausible argument that Paul intentionally differentiates the pronouns to show the interdependence of Jewish and Gentile salvation (i.e. there could not be one without the other), but the difficulties stated here, especially the clearly inclusive 1PPs in 1:4, still suggest that this kind of proposal places too much weight on the pronominal shifts.

Blazosky Final.indd 122

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Galatians

123

seeking to emphasize. Through his use of pronouns, Paul is able to highlight the fundamental equality of the human predicament. From the introductory verses in Galatians onward, the pronominal shifts serve a positive rhetorical function. On this point, Das notes well: The apostle is thereby underscoring the point that all people, whether Jew or Gentile, are under the same plight from the Mosaic Law with its curse for disobedience. Paul signals this all-inclusive emphasis in the very first verses of the letter when he speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ as the one “who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age” (1:4).19

Fourth, as demonstrated in the preceding chapters, this view that the law can condemn more than Israel is plausible both in terms of the OT’s own teaching, as well as contemporary Jewish discussions of the extent of the law’s condemning power. It would seem that much of the reason why there is such debate over the pronouns in 3:13 or why so many qualifiers are added by those who think Paul includes Gentiles under the law’s curse (e.g., “in a sense,” “in some sense,” “somehow,” “in a transferred sense”) may be a presupposition that Gentiles cannot be under the curse of the Mosaic law. From my analysis of the OT and the Second Temple literature, however, there is no reason to doubt that a Jewish author could have viewed the law as having universal condemning power.20 Finally, though this last argument cannot be developed at length, Paul’s use of similar Jewish terminology and of 1PPs in discussions of Gentile deliverance throughout his writings reaffirms that 3:13 most likely refers to Christ’s cursebearing death for all believers. Since the language of redemption, blessing, and curse in 3:6–14 is drawn especially from the Torah, it is understandable why it is often argued that 3:13 speaks of the Messiah’s work for only Jewish believers. Paul, however, regularly applies this same kind of Jewish terminology to the deliverance of both Jews and Gentiles (see Table 8). When using OT imagery in connection to the death of Jesus, Paul regularly speaks of both Jewish and Gentile Christians as direct benefactors of the cross. 19. Das, Paul and the Jews, 127. Cf. Martyn, Galatians, 334–36. 20.  See esp. Jeffrey R. Wisdom, Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: Paul’s Citation of Genesis and Deuteronomy in Gal. 3:8–10, WUNT 2.133 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 194. In this work, Wisdom argues that “the curse of the covenant falls on the apostate. The curse falls on the one who has abandoned covenant loyalty and has turned to other gods. To be under the curse means to be placed outside the realm of covenant blessings. It means to be expelled outside the covenant.” Wisdom notes well that this curse on apostates was “a fairly common theme in Second Temple literature.” But the law’s curse was not on apostate Jews alone. “Gentiles, who according to the law were idolaters by definition, were outside the covenant blessings.” Thus, from Paul’s point of view, “gentiles were under the curse of the law in the sense that they were viewed as gentile idolaters, and thus they were outside the covenant.”

Blazosky Final.indd 123

4/11/19 5:28 PM

124

Chapter 4

Table 8. Examples of Jewish Terminology Applied to Gentile Deliverance Rom 3:22–25 1 Cor 1:30 1 Cor 5:7–8 Eph 1:7 Col 1:12–14 Titus 2:14

Christ provides “redemption” [ἀπολύτρωσις] through his propitiatory sacrifice [ἱλαστήριον: 7× in Lev 16] for “all” who believe. Jesus has become to “us” wisdom from God, righteousness, sanctification, and “redemption” [ἀπολύτρωσις]. The Corinthians are to “cleanse out the old leaven” and “celebrate the festival,” since Christ, “our Passover lamb” [τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν], has been sacrificed. “We” have “redemption” [ἀπολύτρωσιν] through Christ’s blood. God qualified the Colossians to share in the “inheritance” [κλῆρος], in that he “delivered” [ἐρρύσατο] “us” and provided “redemption” [ἀπολύτρωσιν] in Christ (cf. Exod 6:6–8). Jesus gave himself “for us to redeem us” [ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς] and to purify “a people for his own possession” [λαὸν περιούσιον] (cf. Exod 19:5; Deut 7:6).

Table 9. Examples of Paul’s Use of 1PPs when Speaking of the Death of Jesus Rom 4:25 Rom 5:1–11; 8:31–39 1 Cor 5:7 1 Cor 15:3 1 Thess 5:10 Col 1:12–14 Col 2:13–14 Titus 2:14

Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses.” Paul uses seventeen 1PPs (and no 2PPs) to describe the death, resurrection, and intercession of Jesus for “us.” Christ, “our Passover lamb” was sacrificed. “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (cf. Gal 1:4). Christ “died for us” (cf. Eph 5:2). God qualified “you” to share in the inheritance, in that he delivered “us.” In Christ, “we” have redemption (cf. Exod 6:6–8). God made “you” who were dead in sins and uncircumcision alive, having forgiven “us” all our sins by canceling the record of debt that stood against “us.” Jesus gave himself “for us to redeem us.”

Furthermore, Paul’s virtually uniform practice of speaking of the beneficiaries of the death of Jesus is to use 1PPs (see Table 9). Even on the rare occasions where Paul describes Christ’s death without using 1PPs or clearly inclusive terminology (e.g., sinners, the church), the context clarifies that Paul is not distinguishing how Christ’s death relates to different believers. In Gal 2:20, though Paul says that Christ “loved me and gave himself for me,” Paul does not intend to differentiate how Jesus’s death related to him versus others. Likewise, 2 Cor 8:9 speaks of how Jesus became poor for “your sake,” but this wording is meant simply to sharpen Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians to give sacrificially. From my study, if the 1PPs in Gal 3:13 are meant to refer only to Israel (or Jewish Christians), this would be the only time that Paul makes such a statement about the benefits of Christ’s death.21 21.  Though the 1PPs in 2:15–16 refer exclusively to Jewish believers (i.e., Peter and Paul), those pronouns do not dictate how 3:13 must be read. Furthermore, in 2:15–16, Paul specifies explicitly that the 1PPs refer to Jews: “we ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners.” Rightly, Dieter

Blazosky Final.indd 124

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Galatians

125

In summary, if the Galatian believers turned to νόμος, not only would they be cursed, they would be spurning the purpose of Christ’s death—to redeem them from the curse of νόμος for their sins. In Paul’s view, the curse of the law of Moses is on all who are disobedient, but Christ redeemed “us” from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for “us” so that “we” could become blessed members of Abraham’s family.

III. The Law’s Inextricable Bond with Ἁμαρτία, Σάρξ, Στοιχεῖα, and Κόσμος in Galatians The initial task has been to identify Paul’s perspective on the extent of the law’s condemning power. The analysis of 3:10–14 has demonstrated that νόμος curses not only Jewish sinners but all sinners. Paul does not distinguish the former plight of Jewish and Gentile believers in this respect. My final objective in Galatians is to examine Paul’s portrayal of νόμος as one of several enslaving powers of the old age. A. Νόμος and Σάρξ in Galatians This discussion begins with the commonly observed connection between σάρξ and νόμος. In 3:2, Paul asks: “Did you receive the Spirit [τὸ πνεῦμα] by works of the law or by hearing with faith [ἐξ ἔργων νόμου…ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως]?” The questions continue in 3:3: “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit [πνεύματι], are you now being perfected by the flesh [σαρκί]?”22 Paul concludes in 3:5: “Does he who supplies the Spirit [τὸ πνεῦμα] to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith [ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως]?” This section contrasts πνεῦμα and ἀκοὴ πίστεως with σάρξ and ἔργα νόμου. Reliance on πνεῦμα is the opposite of reliance on σάρξ, a theme which continues throughout Galatians. For our purposes, however, the most significant observation is that σάρξ is aligned with νόμος in opposition to both πνεῦμα and πίστις. This pairing of σάρξ and νόμος also continues throughout the rest of the letter. Sänger (Die Verkündigung des Gekreuzigten und Israel: Studien zum Verhältnis von Kirche und Israel bei Paulus und im frühen Christentum, WUNT 75 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994], 273–74 note 466) argues not only that 2:15–16 does not dictate the reading of 3:13 but also that the first plural verb of 3:14 substantiates reading the 1PPs in 3:13 as inclusive of all believers. 22.  In light of Paul’s focus on both the act of circumcision done in σάρξ and the evil σάρξ which opposes God’s πνεῦμα, it seems likely that some of Paul’s references to σάρξ, like here in 3:3, are double entendre. In other words, the physical act of circumcision done in “flesh” is characteristic of the evil “flesh” which opposes the Spirit. Cf. John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 394. In commenting on a similar phenomenon in 6:11–16, Barclay observes: “Since ‘circumcision’ and ‘flesh’ are readily associated (circumcision is called ‘the covenant in your flesh,’ Gen 17:13), Paul trades on the negative connotations of the term σάρξ developed earlier in this letter (3:3; 4:23; 5:13–6:10).”

Blazosky Final.indd 125

4/11/19 5:28 PM

126

Chapter 4

After 3:3, σάρξ does not appear again until Paul’s account of Hagar and Sarah in 4:21–5:1. In 4:23, Paul says that the son of the slave was born “according to the flesh” [κατὰ σάρκα], while the son of the free was born “through promise” [δι’ ἐπαγγελίας]. The slave woman, Hagar, corresponds to the present Jerusalem and represents the Sinai covenant, which bears children for slavery [εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα] (4:24–25).23 Sarah, on the other hand, corresponds to the Jerusalem above and is the mother of God’s true children (4:26). The Galatians, “like Isaac, are children of promise” (4:28). Paul uses σάρξ next in 4:29, again in reference to Hagar’s offspring. In this case, however, the contrast is between σάρξ and πνεῦμα. Just as the one born “according to the flesh” [κατὰ σάρκα] persecuted the one born “according to the Spirit” [κατὰ πνεῦμα], so it is now (4:29). As in 3:1–5, this juxtaposition of σάρξ and πνεῦμα occurs in a discussion of νόμος. Σάρξ cannot produce heirs of the promise; instead, σάρξ is reflective of νόμος in that it bears children for slavery. Though these uses of σάρξ are important, Paul’s primary teaching concerning σάρξ occurs in his exposition of Christian freedom in 5:13–6:10. True freedom is the freedom to serve one another willingly in love, empowered by God’s πνεῦμα (5:13–16). It must never be abused as “an opportunity for the flesh” [εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί]. In 5:16–23, Paul develops the dichotomy between σάρξ and πνεῦμα. Walking by πνεῦμα guarantees that σάρξ will not be satisfied since σάρξ and πνεῦμα constantly oppose each other (5:16–17). In 5:19–23, Paul contrasts the works of σάρξ with the fruit of πνεῦμα. Whereas σάρξ leads to numerous vices and, ultimately, to death, walking by πνεῦμα leads to righteous fruit such as ἀγάπη and πίστις, against which there is no νόμος (5:23). In the middle of 5:16–23, however, one statement is unexpected. In 5:18, Paul writes: “But if you are led by the Spirit [πνεύματι], you are not under the law [ὑπὸ νόμον].” If 5:16–23 is read in isolation, it is difficult to explain why Paul says ὑπὸ νόμον in 5:18. But if attention has been given to the νόμος/σάρξ connection established in 3:1–5 and 4:21–5:1, Paul’s use of ὑπὸ νόμον is understandable.24 Just 23.  On the law’s enslaving power in 4:21–5:1, see esp. Das, Paul and the Jews, 128. “It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the non‑Christian Jew is still in bondage in the era of the flesh and the Law with its curse.” See also Yon-Gyong Kwon, Eschatology in Galatians: Rethinking Paul’s Response to the Crisis in Galatia, WUNT 2.183 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 165. Kwon rightly calls attention to the continuing power of the law to curse and enslave. “The law is still alive and active, which is eloquently illustrated by ‘the present Jerusalem’ (4:25) and now, to Paul’s dismay, by the crisis in Galatia. The Galatian crisis itself presupposes the ongoing relevance of the law and its curse (3:10; 4:8–11; 5:1).… It is simply not true to say that the coming of Christ rendered the law eschatologically ‘obsolete’ or ‘inoperative’.… It is precisely because the law is so lethal, cursing and enslaving those who are under it, that the Galatians’ foolish wish to be under the law constitutes such a serious crisis” (italics original). 24.  F. F. Bruce (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977; repr., 2000], 203) remarks: “For Paul, to be ‘under law’ is one way of being ‘in the flesh.’ ” Cf. In-Gyu Hong (“Being ‘Under the Law’ in Galatians,” ERT 26 [2002]: 368–69) who writes: “For Paul the flesh is also an enslaving power of the old age, just like the law.… It can be said that subjection to the flesh is equivalent to slavery under the law” (368). On the contrast between Paul’s view of νόμος and σάρξ versus

Blazosky Final.indd 126

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Galatians

127

as walking by God’s πνεῦμα keeps one from the dominion of σάρξ, so being led by the πνεῦμα indicates that one is not under the dominion of νόμος. To be ὑπὸ νόμον is to be controlled by σάρξ (and vice versa), but to be freed from νόμος is to be freed from σάρξ (and vice versa). B. Paul’s Use of Ὑπό with Accusatives Elsewhere in Galatians, νόμος is also linked with other enslaving powers. In 3:21–4:11, themes of slavery and oppression dominate the discourse. Especially noteworthy are Paul’s seven uses of ὑπό with accusatives.25 In 3:21–22, Paul states that γραφή, via νόμος, imprisoned all things ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν. BDAG rightly identifies this use of ὑπό as a “marker of that which is in a controlling position.” To be ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν is to be under sin’s power. This connotation is seen again in 3:23: “we were held captive under the law” [ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεθα].26 Through these initial uses of ὑπό, ἁμαρτία and νόμος are portrayed as reigning powers, operating together to bring about one result: humanity’s imprisonment.27 Similar uses of ὑπό occur throughout 3:21–4:11, further revealing the connection between νόμος and enslaving powers. Like an heir’s experience while “under guardians and managers” (4:1–2), so also believers were enslaved “to the elementary principles of the world” [ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου] (4:3). Because of humanity’s condition, Christ came as one ὑπὸ νόμον to redeem those who were ὑπὸ νόμον (4:4–5). In 4:9–10, Paul then questions how the Galatians, after being known by God, could possibly desire to be enslaved again to the στοιχεῖα by observing Jewish special days.28 Philo’s understanding of νόμος as the key to overcoming σάρξ, see Johannes Woyke, “Nochmals zu den ‘schwachen und unfähigen Elementen’ (Gal 4:9): Paulus, Philo und die στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου,” NTS 54 (2008): 228–31. 25.  The background of Paul’s usage of ὑπὸ νόμον is unclear. It is plausible that Paul coined the phrase himself, though a similar phrase does occur in Ag. Ap. 2:210. For the proposal, drawing on some Targums and rabbinic traditions, that ὑπὸ νόμον was employed by Paul’s opponents and subverted by Paul, see Joel Marcus, “‘Under the Law’: The Background of a Pauline Expression,” CBQ 63 (2001): 72–83. For the proposal that “under law” is Pauline shorthand for “under the curse of the law,” see Todd Wilson, “‘Under Law’ in Galatians: A Pauline Theological Abbreviation,” JTS 56 (2005): 362–92. Similarly, see Hong, “‘Under the Law,’” 372–73. 26.  Van Dülmen (Theologie, 46) notes: “Die Haft ist schwerlich nur eine ‘Schutzhaft’, sondern strengste Gefangenschaft, als Bild für den unerträglichen Zustand vor Christus.” 27.  On the connection between ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν and ὑπὸ νόμον in 3:22–23 as well as in Romans, see esp. Schreiner, Galatians, 246–47. Cf. Rosner, Paul, 56. Rosner’s section is entitled: “‘Under the law’ is sometimes equivalent to being ‘under sin.’ ” Cf. also Frank Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans, NovTSup 61 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 77–78. Also see Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia, ed. Hilton C. Oswald, Luther’s Works 25 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1972), 322: “Sin and the wrath of God come through the Law. Therefore no one dies to the Law unless he dies also to sin, and whoever dies to sin dies also to the Law. And as soon as a man is free from sin, he is also free from the Law.” 28.  For a thorough defense that 4:10 is focused on Jewish festivals and special days, see James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 238–41. See also Schreiner, Galatians, 279; Leon Morris, Galatians: Paul’s Charter of Christian Freedom (Downers Grove,

Blazosky Final.indd 127

4/11/19 5:28 PM

128

Chapter 4

Through his usage of ὑπό, Paul establishes a link between νόμος, ἁμαρτία, and τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. C. The Relationship between Νόμος, Ἁμαρτία, Σάρξ, and the Στοιχεῖα Given this connection between νόμος and enslaving powers, it is important to consider why Paul groups the divinely given νόμος with evil forces. Is it simply the occasion of the letter that brings about such a negative depiction of νόμος, or is there an overarching category in Paul’s thought that ties these enslaving powers together? 1. The Meaning of Στοιχεῖα In my view, τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου provides the framework for Paul’s presentation of νόμος and the human plight. The problem is that there is pervasive disagreement over what τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου means. The three common views—discussed ubiquitously in the secondary literature—are that τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου refers to the basic components of the universe, to elementary teachings, or to demonic powers.29 Each proposal has weaknesses, which proponents of differing views aptly point out. Though contemporary usage favors the first view,30 it is hard to explain how νόμος observance is a return to slavery to elements such as earth, fire, and wind. In what sense is νόμος a basic component of κόσμος?31 In addition, this interpretation tends to see κόσμος as fairly neutral in 4:3; whereas κόσμος is clearly negative in Paul’s conclusion to the letter in 6:14, where it refers to the old order (cf. “the present evil age” in 1:4). Yet, this interpretation remains strong because of the IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 135; Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), 232–34. De Boer’s suggestion that Paul intentionally chose “words that could cover both Jewish and pagan calendrical observances” is plausible but perhaps unnecessary in light of the connection already made between νόμος and στοιχεῖα in 4:1–5; see Martinus C. de Boer, “The Meaning of the Phrase Τὰ Στοιχεῖα Τοῦ Κόσμου,” NTS 53 (2007): 217. 29.  For the history of interpretation of στοιχεῖα, see Andrew John Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul’s Teaching (Kampen: Kok, 1964). Though dated, this work remains valuable to the present study. Also see Burton, Galatians, 510–18. For recent surveys of these three positions and their proponents, see Moo, Galatians, 260–62; Clinton E. Arnold, “Returning to the Domain of the Powers: ‘Stoicheia’ as Evil Spirits in Galatians 4:3, 9,” NovT 38 (1996): 55–76; David R. Bundrick, “Ta Stoicheia Tou Kosmou (Gal 4:3),” JETS 34 (1991): 353–64; Eduard Schweizer, “Slaves of the Elements and Worshipers of Angels: Gal 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 18, 20,” JBL 107 (1988): 455–68. 30.  On the contemporary usage of στοιχεῖα, see esp. Josef Blinzler, “Lexikalisches zu dem Terminus τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου bei Paulus 1961,” in Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 429–43. For a sampling of ancient texts that fit best with this first meaning, see Wis 7:17; 19:18; Sib. Or. 2:206; 3:80; Jub. 2:8; 2 Pet 3:10, 12; Philo, Mos. 1:96–97; Josephus, Ant. 3:183 and J.W. 1:377; also cf. later works from the Apostolic Fathers such as Diogn. 8:2 and Hermas, Vis. 13:3. For proponents of this position, see esp. Richard E. Demaris, “Element, Elemental Spirit,” ABD 2:445; Martyn, Galatians, 393–406; Moo, Galatians, 262; Schweizer, “Slaves,” 466–68; de Boer, “Meaning.” 31.  For elaboration on the difficulties with this proposal, see Belleville, “‘Under Law,’” 65.

Blazosky Final.indd 128

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Galatians

129

contemporary usage of this phrase and the ancient association of the material elements with spiritual powers.32 The proposal that στοιχεῖα refers to basic instruction has greater difficulties.33 Whereas νόμος could contain instruction for the immature, it is questionable whether Paul portrays νόμος as containing childish instruction versus advanced teaching. As Timothy George comments, “The folly of the Galatians did not consist in their lack of intellectual prowess or academic acumen but rather in their spiritual blindness.”34 In Heb 5:12 where στοιχεῖα refers to basic instruction, the clarity comes through contextual signs such as “teachers,” “milk” versus “solid food,” and the linking of στοιχεῖα to the oracles of God. Galatians 4:1–11 lacks these contextual markers. Furthermore, this view does not fit well with Paul’s use of ὑπό and the slavery motif in 3:21–4:11. Enslavement to forces or powers corresponds better to the context than enslavement to instruction. In regard to the third proposal, it is worth noting that the idea that evil spirits are in view in 4:1–11 fits within the first proposal as well.35 The difference is that, in the third view, στοιχεῖα denotes evil spirits. This identification is perhaps its biggest weakness since there is a lack of support for στοιχεῖα meaning demonic powers in contemporary literature.36 In addition, demonic powers are not mentioned elsewhere in Galatians.37 32.  See Moo, Galatians, 262. Vielhauer (“Gesetzesdienst,” 553–55) may very well be correct that Paul chose to use the phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in Galatians 4 for the specific purpose of portraying the law as a “universal versklavende Macht” of this age (553). 33.  Proponents of this position include Bundrick, “Stoicheia”; Scot McKnight, Galatians, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 204; Witherington III, Grace, 285; Belleville, “‘Under Law,’” 67–69; Longenecker, Galatians, 165–66; G. Walter Hansen, Galatians (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 116; Herman Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 153–54. 34.  Timothy George, Galatians, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 296. For a critique of BDAG’s preference for identifying στοιχεῖα in Galatians 4 as a reference to “fundamental principles,” see de Boer, “Meaning,” 205–7. 35.  See Moo, Galatians, 262. For identifying the στοιχεῖα as demonic beings, see Arnold, “Returning.” See also Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches of Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 204–5; John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, BST (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), 105; Bo Reicke, “The Law and This World according to Paul: Some Thoughts concerning Gal 4:1–11,” JBL 70 (1951): 259–76. 36.  For critiques of this third position, see esp. Witherington III, Grace, 284. Witherington states: “There is absolutely no lexical evidence that στοιχεῖα has such a meaning before or during NT times” (italics original). For a counterargument, see Arnold, “Returning,” 57. Arnold attempts to reframe the issue by suggesting that interpreters should not be as concerned about the date of extant texts as with “whether we can date any of the traditions that make use of the term stoicheia as supernatural powers to the first century or before. To this question we can give an overwhelming positive response” (italics original). 37.  Though Satan and his forces are behind idolatry and energize the present evil αἰών, Paul does not draw attention explicitly to demonic powers in Galatians. The only relevant reference to angelic beings is in 3:19 where νόμος was given δι’αγγέλων; it is not likely, however, that this phrase means that νόμος came through the hands of evil angels. Rightly, Ragnar Bring, “Der Mittler und das Gesetz: Eine Studie zu Gal 3:20,” KD 12 (1966): 299. Contra Reicke, “Law,” 261–63. It should be noted,

Blazosky Final.indd 129

4/11/19 5:28 PM

130

Chapter 4

Furthermore, though Paul speaks of guardians (personal beings) in 4:1–2, it does not follow that στοιχεῖα in 4:3 must be personal beings. Since Paul personifies enslaving powers elsewhere (νόμος in 3:21–25; ἁμαρτία in 3:22; σάρξ in 5:16–17), it is likely that Paul either personifies στοιχεῖα or uses στοιχεῖα to refer to powers already personified. Thus, it is safer to suggest that στοιχεῖα includes rather than specifies demonic beings. 2. A “Basic” Proposal Since good arguments can be given for each view, this debate will inevitably continue. Of the three proposals, the first seems most likely, especially as articulated by Moo, who draws attention to the connection between the material elements and spiritual powers.38 Yet, for our purposes, the goal is not to define στοιχεῖα as much as to identify how Paul relates νόμος and other enslaving forces to the στοιχεῖα and, ultimately, how Paul integrates these ideas into his presentation of humanity’s plight. With this end in view, Andrew Bandstra’s definition of στοιχεῖον is a helpful starting place. Bandstra suggests that στοιχεῖον was “a formal word meaning something like ‘inherent component.’ It was thus capable of taking on a wide variety of specific meanings as it was used in different spheres of ideas…. The connotation of ‘fundamental’ or ‘basic’ was an important connotation of the term.”39 In other words, στοιχεῖα refers to something “basic,” the content of which is filled in only by context. My desire is simply to highlight contextual factors within Galatians that fill in the content of στοιχεῖα. First, στοιχεῖα refers most likely to enslaving powers. Humanity was enslaved ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (4:3), and the Galatians’ adoption of Jewish special days indicated their desire to return to slavery to the στοιχεῖα (4:9). Since ὑπό in 3:19–4:11 is used repeatedly to signify being under the authority of powers or people (3:22, 23, 25; 4:2, 4, 5), it makes sense for ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου to be viewed similarly.40 however, that not all who hold that στοιχεῖα refer to demonic powers do so on the basis of 3:19. See esp. Arnold, “Returning,” 62. Arnold argues for a reference to demons in 4:3 and 4:9, but against demonic mediation of νόμος in 3:19. 38. Moo, Galatians, 262. Wisdom 13:1–2 is a good example of how material elements and planetary bodies could be viewed in connection with transcendent spiritual powers: “For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature…but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world.” 39.  See Bandstra, Law, 46. Though Bandstra’s exegesis is at times questionable, his general understanding of στοιχεῖα as referring especially to σάρξ and νόμος in Galatians is commendable. Furthermore, his sensitivity to the negative connotations of κόσμος in 4:3 is helpful. Moo (Galatians, 262) is correct in his clarification of how Bandstra’s proposal should be understood. Moo suggests that, Bandstra’s view, “often categorized with the ‘principal’ interpretation (στοιχεῖα as basic principles), may ultimately fit better in this category: the στοιχεῖα as the ‘elementary forces’ of flesh and law.” 40.  See Bandstra, Law, 46. In Bandstra’s final part of his definition of στοιχεῖα, he states: “Inextricably bound up in the word’s use was the concept of ‘power’ or ‘force.’ ”

Blazosky Final.indd 130

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Galatians

131

Second, Galatians 3–6 informs readers which specific στοιχεῖα Paul has in mind. The link between νόμος and στοιχεῖα is unmistakable in 4:3–5 and 4:9–10. In addition, the connection between being ὑπὸ νόμον and ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν supports identifying ἁμαρτία as one of the forces included in the στοιχεῖα as well. Furthermore, 4:8–9 ties false gods explicitly to the στοιχεῖα. Finally, although σάρξ is not mentioned in 3:19–4:11, the recurring presentation of σάρξ as a powerful force, the close association of σάρξ with νόμος (3:1–5; 4:21–5:1; esp. 5:16–18), and the depiction of σάρξ as the source of idolatry (5:19–21) indicate that σάρξ should also be viewed as part of the enslaving στοιχεῖα. Though demonic powers are also likely included via their connection elsewhere to κόσμος and idolatry,41 the forces more clearly linked to στοιχεῖα in Galatians are these four: idols, νόμος, ἁμαρτία, and σάρξ. My proposal is not that στοιχεῖα, by itself, denotes these things, nor is it that this list is exhaustive; my proposal is simply that Galatians itself suggests that at least these four enslaving powers comprise τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. The last contextual factor that shapes the meaning of στοιχεῖα is the genitive phrase τοῦ κόσμου. In my view, this point is not always given due consideration. Not only does Paul link στοιχεῖα to κόσμος in 4:3, he also does this twice in Col 2:8–23. In Col 2:20 specifically, Paul not only speaks of death to τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου through union with Christ, he also emphasizes that this death implies that one is no longer alive ἐν κόσμῳ, a theme very related to Paul’s climactic statement concerning κόσμος in Gal 6:14. Because of the significance of κόσμος to στοιχεῖα and to Paul’s view of Gentiles and νόμος, the next discussion is devoted to its usage in Galatians. D. Νόμος as a Power of the Old Age Though κόσμος is more often thought of in relation to Johannine literature, Paul himself uses κόσμος forty-seven times. Many of these occurrences refer simply to the universe or humanity in general; yet, Paul also regularly portrays κόσμος negatively as “the system of human existence” in opposition toward God (see BDAG; cf. 1 Cor 1–3). 41.  On the link between idolatry and demons, see 1  Cor  10:19–21. Paul regularly connects demonic influence to αἰών and κόσμος as well. In 1 Cor 2:6–8, though “the rulers of this age” who opposed Christ could be human authorities, as Rosner and Ciampa contend, contemporary biblical and Jewish authors connect “supernatural figures” to “such acts against God.” This αἰών is ruled by demonic powers (cf. Eph 6:11–12); see Brian S. Rosner and Roy E. Ciampa, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 125. Cf. also 2 Cor 4:4; Col 2:8–23; Eph 2:2. In Paul’s theology, Satan energizes this evil age in which all humanity is held captive. For discussion of the relationship between the spiritual powers of darkness and the personified powers of death, sin, law, and flesh, see Clinton E. Arnold, Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001), 129–34.

Blazosky Final.indd 131

4/11/19 5:28 PM

132

Chapter 4

In Galatians, though κόσμος occurs just three times, each use is important. In 4:3, Paul speaks of believers’ former enslavement ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου; then, in his conclusion, Paul twice mentions crucifixion with reference to the κόσμος (6:14). In both 4:3 and 6:14, κόσμος occurs in the context of a discussion concerning νόμος. To understand deliverance from the κόσμος in the postscript, it is important first to recognize the parallel concept in the introduction. In 1:4, the Messiah died to rescue us “from the present evil age” [ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ]. Though believers remain, in a sense, within this evil age, they do not belong to this age. The new age has dawned, and Christ has already rescued his people from this evil age.42 This deliverance in 1:4 is mirrored by the deliverance from the κόσμος in 6:14. Schreiner notes correctly that these two texts are likely intended to form an inclusio in the letter.43 Both αἰών and κόσμος refer to the old age from which believers have been rescued. In 6:12–15, κόσμος is linked to νόμος and, specifically, to circumcision. Paul’s opponents compel the Galatians to be circumcised to avoid persecution for the cross. Paul, however, does not seek to avoid the offense of the cross; rather, he exclaims that he will never glory in anything but the cross since it is through the cross that the κόσμος has been crucified to Paul and Paul to the κόσμος (6:14). The old order that defined human existence in terms of circumcised and uncircumcised has been crucified through the cross. What matters now is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision (6:15a); “what matters instead is a new creation” (6:15b, HCSB), which the cross brings about. The cross frees a person from the domination of the old order and makes that person a part of the new.44 42.  The many temporal markers in Galatians reveal Paul’s perspective that the time of fulfillment has come (e.g., 3:19; 3:23–25; 4:3–7). Since believers have been rescued from this age (1:4), they must refuse to live as if bound to the old order (6:12–15). The secondary literature on this two‑age framework is abundant. For a few seminal works, see Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1930; repr., Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1994), 1–41; Ridderbos, Galatia, 44–68; Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. William Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1956), 177–204. More recently, see Michael Wolter, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. Robert L. Brawley (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015), 181–220. On Galatians in particular, see esp. Martyn, “Apocalyptic Antimonies”; Das, Paul and the Jews, 34–36. 43. Schreiner, Galatians, 77. Schreiner goes on to connect (rightly) Paul’s treatment of the law to eschatology. “Paul clarifies in Gal 3–4 that the law belongs to the old age, and the promise of Abraham is now being fulfilled in Christ. Hence, those who receive circumcision fall back into the old evil age after being delivered from it through Christ’s death. We see as well here the eschatological tension of Paul’s thought, for even though the new age has come in Jesus Christ, the old age has not vanished entirely” (77). 44.  See esp. Andrew H. Wakefield, Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul’s Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3:1–14, SBLAB 14 (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 186–87. Wakefield does well in drawing out the significance of the old age to Paul’s conception of humanity and the law in Galatians. “The place where the law functions…is in the old age. To try to live righteously by the law, therefore, is to return to the old age, and thus to return to sin, to the curse of the law, to the powers of the cosmos (Gal 4:1–11), and so on.… The ultimate question, again, is where to live—in Christ, in the Spirit, by

Blazosky Final.indd 132

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Galatians

133

Paul’s uses of αἰών in 1:4 and κόσμος in 6:14 shed light on his only other use of either term in the letter, namely, in 4:3, where those outside of Christ are enslaved ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. When Paul speaks of believers’ former slavery to the στοιχεῖα of the κόσμος, it is my contention that Paul is speaking not just of material elements of “the universe” but of the enslaving powers of “the old age,” an age in which believers no longer belong. This reading fits best with Col 2:20 where death to τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου indicates one is no longer alive ἐν κόσμῳ. In summary, the στοιχεῖα which formerly dominated believers and which continue to rule over unbelievers include at least idols, νόμος, σάρξ, and ἁμαρτία.45 These στοιχεῖα are the powers of “the old age” from which believers are freed, but to which unbelievers continue to pledge their allegiance. E. The Death of Jesus and the Deliverance from Every Enslaving Power Throughout this section, attention has been drawn to the inextricable bond in Galatians between νόμος, ἁμαρτία, σάρξ, στοιχεῖα, and the κόσμος. This closing discussion underscores the interconnectedness of these themes by highlighting the singular solution to their dominion, namely, the death of Jesus. In 2:19–20, Paul explains that, through νόμος, he died to νόμος [ἐγὼ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον] by being crucified with Christ [Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι]. In 3:13, it is through Christ’s cross that believers have been released from the condemning power of the law. In 3:21–4:11, it is because God sent his Son to redeem his people that believers are no longer ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν, ὑπὸ νόμον, and ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. Likewise, those who belong to Christ have crucified the σάρξ (5:24). Thus, it is not at all surprising that Paul concludes his letter to the Galatians with exultation in the cross—the one and only place for boasting—since it has brought about the crucifixion of the entire κόσμος to Paul and of Paul to the κόσμος.

IV. Concluding Reflections on Paul’s View of Gentiles and Law in Galatians Several conclusions can be drawn from this analysis of Galatians. In regard to whether Gentiles are condemned by νόμος, Galatians answers affirmatively. Both faith (all synonyms for ‘in the new creation’), or in the law, in the flesh, under the curse, under the elemental spirits (all of which represent the present evil age).” 45.  Robert Ewusie Moses (Practices of Power: Revisiting the Principalities and Powers in the Pauline Letters [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014], 147–56) suggests that sin, death, and flesh are personified powers while στοιχεῖα and νόμος are impersonal entities in the hands of these powers. On the other hand, Woyke (“Nochmals,” 231) suggests something more similar to my proposal with respect to how νόμος relates to the στοιχεῖα. “Paulus identifiziert mosaisches Gesetz und Weltelemente nicht miteinander, sondern er klassifiziert den νόμος unter die Rubrik der στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου” (italics original). In the end, the similarities of these proposals are much greater than the differences.

Blazosky Final.indd 133

4/11/19 5:28 PM

134

Chapter 4

Jewish and Gentile believers were formerly under the curse of the law and in need of rescue from its condemning power. Paul’s perspective on the extent of the law’s curse in Deut 27:26 is not surprising in light of the analysis of this same passage in chapter 1. Furthermore, Paul’s reading of universal accountability to the law is also in line with Jewish texts about condemnation such as the Sibylline Oracles, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, and LAB. For Paul, the power of νόμος to curse and condemn reaches beyond its covenantal boundaries. Paul’s presentation of a singular human plight is also in line with the OT. In addition, his view also resembles Second Temple texts such as 1QM and 1QS. The crucial difference for Paul is that the fundamental dividing line is not whether one is in the yaḥad but whether one is in Christ. Or, from another angle, the line of demarcation is whether one belongs to the new age or the old. For Paul, as there is equality among those in Christ, so there is equality among those outside of Christ. Paul certainly does not deny the reality of ethnic, social, or various other distinctions; but, in Christ, there is no fundamental advantage to being Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free. All are one in Christ. Likewise, outside of Christ, there is no advantage to being Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free. All are unified under the enslaving powers of the old age. The clearest difference between Paul’s presentation and that of the Second Temple Jewish literature concerns his negative portrayal of the law. For Paul, the law, far from solving the human predicament, exacerbates it. On the one hand, from a biblical theological standpoint, it is clear in the OT that the giving of the law did not solve Israel’s problems or those of humanity at large. Yet, Paul takes an additional step in Galatians in linking the law with the universal powers of darkness such as sin and the flesh. Paul never explicitly articulates the logic behind such a connection in Galatians; nevertheless, a few concluding reflections can still be offered. First, Paul’s presentation of the law is connected directly to his “apocalyptic” or “eschatological” thinking. With the arrival of Christ and the Spirit, the new age dawned and the old became obsolete. For Paul, the law, along with sin and the flesh, is decidedly a part of that old order. Second, it is my proposal that Paul portrays at least νόμος, σάρξ, ἁμαρτία, and idols as the enslaving powers of the old order: τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. In Paul’s view, these are the basic forces of the old age which continue to enslave all those who still belong to that age and which formerly enslaved all of the Galatian believers. Third, Paul depicts νόμος, σάρξ, and ἁμαρτία as one indivisible unit working together to enslave all who belong to the old age. In other words, if a person is ὑπὸ νόμον in Galatians, that person is also ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν. If a person is dominated by σάρξ, that person is also enslaved ὑπὸ νόμον. Likewise, if a person has been freed

Blazosky Final.indd 134

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Galatians

135

from σάρξ, that person has also been set free from the enslaving power of νόμος and ἁμαρτία. It is as impossible to be enslaved to only one or two of these powers as it is to be freed from only one or two of these powers. A person is under the reign of all or none. Finally, the good news in Galatians is that Christ’s death frees believers from the curse of νόμος and from every enslaving power of the old age. Christ bore the curse of νόμος for both Jewish and Gentile believers since all of his people were formerly under its curse and in need of redemption. Jewish redemption is, thus, not portrayed as a pre-condition for Gentile inclusion since Jews and Gentiles stood equally condemned and in need of redemption. The death of Israel’s Messiah is directly for Jew and Gentile, and the blessings his death secures are applied directly to Jewish and Gentile believers alike.

Blazosky Final.indd 135

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Blazosky Final.indd 136

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Chapter 5

Romans

Introduction Paul’s letter to the Romans unveils the good news of God’s righteousness and its power to unite all believers to God and to one another. Critical to Paul’s explanation of this gospel is his portrayal of the human predicament. Paul underscores the singular plight of Jewish and Gentile sinners throughout Romans 1–3 and regularly rehearses the former plight of all believers in Romans 5–8. In each section, the law of Moses is central.1 Two questions drive the present analysis of νόμος in these portions of Romans. First, how does νόμος relate to the condemnation of Gentiles in Romans 1–3? S­econd, what role does νόμος play in the former enslavement of believers in Romans 5–8?

I. The Law and Gentile Condemnation in Rom 1:18–3:20 In Rom 1:18–3:20, Paul writes the lengthiest sustained explanation of the condemnation of humanity in Scripture. This section begins with the revelation of the wrath of God on all ungodliness and unrighteousness (1:18) and concludes with a litany of scriptural citations asserting that humanity is both unrighteous and ungodly (3:10–18). Two texts from 1:18–3:20 are most significant to the question of the law’s role in Gentile condemnation. First, 2:12–16 is critical since it appears to claim that νόμος will not be a criterion for the judgment of Gentile sinners. Second, 3:19–20 connects the condemnation of humanity to what νόμος says to those who are ἐν τῷ νόμῳ. 1.  Of the seventy‑four occurrences of νόμος in Romans, fifty‑six are in 1:18–3:20 (23×) and 5:12– 8:17 (33×). For extensive treatments of Paul’s use of νόμος, see C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 2:845–62; Das, Paul and the Jews, 155–65; Moo, “‘Law’, ‘Works of the Law’”; Rosner, Paul, 26–31; Michael Winger, By What Law? The Meaning of Νόμος in the Letters of Paul, SBLDS 128 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). Though the meaning of certain uses of νόμος is certainly debatable (e.g., 3:27–31), the predominant usage of νόμος in Romans is clearly in reference to the legal code given by Moses to Israel.

137

Blazosky Final.indd 137

4/11/19 5:28 PM

138

Chapter 5

A. The Role of the Law in the Condemnation of Gentiles in Rom 2:12–16 In Paul’s first use of νόμος in Romans, he makes an unparalleled statement concerning the role of νόμος at the final judgment:2 “For all who have sinned without the law [ἀνόμως] will also perish without the law [ἀνόμως], and all who have sinned under the law [ἐν νόμῳ] will be judged by the law [διὰ νόμου]” (2:12). That sinners will perish is certainly not unique to 2:12; what is unique, however, is that Paul explicitly contrasts how νόμος functions at the judgment of the ἄνομος and those ἐν νόμῳ.3 On the one hand, 2:12a is often read as an explicit claim that νόμος will not be a criterion used at the final judgment of Gentile sinners. On the other hand, 2:12–16 could, in fact, be a key text in explaining how νόμος will play a crucial role in the condemnation of Gentiles. In either case, there is no doubt that 2:12 is of great significance to this monograph. Its potential import, however, is almost entirely dependent on two related issues: how to read the argument of 2:12–16 and how to identify the Gentiles in 2:14–15. In recent years, numerous scholars have argued over this latter issue of the identity of the Gentiles described in 2:14–15, who, though not having the law, do the law. Authors such as Das, Kuhr, Moo, and Schreiner see the Gentiles in 2:14–15 as the Gentile sinners initially described in 2:12a,4 while authors such as Wright, Gathercole, Jewett, and Cranfield see them as new covenant believers.5 2.  For my concentrated treatment of Rom 2:12–15, see Bryan Blazosky, “The Role the Law Does or Does Not Play in the Condemnation of Gentiles in Rom 2:12–15,” JETS 59 (2016): 83–97. The portions of this article incorporated into this section of the book are used by permission. 3.  For readability, when contrasting the groups from 2:12 (i.e. those apart from the law and those within the law’s realm), the adjective ἄνομος is used to describe those “without the law” rather than the adverb ἀνόμως found in 2:12. Though ἀνόμως could have a negative connotation (e.g., “lawlessly”) in line with ἄνομος in 1 Tim 1:9, ἀνόμως in 2:12 is more reflective of 1 Cor 9:21 where Paul uses ἄνομος four times to describe those who live without reference to the law. This reading is in line with BDAG and is followed by most commentators. Furthermore, this reading of ἀνόμως is confirmed within the context in 2:14 where Paul speaks of those who “do not have the law” [τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα]. In other words, Paul is not criticizing people by saying they are ἄνομος but is simply showing his “empathy for those outside the Mosaic tradition” (BDAG). Contra William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907), 58–59. 4. Das, Paul, the Law, 178–82; Friedrich Kuhr, “Römer 2 14f. und die Verheissung bei Jeremia 31 31ff.,” ZNW 55 (1964): 243–61; Moo, Romans (NICNT), 147–58; Schreiner, Romans, 116–27. 5.  N. T. Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 131–50; Simon J. Gathercole, “A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2.14–15 Revisited,” JSNT 85 (2002): 27–49; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 212–16; Cranfield, Romans, 1:154–57. These two basic views are the most common in the secondary literature and will serve as helpful categories for discussing the role of the law in Gentile condemnation. Nevertheless, there are other variations that have been proposed as well. Sanders (Paul, the Law, 123–35) and Räisänen (Paul, 97–109), for example, both suggest that Paul is describing non‑Christian Gentiles who do the law

Blazosky Final.indd 138

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Romans

139

Because of such focus on the identity of those described in 2:14–15, less attention is typically given to what Paul says about how νόμος functions at the final judgment of Gentiles. Thus, though I address the identity of the Gentiles in 2:14–15, my focus is on the role the law of Moses does or does not play in the condemnation of Gentile sinners. 1. Setting the Context of Rom 2:12–16 The first key to interpreting 2:12–16 is to identify its relationship to 2:1–11. After a focus on divine wrath in 1:18–32, especially as it relates to idolatry and homosexuality, it could seem that Paul’s target audience was exclusively Gentile. In 2:1, however, Paul begins a diatribe against an interlocutor,6 who, most likely, represents complacent Jews:7 “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.” Paul’s initial indictment ends in 2:4–5. Though God’s kindness was intended to lead Jews to repentance, because of their hard hearts, they have treasured up wrath for the final day. In 2:6–11, Paul moves from indictment to supporting arguments. God is impartial (2:11) and therefore gives to every person in accordance with that person’s deeds (2:6). The paragraph is structured chiastically with wrath at its center and will be justified. Sanders suggests that Paul did not compose this section, but rather incorporated “homiletical material from Diaspora Judaism” (123). Räisänen proposes that, since Paul’s focus is on the Jews, he suggests, “without noticing it,” that Gentiles are able to do the law. “When Paul is not reflecting on the situation of the Gentiles, it is quite natural for him to think that they can fulfil the law” (106). For both authors, 2:12–16 contains significant contradictions to what Paul says elsewhere in Romans. From a different angle, Douglas Campbell’s (The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 542–71) rereading of 1:18–32 as representing the position of a “Teacher” in Rome opposed to Paul leads to quite different conclusions on the entire argument and purpose of Romans 2, not just 2:14–15. In Campbell’s reading, much of Romans 2 is Paul’s rebuttal of the “Teacher’s” misunderstanding of God’s righteousness as retributive justice and his promotion of “the principle of desert” in 1:18–32 (551). Thus, the implications of Campbell’s reading of 2:14–15 to how Gentile condemnation relates to the Mosaic law are not particularly clear. 6.  For an exhaustive treatment of the usage and function of diatribe in Romans, see Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, SBLDS 57 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). 7.  Rightly, Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 107–8; Schreiner, Romans, 102–03; contra Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A SocioRhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 83–84. The identity of the interlocutor in 2:1–5 is not critical to this work, yet I find it more likely that 2:1 begins a diatribe focused on complacent Jews. While Paul’s dialogue partner is initially addressed in general terms, Paul clarifies in 2:17 that his indictment is directed specifically toward Jews. This reading leads well into 2:28–29 where Paul focuses on the value of being a Jew internally rather than externally. Furthermore, the language of 1:18–32 is drawn largely from OT texts about rebellious Israel. Thus, though Gentiles are the focus of 1:18–32, complacent Jews are also in view implicitly. On how Paul specifically evokes Psalm 106 in Rom 1:23, see Alec J. Lucas, Evocations of the Calf? Romans 1:18–2:11 and the Substructure of Psalm 106 (105), BZNW 201 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014).

Blazosky Final.indd 139

4/11/19 5:28 PM

140

Chapter 5

Table 10. Chiastic Structure of Romans 2:6–11 2:6 2:7

A:

2:8 2:9 2:10 2:11 A:

ὃς ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ B: τοῖς μὲν καθ᾽ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν ζητοῦσιν C: τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας καὶ ἀπειθοῦσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πειθομένοις δὲ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός. θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία C: ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου τοῦ κατεργαζομένου τὸ κακόν, Ἰουδαίου τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνος δόξα δὲ καὶ τιμὴ B: παντὶ τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ τὸ ἀγαθόν, καὶ εἰρήνη Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν προσωπολημψία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ.

(2:8–9; Table 10). Since God is impartial (2:11), he rewards good work impartially—granting life, glory, and honor to every person who does good (2:7, 10). But God also rewards unrighteousness impartially—pouring out wrath, fury, and distress on every person who does evil (2:8–9). Paul not only emphasizes divine wrath and impartiality, however; he also underscores the universal scope of the judgment. God repays each person [ἑκάστῳ] for his or her works (2:6). For every person [πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου] who works evil, there is wrath and fury—for the Jew first and also the Greek [Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνος] (2:8–9). For every person [παντί] who does what is good, there is glory and peace—for the Jew first and also the Greek [Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι] (2:10). God’s impartiality demands that he treat sinners the same on judgment day (2:11). In particular, God will reward sinful Jews with the wrath they assume is reserved for Gentiles. 2. Paul’s Initial Affirmation of Equality in Rom 2:12 This context leads to the assertion in 2:12: “For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.”8 On the one hand, 2:12 further develops the theme of God’s impartial justice (2:6–11).9 This verse reiterates the central claim that God’s wrath 8.  It is worth noting that, even though the majority of translations gloss ἐν νόμῳ as “under the law” in 2:12 and 3:19 (e.g., ESV, NAB, NET, NIV), the Greek behind this translation is not ὑπὸ νόμον, which has negative connotations in both Romans and Galatians. That ἐν νόμῳ does not have these negative connotations, see van Dülmen, Theologie, 82–83; Cranfield, Romans, 1:195. 9.  Though I see 2:12 as more transitional—looking back to 2:6–11 and leading into 2:13–16—Das (Paul and the Jews, 181) notes well the connection between God’s impartiality (2:6–11) and the entire argument of 2:12–16: “Paul addresses in Rom 2:12–16 a logical objection to his claim of divine impartiality in vv. 6–11. God appears to have treated humanity with partiality by providing the Law only to the Jews but not to the Gentiles.”

Blazosky Final.indd 140

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Romans

141

is on all who do evil (2:8–9). Since God is impartial, all sinners will be repaid with judgment, whether ἄνομος or ἐν νόμῳ. On the other hand, Paul begins to shift his focus in 2:12 to the relationship of νόμος to the final judgment of Jewish and Gentile sinners (2:13–16). 3. The Identity of the Gentiles in Rom 2:14–15 Since Paul’s emphasis in 2:12b is on the condemnation of those ἐν νόμῳ, Paul immediately grounds his assertion in 2:13. People who sin ἐν νόμῳ will be judged διὰ νόμου (2:12b) because it is not the hearers of νόμος but the doers who will be justified (2:13). Those who sin (i.e., do not do νόμος) will be condemned, and their judgment will be meted out in accordance to the light they possessed through νόμος. The following complex verses (2:14–15) raise critical questions concerning the relationship of Gentiles to νόμος and the role of νόμος at the final judgment. Paul writes: For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. (Rom 2:14–15)

The meaning of these verses depends largely on how the initial γάρ in 2:14 is to be understood. Two possible explanations of this γάρ are most plausible. 1. Proposal #1: Rom 2:14–15 as an Explanation of Rom 2:13. First, 2:14–15 might explain 2:13 (Table 11). In this reading, 2:14–15 identifies “the doers of the law” in 2:13.10 While the hearers of νόμος are faithless Jews who do not respond to God’s νόμος, the doers of νόμος are surprisingly Gentiles. These Gentiles know and obey νόμος because it is written on their hearts. These Gentile law-keepers are believers who do what is good and seek for glory and immortality (2:7, 10).11 They have experienced heart transformation through the Spirit (2:29) and will condemn the physically circumcised who had νόμος but broke it (2:26–27). 10.  See Wright, “Law,” 144. Wright asks, “But who are these ‘doers of the law’? Verse 13 is at once further explained (γὰρ) by verse 14.” For other defenses of 2:14–15 being about believing Gentiles, see Michael F. Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective, PBM (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2007), 155–78; Felix Flückiger, “Die Werke des Gesetzes bei den Heiden (nach Röm 2:14ff),” TZ 8 (1952): 17–42; Gathercole, “Law,” 27–49. One of Gathercole’s strongest arguments is the proximity of οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου in 2:13 and τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν in 2:14 (33–34); yet, the relevance of this argument depends largely on how 2:14 is related to 2:13. 11.  There are a variety of views on how many (if any) texts in Romans 2 describe the obedience of believers. See, for example, Schreiner, Law, 193–201. Schreiner proposes that the Gentiles in 2:14–15 are unbelievers but that 2:7, 10, 13, and 26–27 describe believers. Similarly, see John R. W. Stott, The Message of Romans, BST (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 86. For further discussion on the various approaches to this issue, see esp. Kevin M. McFadden, Judgment according to Works in Romans: The Meaning and Function of Divine Judgment in Paul’s Most Important Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 139–53.

Blazosky Final.indd 141

4/11/19 5:28 PM

142

Chapter 5

Table 11. Proposal #1 of the Argument of Romans 2:12–14 2:12a 2:12b 2:13 Explains 2:12b 2:14

Ὅσοι γὰρ ἀνόμως ἥμαρτον, ἀνόμως καὶ ἀπολοῦνται, καὶ ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον, διὰ νόμου κριθήσονται· οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ [τῷ] θεῷ, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται. Identifies οἱ ποιηταὶ ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου νόμου from 2:13 ποιῶσιν, οὗτοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος·

2. Proposal #2: Rom 2:14–15 as an Explanation of Rom 2:12a. Though Proposal #1 makes sense within both the immediate and surrounding contexts, 2:14–15 could be read differently. In 2:12, Paul compares the destinies of those who sin ἀνόμως and ἐν νόμῳ. Those ἐν νόμῳ are judged διὰ νόμου (2:12b), an assertion grounded in 2:13. Left unexplained, however, are questions raised by 2:12a. To say that those who sin ἀνόμως perish ἀνόμως leaves the reader to wonder: “What are the criteria by which someone who sins ἀνόμως will be judged?” and, “Is it fair that the ἄνομος perish?” If γάρ in 2:14 is connected to 2:12a instead of 2:13 (Table 12), the function and the meaning of 2:14–15 are quite different than in Proposal #1.12 Rather than identifying “the doers of the law” (2:13), Paul explains the criteria for the judgment of the ἄνομος and proves the fairness of that judgment. Gentile sinners are worthy of judgment since they are not ignorant of God’s requirements. These “law-less” Gentiles have the work of the law etched on their hearts (2:15a). Furthermore, God has instilled within them a conscience that accuses or excuses their actions (2:15b). These two witnesses will testify with one voice against Gentile sinners at the final judgment.13 3. An Assessment of Proposal #1 on the Function of Rom 2:14–15. As previously noted, identifying the Gentiles in 2:14–15 is not the primary task; nevertheless, one’s position on this issue inevitably influences one’s perspective on the role 12.  So, John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 72; Moo, Romans (NICNT), 149. Cf. also John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, ed. and trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 96. Schreiner’s reading (Romans, 117) is slightly different in that he sees 2:14–15 as being connected to 2:13a as in Proposal #1, but he sees the Gentiles in 2:14–15 as unbelievers as in Proposal #2. In his view, the function of 2:14–15 is to strip away from the Jew any thought that mere possession of νόμος has salvific value. Since Jews could view themselves as superior to Gentiles because of their possession of νόμος, Paul argues that Gentiles too have heard “the law,” but “no Gentile is saved merely by knowing what the law requires.” In the end, the key tenets of Schreiner’s view overlap significantly with Proposal #2. 13.  Τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου should not be equated with συνείδησις in 2:15. Paul speaks rather of two gifts that make humanity culpable for breaking νόμος. The συμ- prefix in συμμαρτυρουσής points toward two witnesses testifying at the judgment (ESV: “their conscience also bears witness”). See esp. Frank Thielman, The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity, CNT (New York: Crossroad, 1999), 22. “The law’s basic requirement is written on Gentile hearts, and the consciences of Gentiles are able to measure their conduct against this innate standard.”

Blazosky Final.indd 142

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Romans

143

Table 12. Proposal #2 of the Argument of Romans 2:12–14 2:12a 2:12b 2:13 Explains 2:12b 2:14

Explains 2:12a

Ὅσοι γὰρ ἀνόμως ἥμαρτον, ἀνόμως καὶ ἀπολοῦνται, καὶ ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον, διὰ νόμου κριθήσονται οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ [τῷ] θεῷ, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται. ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν, οὗτοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος·

νόμος plays in Gentile condemnation. Thus, I will briefly assess each proposal before examining the possible answers for how νόμος does or does not affect the ἄνομος at the judgment. Though Proposal #1 immediately clarifies the identity of “the doers of the law” in 2:13 and provides a coherent, consistent explanation of those who do good (2:10), “the doers of the law” (2:13), and the uncircumcised law-keepers (2:26–27), this proposal has some weaknesses. First, Proposal #1 requires that the “doing” of νόμος that leads to justification in 2:13 be a somewhat consistent (though often faltering), Spirit-enabled, heart obedience to νόμος rather than an obedience which meets all the requirements of νόμος.14 Likewise, the phrase in 2:15, “or even” [ἢ καί], suggests that the primary activity of the conscience and conflicted thoughts is to accuse, rather than excuse their actions. One could at least question whether such obedience would result in justification in light of Paul’s emphasis on God’s thorough, piercing judgment throughout this context. Second, this proposal suggests that Romans 2 affirms the existence of people who “do good” and receive eternal life (2:10) and who “do the law” and will be justified (2:13), even though 3:10–20 affirms that no one “does good, not even one” (3:12) and that “by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight” (3:20). Though reasonable answers can be given to explain this issue, it is at least possible that the development of the argument of 1:18–3:20 as a whole could speak against Proposal #1.15 Third, this proposal necessitates that “doing good” and “doing the law” presuppose a person’s trust in the Messiah and confession of Jesus as Lord; otherwise, these texts violate Paul’s teaching elsewhere in Romans about how right standing 14.  For a classic expression of the obedience described according to Proposal #1, see Cranfield, Romans, 1:155. Paul is “thinking of that beginning of grateful obedience to be found in those who believe in Christ, which though very weak and faltering and in no way deserving God’s favour, is, as the expression of humble trust in God, well‑pleasing in His sight.” 15.  My intent is not to suggest that Proposal #1 ignores the development of 1:18–3:20. According to this view, Romans 2 consistently depicts the people whom God ultimately justifies (2:7, 10, 14–15, 26–29): a largely Gentile group that believes in the Messiah and demonstrates this faith through Spirit‑enabled obedience. It is questionable, however, if Paul intends to make these points at this point in Romans.

Blazosky Final.indd 143

4/11/19 5:28 PM

144

Chapter 5

with God is gained. If Paul presupposes these things when he speaks of “doing good” and “doing the law” in 2:6–16, it is, at least, not particularly clear at this stage in Romans.16 Finally, though the greatest strength of this view is likely that τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτόν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν in 2:15 appears to allude to the new covenant promise in Jer 31:33 (38:33 LXX), the presence of this allusion is not certain.17 In Jer 31:33 (38:33 LXX), the relevant phrase is ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω αὐτούς.18 The grammar of 2:15 may suggest Paul is not applying this OT text to these Gentiles. If Paul stated that “the laws” (νόμους and αὐτούς are plural in the LXX) or “the law” were written on hearts, an allusion would be more certain. Paul’s affirmation, however, is that τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου is written [γραπτόν] on Gentiles’ hearts.19 16.  Cf. Wright, Justification, 190. Wright argues that 2:26–29 enables readers to look back and understand the identity of those who do good and who do νόμος in 2:1–16: “The Spirit is not, of course, mentioned in Romans 2:1–16. But that is Paul’s way: to introduce a theme quietly, symphonically, with hints and suggestions…. When Paul speaks of ‘doing the law’ in Romans 2:13, he is thereby setting up a long train of thought which will run through several passages until, in Romans 8:5–8, he explains, and even then obliquely, that it is the mind of the flesh that does not and cannot submit to God’s law, so that by implication the mind of the Spirit can and does make the submission.” In principle, I see no problem with Wright’s suggestion that Paul uses oblique references to Gentile Christians in 2:7, 10 and 13 that are subsequently clarified in 2:26–29 and the rest of Romans. Yet, Wright finds this same basic argument weak when used for an opposing view. If readers must wait to find out whom Paul is describing in Wright’s view, why is it a problem for others to propose that 3:10–20, which uses similar language to 2:6–13, later clarifies Paul’s view that no one fits the categories proposed in 2:7, 10 and 13? 17.  For a helpful critique of Wright on the matter of an allusion to Jeremiah 31, see Das, Paul, the Law, 180. Das suggests that Wright overlooks the predominantly “accusing” thoughts that the conscience renders against these Gentiles. “This aspect of the text is not fully appreciated by N. T. Wright…. This is no mere ‘inner conflict,’ as Wright supposes (p. 146), but an objective accountability on the basis of the ‘work of the law’ before God’s judgment.” 18.  See also Schreiner, Law, 195. Schreiner identifies another significant weakness with seeing an allusion to Jeremiah 31 in 2:14–15. Romans 2:14 says that Gentiles, who do not have the law, are a law to themselves: “To say that the Gentiles are a law to themselves would be an odd way to describe God’s law written on the heart, but it fits nicely with the Greek conception of an unwritten law embedded on every person’s heart.” Cf. Leander E. Keck, Romans, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 80. 19.  Cf. Douglas J. Moo, Romans, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 86: “It is significant that Paul does not say that the law is written on the heart but that the ‘requirements of the law’ (lit., ‘the work of the law’) are. The Gentiles’ innate knowledge of God’s law leads them often to do what is right” (italics original). Cf. Jeffrey S. Lamp, “Paul, the Law, Jews, and Gentiles: A Contextual and Exegetical Reading of Romans 2:12–16,” JETS 42 (1999): 47; Witherington, Romans, 83. Contra Flückiger, “Werke,” 34–35; Adrio Kömig, “Gentiles or Gentile Christians? On the Meaning of Romans 2:12–16,” JTSA 15 (1976): 59–60. As a complement to Moo, see esp. Kuhr, “Römer 2 14f.,” 260. Kuhr argues that the moral ability in 2:14–15 is sourced in human nature rather than the new covenant of Jeremiah 31. “Der Unterschied ist fundamental: bei Jer ist das ins Herz geschriebene Gesetz eine eschatologische Gabe, die dem Menschen in der Heilszeit zuteil wird, Rm 2 14f. ist es die dem Menschen auf Grund seiner menschlichen Natur eignende Fähigkeit zum sittlichen Handeln.” Though Kuhr is likely correct that 2:14–15 emphasizes human nature, Gathercole’s critique that Kuhr unnecessarily juxtaposes obedience and the new covenant is worth noting. See Gathercole, “Law,” 42. After all, “new covenant obedience is God’s eschatological gift” (italics original).

Blazosky Final.indd 144

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Romans

145

Because γραπτόν is neuter, its referent must be the neuter ἔργον, not the masculine νόμου. What is written on Gentiles’ hearts is not νόμος itself but the work of νόμος (NIV: “the requirements of the law”).20 Though this grammatical point is indeed noteworthy, it is a contextual matter that may point more strongly away from an allusion to Jer 31:33. Would Paul link the glory of possessing the promise of Jeremiah 31 with having thoughts that primarily accuse new covenant members throughout life and, ultimately, on the final day? 4. An Assessment of Proposal #2 on the Function of Rom 2:14–15. Proposal #2 is not without its own weaknesses; thus, it is not surprising that this view has become less popular in recent years. In this assessment, I will highlight four weaknesses of Proposal #2, but will also offer some brief rebuttals to these critiques. First, Proposal #2 is dependent on the γάρ in 2:14 reaching back to 2:12a, even though there are semantic links between 2:13 and 2:14 in regard to doing the law. In response, one could argue that, though the language of “doing the law” is similar in 2:13 and 2:14, the doing of the law in these two verses is not equivalent. In 2:13, doing the law results in justification. In 2:14, however, the Gentiles who do the things of the law are primarily accused by their conscience. These accusations, when connected to God’s judgment of “people’s secrets” (NIV) in 2:16, more likely result in condemnation rather than justification. Furthermore, it is not unlikely in light of Paul’s use of γάρ elsewhere that the γάρ in 2:14 could point back to 2:12a, nor would this be surprising in view of the tight argumentation and stylistic beauty in 2:6–16 (cf. the chiasm in 2:7–10).21 A second possible weakness of Proposal #2 is that it leaves the identity of “the doers of the law” of 2:13 unclear. This is not remarkable, however, since Paul’s desire at this point is not to explain who, if any, “does good” in 2:10 or who “the doers of the law” are in 2:13. Paul is articulating how God judges, whom God judges, and why God judges. His concern here is not to explain the path to life but rather the certainty of condemnation. The third and perhaps greatest difficulty for Proposal #2 is that it demands that 2:14–15 not be alluding to the new covenant promise in Jeremiah 31. The prior discussion of this possible allusion, though not proving the point definitively, at least demonstrates that the issue is open for debate (see notes 17–19 for scholars who would agree). 20.  On the distinction between τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου in 2:15 and τὰ ἔργα τοῦ νόμου in Paul’s writings, see Lamp, “Paul,” 47. On the meaning of τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου, Schreiner (Romans, 122) notes well: “The ‘work of the law,’ then, refers to the commands contained in the Mosaic law.” 21.  The chiasm of 2:6–11 and the poetic parallelism of 2:12 are good examples of Paul’s ability as a letter writer. Paul’s use of γάρ is frequent (144× in Romans alone), flexible, and capable of reaching back further than the previous clause (e.g., γάρ in 2:11; 7:14). For further discussion of the structure of 2:12–14, see esp. Das, Paul, the Law, 181. Das presents a similar structure to mine and suggests that there is actually an additional chiasm in 2:12–14 in which 2:12a corresponds to 2:14, while 2:12b corresponds to 2:13.

Blazosky Final.indd 145

4/11/19 5:28 PM

146

Chapter 5

Finally, it is admittedly abnormal for Paul to speak of the obedience of Gentile sinners (cf. 3:10–18); yet, it is important to recognize the value of the conscience and of having the law’s work written on the heart, as well as to recognize the uniqueness of Paul’s argument in 2:12–16 no matter which proposal is accepted. Furthermore, the obedience described is limited and inconsistent. Paul’s point is that Gentile sinners occasionally do things required by νόμος, and this obedience demonstrates that they have been impacted internally by νόμος.22 4. The Options for Explaining How the Law Relates to Gentile Condemnation in Rom 2:12–16 We are now in a position to examine the role the law of Moses does or does not play in the condemnation of Gentiles in 2:12–16. At least three different views could be held. First, Paul could be saying that the Mosaic law has no role at the judgment of Gentile sinners. Second, it could be argued that this passage simply does not define whether the Mosaic law will factor into the judgment of Gentile sinners. Or third, Paul may actually affirm that the Mosaic law will be part of the criteria used at the final judgment to bring about the righteous condemnation of Gentile sinners. Throughout this discussion, I will also consider how one’s position on the identity of the Gentiles in 2:14–15 relates to one’s view on the role of the Mosaic law at the final judgment. (a) The Law of Moses Plays No Role in the Condemnation of Gentiles in Rom 2:12–16. Since 2:12 contains strong parallelism, it is plausible that 2:12 explicitly affirms that the law will not be used as a criterion for the judgment of Gentile sinners. Romans 2:12 could be read as follows: those who sin without the law will perish (be judged) without the law, and those who sin in the law will be judged by the law. This reading is one of Wright’s key arguments against those who hold that 2:14–15 concerns Gentile sinners rather than new covenant believers. Wright argues: “If those who are a ‘law to themselves’, because ‘the law’ (presumably the Jewish law) is written on their hearts, are non-Christians, then Paul has been talking nonsense in v. 12 when he suggested that Gentiles, not having the law, would be judged without the law.”23 Wright’s view serves as a good example of how the text could be read if 2:14–15 concerns Gentile believers (Proposal #1). Paul affirms explicitly that the law of Moses plays no role at the judgment of Gentile unbelievers (2:12a). The rest of 22.  So, Schreiner, Law, 196; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 115. Gathercole’s remark (“Law,” 46), however, that the significant point is that these Gentiles have any “excusing thoughts” is noteworthy: “One point missed by commentators is the sting in the tail in the ἢ καί: the surprise for the Jewish interlocutor would have been that the thoughts could actually provide a defence at all. The point is often made by commentators that the ἢ καί highlights the rarity of defence compared with accusation, but Paul’s rhetorical point in the diatribe consists in the surprising possibility of any ἀπολογία” (italics original). 23.  Wright, “Law,” 146.

Blazosky Final.indd 146

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Romans

147

the passage concerns Gentile believers. Thus, this passage says nothing about the criteria that will be used at the judgment of Gentile sinners. It simply affirms that the Mosaic law will not be a criterion. One could argue that there is no need to offer such criteria here since Paul has already made it clear in 1:18–32 that Gentile sinners are accountable because they have failed to respond rightly to the God seen clearly through the creation of the world. Interestingly, if 2:14–15 concerns Gentile sinners (Proposal #2), one could still argue that the law of Moses plays no role at the judgment of those sinners. In this case, the argument would read as follows. Paul affirms that the Mosaic law plays no role at the judgment of Gentile unbelievers (2:12a). In 2:14–15, Paul clarifies the criteria that will be used. The Mosaic law will not be used, but some other form of law will be (whether “natural law” or “God’s law” in general).24 In other words, Gentiles may not have any access to the law of Moses, but they do understand something about God’s expectations; thus, they will be held accountable in accordance with this knowledge. This perspective may seem attractive. In my view, however, it relies on a tenuous interpretation of νόμος in 2:15a, as well as an unlikely bifurcation of “natural law” and the Mosaic law (discussed later). While Paul does play with the word νόμος when he says that “they are a law to themselves” [ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος], the primary focus of 2:14–15 is still on the Mosaic law and the relative access people have to that law. Paul twice describes these Gentiles as people who do not have νόμος (the Mosaic law), yet they do things that νόμος (the Mosaic law) requires. Thus, they show that τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου is written on their hearts. To read νόμου in this phrase as entirely distinct from the Mosaic law is problematic. Wright is correct that “the law” in 2:15a is the Jewish law. In my estimation, if an interpreter (e.g., Wright) holds that 2:14–15 describes believing Gentiles, this first answer that the law of Moses plays no role in the judgment of Gentiles is plausible. If, however, an interpreter (e.g., Kuhr or Moo) holds that 2:14–15 describes unbelieving Gentiles, this first view seems unlikely. (b) The Role of the Law of Moses in the Condemnation of Gentiles Is Undefined in Rom 2:12–16. A second path is also available for those who believe that 2:14–15 describes believers (Proposal #1). It is simply that this passage does not specify whether the Mosaic law will be part of the criteria used at the final judgment of Gentile sinners. 24.  See esp. Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Philadelphia: Grigg & Elliot, 1835; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 55; Moo, Romans (NIVAC), 85–86. According to Moo, Paul qualifies 2:12 “by noting that Gentiles do, in a certain sense, have access to law. To be sure, they do not have the law—that is, the law of Moses, the Torah. But their frequent conformity to many of the requirements of that law (e.g., they do not murder, steal, or commit adultery) shows that they have a knowledge of God’s basic moral requirements—God’s ‘law’ in an extended sense.”

Blazosky Final.indd 147

4/11/19 5:28 PM

148

Chapter 5

In the citation of Wright previously, he claims that Paul would be “talking nonsense” if 2:14–15 were about unbelievers since 2:12 states clearly that Gentile sinners will “be judged without the law” (Wright’s words).25 I would like to suggest, however, that this reading, which is adopted by many others, may over-read what 2:12a says. Certainly ἀπολοῦνται and κριθήσονται are similar in 2:12, as both focus on the final judgment and sin’s consequences; it is not certain, however, that ἀπολοῦνται and κριθήσονται are entirely interchangeable. For example, it is unlikely that Paul could have used ἀπολοῦνται with διὰ νόμου instead of κριθήσονται in 2:12b since ἀπολοῦνται does not typically carry the same legal connotations as κριθήσονται. Paul could simply be saying that sinners who do not possess the law will die in that condition (cf. 1 Esd 4:37).26 Furthermore, Paul’s assertion in 2:12a is not his emphasis nor is it a point of tension between Paul and the interlocutor. It is the assertion in 2:12b that those who sin ἐν νόμῳ will be judged διὰ νόμου which creates the tension. Both parties perish. Sinful Jews end up just like sinful Gentiles. This is Paul’s emphasis and the point of contention. Thus, in my view, even if 2:14–15 is about Gentile believers, one should proceed with caution before concluding solely on the basis of 2:12a that Paul entirely precludes the Mosaic law from having any role at the final judgment of Gentile sinners. (c) The Law Does Play a Role in the Condemnation of Gentiles in Rom 2:12–16. The final option is that the law of Moses is part of the criteria that will be used at the final judgment of Gentile sinners. In my view, this reading offers the best explanation for what 2:12–15 says if 2:14–15 describes Gentile sinners (Proposal #2). But how can Paul say that the ἄνομος perish ἀνόμως in 2:12a and then say in 2:14–15 that νόμος matters at their final judgment? Is this not the “nonsense” that Wright suggests it is? Would Paul not be contradicting himself in the same paragraph if 2:14–15 were about “law-less” Gentile sinners rather than new covenant Gentile believers? At the outset, it should again be noted that Wright and others are correct that 2:14–15 does indeed focus on the Mosaic law and not some form of natural law or generic form of “God’s law” in contradistinction to the Mosaic law. Gentiles who do not have the Mosaic law sometimes do things required in the Mosaic law, demonstrating that at least some requirements of the Mosaic law are known internally. 25.  Wright, “Law,” 146. Cf. Moo, Romans (NIVAC), 85. 26.  In BDAG’s discussion of ἀνόμως, for example, the suggested reading for 2:12a is that “those who sin without law will also be lost without law.” This reading is in line with my study of the eighty‑eight uses of the future middle of ἀπόλλυμι in the LXX and GNT. This verb consistently communicates the concept of perishing but does not carry legal connotations as κρίνω regularly does. A good example is in Ps 15:12–13 where the author twice states that sinners will perish [ἀπολοῦνται] forever on the day of the Lord’s judgment. In this text, ἀπόλλυμι is used to specify the consequences of being judged, not the act of judgment itself. Κρίνω, however, regularly connotes legal judgments and decisions throughout the LXX and Paul’s writings (e.g., Exod 18:22; Lev 19:15; Deut 1:17; Rom 2:27; 3:6; 1 Cor 5:13; 6:2–3).

Blazosky Final.indd 148

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Romans

149

Thus, in my view, the answer to the “nonsense” objection is not to separate νόμος in the phrase τὰ τοῦ νόμου in 2:14 from νόμος in the phrase τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου in 2:15. When unbelieving Gentiles who do not have νόμος do things required by νόμος (e.g., pagans sometimes honor their mothers and are faithful to their spouses), these Gentiles who were not given the written νόμος are ἑαυτοῖς νόμος (2:14). These right actions demonstrate that τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου is written on their hearts. Not only do Gentiles have τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου in their hearts, however; they also have conscience [συνείδησις] as an additional witness to what is right and wrong. Thus, their thoughts accuse them (i.e., of violations of the requirements of νόμος) or even excuse them (i.e., because of obedience to νόμος in particular instances). In this reading, Paul answers the questions raised by 2:12a. He explains the criteria for the judgment of the ἄνομος and proves the fairness of that judgment by arguing (ironically) that no one is truly ἄνομος. All people are, to some degree, ἐν νόμῳ.27 Every person is aware of the basic principles of νόμος because God has written them on the human heart.28 Thus, people will be spared not on the basis of whether they had νόμος, but whether they did νόμος (2:12b–13); likewise, people will be condemned not on the basis of whether they had νόμος (2:12a), but whether they did νόμος (2:14–15).29 In this way, the argument of 2:12–16 contributes directly to Paul’s emphasis on God’s impartiality at the final judgment in 2:6–11. God grants wrath to those who do evil, regardless of whether they be Jew or Gentile. Dunson remarks rightly that this presentation of divine impartiality “obliterates covenant privilege, at least soteriologically speaking. In so doing, divine justice affects a re-categori­zation of humanity, where there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but simply the generic human, or ἄνθρωπος. This is what it means for God to show no partiality (προσωπολημψία).”30 27.  Dunn (New Perspective, 165–66) claims rightly that 2:12 should be read as ethnic descriptions since Paul’s argument “revolves wholly around the Jewish assumption that the law is a boundary which marks off those inside from those outside, and that this fact is decisive in the final judgment. Thus he starts with a distinction which he immediately questions (2:12) – the distinction between being ‘in/within the law’ (ἐν νόμῳ) and ‘without/outside the law’ (ἀνόμως), between those who have the law and those who do not have the law (2:14).” Dunn does well to suggest that Paul, in 2:14–15, challenges the initial distinction in 2:12. At the future judgment, there will be no “boundary markers,” since, even in the present, awareness of the requirements of νόμος is not exclusively a Jewish privilege. For a similar emphasis on how Paul seeks to level the presupposed distinctions between Jews and Gentiles in Romans 2, see Jean-Noël Aletti, “Romains 2: Sa cohérence et sa fonction,” Biblica 77 (1996): esp. 166–68. 28.  Cf. Finsterbusch (Die Thora, 21) who remarks: “Die Thora ist für Paulus das universal gültige Gottesgesetz, nach dem sich Juden wie auch Heiden ausrichten müssen.” 29.  See esp. Das, Paul, the Law, 179: “How can God’s judgment be impartial if there is a division in humanity based on the possession or nonpossession of God’s law? Paul responds by saying that both Jew (those ‘in the law’) and Gentile (those ‘apart from the law’) will be impartially judged according to the standard of whether they have done the law” (italics original). 30.  Ben C. Dunson, Individual and Community in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, WUNT 2.322 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 115–16. Cf. Jub 5:8–16 on divine impartiality at the judgment.

Blazosky Final.indd 149

4/11/19 5:28 PM

150

Chapter 5

Thus, in 2:12–16, the final judgment of Jewish and Gentile sinners is distinct in that God takes into account the relative awareness each person has of the requirements of νόμος (2:12). However, the foundational standards to which people are held and by which people are judged are, in fact, the same—τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου. These requirements are etched upon the heart of humanity, but expressed more clearly and explicitly in “the embodiment of knowledge and truth”—the written νόμος graciously given to the Jews. Although Paul initially asserts a categorical distinction between how God will judge Jews and Gentiles in regard to νόμος (2:12), he hastens to minimize this very distinction (2:14–15). The degree to which νόμος functions as a criterion for judgment differs between Jews and Gentiles (2:12); but νόμος will nevertheless stand as a witness, alongside conscience, condemning both Jew and Gentile for failure to keep its righteous requirements, which were made known explicitly through the written νόμος, yet sufficiently through τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις. 5. Rom 2:12–16 in the Light of the OT and Second Temple Literature On the one hand, this perspective is in line with my analysis of the OT. On the other hand, Paul takes an additional step in explaining how Gentiles have access to the law. As Stowers notes, there is an assumption in the OT and many Jewish writings that “non-Jewish peoples know what God expects of them and are responsible for their disobedience.”31 What is often assumed elsewhere, however, is explicated in Romans 1–2. In 1:18–32, humanity is indicted for rejecting the knowledge of God revealed through creation.32 In 1:32, sinners are indicted since they rebel against God and encourage others to do the same, even though they know “God’s righteous decree” [τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεου] that sin deserves death. In 2:14–15, Paul affirms that even those who do not have the law externally are sufficiently aware internally of the law’s requirements so as to be culpable for disobedience. Since God has made known his existence, the reality of judgment, and his basic requirements to all people, all sinners are entirely without excuse. 31. Stowers, Romans, 113; italics original. 32.  Another facet of 1:18–3:20 which reflects strands of Second Temple literature is the negative portrayal of all sinners. Even in 1:18–32 where Gentiles are primarily in view, Jews are not entirely excluded from Paul’s indictment. The language of 1:18–32 is regularly rooted in LXX texts about rebellious Israel, especially with respect to changing the glory [ἀλλάσσω τὴν δόξαν] of God for the likeness [ἐν ὁμοιώματι] of something else in 1:23. This text likely alludes to Ps 106:20 (105:20 LXX), which hearkens back to Israel’s worship of the golden calf. “And they changed their glory into the similitude of a calf that feeds on grass” [καὶ ἠλλάξαντο τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν ἐν ὁμοιώματι μόσχου ἔσθοντος χόρτον]. On Paul’s evocation of this Psalm, see Lucas, Evocations. Cf. Jonathan A. Linebaugh, God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Texts in Conversation, NovTSup 152 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 115. See also Barclay, Paul, 462–63. After noting echoes of this Psalm in Rom 1:23, Barclay points to Pseudo‑Philo and 4 Ezra for support that “Paul’s inclusion of Jews within a pessimistic portrayal of the human condition is not unparalleled among Second Temple authors” (463).

Blazosky Final.indd 150

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Romans

151

Two other potential parallels to 2:12–16 from Second Temple literature also deserve mention. First is Paul’s use of φύσις. There is much debate over whether φύσις in 2:14 describes the condition of Gentiles (i.e. they do not naturally have the law; cf. 2:27) or how Gentiles do some things in the law (i.e. they do the law by nature; cf. ESV; NIV; NET).33 Especially in the latter reading, Paul’s use of φύσις, as well as his emphasis on humanity’s awareness of divine law, is reflective of Philo’s writings.34 Thus, it is possible that Paul saw a connection between the Mosaic law and natural law in 2:14–15. Just as in Philo’s writings, however, the Mosaic law remains central. If Paul is alluding to natural law, it is not natural law in contradistinction to the Mosaic law. In other words, even if natural law can be found in 2:14–15, Paul is not thereby suggesting that Gentiles are condemned by natural law rather than the Mosaic law. Furthermore, it is important to note that, if Paul is connecting the Mosaic law and natural law, it is for quite a different reason. Philo, for example, appeals to natural law to explain how the patriarchs could live pious lives; but, as Kuhr notes, “Paulus dagegen bedient sich der gleichen Gedankengänge, um die Verantwortlichkeit der Heiden zu beweisen.”35 Another potential parallel is with respect to the law’s role in the judgment of the nations. In works such as LAB, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra, there are clear statements that the law will be an instrument by which the world will be judged. In 4 Ezra 13, however, that future judgment is meted out specifically through a conquering divine son who destroys the nations “by means of the law” (4 Ezra 13:38).36 If my reading of Rom 2:12–16 is correct, 4 Ezra 13 provides an intriguing parallel to Paul’s 33.  Most translations suggest that φύσει describes how these Gentiles obey. They do “by nature” the things of νόμος (ESV, KJV, NET, NIV; similarly, HCSB, NAS, NLT, and NRSV, all render φύσει as “instinctively”). On the other hand, Paul could simply be emphasizing that Gentiles do not possess νόμος: “When Gentiles, who do not naturally [φύσει] have the law, do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.” For discussion of this debate, see esp. Cranfield, Romans, 1:156–57; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 214–15; Wright, “Law,” 144–45. Good arguments can be marshalled for both views. In either case, this decision does not dictate one’s position on the identity of the Gentiles in 2:14–15. Furthermore, Paul’s focus on internal awareness of law may be compared to Philo regardless of how one interprets φύσις. 34.  Tobin (Paul’s Rhetoric, 114) writes: “When Paul uses the world ‘law’ (νόμος) in this section [2:14–15], he ultimately does mean the Mosaic law. But he understands the Mosaic law in a way similar to that found in some strands of Hellenistic Judaism. The law was explicitly revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. But for Hellenistic Jews such as Philo of Alexandria, this same law was also reflected in the structure of the universe and was embedded in nature (φύσις) itself. For Philo, the world is in harmony with the Mosaic law, and the law with the world.” 35.  Kuhr, “Römer 2 14f.,” 258. 36.  In addition, Paul’s treatment of the human plight in Romans 1–2 parallels much of what is seen in 4 Ezra 7. For comparison and contrast, see David deSilva, “Grace, the Law and Justification in 4 Ezra and the Pauline Letters: A Dialogue,” JSNT 37 (2014): 41–43.

Blazosky Final.indd 151

4/11/19 5:28 PM

152

Chapter 5

emphasis on the future day when God judges humanity “by Christ Jesus” for their disobedience to the law. B. The Law’s Role in Shutting Mouths in Rom 3:19–20 Throughout the entirety of 1:18–3:18, Paul highlights the equality of Jewish and Gentile sinners. His argument concludes in 3:19–20 with the declaration that humanity is guilty and accountable before God. The purpose of these concluding verses in the broader context is fairly obvious, yet Paul’s logic within 3:19 is not. Paul writes: “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law [τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ], so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.” The difficulty lies in explaining how the condemnation of those ἐν τῷ νόμῳ results in humanity’s guilt.37 How does what νόμος says to those ἐν τῷ νόμῳ shut every mouth? Explaining this logical connection is dependent on identifying those who are ἐν τῷ νόμῳ. Given that 2:12 contains the only comparable use of ἐν νόμῳ in Paul’s writings, one’s reading of 2:12 inevitably shapes one’s view of 3:19. In 2:12, however, there is a clear contrast between those ἐν νόμῳ with the ἄνομος. Thus, those ἐν νόμῳ in 2:12 seem, at least initially, to include only a segment of humanity. By the end of 2:12–16, however, Paul virtually nullifies this distinction by arguing that everyone is, to some degree, ἐν νόμῳ. In 3:19, however, Paul only speaks of those ἐν τῷ νόμῳ. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether those ἐν τῷ νόμῳ in 3:19 include only Jewish people or all people. The logic of 3:19 can be explained in a variety of ways.38 Paul could be using an a fortiori argument: if the law condemns the Jews (the most privileged), it certainly condemns the rest of humanity as well.39 Paul could be relying on a commonly shared assumption of Gentile condemnation: νόμος speaks to and condemns only Jews, and, since it is a given that Gentiles are under condemnation, every person is accountable before God.40 Or, if Paul considers all people to be ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, the logic is obvious: νόμος speaks to and condemns all people with the result that every mouth is shut. The text is simply not clear enough to draw a definitive conclusion. In the end, the logic is sound in each reading. A few signs, however, may suggest that the last option is to be preferred. Identifying all people as being ἐν τῷ νόμῳ fits well with how Paul reframes the discussion of who is ἐν νόμῳ in 2:12–16. Ferdinand 37.  When Paul says ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει in 3:19a, the meaning of νόμος is not apparent. Νόμος may refer to the Mosaic law; but it is interesting that, of Paul’s six citations in in 3:10–18, none is from the law code. Thus, νόμος may be a general reference to Scripture (cf. 1 Cor 14:21). I suggest that Paul refers to the voice of Scripture as a whole, but with specific focus on the Mosaic law (cf. Gal 3:21–23). Whatever scripture, via the law, says, it says to those in the realm of the law. 38.  For an extended survey of the proposals on the logic of 3:19, see Kim, “Redeemed,” 83–89. 39.  So, Cranfield, Romans, 1:196–97; Thielman, Paul, 176–77. 40.  So, Kuula, Law, 2:121; Sanders, Paul, the Law, 82; Westerholm, Perspectives, 416.

Blazosky Final.indd 152

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Romans

153

Hahn’s comments are helpful: “Im ‘Bereich des Gesetzes’ stehen zunächst einmal unbestritten die Juden, jedoch nach den Ausführungen von 2 14ff. gilt dies eben grundsätzlich auch für die Heiden.”41 In addition, the logic within 3:19 is more straightforward with this reading. Finally, this view fits best with the focus on humanity’s plight in 3:9 and the six citations in 3:10–18, some of which describe Jews while others describe Gentiles in their original contexts.42 Schreiner’s remarks on his transition to this position are a fitting conclusion: Previously this [a fortiori] interpretation seemed persuasive to me, but I now incline to the notion that Gentiles are included in those who are in the realm of the law for the following reasons. Strictly speaking, of course, the Gentiles did not possess the Mosaic law, as Romans 2:12–14 verifies. Still, Paul argues in the very text that the moral norms of the law are etched on their hearts. The catena of sins listed in Romans 3:9–18 focus on the moral infraction of which all people are guilty, including the Gentiles. Hence, in Paul’s concluding statement in Romans 3:19 he may be placing Gentiles in the realm of the law in that they are fully aware of the moral norms stated in the law…. Finally, in 3:20 Paul emphasizes that “no human being” (pasa sarx) is justified by the works of law, suggesting again that both Jews and Gentiles are in view.43

C. Conclusion to Gentiles and Law in Rom 1:18–3:20 Paul unveils multiple truths in 1:18–3:20 concerning νόμος and humanity. Though νόμος was given specifically to Israel (2:17–24), its ability to condemn reaches beyond its covenantal boundaries (3:19). Its basic requirements have been etched 41.  Ferdinand Hahn, “Das Gesetzesverständnis im Römer- und Galaterbrief,” ZNW 67 (1976): 34. 42.  In 3:9–18, Paul uses at least six passages—five from Davidic Psalms (14:1–3; 5:9; 140:3; 10:7; 36:1) and one from Isaiah (59:7–8)—to pronounce humanity’s condemnation. The Psalm citations focus on David’s enemies, on fools, and on the wicked, while also suggesting universality in Ps 14:1–3 (13:1–3 LXX). In Isa 59:7–8 (cited in Rom 3:15–17), however, the condemnation is clearly against Israel for their unrighteousness. Thus, what David says about his enemies and fools, Isaiah says about Israel. Paul uses the unified voices of Israel’s great king and prophet to affirm the equality of humanity’s plight. For a helpful discussion of how Paul alters the OT texts in 3:10–18 “to eliminate the traditional distinction in the Old Testament and other Jewish literature between the wise, the righteous person and the foolish,” see Robert Jewett, “The Anthropological Implications of the Revelation of Wrath in Romans,” in Ehrensperger and Tucker, Reading Paul in Context, 31. 43. Schreiner, 40 Questions, 78–79. Likewise, see Herbert Bowsher, “To Whom Does the Law Speak? Romans 3:19 and the Works of the Law Debate,” WTJ 68 (2006): 295–303; Murray, Romans, 105–7; Jarvis J. Williams, For Whom Did Christ Die?, PBM (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2012), 81–82. Cf. Stanley E. Porter, The Letter to the Romans: A Linguistic and Literary Commentary, New Testament Monographs 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015), 91. See also Dunn, Theology, 136–37: “Paul evidently regarded the law as a standard of universal judgment. Gentiles would be subject to judgment in accordance with the same standard.… The law could thus be said to stand as the measure of God’s requirement and judgment for the world of humankind as a whole (2.16; 3.6). And Paul could wind up his indictment appropriately: the law stops every mouth and makes all the world liable to God’s judgment (3.19)—Jew first, and also Gentile” (italics original).

Blazosky Final.indd 153

4/11/19 5:28 PM

154

Chapter 5

on the hearts of humanity and will stand as a witness, alongside conscience, condemning humanity for its failure to obey what God has commanded (2:12–16). There will be no ultimate distinction at the judgment between Jew and Gentile since all are ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν and stand equally condemned (3:9). Νόμος will shut every mouth and condemn every sinner (3:19–20).

II. The Law and the Enslaving Powers of Darkness in Rom 5:12–8:17 Whereas Paul’s discussions of νόμος in Romans 1–3 focus on the condemning power of νόμος, Paul’s focus in Romans 5–8 shifts to how νόμος has become the principal tool that ἁμαρτία, in conjunction with θάνατος and σάρξ, uses to enslave humanity. This partnership between νόμος and ἁμαρτία, latent in 1:18–3:20, becomes a central feature of Paul’s presentation of humanity’s plight in 5:12–8:17. A. The Relationship of Ἁμαρτία and Νόμος in Romans 6 In the entire Pauline corpus, ἁμαρτία occurs sixty-four times.44 Forty-eight uses appear in Romans, and forty-two of those occur in 5:12–8:17. Though debatable, it is possible that all forty-two occurrences of ἁμαρτία in 5:12–8:17 (excluding περὶ ἁμαρτίας in 8:3)45 are cases of personification.46 In this section alone, ἁμαρτία enters the world, reigns over humanity, exercises dominion, produces covetousness, springs to life, seizes opportunities to kill, causes death, and dwells within. Humanity is described as sold ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, as δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, and as held captive ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. 44.  In no other letter is ἁμαρτία central to the argument. The most frequent usage outside of Romans is in 1 Corinthians where ἁμαρτία occurs four times. 45.  The HCSB and NIV both translate the phrase as “a sin offering” since περὶ [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας regularly refers to a sin offering in Leviticus (40×) and Numbers (34×). In Leviticus  16 alone, concerning the Day of Atonement, περὶ [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας occurs nine times in reference to a sin offering. 46.  Joseph R. Dodson (The “Powers” of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the “Book of Wisdom” and the Letter to the Romans, BZNW 161 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008], 27–50) makes an important contribution to the personification of ἁμαρτία, θάνατος and νόμος. Dodson’s simple definition of personification informs this analysis of the enslaving powers in Romans. Dodson defines “personification as the attribution of human characteristics to any inanimate object, abstract concept or impersonal being” (30; italics original). Later, Dodson suggests that in cases of personification, the thing personified “actually becomes the character used with action verbs most often associated with humans” (39). For two other helpful monographs on the powers in Paul, see Kabiro wa Gatumu, The Pauline Concept of Supernatural Powers: A Reading from the African Worldview, PBM (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2008); Moses, Practices. For an opposing view that Paul does not personify ἁμαρτία in the sense of a “dämonisch Macht,” see Günter Röhser, Metaphorik und Personifikation der Sünde: Antike Sündenvorstellungen und paulinische Hamartia, WUNT 2.25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987).

Blazosky Final.indd 154

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Romans

155

1. The Reign of Ἁμαρτία in Romans 6 Though ἁμαρτία is not prominent in Romans until 5:12, Paul’s initial uses of ἁμαρτία preview his teaching. Even though ἁμαρτία does not appear in 1:18–3:8, Paul summarizes his argument in 3:9 by saying that “we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin [ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν].” In 3:20, Paul declares that no person will be justified ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, “since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (3:20). Together, 3:9 and 3:20 offer a preview of 5:12–8:17. Paul highlights the equality and universality of the human plight, the dominance of ἁμαρτία, the lack of hope for deliverance through νόμος, and the inseparable union of νόμος and ἁμαρτία. In Paul’s comparison and contrast of Adam and Christ in 5:12–21, focused attention is given for the first time to ἁμαρτία as a dominant force. By Paul’s conclusion in 5:21, ἁμαρτία is portrayed as a power reigning over humanity in conjunction with θάνατος.47 This depiction of ἁμαρτία as a master is then carried through Romans 6–8. In Romans 6, Paul argues that believers who have died to ἁμαρτία cannot continue to live in its realm (6:2). All those baptized into Christ have been united with him in his death and resurrection (6:3–5). The dominion ἁμαρτία once exercised has been broken, and believers are no longer enslaved to ἁμαρτία (6:6). Paul calls believers to embrace this truth and respond with obedience (6:11–13), before closing with the words of hope that ἁμαρτία will not dominate believers since they are not ὑπὸ νόμον but ὑπὸ χάριν. 2. The Union of Ἁμαρτία and Νόμος in Rom 6:14–15 Although Paul has signaled a connection between νόμος and ἁμαρτία in 3:19–20, 5:13–14, and 5:20–21, this use of ὑπὸ νόμον in 6:14–15 is still somewhat unexpected. Since Paul uses ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν in 3:9 and since his focus is squarely on the reigning power of ἁμαρτία in 6:1–13, it would be less surprising to read that ἁμαρτία has no dominion since believers are not ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν.48 Yet, Paul grounds freedom from ἁμαρτία—at least in part—with the declaration that believers are not ὑπὸ νόμον.49 At minimum, this statement reveals the close relationship between being ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν and ὑπὸ νόμον. 47.  Cf. Moo, Romans (NICNT), 319: “In a word, he personifies sin, picturing it as a power that holds sway in the world outside Christ, bringing disaster and death on all humanity. Through this personification, Paul shows that individual acts of sin constitute a principle, or ‘network,’ of sin that is so pervasive and dominant that the person’s destiny is determined by those actions.… In the present instance [5:12], then, the ‘sin’ that enters the world is more than an individual sin; it is the bridgehead that paves that way for ‘sinning’ as a condition of humanity.” 48.  Paul makes the same “unexpected” move in Gal 5:18 where Paul’s focus has been on the problem of σάρξ rather than νόμος. Paul says: “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not ὑπὸ νόμον.” 49.  Rightly, Mark A. Seifrid (Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification, NSBT 9 [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000], 152) writes: “Freedom from sin has its basis in freedom from the law.”

Blazosky Final.indd 155

4/11/19 5:28 PM

156

Chapter 5

Romans 6:14–15 raises an important issue in regard to whether all believers were formerly ὑπὸ νόμον. The implication is fairly clear that, if one were ὑπὸ νόμον, ἁμαρτία would have dominion. The more difficult question is whether 6:14–15 implies the converse: does being ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν mean one is ὑπὸ νόμον? On the one hand, at least some believers were previously ὑπὸ νόμον, or there is little point to this encouragement. On the other hand, 6:14 does not demand that all believers were previously ὑπὸ νόμον. For example, Paul does not say explicitly that believers are no longer ὑπὸ νόμον. The question, however, remains of whether this is actually Paul’s intent. For example, Paul also does not say that ἁμαρτία will no longer have dominion over believers in 6:14a, yet Romans as a whole suggests that all believers were previously ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν (cf. 3:9). Thus, while it is a logical fallacy to conclude based only on 6:14 that all believers were formerly ὑπὸ νόμον, it is certainly possible that 6:14 could imply such a position. A final decision on Paul’s intent, however, cannot be made apart from considering his comments on the union of ἁμαρτία and νόμος in Romans 7. B. The Relationship of Νόμος to the Enslaving Powers in Romans 7 No matter how 6:14–15 is understood, to affirm that not being ὑπὸ νόμον is good news might seem counterintuitive. How good is it to be released from God’s law? Why should this reality instill confidence that ἁμαρτία will not reign? As will be developed by Paul in Romans 7, νόμος is not tangential to humanity’s plight; it is one of its central features. In Romans 7, Paul offers his most extended treatment of how νόμος relates to believers and to ἁμαρτία. The major theme is that believers have died to νόμος in order to belong to Christ and bear fruit for God (7:4). The rest of Romans 7 explains why death to νόμος is necessary (7:5–6) and illustrates what life ὑπὸ νόμον is like (7:7–12, 13–25). 1. The Believer’s Death to Νόμος in Rom 7:1–6 Romans 7 opens with a question: “Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?” After illustrating how death severs one’s relationship to law in 7:2–3, Paul proceeds to address the believer’s death to νόμος and freedom from its reign in 7:4–6:50 50.  On how νόμος is presented as a power that enslaves throughout Romans 6–7, see Kuula, Law, 2:208–9. Cf. van Dülmen, Theologie, 168–79. Kuula points to the use of ὑπὸ νόμον in 6:14–15 and its relationship to ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν in 3:9 and ὑπὸ χάριν in 6:14–15, which both refer to powers (208). In addition, 7:1–6 clearly treats νόμος as “a ‘ruling’ power from which Christians have been discharged so that they can serve God” (209). Furthermore, Kuula suggests that there is a contrast throughout 5:12–8:39 between positive and negative powers: “The cosmic powers of Christ, Spirit, grace and righteousness are in opposition to the powers of sin, death, flesh, and law” (209).

Blazosky Final.indd 156

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Romans

157

Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (Rom 7:4–6)

Romans 7:1–6 is one of Paul’s most significant texts on νόμος. Its implications for this monograph, however, depend on the identification of his intended audience. In light of Paul’s introductory comment that he is speaking “to those who know the law” in 7:1, it is sometimes argued that this section addresses only Jewish Christians and that 7:4–6 deals exclusively with their former plight. Brian Rosner, for example, remarks: Romans 6 and 7 function respectively as exposition of Paul’s gospel to both Jews and Gentiles and defence of that law-free gospel in the light of Jewish objections. In the latter, as Paul makes clear in the first verse, he is not addressing all believers but rather “brothers and sisters…who know the law” (7:1), that is, Jewish believers…. This information is not directly applicable to Gentile believers, who are set free from sin through Jesus Christ (see ch. 6), but not from the law, since they were never under it in the first place.51

In spite of this possibility, it is unlikely that Paul intends to single out Jewish readers for several reasons. First, this view depends on reading Paul’s qualification—“those who know the law”—as limiting the audience to a segment of the readership.52 This sort of qualification, however, could simply serve a rhetorical purpose of underscoring how the audience ought to be able to grasp this point.53 51. Rosner, Paul, 55. Similarly, see Bandstra, Law, 140; Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 225–26; T. L. Carter, Paul and the Power of Sin: Redefining “Beyond the Pale,” SNTSMS 115 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 182–83. Cf. Wolter, Paul, 363; Mark D. Nanos, “A Jewish View,” in Four Views on the Apostle Paul, ed. Michael F. Bird, Counterpoints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 170. For a helpful rebuttal, see Wright, “Romans,” 10:559. 52.  Furthermore, though I am not convinced that Romans is written to an exclusively Gentile audience, the plausibility of this view has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent years. See esp. A. Andrew Das, Solving the Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007); Rafael Rodriguez, If You Call Yourself a Jew: Reappraising Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014); Runar M. Thorsteinsson, Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2: Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography, ConBNT 40 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2003), 188–96. 53.  For example, a US president could say: “Or do you not realize—because I am speaking to those who know the constitution—that freedom of religion is a fundamental right of the citizens of this country?”

Blazosky Final.indd 157

4/11/19 5:28 PM

158

Chapter 5

Table 13. Pronominal Shifting in Romans 6:1–3, 14–16; 7:1, 4 Rom 6:1–3

Rom 6:14–16

Rom 7:1, 4

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey?

Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law— that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.a

a If the end of Romans 6 is also considered, there is a notable connection between 6:22, which speaks of the fruit “you” receive as God’s slaves, and 7:4, which speaks of the fruit “we” bear for God.

Similarly, although this passage has the Mosaic law in its purview, understanding the illustration concerning death and marriage is not dependent on being Jewish. More importantly, however, Paul clearly assumes throughout Romans that his Gentile readers know the Mosaic law well since he cites texts from the law code repeatedly (e.g., Exod 20:13–17; Lev 18:5b; Deut 30:6–8). Thus, in my estimation, it is unlikely that the qualification “those who know the law” excludes the majority of Paul’s readers. Second, though ἀδελφοί in 7:1 and 7:4 could refer exclusively to Jewish “brothers,” Paul’s normal usage of ἀδελφοί is to address the entire readership (e.g., 1:13; 8:12; 12:1; 16:17), unless, as in 9:3, he adds a descriptor such as “my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Paul’s application in 7:4 gives no indication that the audience is limited: “Likewise, my brothers, you also were put to death to the law.” Third, the pronominal shifting in Romans 6–7 suggests that 7:1–6 includes all believers. On each occasion where Paul expresses surprise about the readers’ potential lack of insight,54 he alters between first and second person pronouns 54.  The introductory formula in 7:1, ἤ ἀγνοεῖτε (“or do you not know”), builds on the argument in Romans 6 which concerns all believers. Paul uses this question (or οὐκ οἴδατε) three times in Romans 6­–7 to express surprise that the readers might not recognize what he deems obvious (6:3, 16; 7:1). Thus, it is difficult to maintain that Paul’s question in 7:1 is to a different audience than the previous questions.

Blazosky Final.indd 158

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Romans

159

(Table 13).55 These similar structural markers and the corresponding pronominal shifts suggest that the audience does not change between Romans 6 and 7. Finally, the flow of the argument between 7:1–6 and Romans 6 points toward this reading. The most likely connecting point is 6:14–15 where Paul declares the good news that believers are not ὑπὸ νόμον. In 7:1–6, Paul illustrates how believers have been released from being ὑπὸ νόμον and explains why this release was necessary. Every believer has been put to death to νόμος through union with Christ because every believer needed to be released from νόμος and from the bondage of being ὑπὸ νόμον.56 2. The Inseparable Union of Νόμος, Ἁμαρτία, Σάρξ, and Θάνατος in Romans 7 After asserting the believer’s death to νόμος in 7:4, Paul grounds his declaration in 7:5—the only verse in which ἁμαρτία, νόμος, σάρξ, and θάνατος appear together. Why did believers need to be released from the law’s reign? Paul answers: “For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions,57 aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death” (7:5). Believers needed to be freed from the dominion of νόμος since, while we were ἐν τῇ σαρκί, ἁμαρτία worked through νόμος in our bodies to bear fruit for θάνατος. Whereas ἁμαρτία, θάνατος, and νόμος are each prominent by 5:21, it is not until this text that Paul clearly introduces the problem of σάρξ.58 The alliance of ἁμαρτία, 55.  Kuula (Law, 2:209) comments: “This oscillation between pronouns—similar to that found in Galatians—indicates that no difference between Jews and the Gentiles is being suggested here. Both were under the law before their conversion.” Cf. the shifts in pronouns in 8:11–13, which contains Paul’s first use of ἀδελφοί since 7:4. The God who raised Christ “will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh, for if you live according to the flesh you will die” (8:11b–13a). 56.  Rightly, Martin (Christ, 103) states: “Unbelieving Gentiles are not hypo nomon in the sense that they are self‑consciously Jews, but they are hypo nomon and under the curse of the law in the sense that they are under its enslaving, condemning and killing effects.” Cf. Sanders, Paul, the Law, 81–83; Westerholm, Perspectives, 415–17. Sanders and Westerholm are correct to note that 7:4–6 indicates all believers were previously in bondage to the law, yet their explanation that Paul is simply making an unconscious generalization because of Jewish presuppositions is doubtful. 57.  That ἁμαρτία is plural in 7:5 stands out since this is the only plural form in 5:12–8:17. The significance, however, is unclear. In my view, the difference is simply stylistic, perhaps to agree with the plural παθήματα. Rightly, Moo (Romans [NICNT], 420) states: “The remainder of this verse shows that he continues to characterize sin/sins as an active force.” Contra Cranfield, Romans, 1:337. 58.  On being in the realm of σάρξ, see esp. Moses, Practices, 201: “The Flesh can be spoken of as a powerful sphere of influence; it is a sphere that imposes its will on those who walk in it. As long as humans live in the Flesh, they will bear fruit that leads to death.” Throughout Romans 7–8, Paul typically uses σάρξ to refer the sphere of existence in which humanity dwells (e.g., 7:5) or to an evil power within humanity (e.g., 7:18). For discussion of how σάρξ relates both to redemptive history and the nature of human beings, see Schreiner, Romans, 354. On the relationship of being in σάρξ and in Adam, Wright (“Romans,” 10:560) comments: “‘The flesh’ denotes physicality seen on the one hand as corruptible and on the other as rebellious; it is another way of saying ‘in Adam,’ of demarcating

Blazosky Final.indd 159

4/11/19 5:28 PM

160

Chapter 5

νόμος, and θάνατος rules over people while they are ἐν τῇ σαρκί. J. Christiaan Beker comments well on this partnership: “Behind the manifestations of human sins lies a field of organized evil, summarized by Paul as the powers of ‘the flesh,’ ‘the Law,’ ‘sin,’ and ‘death.’ This field operates as an interrelated whole; it is an alliance of powers under the sovereign and cosmic rule of death.”59 Throughout the rest of Romans 7 and into Romans 8, these four interconnected themes dominate the discussion. 1. The Hijacking of Νόμος in Rom 7:7–12. In light of the links between νόμος and ἁμαρτία, the focus on the believer’s death to both in Romans 6–7, and the emphasis on how ἁμαρτία works specifically through νόμος in 7:4–6, Paul’s question in 7:7 is not surprising. Is νόμος ἁμαρτία? Though Paul repudiates this conclusion, he goes on to highlight how ἁμαρτία has hijacked the holy νόμος and has wielded it as an instrument to inflict death. Apart from νόμος, ἁμαρτία is dead (7:8). But when the commandment comes, ἁμαρτία springs to life and seizes its opportunity to deceive and kill (7:9–11).60 Thus, on the one hand, Paul defends νόμος as holy, righteous, and good (7:12). On the other hand, Paul demonstrates that νόμος has become a helpless victim in ἁμαρτία’s wake. Not only does ἁμαρτία overpower νόμος, ἁμαρτία uses νόμος as its primary instrument to inflict death, increase disobedience, and enslave fallen humanity (7:8–11). 2. The Inability of Νόμος to Deliver in Rom 7:13–8:4. Throughout 7:13–8:4, Paul continues to develop similar ideas about the inability of νόμος to overcome the power of ἁμαρτία.61 Though νόμος is good and even πνευματικός (7:14a), it is unable to deliver a person dominated by σάρξ who is under the power of ἁμαρτία (7:14b). A person may agree with νόμος that it is good, yet νόμος cannot empower obedience (7:15–20). A person may delight in νόμος in the inner being, yet νόμος that humanity is characterized by sin and consequently by death. To be ‘in the flesh’ for Paul is to be determined by ‘flesh’ in this sense, i.e., to live under the domain of sin and death, and thus to be in the condition marked by the first half of the various antitheses both of 5:12–21 and of 6:16–23.” 59.  J. Christiaan Beker, Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The Coming Triumph of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 42. Cf. also J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 214: “Sin (hamartia) and death (thanatos) are the supreme powers of the old age, which in turn determine the function of the law (nomos) and flesh (sarx) in the world.” 60.  Though, in my view, 7:7–25 does include Paul’s own experience, this text also has connecting points with Adam, Israel, and anyone who comes into contact with νόμος. Paul’s experience is perhaps best understood as personal, yet paradigmatic of humanity’s experience with ἁμαρτία and νόμος. See esp. Schreiner, Romans, 401. Schreiner suggests that “Paul does not intend to distinguish believers from unbelievers in this text.… Paul reflects on whether the law has the ability to transform human beings, concluding it does not” (390). On seeing Israel’s fall as a recapitulation of Adam’s fall, see Daniel Napier, “Paul’s Analysis of Sin and Torah in Romans 7:7–25,” ResQ 44 (2002): 20–22. Cf. David VanDrunen, “Israel’s Recapitulation of Adam’s Probation under the Law of Moses,” WTJ 73 (2011): 310–12. 61.  For an interesting comparison on the inability of the law given at Sinai to overcome the evil already present within humanity since Adam, see 4 Ezra 3:17–22.

Blazosky Final.indd 160

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Romans

161

cannot deliver that person from captivity to ἁμαρτία which dwells within (7:23). Since such diabolical power resides “in my members,” Paul exclaims in 7:24: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” This deliverance from ἁμαρτία and θάνατος—one which νόμος could never provide— comes only through Jesus and his life-giving Spirit (7:25–8:3). In 7:13–8:4, Paul has again defended νόμος for what it truly is: ὁ νόμος τοῦ θεοῦ (7:22, 25). At the same time, Paul has once again demonstrated that νόμος is powerless to overcome the powers of darkness: ἁμαρτία, θάνατος, and σάρξ. Though νόμος reveals God’s expectations, νόμος has never had the power to rescue anyone ἐν σαρκί from ἁμαρτία and θάνατος or to enable anyone to fulfill its righteous requirements. This was τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου (8:3). But, what νόμος could never do, God did through his Son so that those who walk according to his Spirit now fulfill τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου (8:3–4). C. The Single Solution to the Single Human Predicament in Romans 5–8 In multiple ways, Paul demonstrates that the reign of θάνατος, ἁμαρτία, νόμος, and σάρξ is all-or-nothing. Θάνατος and ἁμαρτία enter the world together through Adam (5:12–19) and exercise dominion inseparably (5:21; 7:23–25; 8:2; cf. 6:9– 10). Νόμoς exacerbates the human predicament by further empowering the joint reign of ἁμαρτία and θάνατος (5:20–21).62 In fact, νόμος is what gives ἁμαρτία such vitality and power, for, apart from νόμος, ἁμαρτία is dead (7:7–11). Brice Martin notes rightly: “In Romans, to be under the power of sin you need to be under the power of the law, for apart from the law sin lies dead.”63 Yet Paul is equally clear that ἁμαρτία, θάνατος, and νόμος are only able to enslave people who are ἐν σαρκί (7:4–6; 8:2–8; cf. 7:25). Perhaps in no way is the inseparable bond of θάνατος, ἁμαρτία, νόμος, and σάρξ seen more clearly than in the single solution to the human predicament. The answer to θάνατος is the θάνατος of Jesus (5:15–21; 6:9; 7:24) and the power of the life-giving Spirit (8:2). The answer to ἁμαρτία is Jesus’s death περὶ ἁμαρτίας (8:3), our union in that death (5:20–21; 6:2–10; 8:3), and the liberating work of the Spirit (8:2). Likewise, freedom from νόμος comes through the body of Christ and 62.  On the entrance of νόμος in 5:20–21, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 422: “As in the case of Hamartia and Thanatos, so now Nomos is personified and treated as an actor on the stage of human history. Instead of being a source of life for the Jews, according to Lev 18:5, it proved to be an informer against them and accuser, bringing condemnation.” See also Dodson, “Powers,” 126: “Through the personification, Paul presents Death as a co‑ruler with Sin, who entered with Sin to reign over humanity. Death reigned unchecked and Sin existed unrecognized until personified Law (Nomos) came (v. 20). Nomos did not remedy the situation at all but increased trespass instead. As a result, Sin continued to abound and reign ‘with’ Death over all humanity until the work of Christ.” 63. Martin, Christ, 103.

Blazosky Final.indd 161

4/11/19 5:28 PM

162

Chapter 5

the work of the Spirit (7:4–6; cf. 8:2–3), and freedom from σάρξ comes through the σάρξ of God’s Son and the strength of the indwelling Spirit (7:5–6; 8:2–13). In 5:12–8:17, all believers were formerly ἐν σαρκί and subject to the alliance of ἁμαρτία, νόμος, and θάνατος; but now, every believer is ἐν πνεύματι, ἐν Χριστῷ, and freed from every enslaving power. D. Conclusion to Gentiles and Law in Rom 5:12–8:17 With respect to the issue of Gentiles and νόμος in 5:12–8:17, Paul maintains his theme of no distinction. Through the repeated themes of slavery and death, Paul unites the powers of darkness together, resulting in a unified presentation of the human predicament. It is not possible for ἁμαρτία to reign apart from νόμος, nor is it possible for ἁμαρτία, νόμος, and θάνατος to enslave apart from σάρξ. Paul spends no time distinguishing the former plight of Jewish and Gentile believers in 5:12–8:17; rather, Paul accentuates the horrible condition from which all of God’s people have been rescued through Christ: the single solution to the single, yet multi-faceted, human plight.

III. A Summary of Paul’s View of Gentiles and Law in Romans Though νόμος was given specifically to the Jews, its ability to condemn reaches beyond its covenantal boundaries (1:18–3:20). Its basic requirements have been etched on human hearts and will stand as a witness, alongside conscience, condemning humanity for its failure to obey God’s commands (2:12–16). There will be no ultimate distinction at the judgment between Jew and Gentile since all are ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν and stand equally condemned by νόμος. Νόμος will shut every mouth and condemn every sinner (3:19–20). Though νόμος is good and spiritual, νόμος has become the primary tool ἁμαρτία uses to enslave humanity (5:12–8:17). In Paul’s view, νόμος has been taken captive since the time it entered the world. Νόμος did not help the human plight, but rather intensified it. As long as people are ἐν σαρκί, ἁμαρτία will work through νόμος to bear fruit for death (7:5). Thus, the only path to freedom is union with Christ in his death. People must die not only to ἁμαρτία but also to νόμος; they must be pulled from the clutches of θάνατος and σάρξ through the life-giving power of God’s Spirit. It is an all-or-nothing proposition. By emphasizing the single human plight throughout Romans 1–11, Paul prepares his audience for his exhortations to love, acceptance, and unity in Romans 12–15. If all of Jesus’s people were rescued from the same darkness, why would we live now in Christ as if there were barriers between us? If Jesus has welcomed us all, we ought also to welcome one another for the glory of God (15:7). The gospel

Blazosky Final.indd 162

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Romans

163

reconciles sinners who were formerly at odds with one another, and the gospel sets our thinking straight concerning our past so that we recognize that there never was any ultimate distinction between us.

IV. Comparing and Contrasting Gentiles and Law in Romans and Galatians In Galatians and Romans, Paul portrays the human plight similarly, yet each letter has its own emphases and offers distinct contributions. While many similarities could be mentioned, six parallels are noteworthy. First, both letters demonstrate that νόμος condemns and enslaves all sinners. Second, νόμος works alongside ἁμαρτία and σάρξ to imprison. Third, νόμος is one member of an indivisible unit of enslaving powers. Slavery to one indicates slavery to all; freedom from one means freedom from all. Fourth, though νόμος was given to the Jews, it is able to condemn more than its covenant members. Fifth, as there is equality in the Messiah, there is equality outside the Messiah; there is no ultimate distinction between Jewish and Gentile sinners. Finally, union with Christ in his death frees every believer from condemnation and from every enslaving power. Jesus is the single solution to the single, yet multi-faceted, human predicament. Each letter also makes unique contributions. One example from Galatians is Paul’s unification of the powers of ἁμαρτία, σάρξ, and νόμος under the umbrella of τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. In Romans, Paul does not mention στοιχεῖα. In addition, none of his uses of κόσμος has to do with the old age. Nevertheless, Paul does often use temporal markers in Romans to signify a shift in salvation history from the old order to the new,64 which likely implies that apocalyptic thinking is important to Paul’s portrayal of the human plight and the enslaving powers not only in Galatians but also in Romans.65 Several unique contributions are made specifically by Romans. Paul’s clearest defense of the spiritual nature of νόμος is found in Romans. Νόμος is inherently good, holy, and righteous. Furthermore, νόμος bears prophetic witness to God’s righteousness in Christ. Even though these themes remain veiled, and negative comments concerning νόμος prevail in Galatians, it is important to note that, even 64.  For examples of key temporal markers in Romans, see Paul’s use of νῦν/νυνί in 3:21, 26; 7:6; 8:1; and 16:25–26. See also Paul’s language concerning what is old versus what is new in 6:4–6 and 7:6, as well as his emphasis on what was in former times versus that which was to come in 4:24; 5:14; and 15:4. On the antithesis between old and new in Paul, see Meyer, End, 34–62. For an argument which emphasizes the division of humanity into two ages while seeking to uphold a distinction between Jews who are under sin, death, and law from Gentiles who are only under sin and death, see Carter, Paul, 201–3. 65.  Paul’s only use of αἰών in Romans (apart from εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) also reflects Galatians. In light of God’s mercy in Christ, believers must not be conformed to this αἰών (Rom 12:2; cf. Gal 1:4).

Blazosky Final.indd 163

4/11/19 5:28 PM

164

Chapter 5

in Galatians, the negative functions of νόμος ultimately lead toward the positive goal that sinners be justified through faith in Christ. In addition, in both letters, Paul upholds νόμος by teaching that Spirit-led believers fulfill the entire νόμος through love. Romans provides more than a defense of νόμος, however; it also supplements Galatians by further explaining four issues related to Gentiles and νόμος. First, Romans describes how νόμος has become part of the alliance of the powers of darkness. Though νόμος is good, νόμος is weak. Νόμος has been taken captive by ἁμαρτία like a helpless victim and is wielded by ἁμαρτία as its primary weapon to inflict death and destruction. Second, Romans affirms the Jewishness of νόμος. Jews were not only entrusted with the light of νόμος but were given the responsibility of bringing this light to those in darkness. Romans clarifies the genuine advantages of Jewish ethnicity, something which Galatians never does. Yet, Romans declares unequivocally the universality and equality of the human predicament. All people, even the privileged Jews, exist in slavery to νόμος and the powers of darkness. In God’s sight, there is no fundamental distinction in the present, and there will be no ultimate distinction at the final judgment. Third, Romans develops how Gentiles can be culpable for breaking νόμος. God has made Gentiles aware of the basic requirements of νόμος by etching these things on their hearts. At the same time, Romans suggests that greater awareness of νόμος leads to greater accountability at the final judgment. While νόμος will condemn all sinners on judgment day, the judgment will be stricter for those given greater light. A final contribution of Romans is its addition of θάνατος to the alliance of evil. Though absent from Galatians, θάνατος is a critical power in Romans. Paul’s introduction of θάνατος connects humanity’s predicament to Adam. Humanity is divided into two groups. Humanity is not Jew and Gentile; rather, humanity is in Adam or in Christ. Those in Adam belong to the old age and are subject to its enslaving powers: θάνατος, ἁμαρτία, νόμος, and σάρξ. Those in Christ, however, have been rescued from the domain of darkness, have entered the new age, and have become subject to a better master.

Blazosky Final.indd 164

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Chapter 6

1 Corinthians and the Disputed Pauline Epistles

Introduction Since the overwhelming majority of Paul’s uses of νόμος are in Galatians and Romans (106 of 121), these letters form the foundation for all Paul and the law studies. Nevertheless, Paul’s other writings occasionally clarify or complement Paul’s perspective, even if, as in 2 Corinthians 3, the word νόμος is absent.1 In regard to the topic of Gentiles and νόμος specifically, at least five texts deserve special consideration: 1 Cor 9:19–23; 15:55–57; Eph 2:13–15; Col 2:13–15; and 1 Tim 1:8–11. Each text is significant to how νόμος relates to Gentile unbelievers, yet, for different reasons. In the case of 1 Cor 15:55–57, Paul’s unification of νόμος with the powers of ἁμαρτία and θάνατος complements his teaching in Romans 5–8. On the other hand, 1 Cor 9:19–23 and Eph 2:13–15 appear to push against Galatians and Romans. In the former, we find Paul’s only uses of ὑπὸ νόμον outside of Galatians and Romans. This text, however, suggests that Gentile unbelievers are not ὑπὸ νόμον. Similarly, in Eph 2:13–15, Paul clearly portrays νόμος as something which divides Jew from Gentile. The mutual emphases of these texts on how νόμος separates humanity must be integrated into the broader discussion of how νόμος also unites humanity under condemnation. As will become clear, these three texts neither seriously challenge nor significantly advance my thesis. Thus, each passage is assessed fairly quickly. Two other texts, however, must be explored more thoroughly: Col 2:13–15 and 1 Tim 1:8–11. Even though the neglect of these texts in Paul and the law studies is palpable, each offers important testimony to Paul’s view of the extent of the law’s condemning power. 1.  It is debatable how much 2 Corinthians 3 contributes to this discussion. See, for example, Paul B. Duff, “Glory in the Ministry of Death: Gentile Condemnation and Letters of Recommendation in 2 Cor. 3:6–18,” NovT 46 (2004): 313–37. Duff argues that a correct understanding of 2 Cor 3:6–18 actually depends on acknowledging that Paul viewed the law as condemning Gentiles. In any case, Paul’s lengthy contrast between the old and new covenant certainly supplements his teaching concerning the death‑dealing power of νόμος. Unlike the new covenant—characterized by the Spirit, life, and freedom—the old covenant “kills,” brings “condemnation,” and produces “death” (2 Cor 3:6–18). See also the treatment of the Mosaic covenant in 2 Corinthians 3–4 as characteristic of the old age in Meyer, End, 62–114.

165

Blazosky Final.indd 165

4/11/19 5:28 PM

166

Chapter 6

I. Clarifications on whether Νόμος Divides or Unites Humanity In my analysis of Galatians and Romans, I have argued that Paul affirms the fundamental equality not only of believers in Christ but also of sinners outside of Christ. The law of Moses, though given to Israel, unifies sinners under divine condemnation. At the same time, both 1 Cor 9:19–23 and Eph 2:13–15 portray humanity as being divided into distinct groups on the basis of one’s relationship to νόμος. The purpose of this section is to explicate these complementary functions of νόμος in Paul’s writings. A. Paul’s Use of Ἄνομος and Ὑπὸ Νόμον in 1 Cor 9:19–23 Though νόμος is not integral to the argument of 1 Corinthians, Paul’s uses of ἄνομος and ὑπὸ νόμον in 1 Cor 9:19–23 supplement his view of Gentiles and νόμος. In 1 Corinthians 8–10, Paul instructs the Corinthians concerning meat offered to idols and challenges them to prioritize love (8:1–3), edification (10:22–23), and God’s glory (10:31). In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul points to himself as an example of such sacrificial living. Specifically in 9:19–23, Paul discusses how he willingly alters his lifestyle among different groups to win more converts.2 While neither sinning nor compromising the gospel, Paul sacrifices his rights for the good of others and the sake of the gospel. In 9:19–23, in Paul’s description of the groups to whom he ministers, the phrase ὑπὸ νόμον occurs four times. A potential point of tension arises in this text since Paul clearly delineates between people who are ὑπὸ νόμον and those who are ἄνομος. Räisänen, for example, asserts that this text contradicts Gal 3:13 where Gentiles are said to be under the curse of the law.3 This alleged inconsistency, however, is superficial rather than substantive since it rests on a faulty assumption that ὑπὸ νόμον must be used identically in every Pauline text. Rosner warns rightly against this very assumption: “Context, usage, and syntax make clear what Paul meant each time it is used.”4 In Galatians and Romans, ὑπὸ νόμον carries negative connotations and indicates that one is enslaved to νόμος. In 1 Cor 9:19–23, however, being ὑπὸ νόμον simply describes how one functions with reference to the Mosaic 2.  For an argument that this passage is not about Paul’s behavior but only his rhetorical flexibility, see Mark D. Nanos, “Paul’s Relationship to Torah in Light of His Strategy ‘To Become Everything to Everyone’ (1 Corinthians 9.19–23),” in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish Christian Relations, ed. Reimund Bieringer and Didier Pollefeyt, LNTS 463 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2012), 106–40. This emphasis on Paul’s “rhetorical adaptability” in explaining the gospel is commendable, yet I question whether Nanos is correct that “lifestyle adaptability” is not also in view in this text, especially in light of the broader context of 1 Corinthians 8–10 where Paul speaks of ways in which believers ought to willingly give up their rights for the good of others. 3.  See Räisänen, Paul, 20. 4.  Rosner (Paul, 47) is likewise correct in his view of 1 Cor 9:20 as being distinct from the negative uses of ὑπὸ νόμον elsewhere in Paul. According to Rosner, in 1 Cor 9:20, “under the law” is virtually synonymous with “Jew.” Contra Gaston, Paul, 30–31.

Blazosky Final.indd 166

4/11/19 5:28 PM

1 Corinthians and the Disputed Pauline Epistles

167

law.5 Some live in conscious awareness of νόμος (ὑπὸ νόμον), while others function without reference to νόμος (ἄνομος).6 With each group, Paul sacrifices his rights in the hope of winning them to Christ. Even though Paul divides humanity in 9:19–23 between those who are ὑπὸ νόμον and those who are not, this passage does not prove who is ὑπὸ νόμον in Galatians and Romans where the phrase connotes a slavery from which one must be rescued. Paul’s uses of ὐπὸ νόμον in 9:20 are not inconsistent with his other uses but are simply distinct. B. The Law as the Dividing Wall in Eph 2:13–15 As in 1 Cor 9:19–23, Eph 2:13–15 likewise portrays νόμος as dividing humanity. The key issue, for our purposes, is how νόμος separates Jew from Gentile. In the only imperative in Ephesians 1–3, Paul calls on his readers to remember their former plight (2:11–12). Gentile believers were formerly estranged from God, his covenants, and his covenant people; but now, in Christ, those far off have been brought near (2:13).7 Though 2:16–18 goes on to speak of both Jews and Gentiles being brought near to God, Paul’s emphasis in 2:14–15 is on how Christ brings Jews and Gentiles to one another. Through the cross, God has killed the hostility and has broken down the dividing wall (2:13–15). Central to 2:11–22 is what was at the center of Jew–Gentile hostility. Paul depicts νόμος and its δόγματα as a wall separating Jew from Gentile (2:14–15).8 5.  Cf. 2 Macc 7:36. Rightly, Gordon D. Fee (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed., NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014], 474) states: “For Paul the language ‘being under (or ‘keeping’) the law’ has to do with being Jewish in a national-cultural‑religious sense.” Cf. James D. G. Dunn, “Under the Law,” in Paul, John and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer, ed. Jan Krans et al., NovTSup 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 52–54. Frank Thielman (“The Coherence of Paul’s View of the Law: The Evidence of First Corinthians,” NTS 38 [1992]: 246) remarks well: “Paul’s uses of the word ‘law’ and its opposite ‘lawless’ in this passage focus on the role of the law as the mark of the Jewish people, and upon those aspects of the Jewish law which make it distinctively Jewish, in particular the food laws.” 6.  BDAG notes that Paul is not criticizing people by saying they are ἄνομος but is simply showing his “empathy for those outside the Mosaic tradition.” Cf. Rosner and Ciampa, Corinthians, 427–28. 7.  At the same time, despite Paul’s emphasis on the Gentile plight in Eph 2:11–13, in the broader context, Paul also underscores the equality of Jews and Gentiles outside of Christ, particularly in Eph 2:1–3. See esp. Frank Thielman (Ephesians, BECNT [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010], 125) who remarks rightly on the universal focus of Eph 2:1–3 and the pronominal shifting in that paragraph: “Paul shifts to the first‑person plural and repeats the substance of 2:2a…in order to show that the plight he has just described has affected every Christian, without exception, himself included.” See also Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 317–18; Starling, Gentiles, 190–91. 8.  For a survey of proposals on the meaning of the “dividing wall,” see Markus Barth, Ephesians 1–3: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 34 (New York: Doubleday, 1974), 283–87; Te-Li Lau, Politics of Peace: Ephesians, Dio Chrysostom, and the Confucian Four Books, NovTSup 133 (Boston: Brill, 2010), 86. Since Paul most likely speaks metaphorically of a barrier between Jews and Gentiles, it seems probable, as Lau remarks, that “the meaning of τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ is

Blazosky Final.indd 167

4/11/19 5:28 PM

168

Chapter 6

But in what way does νόμος divide, and how does this idea relate to Paul’s teaching elsewhere? The opening verses of this section are essential to answering these questions. In 2:11–12, Paul urges the readers to remember that they, “Gentiles in the flesh,” were called “the uncircumcision” by the circumcised.9 This entire section is set against a backdrop of social hostility. This ethnic divide is foundational to Paul’s presentation of νόμος in 2:15. Νόμος had become the chief factor in isolating Jews from Gentiles. Though passages such as Exodus 19 reveal God’s intent for Israel to serve as a kingdom of priests for the good of the nations, Israel’s failure and the centuries of Jew–Gentile hostility stirred up through νόμος had created a seemingly insurmountable barrier.10 As Te-Li Lau notes, “The dividing wall of 2:14 is the enmity (τὴν ἔχθραν) generated by the Jewish Torah (τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν; 2:15) with its regulations that precluded any true κοινωνία between Jews and Gentiles.”11 In light of such νόμος-centered animosity, God killed the hostility and broke down the dividing wall created through νόμος by abolishing its authority altogether (2:14–15).12 probably polyvalent…and suggests the whole complex of ethnic exclusions that separate Jews and Gentiles” (86). Nevertheless, the central feature of the “dividing wall of hostility” is νόμος and its decrees; cf. Thielman, Ephesians, 166–67; Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 196. This connection between νόμος and its function of dividing Jew from Gentile is also reflective of Jewish tradition as seen in Let. Aris. 139. 9.  Cf. Lau, Politics, 84: “This Jewish presentation of the Gentile other provided an ethno‑centric grid by which the Jews defined an outsider vis-à-vis the insider.” 10.  For further argumentation that Eph 2:11–18 concerns what νόμος had become rather than what it was intended to be, see Tet-Lim N. Yee, Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul’s Jewish Identity and Ephesians, SNTSMS 130 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 126–89. “The ‘hedge/wall’ language in v. 14c can be best explained as the logical consequence of the representation provided by the author’s argument in vv. 11–13a: that is, the purposeful and exclusive attitudes of the Jews have separated the Jews from the Gentiles and created a barrier that stood between two ethnic groups. The ‘wall’ refers to the social barrier which is closely associated with some of the boundary markers used by the Jews to separate themselves from the Gentiles (e.g., the mark of the covenant in the ‘flesh’, and the ethnically based ‘body politic of Israel’ and other indicators of Israel’s God‑given grace)” (151; italics original). 11. Lau, Politics, 86. 12.  Rightly, Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 162: “For Paul, the work of Christ marked the end of the Mosaic covenant because Christ had inaugurated a new covenant. The best way to understand this remark is to recognize that Christ has abolished the law entirely, specifically with regard to its function of regulating the covenant relationship.” Cf. Ernest Best, Ephesians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 260; Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC 42 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 142. Contra Barth, Ephesians 1–3, 291; Calvin, Galatians and Ephesians, 235–38. Barth limits Paul’s statement so that only the law’s “divisiveness” was “terminated when Jesus died on the cross.” Calvin limits 2:14–15 only to the ceremonial laws. Paul’s point, however, is that God killed the hostility stirred up through νόμος by doing away with the authority of νόμος altogether through Christ’s death. Rightly, Hoehner (Ephesians, 377) remarks: “Paul’s progression in the argument is that Christ has destroyed the symptom, that is, the enmity between Jews and Gentiles, by making inoperative the root or cause, namely, the law of commandments in decrees.”

Blazosky Final.indd 168

4/11/19 5:28 PM

1 Corinthians and the Disputed Pauline Epistles

169

When Paul affirms that νόμος divided humanity in 2:11–22, he is not concerned with whether νόμος condemns humanity. Instead, Paul addresses the way νόμος had come to divide humanity on the basis of ethnicity and culture in contradiction to God’s plan.13 As a result of Israel’s failure and centuries of Jew–Gentile hostility, principally related to νόμος, an ethnic barrier had been built up that could be torn down only through the cross. Through Christ’s death, God set aside νόμος and its δόγματα to reconcile Jew and Gentile into one new body. When read with contextual sensitivity, both 1 Cor 9:19–23 and Eph 2:13–15 are complementary to Paul’s teaching elsewhere rather than contradictory.

II. Confirmation of the Union of Θάνατος, Ἁμαρτία, and Νόμος: 1 Cor 15:55–57 The last three texts to be discussed in this chapter—1 Cor 15:55–57, Col 2:13–15, and 1 Tim 1:8–11—confirm my reading of Galatians and Romans on both the relationship of the law to the powers of darkness and on the extent of the law’s condemning power. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul’s goal is to defend the reality of a physical resurrection. Paul’s basic argument is that a denial of bodily resurrection undermines the gospel since the gospel itself depends on Jesus’s bodily resurrection (15:3–5). If there is no physical resurrection, not even Christ has been raised (15:12–13). If Christ has not been raised, Christianity is a sham and its followers should be pitied (15:14–19). After discussing the relationship between Christ and Adam, as well as the kind of bodies with which believers will be raised, Paul looks forward in 15:51–58 to the future hope and reward of those united to the Second Adam. The chapter climaxes with a taunt of death (15:54–56), a proclamation of victory in Jesus (15:57), and an exhortation to perseverance (15:58). It is in this death taunt that the single use of νόμος in 1 Corinthians 15 appears: “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law” [τὸ δὲ κέντρον τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἡ δὲ δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ νόμος] (15:56). Since neither νόμος nor ἁμαρτία is prominent in 1 Corinthians, Paul’s exultation here in their defeat is surprising. Yet, it is precisely this unexpected turn in 13.  Rightly, Yee (Jews, 160) states: “In short, the author has spoken critically of the law, but this by no means amounts to a personal attack on the law. Rather, he is speaking from an insider’s perspective on the law which Jews had deemed significant but used as an instrument of division in order to reinforce their distinctive identity (e.g., the ‘circumcision’ and the ‘uncircumcision’) and the ‘body politic’ as based on a particular ethnos. This, the enmity between Jew and Gentile, lies not with the Torah per se but with the human attitude that perverted the gifts of God into signs of separation and exclusiveness.” On God’s intent for Israel and the nations with respect to νόμος and how this intent had been subverted by the powers of darkness, see Timothy G. Gombis, The Drama of Ephesians: Participating in the Triumph of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010), 98–102.

Blazosky Final.indd 169

4/11/19 5:28 PM

170

Chapter 6

the argument which underscores how foundational the union of these powers is to Paul.14 Paul feels no need to defend or elaborate on these assertions concerning θάνατος, ἁμαρτία, and νόμος; they are underpinnings to his theology. Schreiner remarks well on this point: This verse is illuminating because the topic under consideration is death rather than the law. Paul’s comment on the law is not addressed to the particular situation in Corinth, since the law does not surface as a subject anywhere else in 1 Corinthians 15 and does not receive any sustained attention elsewhere in the letter. The Pauline aside regarding the law, then, is best explained as one of his central convictions with regard to the law.15

What is found in 1 Cor 15:55–56 is a microcosm of what is found in Romans 5–8. Or, as Michael Bird remarks wisely, Rom 6:1–8:30 “could be regarded as a commentary on 1 Cor 15.55–56.”16 The overlap, however, includes not only the union 14.  See esp. Chris A. Vlachos, “Law, Sin, and Death: An Edenic Triad? An Examination with Reference to 1 Corinthians 15:56,” JETS 47 (2004): 292. Vlachos is likely correct that Paul sees the triad of θάνατος, ἁμαρτία, and νόμος at work in Eden: “Paul not only recognized Adam’s sin as the origin of death but envisioned law as a fundamental factor in the outworking of the edenic sin” (italics original). Yet, his suggestion that the axiomatic nature of 15:56 points toward a “generic” sense of νόμος is unnecessary (see 282–83, 292). In my view, the inseparable bond between ἀμαρτία and the Mosaic law is the Pauline axiom; thus, the axiomatic nature of the passage does not necessitate reading νόμος generically. For a reading similar to Vlachos’s, see H. W. Hollander and J. Holleman, “The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Cor 15:56,” NovT 35 (1993): 279: “Since Paul is talking about death and sin in general terms, as universal powers…, we may argue that Paul uses the word ‘law’ (νόμος), too, as a general term and not as referring specifically to the Jewish law (Torah).” Again, the idea that θάνατος and ἁμαρτία are “general terms” in 15:55–56 does not necessitate that νόμος is “generic.” Rather than seeing νόμος as a generic reference which can be extended to the edenic prohibition and the Mosaic law, it is better to understand νόμος in 15:56 in the same way as in Rom 7:7–11: νόμος refers specifically to the Mosaic law, even though Paul’s language simultaneously echoes the edenic prohibition and the subsequent fall. 15.  Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 133. Similarly, see Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 293: “The connection between sin and law is for Paul a systematically established relationship.” Cf. also Thielman, “Coherence,” 249: “The similarity between 1 Cor 15.56 and Romans 5–8 should serve as a warning that Paul can make compressed statements about the law which have underneath them a coherent—albeit unexpressed—foundation.” Contra Thomas Söding, “Die Kraft der Sünde ist das Gesetz (1 Kor 15,56): Anmerkungen zum Hintergrund und zur Pointe einer gesetzeskritischen Sentenz des Apostels Paulus,” ZNW 83 (1992): 83–84. While Söding is correct that there must be a reasonable explanation for why Paul brings up νόμος in this passage (76), the view that Paul’s use of νόμος here is explained by 1 Corinthians 1–4 is unlikely. Paul does not suggest that νόμος is to blame for the widespread Jewish failure to believe in a crucified Messiah. 16.  Michael F. Bird, “Salvation in Paul’s Judaism?,” in Bieringer and Pollefeyt, Paul and Judaism, 35. Hollander and Holleman (“Relationship,” 272) imply incorrectly that, “if we need other Pauline letters to explain the statement on death, sin, and law in 1 Cor 15,” the Corinthians could not have understood the passage. Rightly, David Garland (1 Corinthians, BECNT [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003], 746) suggests instead that, what Paul wrote to the Romans about the alliance of death, sin and the

Blazosky Final.indd 170

4/11/19 5:28 PM

1 Corinthians and the Disputed Pauline Epistles

171

of θάνατος, ἁμαρτία, and νόμος, but also the way that Adam relates to the plight of humanity. As in Rom 5:12–21, 1 Corinthians 15 addresses the typological relationship between Adam and Christ.17 In Adam all die, but in Christ all will be made alive. The final great enemy, θάνατος, which entered through Adam, will meet its ultimate demise when God puts all of Jesus’s enemies under his feet (15:21, 26). Just as in Romans 5–8, so also in 1 Corinthians 15 the reign of θάνατος cannot be severed from ἁμαρτία; and, as is seen throughout Romans, the dominion of ἁμαρτία cannot be severed from νόμος. Indeed, νόμος gives ἁμαρτία its strength just as ἁμαρτία gives θάνατος its sting (15:56).18 Humanity is portrayed, once again, in terms of two groups: those in Adam and those in Christ. Those in Adam are subject to the powers of darkness, but thanks be to God who gives us the victory through Jesus.

III. Confirmations of the Universal Extent of the Law’s Condemning Power Two final texts, though often neglected because of their disputed status among the Pauline corpus, validate my conclusions from the undisputed Pauline epistles concerning the extent of the law’s condemning power. Because of the significance of both texts to this topic, each merits more extensive analysis than the passages previously considered in this chapter. Furthermore, because of the disputed status of both Colossians and the Pastoral Epistles in Pauline scholarship, a few additional comments ought to be made at the outset concerning the rationale for including these texts in this book. Since few passages outside of Galatians and Romans address the law, there is a distinct possibility that omitting even one of those texts may hinder the task of law, “he had taught others before. Here, he must assume that the Corinthians would understand this theological shorthand. He did not need to provide an in‑depth explanation on the connection between sin and the law, because he had articulated this idea previously.” 17.  See VanDrunen, “Israel’s Recapitulation,” 314–15. VanDrunen rightly connects Paul’s references to Adam in 1 Corinthians 15 to his comments concerning θάνατος, ἁμαρτία, and νόμος in 15:56: “The force of Paul’s statement is very similar to his point in Rom 5:20: the Mosaic law confirms people in their identity with fallen Adamic humanity…. The law serves to confirm and strengthen the reign of death under the First Adam…. The Mosaic law stands explicitly on the First Adam side of the Two‑Adams ledger.” Cf. Rosner and Ciampa, Corinthians, 836: “The nexus between sin and death is prepared for by the allusions to the fall in 15:21–22.” 18.  Cf. Constantine Campbell, “The Stinger of Death,” The Briefing 357 (2008): 15. Campbell’s suggestion that 1 Cor 15:56a means that “sin is the stinger of death” fits well in the immediate context with its focus on the power of θάνατος. Campbell writes that sin “is the instrument that death uses to overpower us. But through the crushing of sin in Jesus’ death, the power of death has been broken.” If Campbell is correct, then this would also shed light on how Paul views νόμος. Just as ἁμαρτία is what θάνατος uses to expand its reign, so νόμος is what ἁμαρτία uses to extend its crushing power.

Blazosky Final.indd 171

4/11/19 5:28 PM

172

Chapter 6

synthesizing Paul’s thought. Of course, a counterargument could be offered that including any texts which are not genuinely Pauline would also inhibit such an endeavor. It is certainly understandable why the choice is often made to work only within the scholarly consensus; nevertheless, in my view, the benefits of including these texts outweigh any disadvantages to working outside the scholarly consensus on this issue. A review by Douglas Moo from 2001 of a monograph related to Paul and the law studies effectively illustrates my thinking concerning this issue. In the book under review, the author, Marvin Pate, incorporated only the seven commonly accepted epistles in his analysis. Moo’s response applies equally well to this monograph: Pate may well be taking a very common “route of least resistance” approach, avoiding long arguments over introductory issues by working within the scholarly consensus. I have no problem with this procedure in principle. But one has to wonder if, in this case, the limitation skews the conclusion. Would careful attention to Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles have modified or nuanced the conclusion…? Pate is not clear about how many of the letters attributed to Paul in the NT he accepts as genuine. But I suspect he accepts all thirteen. If so, his procedure raises serious questions about theological method among evangelicals. It is one thing to restrict oneself to the scholarly consensus of authentic Pauline material if the conclusion would not be effected [sic] by a broader survey. But in cases where the broader survey might effect [sic] results, one must wonder about where, and how, our theological procedure should be informed by our conclusions about authorship.19

Rosner’s comments from the opening chapter of his Paul and the law monograph on why he incorporates all thirteen letters attributed to Paul are also insightful: [S]ignificant evidence in Ephesians…and the Pastoral Epistles, for example, should not be ignored and sometimes offers support to one interpretation over another of texts in Romans and Galatians. Even those scholars who work with a truncated Pauline corpus should recognize that if the law is a central concern for Paul, the pseudo-Pauline epistles provide early reflections of, or on, his views. It is a mistake to disregard such evidence, even if it is not accorded primary status.20

In the cases of Colossians 2 and 1 Timothy 1, not only do these texts discuss the law, both texts speak clearly to the debated issue of the extent of the law’s condemning power and thus merit our attention. Furthermore, since one argument 19.  Douglas J. Moo, review of The Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom, and the Law, by C. Marvin Pate, TrinJ 22 (2001): 275. 20. Rosner, Paul, 26.

Blazosky Final.indd 172

4/11/19 5:28 PM

1 Corinthians and the Disputed Pauline Epistles

173

often used against the authenticity of 1 Timothy is that its presentation of the law contradicts the undisputed epistles,21 my treatment of 1 Timothy 1 also provides a test case for this claim. A. The Handwriting that Stood against Us in Col 2:8–23 Although the value of Colossians to Christology is self-evident, its relevance to Paul’s view of Gentiles and law is not. Paul, in fact, does not use νόμος in this letter. Thus, before attempting to relate Col 2:13–15 to the discussion of Gentiles and the law, the first task must be to establish that the law is actually in view in Colossians 2. 1. The Presence of Νόμος in Col 2:8–23 The nature of the false teaching in Colossae continues to be debated. Proposals range from there being no specific heresy in view, to the false teaching being sourced in mystery religions, to its being exclusively Jewish in nature, to its being syncretistic—containing elements of Jewish, Christian, and folk religion.22 For my purposes, the goal is not to identify every element of the false teaching but, rather, to establish that νόμος-related regulations are critical to 2:8–23 and to demonstrate that νόμος violations are integral to “the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” (2:14). 21.  E.g., Jouette M. Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 40–42; Räisänen, Paul, 206–7; Jürgen Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus, EKKNT (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 74. 22.  On the various proposals concerning the Colossian heresy, see Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 46–60. Two basic positions seem most plausible. The first is represented well in Clinton E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief in Colossae (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 243–44. Arnold suggests that the false teaching was syncretistic—containing elements of Jewish, Christian, and folk religion. Arnold has recently elaborated on the nature of the syncretistic false teaching with a particular emphasis on its Jewish roots, especially as it relates to Jewish magical traditions; see Clinton E. Arnold, “Sceva, Solomon, and Shamanism: The Jewish Roots of the Problem at Colossae,” JETS 55 (2012): 7–26. Similarly, see David Pao, Colossians & Philemon, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 30–31. A second plausible proposal is that the locus of the false teaching was Jewish in nature. See esp. Wright, Colossians, 26–33; James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 29–35; Michael F. Bird, Colossians & Philemon, NCCS (Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2009), 20–26. Wright’s hypothesis that “all the elements of Paul’s polemic in Colossians” are a warning against Judaism could be an overstatement (29), but he is correct that the promotion of Judaism is central to Paul’s warnings. Cf. also Christian Stettler, “The Opponents at Colossae,” in Paul and His Opponents, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Pauline Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 169–200; Ian K. Smith, Heavenly Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul’s Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colossae, LNTS 326 (London: T&T Clark, 2006). There are different nuances in these sources, but these proposals all recognize (correctly) the Jewish flavor of the false teaching in Colossae. Contra Richard E. Demaris, The Colossian Controversy: Wisdom in Dispute at Colossae, LNTS 99 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994); Troy W. Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit: Colossians as Response to a Cynic Critique, LNTS 118 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996).

Blazosky Final.indd 173

4/11/19 5:28 PM

174

Chapter 6

1. Paul’s References to Human Traditions, Commandments, and Teachings. In 2:8, Paul warns the Colossians not to be taken captive by philosophy that is “according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world” [κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου]. As Paul closes in 2:20–23, he refers again to the στοιχεῖα in a warning against regulations “according to human precepts and teachings” [κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων]. This repetition of στοιχεῖα in warnings about human traditions points toward the unity of 2:8–23. The question is whether Paul has Mosaic regulations in view when he mentions human tradition, commandments, and teachings. Several pieces of evidence point in this direction. First, connecting νόμος-related regulations and “human tradition” fits well with other occurrences of παράδοσις. Paul’s only other use of παράδοσις in a negative light is when he speaks of his former zeal for the “traditions of my fathers” [τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων] (Gal 1:14). Similarly, of the ten non-Pauline occurrences in the LXX and GNT, eight appear in the parallel accounts of Matthew 15 and Mark 7 where Jesus chides Jewish religious leaders for elevating “the tradition of the elders” over “the commandment of God.”23 Jesus connects this error to Isa 29:13, a text which rebukes Israel for its promotion of “human rules” (NIV).24 Though it is unclear if Paul knew of Jesus’s use of Isa 29:13, Paul makes a very similar link between παράδοσις (2:8) and “human precepts and teachings” (2:20–23).25 The  LXX of Isa 29:13b reads: “And in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts and teachings [διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας]” (NETS).26 Paul’s language overlaps significantly with this text, as he asserts that stipulations concerning handling, tasting, and touching are κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων.27 23.  In Mark 7:8–10, “the commandment of God” refers to the fifth commandment and the subsequent injunction in Exod 21:12 that those who curse father or mother are to be put to death. 24.  Cf. Dunn, Colossians, 148. In line with Wright’s reading, Dunn remarks: “Paul the Pharisee would be bound to think of the importance of ‘traditions’ in the ‘philosophy’ of the Pharisees, as he recalled his own devotion to them (Gal. 1:14). Most striking is the fact that the very same phrase, ‘the tradition of human beings’ (τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων), occurs in Mark’s account of Jesus’ denunciation of such pharisaic traditions.… This adds strength to the likelihood that the sort of ‘philosophy’ in mind here was essentially a form of Jewish thought being presented as a ‘philosophy’ by Jewish apologists.” 25.  If John Paul Heil (Colossians: Encouragement to Walk in All Wisdom as Holy Ones in Christ, SBLECL 4 [Atlanta: SBL, 2010], 23–26) is correct that there is a chiasm in 2:6–23, with 2:6–8 and 2:20–23 serving as the outer rings, this observation would further establish the link between παράδοσις in 2:8 and ἐντάλματα and διδασκαλίαι in 2:20–23. 26.  The word ἐντάλματα is used only three times in the GNT, all in reference to Isa  29:13 (Matt 15:9; Mark 7:7; and Col 2:22). On the importance of Isa 29:13 to the argument of Col 2:8–23, see G. K. Beale, “Colossians,” in CNTUOT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 860–62. 27.  The connection between δογματίζεσθε in 2:20 and δόγμασιν in 2:14 also suggests that the prohibitions in 2:20–22 have to do with νόμος; so, Bird, Colossians, 88; Stettler, “Opponents,” 189.

Blazosky Final.indd 174

4/11/19 5:28 PM

1 Corinthians and the Disputed Pauline Epistles

175

Furthermore, Paul’s familiarity with Isaiah 29 is seen clearly in 1 Corinthians 1–3 where he cites Isaiah 29 to ground a similar rejection of human wisdom sourced in the κόσμος.28 In 1 Cor 1:19, Paul quotes Isa 29:14: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise [τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν], and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” As 1 Corinthians 1–3 contrasts God’s wisdom with worldly wisdom, so, in Colossians 2, Paul contrasts the wisdom [σοφία] hidden in Christ (2:3) with worldly regulations that are according to human tradition. Though having an “appearance of wisdom” [λόγον ἔχοντα σοφίας], these regulations cannot stop the indulgence of the flesh (2:20–23). Thus, the contextual similarities between Colossians 2 and Jesus’s use of Isaiah 29, as well as the lexical correspondence, point toward the presence of an allusion to Isa 29:13–14 in Col 2:21–23. Just as Jesus connects promotion of νόμος-related “tradition” to human commandments and teachings, so Paul appears to do the same in Col 2:8 and 2:20–23. While Paul’s citation of Isa 29:13–14 may not be definitive on its own, it does point toward the view that the promotion of human παράδοσις, ἐντάλματα, and διδασκαλίαι in Colossae involved a promotion of νόμοςrelated regulations. 2. Paul’s Focus on Circumcision, Food Laws, and Special Days in Col 2:11–17. Stronger evidence is found in 2:11 and 2:16–17 where Paul specifies three particularly Jewish concerns: circumcision, food laws, and special days. Though formerly dead in “uncircumcision” (2:13), Gentile believers have experienced the circumcision that ultimately matters: they have been circumcised with a circumcision made without hands through the circumcision of Christ (2:11). Since every other Pauline discussion of circumcision and uncircumcision relates to νόμος,29 2:11–13 provides substantive support that νόμος-related stipulations are in view in this argument. In 2:16–17, Paul shifts the focus to food and special days. “Let no one pass judgment [κρινέτω] on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” These things are shadows, but the reality is Christ. Support for connecting these regulations to νόμος is abundant. In Paul’s only other collocation of “food and drink” [βρῶσις and πόσις], Paul challenges the Romans repeatedly not to judge [κρίνω] each other over Jewish food laws.30 “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking [βρῶσις καὶ πόσις].” In the same chapter, Paul likewise addresses the issue of the observance of Jewish special days (see Rom 14:5–6). Another parallel to Col 2:16 is found in Paul’s only other discussion of στοιχεῖα, where Paul rebukes the Galatians for observing Jewish special days. Paul describes 28.  Of Paul’s twenty‑eight uses of σοφία, sixteen occur in 1 Corinthians 1–3 and six in Colossians. 29.  E.g., Romans 2–4; 1 Cor 7:18–19; Gal 5:2–11; 6:12–15; Eph 2:11; Phil 3:3–5; Titus 1:10. 30.  Κρίνω occurs eight times in Romans 14. Though νόμος is not mentioned specifically in Romans 14, it is generally accepted that Romans 14 addresses Jewish food laws and special days. See Moo, Romans (NICNT), 829–33; esp. note 14 on 829.

Blazosky Final.indd 175

4/11/19 5:28 PM

176

Chapter 6

this practice as a return to slavery to the στοιχεῖα (Gal 4:9–11). Furthermore, the language in Col 2:16—μέρος, ἑορτή, and σαββάτων—is used in the LXX of Jewish holidays.31 The clinching argument, however, comes from 2:17.32 Observances of food laws and special days were a shadow of what was to come [σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων]. “The reality, however, is found in Christ” (2:17b NIV). If these regulations are not connected to νόμος, we are left with the dubious conclusion that Paul taught that pagan rituals foreshadowed the Messiah. Far more likely is that 2:17 affirms a typological relationship between these νόμος observances and the Messiah. Thus, Paul’s teaching here corresponds closely to the presentation of νόμος in Heb 10:1: “The law has but a shadow of the good things to come [σκιὰν ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν] instead of the true form of these realities.” It has not been my task to identify every element of the false teaching in Colossae. Instead, the goal thus far has been to examine whether νόμος is in view in 2:8–23. Though folk religion or other influences may also have been involved, Paul’s references to human tradition, circumcision, food laws, and special days lead to the conclusion that the promotion of νόμος regulations was integral to the Colossian heresy. 2. The Connection between Νόμος and Χειρόγραφον in Col 2:14 This examination of the broader context of 2:8–23 has prepared the way to address 2:14—the text most significant to Gentiles and νόμος in Colossians. In 2:13–14, Paul rehearses God’s saving work in Christ. The Colossians, though formerly dead in their uncircumcised flesh, have been brought to life with Christ. God has forgiven all their trespasses by canceling “the record of debt” [τὸ χειρόγραφον] that stood against them “with its legal demands” [τοῖς δόγμασιν], having nailed it to the cross (2:13–14). BDAG defines χειρόγραφον as “a hand-written document, specifically a certificate of indebtedness.” Though a NT hapax legomenon, T. Job 11:6–11 illustrates its usage. In the context, Job recounts his practice of lending to the poor while “taking no security from them except a written note” (T. Job 11:7). If his beneficiaries happened to be robbed and came to plead for time to repay their debts, Job states: “Without delay, I would bring before them the note [τὸ χειρόγραφον] and 31.  Rightly, Bird, Colossians, 83–85; Dunn, Colossians, 174–75; Beale, “Colossians,” 860–61. Contra Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, ed. Helmut Koester, trans. William R. Poehlman and Robert J. Karris, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 114–17. Perhaps the most relevant example is in 1 Chr 23:31 where the LXX uses the same threefold description in reference to the Jewish calendar. 32.  A case can also be made that the reference to “visions” and “worship of angels” in 2:18–19 reveals Jewish influence, whether from Jewish mysticism or Jewish magic. For discussions of the Jewish nature of these issues in 2:18–19, see esp. Arnold, “Sceva”; Smith, Heavenly Perspective, 119–33.

Blazosky Final.indd 176

4/11/19 5:28 PM

1 Corinthians and the Disputed Pauline Epistles

177

read it granting cancellation as the crowning feature” (T. Job 11:11a). Paul’s usage of χειρόγραφον in Col 2:14 is similar. The χειρόγραφον is, as BDAG suggests, “a certificate of indebtedness.” In 2:13–15, Paul is quite straightforward that Gentile believers are among those formerly in debt, for these believers were dead in trespasses and the “uncircumcision” of their flesh (2:13). At the same time, Paul also includes himself among those indebted by saying that the χειρόγραφον stood against “us” (2:14). As in the previous discussions, Paul’s alteration between first and second person pronouns should not be overlooked. God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness [τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν], which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. (Col 2:13b–16 NIV)

As in Romans and Galatians, the pronominal shifting in 2:13–16 reveals the universality of the human plight, as well as the universal scope of Christ’s redemptive work.33 But in what way did humanity obtain this debt? This acquisition of debt is best explained through the link between the χειρόγραφον and trespasses. God forgives sins by canceling the χειρόγραφον through the cross. The implication is that sin is what has led to the debt. Similarly, in Matt 18:21–35, Jesus compares forgiveness of sins to a king’s cancelation of an insurmountable debt. In Colossians 2, through our many treasonous acts, humanity has incurred a debt which only God can absolve. The most critical question related to χειρόγραφον can now be considered. Are violations of νόμος part of “the record of debt” that stands against Gentiles? Along with the previous considerations from the broader context, two additional arguments related to 2:14 suggest that violations of νόμος are included. First, the logic of Paul’s argument from 2:11–15 to 2:16–17 suggests this; second, Paul’s reference to νόμος and its δόγματα in Eph 2:15 informs the meaning of the χειρόγραφον and its δόγματα in Col 2:14. 33.  This pronominal shifting is striking since no other 1PPs occur from Col 2:6–4:1 (while 2PPs occur 19×). Paul makes a similar move in his opening prayer that God would strengthen the Colossians so that they might endure patiently with joy, “giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (1:12–14).

Blazosky Final.indd 177

4/11/19 5:28 PM

178

Chapter 6

1. The Logical Connection between Col 2:11–15 and Col 2:16–17. In 2:11–15, Christ has secured life, forgiveness, and the defeat of the forces of darkness through the cross.34 In 2:16, Paul makes the first of several applications. In light of Jesus’s victory, the Colossians must repudiate judgments cast against them by those who promote νόμος regulations concerning food and special days. The logic of this application is most clear if 2:11–15 has νόμος in view. Frank Thielman remarks well: The Colossians need have no fear that a lack of conformity to the Mosaic law will lead to an unfavorable verdict on the final day. They have already been rescued from the authority of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of God’s beloved Son…. Christ has already forgiven their transgressions and nailed the law’s charges against them to the cross (2:14).35

Since God has erased all our violations of νόμος through the cross, no believer should be concerned with criticism concerning νόμος regulations. 2. The Related Uses of Δόγματα in Eph 2:15 and Col 2:14. Furthermore, Paul’s only use of δόγματα apart from Col 2:14 points toward νόμος violations being part of the χειρόγραφον.36 Though Paul discusses δόγματα from different angles, the uses in Eph 2:15a and Col 2:14a shed light on one another, especially since the texts correspond in language, structure, and in their focus on Christ’s death for Gentiles (Table 14). Since the δόγματα in Eph 2:15a clearly refer to νόμος regulations and since multiple contextual factors point in this direction in Colossians 2, the δόγματα in Col 2:14a are best interpreted as including νόμος regulations. Thus, violations of νόμος contribute to the χειρόγραφον that stood against both Jews and Gentiles. Michael Bird comments well that the χειρόγραφον “refers to the Torah, or at least Torah’s claim to render condemnation over persons for their transgressions.”37 Thus, from a sociological vantage point, νόμος and its δόγματα divide Jew from Gentile (Eph 2:14–15). From the standpoint of soteriology, however, νόμος and its δόγματα do not divide Jew from Gentile but unite them under the same condemnation (Col 2:13–14).38 34.  Throughout Col  2:8–23, Paul shifts between a focus on spiritual powers and a focus on νόμος‑related regulations. Both are connected to τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. In 2:10, 15, and 18–19, Paul deals with angelic beings; in 2:11–14, 16–17, and 20–23, Paul addresses the promotion of νόμος regulations. 35. Thielman, Paul, 220–21. The same point concerning Paul’s logic can made concerning 2:11–15 and Paul’s application in 2:20–23. The cross has canceled the χειρόγραφον with its δόγματα (2:14); thus, why would the Colossians give in to pressure to “submit to regulations” [δογματίζεσθε]? 36.  Though δόγμα can refer to decrees not connected to νόμος (e.g., Acts 16:4; 17:7), context ultimately dictates the interpretation of δόγμα. Furthermore, Eph 2:15, which is Paul’s only other use of δόγμα, must be given the most weight in interpreting Col 2:14. In addition, δόγμα certainly was used in contemporary Jewish literature with reference to the commandments in the Mosaic law (e.g., 3 Macc. 1:3; Ag. Ap. 1:42; 2:169; Leg. 1:54–55; Gig. 52; cf. Sib. Or. 3:656). 37. Bird, Colossians, 80. 38.  Thielman (Ephesians, 163) notes well the related, yet distinct, functions of δόγματα in Eph 2:15 and Col 2:14: “Paul seems to assume that the Mosaic law’s ‘decrees’ (δόγματα, dogmata, v. 15)

Blazosky Final.indd 178

4/11/19 5:28 PM

1 Corinthians and the Disputed Pauline Epistles

179

Table 14. Paul’s Uses of Δόγματα in Ephesians 2:15a and Colossians 2:14a Eph 2:15a

Col 2:14a

τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances (ESV) by setting aside…the law with its commands and regulations (NIV)

ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands (ESV) having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us (NIV)

3. The Parallels between Col 2:8–23 and Galatians Several parallels between Colossians and Galatians can now be noted. First, νόμος is closely related to τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου; thus, those who promote νόμος regulations promote a return to the στοιχεῖα (Gal 4:9–11; Col 2:20–23). Furthermore, Paul’s use of κόσμος in Col 2:8–23 corresponds to his usage of αἰών and κόσμος in Galatians. In Galatians, believers have been rescued from the evil αἰών and have been crucified to the κόσμος (Gal 1:4; 4:3–5; 6:14). Thus, submitting to νόμος regulations in Galatians is equivalent to returning to the old order from which Christ delivered his people. In Col 2:20, Paul likewise emphasizes the believer’s release from κόσμος.39 “If with Christ you died ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου, why, as if you were still alive ἐν κόσμῳ, do you submit to regulations?” As in Galatians 6, Paul teaches here that believers are dead to the κόσμος. Why would the Colossians now desire to return to the old order by submitting to νόμος-related δόγματα from which the cross freed them (Col 2:14, 20)? In addition to these similarities, Paul’s use of σάρξ in Colossians is reflective of Galatians. In 2:13, God’s solution for those dead in uncircumcised σάρξ was Jesus’s death ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκός (1:22). Through his “body of flesh,” uncircumcised Gentiles were circumcised by putting off their “body of flesh” [τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός] (2:11).40 The answer to the problem of σάρξ is the σάρξ of Jesus, through which God severed the control σάρξ had over unbelievers (cf. Gal 5:24; Rom 7:4–6; 8:3). separating Israel and the nations led to enmity between the two groups. He also seems to assume that these ‘decrees’ have codified the enmity between all humanity and God (cf. 2:1–3; cf. Col. 2:14–15). When Christ died on the cross, he tore down (λύσας, lysas; Eph. 2:14) the Mosaic law by setting it aside (καταργήσας, katargēsas; v. 15) along with its powerful effects on sinful humanity.” 39.  Stettler (“Opponents,” 190) writes: “According to Paul’s evaluation, these ‘ordinances’…are meant for persons who still live ‘in the world’, that is in the old aeon (v. 20); they are no longer valid for Christians who have died to the ‘elements of the world.’ ” Cf. also Pao, Colossians, 193–94; Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 92. 40.  Moo (Colossians, 200) rightly draws attention to the connection between the “body of flesh” in Col 2:11, the “body of sin” in Rom 6:6, and the “body of death” in Rom 7:24. It is the death of Christ and our union in his death that frees the “body” from subjection to the powers of darkness.

Blazosky Final.indd 179

4/11/19 5:28 PM

180

Chapter 6

In 2:18–23, Paul connects σάρξ directly to the Colossian heresy. Anyone who seeks to disqualify the Colossians by “insisting on asceticism and worship of angels” is foolishly puffed up ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ (2:18). Promotion of tradition and commandments κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, though appearing wise, cannot stop “the indulgence of the flesh” [πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός] (2:21–23; cf. Gal 5:16–17; 6:12–13). Finally, the relationship of νόμος to Gentile condemnation in Col 2:13–14 is parallel to Gal 3:13. Though you were dead in sin, the χειρόγραφον that stood against us for our violations of νόμος has been erased by God through Jesus’s cross (Col 2:13–14); likewise, the curse that once hung over us for our disobedience to νόμος has been borne by the one who hung on a tree, bearing the curse of νόμος for us (Gal 3:13). B. The Lawful Use of the Law in 1 Tim 1:8–11 One final text related to the extent of the law’s condemning power comes from the Pastoral Epistles. Though 1 Tim 1:8–11 is often overlooked in Paul and the law studies,41 this text deserves serious attention since it contains an extensive allusion to the Decalogue and since it is also the only text in the NT to speak of how to “use” νόμος. First Timothy 1:8–11 is part of a charge to Timothy to confront false teachers who “devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies” instead of seeking the growth and advancement of God’s work in the church (1:3–4). Though the precise nature of the false teaching is not entirely clear, there is ample support, both from the frequency of νόμος cognates and from the extended allusion to the Decalogue, that it was related to the misuse of the Mosaic law.42 Though aspiring to be νομοδιδάσκαλοι, these teachers were woefully inadequate (1:7). Νόμος is good; but it must be used νομίμως (1:8). 41.  For exceptions to this general rule, see Thielman, Paul, 232–35; Rosner, Paul, 73–76. Though certainly a minority position, a solid defense can still be made for the authenticity of 1 Timothy. For a concise overview of the proposals, see Myriam Klinker-De Clerck, “The Pastoral Epistles: Authentic Pauline Writings,” EuroJTh 17 (2008): 101–8. Cf. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 554–68. For specific defenses of Pauline authorship, see Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIBC 13 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 23–26; Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 1–88. 42.  Though other influences may also have been involved, Jewish influence seems to have been most prominent. Beyond the clear references to νόμος in 1 Tim 1:7–10, Paul’s references to “myths” and “genealogies” also signify Jewish influence. Those who speculate concerning “myths” and “genealogies” in 1:4 are likely the same people who desire to be νομοδιδάσκαλοι in 1:7 and misuse νόμος. Likewise, Paul’s second warning against “myths” is in the same context as his warning against those who promote food regulations, which likely concern Jewish food laws (4:1–7); cf. Fee, Timothy, 41–42; Stephen Westerholm, “The Law and the ‘Just Man,’” ST 36 (1982): 80–81; Andreas Köstenberger, “1 Timothy,” in Ephesians-Philemon, rev. ed., EBC 12 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 500–501.

Blazosky Final.indd 180

4/11/19 5:28 PM

1 Corinthians and the Disputed Pauline Epistles

181

1. The Meaning of Νομίμως in 1 Tim 1:8 To appreciate the potential import of 1 Tim 1:8–11 to the question of Gentiles and νόμος, three issues need to be explored: the meaning of νομίμως in 1:8; Paul’s use of the Decalogue in 1:9–10; and the identity of those described in 1:9–10. In 1 Tim 1:8–11, Paul contrasts his opponents’ misuse of νόμος with using νόμος νομίμως. To communicate this contrast, translators often gloss νομίμως with adverbs such as “legitimately” (HCSB, NET), “properly” (NIV), or “correctly” (NLT). Each translation fits well and is in line with the only other use of νομίμως in the NT. In 2 Tim 2:5, an athlete is not crowned unless he competes νομίμως (ESV: “according to the rules”). BDAG likewise defines νομίμως as “being in accordance with normal procedure.”43 Nevertheless, Paul’s wordplay in 1:8–9 between νόμος, νομίμως, and ἄνομοι may suggest that Paul intends something more by νομίμως, something more closely connected to the law as a legal code. In the context, to use νόμος νομίμως is to use the law in a certain way with the ἄνομοι. But what exactly does Paul have in mind? The consistent, albeit infrequent, usage of νομίμως in Jewish literature sheds light on this issue. In 4 Macc 6:18, Eleazar is encouraged to violate Jewish food laws to preserve his life; he instead chooses death over giving up his reputation of having lived νομίμως (NRSV: “in accordance with law”). Eleazar was known for careful observance of the statutes in the Mosaic law. Elsewhere in the LXX, the more common cognate νόμιμος also regularly refers to legal ordinances, particularly those laid down in the Mosaic law.44 It is this connection between νομίμως and the stipulations of νόμος that Rosner develops in Paul and the Law. In his comments on νομίμως in Josephus, Philo, and the Sibylline Oracles,45 Rosner contends that early Jewish literature consistently uses νομίμως with reference to “observance of the legal requirements of the Law of Moses.”46 Thus, Rosner concludes rightly that 1:9–10, “with its list of sinners and sins, supports taking nomimōs in 1:8 as pointing to using the law as a legal code to punish sin.”47 Νόμος is to be applied to the ἄνομοι according to its legal requirements. In other words, to use the law νομίμως is to use the law as law to expose and condemn the lawless.48 43.  Louw and Nida (72.18) suggests the idea of “being correct according to rules and regulations.” 44.  Νόμιμος occurs seventy‑four times in the LXX. In Leviticus 18, the νόμιμα of Egypt and the Canaanites (Lev 18:3, 30) are contrasted with the νόμιμα given to Israel (Lev 18:26). Similarly, in Ezekiel 18, which alludes often to Leviticus 18, the hope of life is held out for all who obey the divine νόμιμα (Ezek 18:19). 45. Cf. Ant. 7:151; 11:202; Ag. Ap. 2:152; 2:217; Hypoth. 7:8; and Sib. Or. 11:182. 46. Rosner, Paul, 74. 47.  Ibid., 75; italics original. 48.  See ibid., 75 notes 66–69. Rosner points to multiple authors who suggest that the lawful use of the law is that it be used as law. See esp. Fee, Timothy, 45: “Its ‘goodness’ is related to its being used

Blazosky Final.indd 181

4/11/19 5:28 PM

182

Chapter 6

2. Paul’s Use of the Decalogue in 1 Tim 1:9–10 Though other texts also emphasize the law’s condemning power, 1 Tim 1:9–10 contains the most explicit list of the kind of sinners upon whom νόμος pronounces its sentence. As is commonly recognized,49 these fourteen vices are shaped significantly by the Decalogue in both content and order (see Table 15).50 Upon careful examination of this allusion to the Decalogue, a few intriguing features stand out. First, Paul’s focus is not on “sins” per se but on “sinners.”51 In other words, though νόμος condemns lying and murder, Paul’s emphasis here is that νόμος condemns liars and murderers (1:9–10). This focus on the people for whom νόμος is given suggests that Paul is concerned not only with how his opponents turn νόμος into a source for unfruitful debate and speculation (1:3–7) but also with how they misappropriate νόμος by using it with the wrong people, namely, the δίκαιοι (cf. 4:1–5). In addition, though the allusion to the Decalogue in 1:9–10 is commonly recognized, there is surprisingly little linguistic overlap between the LXX and 1 Timothy 1.52 The vices are connected conceptually rather than grammatically. Yet, it is also interesting to note that the vices in 1:9–10 are not typically simple equivalents to the Ten Commandments; rather, many descriptions refer to egregious violations properly, that is treated as law (intended for the lawless, v. 9) and not used ‘illegitimately’ as a source for myths and endless genealogies, or for ascetic practices.” 49.  I. Howard Marshall (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Pastoral Epistles, ICC [London: T&T Clark, 1999], 379) notes that the correspondence is clearest from commandments five through nine. There also seems to be general correspondence between the first four commandments and the descriptions in 1 Tim 1:9. In this case, ἄνομοι and ἀνυπότακτοι serve as introductory, all‑encompassing descriptions; so, Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 35A (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 168–70; George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 83–88. 50.  The order of the list in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 is identical in the MT; yet, disagreement exists in the LXX tradition, especially with regard to commandments six through eight. Paul’s order is reflective of the MT and some LXX manuscripts; cf. Neil J. McEleney, “The Vice Lists of the Pastoral Epistles,” CBQ 36 (1974): 207. Though a few of Paul’s other vice lists also have some overlap in content with the Ten Commandments (Gal 5:19–21; Rom 1:29–32; 1 Cor 6:9), no other list is as intricately connected to the Decalogue in terms of content and order as 1 Tim 1:9–10. 51.  My intent is not to bifurcate “sin” and “sinner.” Even in 1:9–10, these ideas are interwoven. After fourteen personal descriptions, the conclusion is that νόμος condemns “whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (1:10). My point is simply that Paul’s focus is on the people for whom νόμος is given. 52.  Only the allusions to the sixth and ninth commandments have noticeable linguistic connections, but even these connections are fairly loose (see φονεύσεις in Exod 20:15 and ἀνδροφόνοις in 1 Tim 1:10, as well as ψευδομαρτυρήσεις in Exod 20:16 and ψεύσταις in 1 Tim 1:10). For two factors which help to account for the lack of semantic connection to the Decalogue, see Knight III, Pastoral Epistles, 87–88: “The first is Paul’s evident decision to express the commandments in single words, a phenomenon not present in the Hebrew OT and thus not in the LXX. The second may be his desire to express this list in the contemporary terms known to the hearers and the false teachers…, making use of terms found in lists of the day, which nonetheless express the truths of the biblical account, which he is so evidently following.”

Blazosky Final.indd 182

4/11/19 5:28 PM

1 Corinthians and the Disputed Pauline Epistles

183

Table 15. Comparison of 1 Timothy 1:9–10 to Exodus 20:3–16 1 Tim 1:9–10 (ESV)

1 Tim 1:9–10 (BGT)

Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient for the ungodly and sinners,

εἰδὼς τοῦτο, ὅτι δικαίῳ νόμος οὐ κεῖται, ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις,

for the unholy and profane,

ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις,

for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις,

ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς,

ἀνδροφόνοις πόρνοις ἀρσενοκοίταις ἀνδραποδισταῖς ψεύσταις ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται

Exod 20:3–16 (ESV, reflective of MT)

You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image… You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain … Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy… Honor your father and your mother… You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

of the Decalogue.53 For example, rather than referencing thieves, Paul speaks of “slave traders” (ESV) or “kidnappers” (HCSB).54 Rather than children who dishonor their parents, Paul refers to those who “kill their fathers or mothers” (NIV). At times, Paul also elaborates with additional terms. Rather than adulterers, Paul lists both “the sexually immoral” and “those practicing homosexuality” (NIV).55 Rather than false witnesses, Paul speaks of both “liars” and “perjurers” (NIV). A definitive explanation for these observations is impossible; nevertheless, it is likely that, while Paul follows the Decalogue, his specific descriptions and 53.  On this point, see Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, ed. Helmut Koester, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 22–23. 54.  For a thorough discussion of slave dealers, see J. Albert Harrill, “The Vice of Slave Dealers in Greco-Roman Society: The Use of a Topos in 1 Timothy 1:10,” JBL 118 (1999): 97–122. Especially helpful is Harrill’s treatment of how Philo connects slave dealing to violation of the Jewish law (see 115–17). 55.  For an extended example of how Philo also views the interrelatedness of the Decalogue’s prohibition of adultery and other sexual sins in the law code, see Spec. 3:8–63.

Blazosky Final.indd 183

4/11/19 5:28 PM

184

Chapter 6

applications are informed by other OT passages which are themselves drawing from the Decalogue. Significant portions of the actual content of 1:9–10 are, in fact, more reflective of texts such as Exod 21:12–17 or Leviticus 18–20 than of either Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5.56 In Exod 21:12–17, shortly after the giving of the Decalogue, there is expansion of the initial prohibitions of sins such as murder, theft, and the treatment of parents. For example, building on the fifth commandment and in line with 1 Tim 1:9, anyone who “strikes his father or his mother” or “curses” his parents “shall be put to death” (Exod 21:15, 17). Likewise, with respect to the eighth commandment, just as Paul connects stealing to enslaving people, Exod 21:16 states: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death” (cf. Spec. 4:12–14). Likewise, in Leviticus 18–20, not only are there multiple injunctions concerning idolatry (18:21; 19:4; 20:2–5), but also each of commandments three through nine (except concerning murder) is presented very similarly to 1 Tim 1:9–10. For example, in Lev 19:11–12, there are prohibitions against lying (οὐ ψεύσεσθε; cf. ψεύσταις in 1 Tim 1:10), swearing by God’s name falsely (similar to ἐπιόρκος in 1 Tim 1:10), and profaning God’s name (οὐ βεβηλώσετε τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν; cf. βεβήλοις in 1 Tim 1:10). More specifically, Paul’s mention of homosexuality (ἀρσενοκοίταις in 1 Tim 1:10), a term perhaps coined by Paul,57 is likely sourced directly in Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13. “And he who lies with a male in a bed for a woman [καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός], both have committed an abomination” (Lev 20:13a, NETS). These examples simply serve to illustrate that Paul’s allusion to the Decalogue in 1 Tim 1:9–10 is reflective of, and is likely shaped by, the OT’s own expansion and application of those foundational commandments. 3. The Intended Audience of Νόμος in 1 Tim 1:9–10 A final matter concerns the identity of the rebels νόμος condemns in 1 Timothy 1. To clarify, I am not asking whether Paul has specific individuals in mind or whether he intends to implicate his opponents by these descriptions. For my purposes, the issue is simply whether terms such as ἄνομοι and ἁμαρτωλοί in 1:8–10 refer only to ἄνομοι Jews and ἁμαρτωλοί Jews or whether these terms refer to all sinners. 56.  For other examples from the LXX which overlap significantly with portions of 1 Tim 1:9–10, see Deut 27:15–26 and esp. Ezekiel 22. In Ezekiel 22, Judah is condemned for heinous violations of perhaps the entire Decalogue with language similar to 1 Tim 1:9–10. 57.  See Rosner, Paul, 198 notes 92–95. Rosner states that there is a convincing case for concluding that Paul “employed a new term that was fashioned on the basis of prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. The only other occurrence of the word that is possibly contemporary with Paul (it may be a Christian interpolation) is Sibylline Oracles 2.73. The relevant section of the Sibyllines is closely related to Pseudo‑Phocylides (suggesting its Jewish origin), which is itself heavily indebted to Leviticus.”

Blazosky Final.indd 184

4/11/19 5:28 PM

1 Corinthians and the Disputed Pauline Epistles

185

Put simply, both contextually and lexically, nothing suggests that νόμος condemns only Jewish sinners in 1:9–10.58 In context, Paul is rebutting the misappropriation of νόμος. The false teachers ignorantly use νόμος with the wrong kind of people, namely, the δίκαιος. Just as δίκαιος refers generically to a Christian,59 so ἄνομοι and ἁμαρτωλοί are best understood as referring to non-Christians in general. Νόμος is laid down for lawless people. Furthermore, the connection between the two uses of ἁμαρτωλοί in 1:9 and 1:15 provides clear evidence that Paul had both Jew and Gentile in mind. Though νόμος is laid down to condemn sinners (1:9), “this saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1:15). 4. Conclusions concerning Gentiles and Law in 1 Tim 1:8–10 First Timothy 1:8–10 makes several contributions to Gentiles and νόμος. First, νόμος is laid down to condemn all sinners. Thus, this text reinforces my findings from both Galatians and Romans concerning the extent of the law’s condemning power. Second, the Decalogue in particular plays an important role in condemning all sinners. Third, Paul’s expansion and application of the injunctions from the Decalogue is reflective of the practices of Moses and other biblical authors. Fourth, Paul’s critique of the misappropriation of νόμος reveals his perspective on the legitimate, ongoing use of νόμος. Νόμος continues to condemn sinners; those outside of Christ remain under its sentence. Finally, redemption from the law’s condemnation is found only through the one who “came into the world to save sinners” (1:15) and who, as the one mediator between God and humanity, “gave himself as a ransom for all” (2:5–6).

IV. Conclusion The texts examined in this chapter fill out Paul’s perspective on the relationship of νόμος to Gentile unbelievers. Both 1 Cor 9:19–23 and Eph 2:13–15 address how νόμος divides humanity at a sociological level. Each text, when read with contextual sensitivity, is complementary to Paul’s teaching elsewhere rather than contradictory. 58.  While ἄνομος and ἀσεβής can refer exclusively to Jewish sinners in a given context (cf. Ezek 33:7–16), nothing in 1 Timothy 1 points toward limiting these descriptions to lawless Jews. 59.  Rightly, Towner (Timothy, 124) comments: “In this context, ‘the righteous’ (‘upright, just’; Titus 1:8) are Christian believers who through their genuine conversion produce the self‑giving love (1:5) that fulfills the law.… He simply means authentic believers, for whom the law as a written moral code serves only a very limited purpose.” Cf. William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 34–35; Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 373.

Blazosky Final.indd 185

4/11/19 5:28 PM

186

Chapter 6

In the cases of 1 Cor 15:55–57, Col 2:13–15, and 1 Tim 1:8–11, each text strongly confirms the findings from Romans and Galatians. In 1 Cor 15:55–57, the focus is on the ultimate defeat of θάνατος, but this text underscores how foundational the union of θάνατος, ἁμαρτία, and νόμος is to Paul. As in Romans, the reign of θάνατος cannot be severed from ἁμαρτία, and the dominion of ἁμαρτία cannot be severed from νόμος. Both Col 2:13–15 and 1 Tim 1:8–11 attest to the universal condemning power of the law. In Col 2:13–15, Paul speaks of how the χειρόγραφον stands against both Jews and Gentiles for their violations of νόμος. This certificate of indebtedness which condemned us has been nailed to the cross. In 1 Tim 1:8–11, Paul speaks of how νόμος has been laid down to expose and condemn lawless sinners; yet, in the same chapter, Paul reminds his readers that Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15). Thus, throughout the entire Pauline corpus, there is a unified presentation of νόμος and Gentile condemnation. Νόμος has the ability to condemn beyond its covenantal boundaries.

Blazosky Final.indd 186

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Conclusion

I. The Book in Review The driving question of this book has been whether Paul teaches that Gentile sinners are condemned by and enslaved under the Mosaic law. Furthermore, I have sought to explore the logic of Paul’s view, as well as how his understanding relates to perspectives within the OT and Second Temple Jewish literature. The introduction overviewed the proposals on this question, demonstrated the need for this work, explained the methodology, and explored the potential implications of such a study. The first and second chapters comprised a biblical theological study of the OT’s presentation of the plight of the nations and their relationship to the Mosaic law. The third chapter surveyed the diverse body of Second Temple Jewish literature, examining why the nations deserve divine judgment and seeking to determine what proposals were offered in this corpus to explain the basis of Gentile condemnation The fourth through sixth chapters contained an analysis of the Pauline corpus. Chapter 4 analyzed Galatians, particularly with respect to the extent of the curse of the law. Chapter 5 explored Romans, especially its teaching concerning the law’s role in condemnation, as well as the law’s relationship to the enslaving powers of darkness. The analysis of Pauline literature concluded in chapter 6 with a focus on five ancillary texts, which either complement or confirm Paul’s teaching in Galatians and Romans. This conclusion is comprised of five sections. First, I synthesize my findings from chapters 4 through 6 on Paul’s view of Gentiles and law. Second, Paul’s view is compared with the perspectives found in the treatment of the OT and Second Temple Jewish literature in chapters 1 through 3. Third, my proposal on Paul’s view of Gentiles and law is situated within the gamut of scholarly proposals surveyed in the introduction. This chapter then offers a few comments on areas for further research, before concluding with reflections on the relevance of this study to the church.

II. Paul’s View of Gentiles and Law According to Paul, νόμος was a gift from God given through Moses specifically to Israel at Sinai (Rom 2:17–20; 3:1–2; 9:4–5; Gal 3:19). Nevertheless, νόμος has the ability to condemn, curse, and enslave beyond the borders of Israel. Its basic 187

Blazosky Final.indd 187

4/11/19 5:28 PM

188

Conclusion

requirements have been etched on the hearts of humanity and will stand as a witness, alongside conscience, condemning humanity for its failure to obey God’s commands (Rom 2:12–16). Though νόμος may shape people’s lives differently (1 Cor 9:19–23), νόμος condemns all sinners (Gal 3:10–13; Col 2:13–14; 1 Tim 1:8–10), enslaves all sinners (Gal 3:19–4:11; 4:21–5:1; Rom 7:4–6), and will play a vital role in the final condemnation of every sinner (Rom 2:12–16; 3:19–20). There will be no ultimate distinction at the judgment between Jew and Gentile since all are ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν and stand equally condemned by νόμος. Νόμος will shut every mouth and condemn every sinner (Rom 3:19–20). On the one hand, Paul does affirm that νόμος divides humanity. Jewish failure to bring the light of God’s revelation to the nations (Rom 2:17–24), along with centuries of ethnic hostility stirred up through νόμος regulations, created an ethnic barrier that only Christ’s death could tear down (Eph 2:11–17; cf. Rom 3:21–22, 29–30). Νόμος, therefore, played a central role in dividing Jew from Gentile sociologically and in prohibiting the realization of God’s plan to have a worldwide family of worshipers. On the other hand, however, Paul affirms that, in regard to one’s ultimate standing before God, νόμος unifies humanity under wrath. Though practical distinctions exist between Jew and Gentile (Rom 3:1–2; 9:4–5; 1 Cor 9:19–23), at the most foundational level, humanity is distinct in only one way. Humanity is not Jew or Gentile but is rather in Adam or in Christ (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:21–22). Put another way, there are those who belong to the old age and those who belong to the new (Gal 1:4; 4:1–11; 6:14–15; Rom 7:4–6). Paul does not differentiate the plight of unbelievers on the basis of ethnicity, sex, or social status. Either an individual is in Christ and an heir to all spiritual blessings, or an individual is in Adam and subject to all of the enslaving powers of darkness. Although Paul never fully articulates the logic behind his view of Gentiles and law, his writings do shed light on certain aspects of his reasoning. With respect to Gentile condemnation in particular, Rom 2:12–16 reveals how Paul might explain that ἄνομος sinners are held accountable to the law. Every person is sufficiently aware internally of the requirements of the law since God has written them on human hearts. Thus, sinners will be judged in accordance with the light they possessed but rejected. Paul’s presentation of the law as an enslaving power, however, is not as easy to explain. What seems most likely is that Paul’s portrayal is connected to his “apocalyptic” or “eschatological” thinking. With the arrival of Christ and the Spirit, the new age dawned and the old became obsolete. For Paul, the law, along with sin, death, and the flesh, is decidedly a part of that old order. Thus, Paul depicts these powers as one indivisible unit, working together to enslave all who belong to the old age.

Blazosky Final.indd 188

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Conclusion

189

Questions still remain about how νόμος can be placed in the same category as evil, enslaving forces. The closest explanation in Paul’s writings comes in Romans 5–8. Νόμος, though distinct from θάνατος, ἁμαρτία, and σάρξ, has been taken captive by ἁμαρτία and has become the principal tool used by ἁμαρτία to enslave those ἐν σαρκί. This union is so foundational to Paul’s view of νόμος and the human plight that Paul references it again in 1 Cor 15:56 without any explication (cf. Gal 3:21–22). For Paul, νόμος gives ἁμαρτία its strength just as ἁμαρτία gives θάνατος its sting. It is as impossible to be enslaved to only one or two of these powers as it is to be freed from only one or two of these powers. A person is under the reign of all or none.

III. Paul’s View in Relation to the OT and the Second Temple Jewish Literature But how does Paul’s view of Gentiles and law compare to perspectives found within the OT and Second Temple Jewish literature? In regard to the extent of the law’s curse in Deut 27:26, it is not surprising, in light of the analysis of this text in chapter 1, that Paul applies this passage universally. Furthermore, Paul’s reading of universal accountability to the law is also in line with several Jewish texts about condemnation, such as the Sibylline Oracles, 4 Ezra, and LAB. This is not to say that there was one prevailing view within Judaism. Yet, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Paul is not unique in his view that the law can condemn more than Israel. Paul’s presentation of a singular human plight is also in line with the OT, particularly passages such as Leviticus 18 and 20, as well as Isa 24:1–6. In addition, his view, though contrary to a source like Wisdom of Solomon, resembles Second Temple texts such as 1QM and 1QS. The crucial difference for Paul is that the fundamental dividing line is not whether one is in the yaḥad but whether one is in Christ. Or, from another angle, the line of demarcation is whether one belongs to the new age or the old. The clearest difference between Paul’s presentation and that of the Second Temple literature concerns his negative portrayal of the law. For Paul, the law, far from solving the human predicament, exacerbates it. On the one hand, it is fairly obvious in the OT that the giving of the law did not solve Israel’s problems or those of humanity at large. Similarly, in a source such as 4 Ezra, there is recognition of the law’s inability to transform the heart. Yet, Paul takes an additional step in Galatians and Romans in linking the law directly with the powers of darkness. From my study, there seems to be no clear precedent in the OT or Second Temple Jewish literature for this aspect of Paul’s presentation. Instead, it would appear

Blazosky Final.indd 189

4/11/19 5:28 PM

190

Conclusion

more likely that it is Paul’s recognition of the eschatological impact of both the Christ event and the arrival of the promised Spirit which led him to reshape his perspective on the law and the human predicament.

IV. My Proposal in Relation to Current Proposals on Gentiles and Law In my introduction, I surveyed the range of proposals on the question of the extent of the curse of the law in Gal 3:13. Throughout this study, I have sought to demonstrate that all believers were formerly under the curse of the law and in need of redemption from that curse. The related suggestions by Wright and Donaldson that Christ redeemed only Jewish Christians from the law’s curse are plausible in terms of their portrayal of the story of Israel, Christ, and Gentile inclusion. The textual support for this reading from within Paul’s own writings, however, is lacking. Instead, the evidence presented from the OT and Second Temple literature, as well as my examination of Paul’s pronominal shifting in Galatians and elsewhere, points away from this position. Paul does not present Jewish redemption from the curse of the law as a pre-condition for Gentile inclusion. The death of Israel’s Messiah is directly for Jew and Gentile, and the blessings his death secures are applied directly to Jewish and Gentile believers alike. Of the multiple explanations offered by those who agree with my view that the Mosaic law curses Gentile sinners (see the introduction), my proposal runs counter to some, while finding several connecting points with others. With regard to the proposal that Paul contradicts himself on this issue (e.g., Räisänen), my analysis has demonstrated that Paul is consistent in his view throughout his writings, including in the disputed epistles. My proposal also raises serious questions about the view that Paul speaks of Gentiles as being under law only because of unconscious Jewish presuppositions (e.g., Sanders, Westerholm). Paul’s view on Gentile condemnation, instead, is reflective of texts both in the OT and the Second Temple Jewish literature. Furthermore, his presentation of the union of sin, death, law, and flesh is a critical component of his view of the human plight. Thus, there is no reason to suggest that Paul had not thought through what he was implying about Gentiles. Similarly, my proposal is contrary to the view that only Gentiles were under the curse of the law (e.g., Gaston). Just as the pronominal shifting in texts related to the human plight or Christ’s redemptive work does not indicate that Paul intended to exclude Gentiles, these shifts also do not indicate that he meant to exclude Jews. Christ bore the curse for Jewish and Gentile believers since all were formerly under that curse.

Blazosky Final.indd 190

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Conclusion

191

My proposal finds the most connecting points with those explanations which emphasize the apocalyptic nature of Paul’s thinking. Even so, an appeal to apocalyptic is not essential to explaining how Paul could have seen universal accountability to the law since the OT establishes a framework for such a view and since other Jewish authors held similar views. But, in my estimation, and in line with Martyn and others, Paul’s view that the new age has dawned is essential to his depiction of the law as a power of the old age. Some connect Paul’s approach not only to this apocalyptic viewpoint but also to contemporary Jewish views of natural law (e.g., Tobin). From my vantage point, though it is possible that Paul saw a connection between natural law and the Mosaic law, there is not strong evidence for this position in the Pauline corpus. The one passage which may suggest such a link is Rom 2:12–16, yet this connection is far from clear. In any case, the key observation is that, even if Paul does allude to natural law in Rom 2:12–16, the Mosaic law remains central in this text. In other words, Paul is not speaking of natural law in contradistinction to the Mosaic law. Instead, Paul’s approach would be in line with the more common approach to natural law in Second Temple Judaism, which was not to bifurcate natural law and the Mosaic law but to merge the two together. With respect to the position that Paul views Israel’s experience as paradigmatic of humanity’s (e.g., Moo), there is certainly some truth to this claim. Indeed, there are connecting points between the experiences of Adam, Israel, Christ, and humanity as well. I simply question if this proposal sufficiently takes into account the evidence from the OT and Second Temple literature or sufficiently explains all of Paul’s statements concerning Gentiles and law, especially in letters such as Colossians and 1 Timothy. In other words, this proposal may be part of the explanation but is insufficient on its own. In the end, my proposal finds the most in common with those which emphasize the apocalyptic nature of Paul’s thinking, those which underscore the inseparable union of the powers of the old age (e.g., de Boer), and those which hold that Gentiles are in the realm of the law (e.g., Das, Schreiner).

V. Areas for Further Study Although this book has answered certain questions related to Gentiles and law, other issues could not be explored in detail. Matters such as the relationship of the Noahic (or Noahide) laws to the Mosaic laws or the extent of the connection between the curses in the pre-law narratives and the deuteronomic curses could certainly be examined further. The rhetorical impact and effect of Paul’s frequent pronominal shifting in texts about the death of Jesus is another potentially fruitful

Blazosky Final.indd 191

4/11/19 5:28 PM

192

Conclusion

area for research. In addition, this monograph provides further evidence that the OT and the Second Temple Jewish literature have much to offer to the ongoing debates and points of tension in Paul and the law studies. There is, however, one specific area for further research which I would like to emphasize. This study has drawn attention to how Paul links the law with enslaving powers but has found no clear precedent for this connection. Yet, there are signs that the Second Temple Jewish literature could still shed light on Paul’s use of the language of slavery and captivity. For example, in Wisdom 17, even though the Egyptians thought that they were holding Israel captive, the author states that it was the Egyptians who were actually “captives of darkness and prisoners of long night” (Wis 17:2). There is room for further treatment of how the slavery motif in Paul’s writings may be related to the OT and contemporary Jewish literature. Perhaps through this study, additional light will also be shed on Paul’s unique presentation of the Mosaic law as an ally of the enslaving powers.

VI. Concluding Reflections This monograph contains extended reflection on the human plight. Throughout Paul’s writings, he is adamant and consistent that there is no ultimate distinction between Jewish and Gentile sinners. Either one is in Christ, or one is not. There is no distinction now between Jewish and Gentile sinners; there will be no ultimate distinction at the final judgment of Jewish and Gentile sinners; indeed, there never was truly any fundamental distinction between Jewish and Gentile sinners. Paul’s letters not only unveil the equality of those in Christ; his letters advocate the equality of those outside of Christ. Since Paul recognizes the singularity of the plight of those outside of Christ and the indivisibility of the alliance of the enslaving powers, Paul presents Gentiles as both condemned by and enslaved under the law. Those who remain in the old age are viewed as one group subject to all of the powers of that age. Θάνατος does not reign apart from ἁμαρτία; ἁμαρτία does not reign apart from νόμος; and this alliance can only reign when people are ἐν σαρκί. These are the enslaving powers of the old age, an age dominated and energized by Satan and his forces. In this condition, we all once walked. Yet, just as it is impossible to be enslaved to only one member of the alliance of darkness, so also it is impossible to be freed from only one part. It is an all-or-nothing proposition. Through the death of Jesus—God’s single solution to the single, yet multi-faceted human plight—there is freedom for all of his people from θάνατος, ἁμαρτία, σάρξ, κόσμος, αἰών, στοιχεῖα, idols, the spiritual forces of darkness, and from νόμος and its curse.

Blazosky Final.indd 192

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Conclusion

193

This book ought to provide an impetus for impartial evangelistic zeal and love. Furthermore, as in Romans 1–3 where Paul details the human plight, this book ought to lead to an increased appreciation for the glory of Christ and his cross. By pondering the situation from which the church has been rescued, this book calls for worship and gratitude to the one delivered up for our sins and raised for our justification, to the one who hung on a tree to rescue us from this evil age and to bear the curse of the law for us.

Blazosky Final.indd 193

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Blazosky Final.indd 194

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Bibliography

Achenbach, Reinhard, Rainer Albertz, and Jakob Wöhrle, eds. The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. BZABR 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. Adams, Sean A. Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on the Texts in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Aletti, Jean-Noël. “L’argumentation de Ga 3,10–14, une fois encore: Difficultés et propositions.” Biblica 92 (2011): 182–203. ———. “Romains 2: Sa cohérence et sa fonction.” Biblica 77 (1996): 153–77. Alexander, Philip S. “Torah and Salvation in Tannaitic Literature.” Pages 261–302 in Carson et al., Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1. Andersen, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24A. New York: Doubleday, 1989. Arnold, Clinton E. The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface Between Christianity and Folk Belief in Colossae. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. ———. Ephesians. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. ———. Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001. ———. “Returning to the Domain of the Powers: ‘Stoicheia’ as Evil Spirits in Galatians 4:3, 9.” NovT 38 (1996): 55–76. ———. “Sceva, Solomon, and Shamanism: The Jewish Roots of the Problem at Colossae.” JETS 55 (2012): 7–26. Bachman, Michael. Anti-Judaism in Galatians? Exegetical Studies on a Polemical Letter and on Paul’s Theology. Translated by Robert L. Brawley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Bandstra, Andrew John. The Law and the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul’s Teaching. Kampen: Kok, 1964. Barclay, John M. G. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Barker, William D. Isaiah’s Kingship Polemic: An Exegetical Study in Isaiah 24–27. FAT 2/70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Barth, Markus. Ephesians 1–3: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 34. New York: Doubleday, 1974. Barton, John. Amos’s Oracles against the Nations. SOTSMS 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. ———. The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology: Collected Essays of John Barton. SOTSMS. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007. Bassler, Jouette M. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. Bauckham, Richard. “Apocalypses.” Pages 135–87 in Carson et al., Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1. Beal, Lissa M. Wray. 1 & 2 Kings. ApOTC 9. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014. Beale, G. K. “Colossians.” Pages 841–70 in CNTUOT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

Blazosky Final.indd 195

4/11/19 5:28 PM

196

Bibliography

Beate, Ego. “Abraham als Urbild der Toratreue Israels: Traditionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu einem Aspekt des biblischen Abrahamsbildes.” Pages 25–40 in Bund und Tora. Edited by Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger. WUNT 92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Becker, Jürgen. Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles. Translated by O. C. Dean Jr. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Beckwith, Roger T. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. London: SPCK, 1985. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008. Bedenbender, Andreas. Der Gott der Welt tritt auf dem Sinai: Entstehung, Entwicklung und Funktionsweise der frühjüdischen Apokalyptik. ANTZ 8. Berlin: Institut Kirche und Judentum, 2000. Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The Coming Triumph of God. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. ———. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Belleville, Linda L. “‘Under Law’: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3:21–4:11.” JSNT 26 (1986): 53–78. Ben-Shammai, Haggai. “Some Genizah Fragments on the Duty of the Nations to Keep the Mosaic Law.” Pages 22–30 in Genizah Research after Ninety Years: The Case of Judaeo-Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Berges, Ulrich. Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt. HBS 16. Freiburg: Herder, 1998. Bergmeier, Roland. Gerechtigkeit, Gesetz und Glaube bei Paulus: Der judenchristliche Heidenapostel im Streit um das Gesetz und seine Werke. Biblisch-theologische Studien 115. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2010. Best, Ernest. Ephesians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches of Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Biddle, Mark E. “The City of Chaos and the New Jerusalem: Isaiah 24–27 in Context.” PRS 22 (1995): 5–12. Bird, Michael F. Colossians & Philemon. NCCS. Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2009. ———. Crossing over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010. ———. “Salvation in Paul’s Judaism?” Pages 15–40 in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish Christian Relations. Edited by Reimund Bieringer and Didier Pollefeyt. LNTS 463. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2012. ———. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective. PBM. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2007. Blazosky, Bryan. “The Role the Law Does or Does Not Play in the Condemnation of Gentiles in Rom 2:12–15.” JETS 59 (2016): 83–97. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Blinzler, Josef. “Lexikalisches zu dem Terminus τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου bei Paulus 1961.” Pages 429–43 in Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963. Block, Daniel I. “The Decalogue in the Hebrew Scriptures.” Pages 1–27 in The Decalogue through the Centuries: From the Hebrew Scriptures to Benedict XVI. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012.

Blazosky Final.indd 196

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Bibliography

197

———. “‘What Do These Stones Mean?’ The Riddle of Deuteronomy 27.” JETS 56 (2013): 17–41. Bockmuehl, Markus. Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Boer, Martinus C. de. Galatians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011. ———. “The Meaning of the Phrase Τὰ Στοιχεῖα Τοῦ Κόσμου.” NTS 53 (2007): 204–24. Bowsher, Herbert. “To Whom Does the Law Speak? Romans 3:19 and the Works of the Law Debate.” WTJ 68 (2006): 293–303. Bring, Ragnar. “Der Mittler und das Gesetz: Eine Studie zu Gal 3:20.” KD 12 (1966): 293–309. Brooks, David L. “The Complementary Relationship between Proverbs and Moses’ Law.” CTR 5 (2007): 3–32. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. 4th ed. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. ———. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Repr., 2000. Buitenwerf, Rieuwerd. Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting. SVTP 17. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Bundrick, David R. “Ta Stoicheia Tou Kosmou (Gal 4:3).” JETS 34 (1991): 353–64. Burkes, Shannon. “Wisdom and Law: Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch.” JSJ 30 (1999): 253–76. Burton, Ernest de Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians and Ephesians. Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. ———. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Edited by John Owen. Translated by John Owen. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. ———. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Translated by William Pringle. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1948. Campbell, Constantine. “The Stinger of Death.” The Briefing 357 (2008): 14–15. Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. ———. The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Campbell, Jonathan G. The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20. BZAW 228. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Carson, D. A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds. Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. Carter, T. L. Paul and the Power of Sin: Redefining “Beyond the Pale.” SNTSMS 115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Repr., Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004. ———. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. ———. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Chisholm Jr., Robert B. “The ‘Everlasting Covenant’ and the ‘City of Chaos’: Intentional Ambiguity and Irony in Isaiah 24.” CTR 6 (1993): 237–53.

Blazosky Final.indd 197

4/11/19 5:28 PM

198

Bibliography

Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 11. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988. Collins, John J., ed. Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Semeia 14. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. ———. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. ———. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. ———. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. “How Distinctive Was Enochic Judaism?” Meghillot 5–6 (2007): 17–34. Conrad, Edgar W. Zechariah. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Cook, Johann. “The Law of Moses in Septuagint Proverbs.” VT 49 (1999): 448–61. Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975. Cunha, Wilson de Angelo. “A Brief Discussion of MT Isaiah 24,14–16.” Biblica 90 (2009): 530–44. ———. LXX Isaiah 24:1–26:6 as Interpretation and Translation: A Methodological Discussion. SCS 62. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Dalton, William. “The Meaning of ‘We’ in Galatians.” ABR 38 (1990): 33–44. Das, A. Andrew. Galatians. Concordia Commentary. St. Louis: Concordia, 2014. ———. Paul and the Jews. Library of Pauline Studies. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. ———. “Paul and the Law: Pressure Points in the Debate.” Pages 99–116 in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle. Edited by Mark D. Given. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010. ———. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001. ———. Solving the Romans Debate. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Davies, W. D. “From Schweitzer to Scholem: Reflections on Sabbatai Svi.” JBL 95 (1976): 529–58. Deissler, Alfons. Psalm 119 (118) und seine Theologie. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der anthologischen Stilgattung im Alten Testament. MThSt. Munich: Karl Zink, 1955. Demaris, Richard E. The Colossian Controversy: Wisdom in Dispute at Colossae. LNTS 99. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. ———. “Element, Elemental Spirit.” ABD 2:444–45. Dempsey, Carol J. “Words of Woe, Visions of Grandeur: A Literary and Hermeneutical Study of Isaiah 24–27.” Pages 209–25 in Formation and Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27. Edited by J. Todd Hibbard and Hyun Chul Paul Kim. AIL 17. Atlanta: SBL, 2013. Dempster, Stephen G. “Canons on the Right and Canons on the Left: Finding a Resolution in the Canon Debate.” JETS 52 (2009): 47–77. ———. Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible. NSBT 15. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. deSilva, David. Global Readings: A Sri Lankan Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011. ———. “Grace, the Law and Justification in 4 Ezra and the Pauline Letters: A Dialogue.” JSNT 37 (2014): 25–49.

Blazosky Final.indd 198

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Bibliography

199

Desjardins, Michel. “Law in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra.” SR 14 (1985): 25–37. Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Edited by Helmut Koester. Translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Dodson, Joseph R. The “Powers” of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the “Book of Wisdom” and the Letter to the Romans. BZNW 161. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Dohmen, Christoph. Exodus 19–40. HTKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004. Donaldson, Terence L. “The ‘Curse of the Law’ and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13–14.” NTS 32 (1986): 94–112. ———. “Jewish Christianity, Israel’s Stumbling and the Sonderweg Reading of Paul.” JSNT 29 (2006): 27–54. ———. Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. ———. Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. ———. “Paul within Judaism: A Critical Evaluation from a ‘New Perspective’ Perspective.” Pages 277–301 in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle. Edited by Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Douglas, Mary. “Justice as the Cornerstone: An Interpretation of Leviticus 18–20.” Int 53 (1999): 341–50. ———. Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Doyle, Brian. The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking: A Study of the Use, Function, and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24–27. BETL 151. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000. Duff, Paul B. “Glory in the Ministry of Death: Gentile Condemnation and Letters of Recommendation in 2 Cor. 3:6–18.” NovT 46 (2004): 313–37. Dülmen, Andrea van. Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus. SBM 5. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968. Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. ———. The Epistle to the Galatians. BNTC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993. ———. “Judaism in the Land of Israel in the First Century.” Pages 229–61 in Neusner, Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 2. ———. The New Perspective on Paul. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. ———. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. “Under the Law.” Pages 48–60 in Paul, John and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer. Edited by Jan Krans, Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, Peter-Ben Smit, and Arie Zwiep. NovTSup 149. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Dunson, Ben C. Individual and Community in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. WUNT 2.322. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Durham, John I. Exodus. WBC 3. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Eckstein, Hans-Joachim. Verheissung und Gesetz: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2,15–4,7. WUNT 86. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Engler, Erich. “Reward and Punishment in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.” Ph.D. diss., McMaster University, 2012. Evans, Craig A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.

Blazosky Final.indd 199

4/11/19 5:28 PM

200

Bibliography

Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. NIBC 13. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988. ———. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Finsterbusch, Karin. Die Thora als Lebensweisung für Heidenchristen: Studien zur Bedeutung der Thora für die paulinische Ethik. SUNT 20. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Fischer, Irmtraud. Tora für Israel—Tora für die Volker: Das Konzept des Jesajabuches. SBS 164. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Fletcher, Michelle. “Apocalypse Noir: How Revelation Defined and Defied a Genre.” Pages 115–34 in The Book of Revelation: Currents in British Research on the Apocalypse. Edited by Garrick V. Allen, Ian Paul, and Simon P. Woodman. WUNT 2.411. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Flückiger, Felix. “Die Werke des Gesetzes bei den Heiden (nach Röm 2:14ff).” TZ 8 (1952): 17–42. Fraade, Steven D. “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch with the (Dis-)Advantage of Rabbinic Hindsight.” Pages 363–78 in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall. Edited by Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini. JSJSup 164. Leiden: Brill, 2013. ———. From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy. SUNYSJ. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. Frimer, Dov I. “Israel, the Noahide Laws and Maimonides: Jewish-Gentile Legal Relations in Maimonidean Thought.” Pages 89–102 in The Jerusalem Conference Volume. JLAS II. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Fuller, Michael E. The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-Gathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts. BZNW 138. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Gager, John G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. ———. Reinventing Paul. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Garland, David. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Garlington, Don B. “The Obedience of Faith:” A Pauline Phrase in Historical Context. WUNT 2.38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Gaston, Lloyd. Paul and the Torah. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006. Gathercole, Simon J. “A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2.14–15 Revisited.” JSNT 85 (2002): 27–49. Gatumu, Kabiro wa. The Pauline Concept of Supernatural Powers: A Reading from the African Worldview. PBM. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2008. Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. George, Timothy. Galatians. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Glenny, W. Edward. A Commentary Based on Amos in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Gombis, Timothy G. The Drama of Ephesians: Participating in the Triumph of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010. ———. “The ‘Transgressor’ and the ‘Curse of the Law’: The Logic of Paul’s Argument in Galatians 2–3.” NTS 53 (2007): 81–93.

Blazosky Final.indd 200

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Bibliography

201

Gonzalez, Robert R., Jr. Where Sin Abounds: The Spread of Sin and the Curse in Genesis with Special Focus on the Patriarchal Narratives. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009. Grabbe, Lester L. “Hellenistic Judaism.” Pages 53–83 in Neusner, Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 2. Hagedorn, Anselm C., and Shani Tzoref. “Attitudes to Gentiles in the Minor Prophets and in Corresponding Pesharim.” DSD 20 (2013): 472–509. Hahn, Ferdinand. “Das Gesetzesverständnis im Römer- und Galaterbrief.” ZNW 67 (1976): 29–63. Hamborg, G. R. “Reasons for Judgement in the Oracles against the Nations of the Prophet Isaiah.” VT 31 (1981): 145–59. Hammer, Reuven., ed. and trans. Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. Hansen, G. Walter. Galatians. IVP. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994. Harrill, J. Albert. “The Vice of Slave Dealers in Greco-Roman Society: The Use of a Topos in 1 Timothy 1:10.” JBL 118 (1999): 97–122. Harrington, D. J. “Pseudo-Philo: A New Translation and Introduction.” OTP 2:297–377. Hasel, Gerhard F. “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15.” JSOT 19 (1981): 61–78. Hay, David M. “Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 357–79 in Carson et al., Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1. Hayes, Christine. What’s Divine about Divine Law? Early Perspectives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015. Hays, Richard B. “The Letter to the Galatians: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” NIB 11: 181–348. Heger, Paul. “1 Enoch—Complementary or Alternative to Mosaic Torah?” JSJ 41 (2010): 29–62. Heil, John Paul. Colossians: Encouragement to Walk in All Wisdom as Holy Ones in Christ. SBLECL 4. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. Henze, Matthias. “Torah and Eschatology in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch.” Pages 201–15 in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. TBN 12. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Hirshman, Marc. “Rabbinic Universalism in the Second and Third Centuries.” HTR 93 (2000): 101–15. Hodge, Caroline Johnson. “Apostle to the Gentiles: Constructions of Paul’s Identity.” BibInt 13 (2005): 270–88. Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Philadelphia: Grigg & Elliot, 1835. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Hoffmann, Heinrich. Das Gesetz in der frühjüdischen Apokalyptik. SUNT 23. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Hogan, Karina Martin. “The Meanings of Tôrâ in 4 Ezra.” JSJ 38 (2007): 530–52. Hollander, H. W., and J. Holleman. “The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Cor 15:56.” NovT 35 (1993): 270–91. Hong, In-Gyu. “Being ‘under the Law’ in Galatians.” ERT 26 (2002): 354–72. Horsley, Richard A. “The Law of Nature in Philo and Cicero.” HTR 71 (1978): 35–59. Jassen, Alex P. “Survival at the End of Days: Aspects of Soteriology in the Dead Sea Scrolls Pesharim.” Pages 193–210 in This World and the World to Come: Soteriology in Early Judaism. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner. LSTS 74. London: T&T Clark, 2011.

Blazosky Final.indd 201

4/11/19 5:28 PM

202

Bibliography

Jewett, Robert. “The Anthropological Implications of the Revelation of Wrath in Romans.” Pages 24–38 in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell. Edited by Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker. LNTS 428. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2010. ———. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Johnson, Dan G. From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 35A. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Joosten, Jan. “The Interpretation of Deuteronomy 29:17–18 in the Hellenistic Period: Septuagint, Qumran and Parabiblical Literature.” Pages 107–20 in Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz. FAT 2/35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary. Translated by R. A. Wilson. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Keck, Leander E. Romans. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Keddie, G. Anthony. “Paul’s Freedom and Moses’ Veil: Moral Freedom and the Mosaic Law in 2 Corinthians 3.1–4.6 in Light of Philo.” JSNT 37 (2015): 267–89. Kim, Hyun-Gwang. “Redeemed from the Curse: Paul’s Understanding of the Law and Gentiles in the Light of Hellenistic Judaism.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008. Kim, Seyoon. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. Leviticus. ApOTC 3. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007. Klawans, Jonathan. “Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism.” AJSR 20 (1995): 285–312. Klinker-De Clerck, Myriam. “The Pastoral Epistles: Authentic Pauline Writings.” EuroJTh 17 (2008): 101–8. Knight, George W., III. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Koester, Helmut. “ΝΟΜΟΣ ΦΥΣΕΩΣ: The Concept of Natural Law in Greek Thought.” Pages 521–41 in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough. Edited by Jacob Neusner. SHR 14. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Kömig, Adrio. “Gentiles or Gentile Christians? On the Meaning of Romans 2:12–16.” JTSA 15 (1976): 53–60. Köstenberger, Andreas. “1 Timothy.” Pages 487–562 in Ephesians-Philemon. Rev. ed. EBC 12. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. Kruse, Colin G. Paul, the Law, and Justification. Leicester: Apollos, 1996. Kuhr, Friedrich. “Römer 2 14f. und die Verheissung bei Jeremia 31 31ff.” ZNW 55 (1964): 243–61. Kutsch, Ernst. Verheißung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973. Kuula, Kari. The Law, the Covenant and God’s Plan, Vol. 1, Paul’s Polemical Treatment of the Law in Galatians. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 72. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1999. ———. The Law, the Covenant and God’s Plan, Vol. 2, Paul’s Treatment of Israel and the Law in Romans. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 85. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2003.

Blazosky Final.indd 202

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Bibliography

203

Kvanvig, Helge S. “Enochic Judaism—A Judaism without the Torah and the Temple?” Pages 163–77 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Kwon, Yon-Gyong. Eschatology in Galatians: Rethinking Paul’s Response to the Crisis in Galatia. WUNT 2.183. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Lamp, Jeffrey S. “Paul, the Law, Jews, and Gentiles: A Contextual and Exegetical Reading of Romans 2:12–16.” JETS 42 (1999): 37–51. Lau, Te-Li. Politics of Peace: Ephesians, Dio Chrysostom, and the Confucian Four Books. NovTSup 133. Boston: Brill, 2010. Lauterbach, Jacob Z., ed. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933. Lee, Sang Meyng. The Cosmic Drama of Salvation: A Study of Paul’s Undisputed Writings from Anthropological and Cosmological Perspectives. WUNT 2.276. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Levenson, Jon D. Abraham between Torah and Gospel. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2011. Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. WBC 42. Dallas: Word, 1990. Linebaugh, Jonathan A. God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Texts in Conversation. NovTSup 152. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Loete, Joseph. “A Premature Hymn of Praise: The Meaning and Function of Isaiah 24:14–16c in Its Present Context.” Pages 226–38 in Studies in Isaiah: The Isaiah Workshop—De Jesaja Werkplaats. Edited by Hendrik Jan Bosman and Harm Van Grol. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Lohr, Joel N. “Righteous Abel, Wicked Cain: Genesis 4:1–16 in the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the New Testament.” CBQ 71 (2009): 485–96. Lohse, Eduard. Colossians and Philemon. Edited by Helmut Koester. Translated by William R. Poehlman and Robert J. Karris. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Longenecker, Bruce W. “Sharing in Their Spiritual Blessings?” Pages 58–84 in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment. Edited by Bruce W. Longenecker. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. WBC 41. Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1990. ———. “The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians.” JETS 25 (1982): 53–61. Lucas, Alec J. Evocations of the Calf? Romans 1:18–2:11 and the Substructure of Psalm 106 (105). BZNW 201. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Lull, David J. “‘The Law Was Our Pedagogue’: A Study in Galatians 3:19–25.” JBL 105 (1986): 481–98. Luther, Martin. Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia. Edited by Hilton C. Oswald. Luther’s Works 25. St. Louis: Concordia, 1972. Machen, J. Gresham. Notes on Galatians. Edited by John H. Skilton. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977. Repr., Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006. Maier, Johann. “The Judaic System of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 84–108 in Neusner, Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 2. Marböck, Johannes. “Ein Ewiger Bund für Alle? Notizen zu Sir 17,11–14.” Pages 133–40 in Für immer Verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel. Edited by Christoph Dohmen and Christian Frevel. SBS 211. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007. Marcus, Joel. “‘Under the Law’: The Background of a Pauline Expression.” CBQ 63 (2001): 72–83.

Blazosky Final.indd 203

4/11/19 5:28 PM

204

Bibliography

Marshall, I. Howard. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Pastoral Epistles. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 1999. Martens, John W. One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco-Roman Law. SPhAMA 2. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Martin, Brice L. Christ and the Law in Paul. NovTSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Martin, Dale B. “Paul and the Judaism / Hellenism Dichotomy: Toward a Social History of the Question.” Pages 29–61 in Paul Beyond the Judaism / Hellenism Divide. Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Martin, Troy W. By Philosophy and Empty Deceit: Colossians as Response to a Cynic Critique. LNTS 118. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Marttila, Marko. Foreign Nations in the Wisdom of Ben Sira: A Jewish Sage between Opposition and Assimilation. DCLS 13. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Martyn, J. Louis. “Apocalyptic Antimonies in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” NTS 31 (1985): 410–24. ———. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Mason, Steven D. “Another Flood? Genesis 9 and Isaiah’s Broken Eternal Covenant.” JSOT 32 (2007): 177–98. ———. “Eternal Covenant” in the Pentateuch: The Contours of an Elusive Phrase. LHBOTS 494. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Mazzinghi, Luca. “Law of Nature and Light of the Law in the Book of Wisdom (Wis 18:4c).” Pages 37–59 in Studies in the Book of Wisdom. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 142. Boston: Brill, 2010. McClister, David. “Ethnicity and Jewish Identity in Josephus.” Ph.D. diss., University of Florida, 2008. McComiskey, Thomas Edward, ed. The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. ———. “Zechariah.” Pages 1003–244 in McComiskey, Minor Prophets. Vol. 3. McEleney, Neil J. “The Vice Lists of the Pastoral Epistles.” CBQ 36 (1974): 203–19. McFadden, Kevin M. Judgment according to Works in Romans: The Meaning and Function of Divine Judgment in Paul’s Most Important Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. McKnight, Scot. Galatians. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. McLaren, James S. “Introduction.” Pages 1–8 in Sim and McLaren, Attitudes to Gentiles. McNamara, Martin. “Some Targum Themes.” Pages 303–56 in Carson et al., Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1. Meiser, Martin, ed. The Torah in the Ethics of Paul. LNTS 473. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Meyer, Jason C. The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009. Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. AB 25B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Moberly, R. W. L. “The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah.” VT 38 (1988): 302–23. ———. The Theology of the Book of Genesis. OTT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Mohrmann, Doug C. “Making Sense of Sex: A Study of Leviticus 18.” JSOT 29 (2004): 57–79. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Blazosky Final.indd 204

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Bibliography

205

———. Galatians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013. ———. “‘Law’, ‘Works of the Law’, and Legalism in Paul.” WTJ 45 (1983): 73–100. ———. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. ———. “Review of The Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom, and the Law, by C. Marvin Pate.” TrinJ 22 (2001): 272–76. ———. Romans. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. ———. Galatians: Paul’s Charter of Christian Freedom. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996. Moses, Robert Ewusie. Practices of Power: Revisiting the Principalities and Powers in the Pauline Letters. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Motyer, J. Alec. “Zephaniah.” Pages 897–962 in McComiskey, Minor Prophets. Vol. 3. Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. WBC 46. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000. Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968. Mussner, Franz. Der Galaterbrief. HTKNT 9. Freiburg: Herder, 1974. Najman, Hindy. “A Written Copy of the Law of Nature: An Unthinkable Paradox.” SPhilo 15 (2003): 54–63. Nanos, Mark D. “A Jewish View.” Pages 159–93 in Four Views on the Apostle Paul. Edited by Michael F. Bird. Counterpoints. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. ———. “Paul’s Relationship to Torah in Light of His Strategy ‘to Become Everything to Everyone’ (1 Corinthians 9.19–23).” Pages 106–40 in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish Christian Relations. Edited by Reimund Bieringer and Didier Pollefeyt. LNTS 463. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2012. Napier, Daniel. “Paul’s Analysis of Sin and Torah in Romans 7:7–25.” ResQ 44 (2002): 15–32. Neusner, Jacob. “Does Torah Mean Law?” Pages 155–60 in Judaism and Ethics. Edited by Daniel Jeremy Silver. New York: Ktav, 1970. ———. Rabbinic Categories: Construction and Comparison. JSJSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ———, ed. Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 2: Historical Syntheses. HdO 17. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ———. “Enochic Wisdom: An Alternative to the Mosaic Torah?” Pages 123–32 in Hesed Ve-Emet. Edited by Jodi Magness and Seymour Gitin. BJS 320. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. ———. “Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Early Judaism: Some Points for Discussion.” Pages 17–37 in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism. Edited by Lawrence M. Wills and Benjamin G. Wright. SBLSymS 35. Atlanta: SBL, 2005. Novak, David. Natural Law in Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Oakes, Peter. Galatians. PCNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015. O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Pao, David. Colossians & Philemon. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Paul, Shalom M. Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Edited by Frank M. Cross. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

Blazosky Final.indd 205

4/11/19 5:28 PM

206

Bibliography

Petersen, David L. Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. Petterson, Anthony R. “The Flying Scroll That Will Not Acquit the Guilty: Exodus 34.7 in Zechariah 5.3.” JSOT 38 (2014): 347–61. Poirier, John C. “Romans and the Universality of Law.” NovT 38 (1996): 344–58. Polaski, Donald C. “Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant: The Eternal Covenant (Isaiah 24.5) and Intertextuality.” JSOT 77 (1998): 55–73. Porter, Stanley E. The Letter to the Romans: A Linguistic and Literary Commentary. New Testament Monographs 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015. Propp, William H. C., ed. Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006. Rad, Gerhard von. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Translated by Dorothea Barton. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966. Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010. Reicke, Bo. “The Law and This World according to Paul: Some Thoughts concerning Gal 4:1–11.” JBL 70 (1951): 259–76. Reinmuth, Eckart. “Beobachtungen zum Verständnis des Gesetzes im Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo).” JSJ 20 (1989): 151–70. Renz, Thomas. “Torah in the Minor Prophets.” Pages 73–94 in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham. Edited by J. G. McConville and Karl Möller. LHBOTS 461. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Reynolds, Kent Aaron. Torah as Teacher: The Exemplary Torah Student in Psalm 119. VTSup 137. Boston: Brill, 2010. Ridderbos, Herman. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. ———. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Robertson, O. Palmer. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Robinson, D. W. “The Distinction between Jewish and Gentile Believers in Galatians.” ABR 13 (1965): 29–48. Rodriguez, Rafael. If You Call Yourself a Jew: Reappraising Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014. Rogers, Trent A. “Philo’s Universalization of Sinai in De Decalogo 32–49.” SPhilo 24 (2012): 85–105. Rohde, Joachim. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. THKNT 9. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989. Röhser, Günter. Metaphorik und Personifikation der Sünde: Antike Sündenvorstellungen und paulinische Hamartia. WUNT 2.25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Roloff, Jürgen. Der erste Brief an Timotheus. EKKNT. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Rosner, Brian S. “‘Known by God’: The Meaning and Value of a Neglected Biblical Concept.” TynBul 59 (2008): 207–30. ———. Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God. NSBT 31. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013. ———. Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Rosner, Brian S., and Roy E. Ciampa. The First Letter to the Corinthians. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Blazosky Final.indd 206

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Bibliography

207

Ross, Allen P. “The Curse of Canaan.” BSac 137 (1980): 223–40. Rudman, Dominic. “Midrash in the Isaiah Apocalypse.” ZAW 112 (2000): 404–8. Ruffatto, Kristine J. “Visionary Ascents of Moses in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: Apocalyptic Motifs and the Growth of Visionary Moses Tradition.” Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 2010. Runesson, Anders. “Particularistic Judaism and Universalistic Christianity? Some Critical Remarks on Terminology and Theology.” ST 54 (2000): 55–75. Ryken, Philip Graham. Galatians. Reformed Expository Commentary. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2005. Sailhamer, John H. Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. ———. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009. ———. “The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch.” WTJ 53 (1991): 241–61. ———. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 5th ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907. Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE. London: SCM, 1992. ———. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. ———. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983. Repr., 2009. Sänger, Dieter. Die Verkündigung des Gekreuzigten und Israel: Studien zum Verhältnis von Kirche und Israel bei Paulus und im frühen Christentum. WUNT 75. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Sasson, J. M. “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East.” JBL 85 (1966): 473–76. Schenker, Adrian. “What Connects the Incest Prohibitions with the Other Prohibitions Listed in Leviticus 18 and 20?” Pages 162–85 in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Edited by Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler. VTSup 93. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Schiffman, Lawrence H. Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Schmidt, Ludwig. “Israel und das Gesetz: Ex 19,3b–8 und 24,3–8 als literarischer und theologischer Rahmen für das Bundesbuch.” ZAW 113 (2001): 167–85. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Early Christian Mission: Jesus and the Twelve. Vol. 1. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004. ———. Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics. WUNT 2.16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Schreiner, Thomas R. 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2010. ———. “The Commands of God.” Pages 66–101 in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. ———. Galatians. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. ———. The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. ———. Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001. ———. Romans. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Blazosky Final.indd 207

4/11/19 5:28 PM

208

Bibliography

Schultz, Richard. “‘Fear God and Keep His Commandments’ (Eccl 12:13): An Examination of Some Intertextual Relationships between Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes.” Pages 327–43 in For Our Good Always: Studies on the Message and Influence of Deuteronomy in Honor of Daniel I. Block. Edited by Jason S. DeRouchie, Jason Gile, and Kenneth J. Turner. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Translated by William Montgomery. New York: Macmillan, 1956. Schweizer, Eduard. “Slaves of the Elements and Worshipers of Angels: Gal 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 18, 20.” JBL 107 (1988): 455–68. Segal, Alan F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Seifrid, Mark A. “Blind Alleys in the Controversy over the Paul of History.” TynBul 45 (1994): 73–95. ———. Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification. NSBT 9. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Seitz, Christopher R. Isaiah 1–39. IBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Silva, Moisés. Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. Sim, David C., and James S. McLaren, eds. Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. LNTS 499. London: T&T Clark, 2013. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Skjoldal, Neil O. “The Function of Isaiah 24–27.” JETS 36 (1993): 163–72. Sloan, Robert B. “Paul and the Law: Why the Law Cannot Save.” NovT 33 (1991): 35–60. Smiles, Vincent M. The Gospel and the Law in Galatia: Paul’s Response to Jewish Christian Separatism and the Threat of Galatian Apostasy. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998. Smith, Ian K. Heavenly Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul’s Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colossae. LNTS 326. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Smith, Michael J. “The Role of the Pedagogue in Galatians.” BSac 163 (2006): 197–214. Snodgrass, Klyne. “Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the Law.” JSNT 32 (1988): 93–113. Soards, Marion L., and Darrell J. Pursiful. Galatians. SHBC. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2015. Söding, Thomas. “Die Kraft der Sünde ist das Gesetz (1 Kor 15,56): Anmerkungen zum Hintergrund und zur Pointe einer gesetzeskritischen Sentenz des Apostels Paulus.” ZNW 83 (1992): 74–84. Sowers, Sidney G. The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews. Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1965. Sprinkle, Preston M. Law and Life: The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in Paul. WUNT 241. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Stanley, Christopher D. “‘Under a Curse’: A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3.10–14.” NTS 36 (1990): 481–511. Starling, David Ian. Not My People: Gentiles as Exiles in Pauline Hermeneutics. BZNW 184. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Stead, Michael R. The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8. LHBOTS 506. New York: T&T Clark, 2009.

Blazosky Final.indd 208

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Bibliography

209

Steffeck, Emmanuelle. “Some Observations on the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15.20, 29 (and 21.25).” Pages 133–40 in The Torah in the New Testament: Papers Delivered at the Manchester–Lausanne Seminar of June 2008. Edited by Michael Tait and Peter Oakes. LNTS 401. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Steiner, Richard C. “Incomplete Circumcision in Egypt and Edom: Jeremiah (9:24–25) in the Light of Josephus and Jonckheere.” JBL 118 (1999): 497–505. Stern, Sacha. Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings. AGJU 23. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Stettler, Christian. “The Opponents at Colossae.” Pages 169–200 in Paul and His Opponents. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Pauline Studies. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Stone, Michael Edward. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Stott, John R. W. The Message of Galatians. BST. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986. ———. The Message of Romans. BST. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001. Stowers, Stanley K. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. SBLDS 57. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. ———. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. Stuart, Douglas. “Malachi.” Pages 1245–396 in McComiskey, Minor Prophets. Vol. 3. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 1 Enoch 91–108. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Taylor, John W. “The Eschatological Interdependence of Jews and Gentiles in Galatians.” TynBul 63 (2012): 291–316. Theophilos, Michael P. “The Portrayal of Gentiles in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 72–91 in Sim and McLaren, Attitudes to Gentiles. Thielman, Frank. “The Coherence of Paul’s View of the Law: The Evidence of First Corinthians.” NTS 38 (1992): 235–53. ———. Ephesians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010. ———. From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans. NovTSup 61. Leiden: Brill, 1989. ———. The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity. CNT. New York: Crossroad, 1999. ———. Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994. Thorsteinsson, Runar M. Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2: Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography. ConBNT 40. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2003. Timmer, Daniel C. The Non-Israelite Nations in the Book of the Twelve: Thematic Coherence and the Diachronic-Synchronic Relationship in the Minor Prophets. BibInt 135. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Tobin, Thomas H. Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Tomson, Peter J. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. CRINT III.1. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Towner, Philip H. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Trimm, Charlie. “Did YHWH Condemn the Nations When He Elected Israel? YHWH’s Disposition toward Non-Israelites in the Torah.” JETS 55 (2012): 521–36. VanderKam, James C. An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Blazosky Final.indd 209

4/11/19 5:28 PM

210

Bibliography

VanDrunen, David. Divine Covenants and Moral Order: A Biblical Theology of Natural Law. Emory University Studies in Law and Religion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. ———. “Israel’s Recapitulation of Adam’s Probation under the Law of Moses.” WTJ 73 (2011): 303–24. Vermeylen, J. Du Prophète Isaïe à l’apocalyptique: Isaïe I–XXXV. Vol. 1. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1977. Vielhauer, Philipp. “Gesetzesdienst und Stoicheiadienst im Galaterbrief.” Pages 543–55 in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann. Edited by Johannes Friedrich, Wolfgang Pöhlmann, and Peter Stuhlmacher. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976. Vlachos, Chris A. “Law, Sin, and Death: An Edenic Triad? An Examination with Reference to 1 Corinthians 15:56.” JETS 47 (2004): 277–98. Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1930. Repr., Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1994. Vouga, François. An die Galater. HNT 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Wakefield, Andrew H. Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul’s Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3:1–14. SBLAB 14. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Ware, James P. The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism. NovTSup 120. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. Rev. ed. WBC 24. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005. Westerholm, Stephen. “The Law and the ‘Just Man.’ ” ST 36 (1982): 79–95. ———. Perspectives Old and New: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. ———. “Torah, Nomos, and Law: A Question of ‘Meaning.’ ” SR 15 (1986): 327–36. Wildberger, Hans. Jesaja. Vol. 2. BKAT. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Williams, Jarvis J. For Whom Did Christ Die? PBM. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2012. Williamson, Paul R. Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose. NSBT 23. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007. Wilson, Lindsay. “Athens and Jerusalem: Job and the Decalogue.” Paper presented at the Tyndale Old Testament Study Group, Cambridge, 5 July 2005. Wilson, Todd. “‘Under Law’ in Galatians: A Pauline Theological Abbreviation.” JTS 56 (2005): 362–92. Winger, Michael. By What Law? The Meaning of Νόμος in the Letters of Paul. SBLDS 128. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Wisdom, Jeffrey R. Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: Paul’s Citation of Genesis and Deuteronomy in Gal. 3:8–10. WUNT 2.133. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Wise, Michael O. “Charter of a Jewish Sectarian Association.” Pages 112–36 in Wise et al., Dead Sea Scrolls. ———. “The Temple Scroll.” Pages 593–632 in Wise et al., Dead Sea Scroll. Wise, Michael O., Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Rev. ed. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2005. Witherington III, Ben. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Blazosky Final.indd 210

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Bibliography

211

Wolter, Michael. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by Robert L. Brawley. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015. Woyke, Johannes. “Nochmals zu den ‘schwachen und unfähigen Elementen’ (Gal 4:9): Paulus, Philo und die στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου.” NTS 54 (2008): 221–34. Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006. Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ———. The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon. TNTC. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986. ———. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009. ———. “The Law in Romans 2.” Pages 131–50 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. ———. “The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” NIB 10:393–770. ———. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ———. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Yee, Tet-Lim N. Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul’s Jewish Identity and Ephesians. SNTSMS 130. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Young, Norman H. “Paidagogos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor.” NovT 29 (1987): 150–76. ———. “Who’s Cursed: And Why? (Galatians 3:10–14).” JBL 117 (1998): 79–92. Zetterholm, Magnus. “Jews, Christians, and Gentiles.” Pages 242–54 in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell. Edited by Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker. LNTS 428. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2010. Zimmerli, Walther. The Law and the Prophets: A Study of the Meaning of the Old Testament. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.

Blazosky Final.indd 211

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Blazosky Final.indd 212

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Index of Authors

Brooks, D. L., 73 Bruce, F. F., 117, 126 Buitenwerf, R., 103 Bundrick, D. R., 128–29 Burkes, S., 85 Burton, E. de W., 128

Abegg Jr., M. G., 93 Achenbach, R., 35 Adams, S. A., 85 Albertz, R., 35 Aletti, J.-N., 121, 149 Alexander, P.S., 110–11 Andersen, F.I., 59–60 Arnold, C. E., 128–31, 168, 173, 176

Calvin, J., 65, 117, 142 Campbell, C., 171 Campbell, D. A., 13, 139 Campbell, J. G., 83 Carson, D. A., 180 Carter, T. L., 157, 163 Charlesworth, J. H., 84 Childs, B. S., 25, 33, 65 Chisholm Jr., R. B., 67, 70–71 Ciampa, R. E., 131, 167, 171 Cogan, M., 52 Collins, J. J., 82, 92, 97–99, 103, 107 Conrad, E. W., 63 Conzelmann, H., 170, 183 Cook, E. M., 93 Cook, J., 73 Cranfield, C. E. B., 137–38, 140, 143, 151, 152, 159 Cunha, W. de. A., 65, 97

Bachman, M., 117 Bandstra, A. J., 128, 130, 157 Barclay, J. M. G., 125, 150 Barker, W. D., 65 Barth, M., 167–68 Barton, J., 25, 60 Bassler, J. M., 173 Bauckham, R., 81, 97–101, 103, 107 Beal, L. M. W., 53 Beale, G. K., 174, 176 Beate, E., 27 Becker, J., 11 Beckwith, R. T., 25 Bedenbender, A., 99–100 Beker, J. C., 160 Belleville, L. L., 117–18, 128–29 Ben-Shammai, H., 111 Berges, U., 67 Bergmeier, R., 118 Best, E., 168 Betz, H. D., 129 Biddle, M. E., 65 Bird, M. F., 79, 80, 141, 170, 173–74, 176, 178 Blazosky, B., 138 Blenkinsopp, J., 65, 67 Blinzler, J., 128 Block, D. I., 32, 43 Bockmuehl, M., 21, 61, 86, 111–12 Boer, M. C. de, 13, 128–29 Bowsher, H., 153 Bring, R., 129

Dalton, W., 11 Das, A. A., 1, 2, 5, 14–15, 117, 120, 123, 126, 132, 137–38, 140, 144–45, 149, 157 Davies, W. D., 79 Deissler, A., 74–75 Demaris, R. E., 128, 173 Dempsey, C. J., 66 Dempster, S. G., 25 deSilva, D., 13, 151 Desjardins, M., 107 Di Lella, A. A., 104 Dibelius, M., 183 Dodson, J. R., 154, 161

213

Blazosky Final.indd 213

4/11/19 5:28 PM

214

Index of Authors

Dohmen, C., 31 Donaldson, T. L., 6–7, 18–19, 79–80, 94, 104, 107–8, 117–18 Douglas, M., 36, 45 Doyle, B., 65 Duff, P. B., 165 Dülmen, A. van, 116, 127, 140, 156 Dunn, J. D. G., 8, 16, 22, 127, 149, 153, 167, 173–74, 176 Dunson, B. C., 149 Durham, J. I., 31 Eckstein, H.-J., 122 Engler, E., 104, 106 Evans, C. A., 95 Fee, G. D., 167, 180–81 Finsterbusch, K., 15, 80, 149 Fischer, I., 67 Fitzmyer, J. A., 161 Fletcher, M., 97–98 Flückiger, F., 141, 144 Fraade, S. D., 107, 110 Freedman, D. N., 59–60 Frimer, D. I., 111 Fuller, M. E., 93–94 Fung, R. Y. K., 117 Gager, J. G., 11 Garland, D., 170 Garlington, D. B., 85 Gaston, L., 1, 10–11, 166 Gathercole, S. J., 138, 141, 144, 146 Gatuma, K., 154 Gentry, P. J., 28, 69 George, T., 129 Glenny, W. E., 60 Gombis, T. G., 122, 169 Gonzalez Jr., R. R., 27 Grabbe, L. L., 95 Hagedorn, A. C., 58, 92 Hahn, F., 153 Hamborg, G. R., 56 Hammer, R., 108 Hansen, G. W., 129 Harrill, J. A., 183 Harrington, D. J., 104 Hasel, G. F., 32

Blazosky Final.indd 214

Hay, D. M., 87 Hayes, C., 27, 86–87, 112 Hays, R. B., 120–22 Headlam, A. C., 138 Heger, P., 98–100 Heil, J. P., 174 Henze, M., 107 Hirshman, M., 110 Hodge, C. J., 11, 147 Hoehner, H. W., 167–68 Hoffmann, H., 99 Hogan, K. M., 107 Hollander, H. W., 170 Holleman, J., 170 Hong, I.-G., 126–27 Horsley, R. A., 86 Jassen, A. P., 94 Jewett, R., 138, 151, 153 Johnson, D. G., 65, 68, 70 Johnson, L. T., 182 Joosten, J., 44 Kaiser, O., 67 Keck, L. E., 144 Keddie, G. A., 86 Kim, H.-G., 1, 12, 81, 152 Kim, S., 119 Kiuchi, N., 35 Klawans, J., 37 Klinker-De Clerck, M., 180 Knight III, G. W., 182 Koester, H., 86 Kömig, A., 144 Köstenberger, A., 180 Kruse, C. G., 11, 118 Kuhr, F., 138, 144, 151 Kutsch, E., 70 Kuula, K., 9, 117, 152, 156, 159 Kvanvig, H. S., 98–99 Kwon, Y.-G., 126 Lamp, J. S., 144–45 Lau, T.-L., 167–68 Lauterbach, J. Z., 108 Lee, S. M., 13 Levenson, J. D., 27 Lincoln, A. T., 168 Linebaugh, J. A., 150

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Index of Authors Loete, J., 70 Lohr, J. N., 28 Lohse, E., 176 Longenecker, R. N., 6, 117, 129 Lucas, A. J., 139, 150 Lull, D. J., 117 Luther, M., 127 Machen, J. G., 16 Maier, J., 94 Marböck, J., 83 Marcus, J., 127 Marshall, I. H., 182, 185 Martens, J. W., 87–88 Martin, B. L., 5, 14, 117, 159, 161 Martin, D. B., 95 Martin, T. W., 173 Marttila, M., 83 Martyn, J. L., 12–13, 123, 128, 132 Mason, S. D., 32, 67, 69 Mazzinghi, L., 89 McClister, D., 82, 88 McComiskey, T. E., 55 McEleney, N. J., 182 McFadden, K. M., 141 McKnight, S., 129 McLaren, J. S., 21, 80 McNamara, M., 95 Meiser, M., 80 Meyer, J. C., 5, 165 Meyers, C. L., 63 Meyers, E. M., 63 Milgrom, J., 39 Moberly, R. W. L., 26–27 Mohrmann, D. C., 36 Moo, D. J., 8, 17–18, 21, 116–17, 119–20, 128–30, 137–38, 144, 147–48, 155, 159, 172–73, 175, 179–80 Morris, L., 127–28, 139 Moses, R. E., 133, 154, 159 Motyer, J. A., 58 Mounce, W. D., 185 Murray, J., 142, 153 Mussner, F., 15, 119 Najman, H., 87 Nanos, M. D., 157, 166 Napier, D., 160 Neusner, J., 26, 91

Blazosky Final.indd 215

215

Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 84, 98–100 Novak, D., 112 O’Brien, P. T., 168 Oakes, P., 18 Oswalt, J. N., 66 Pao, D., 173, 179 Paul, S. M., 58–59 Petersen, D. L., 63 Petterson, A. R., 62–63 Poirier, J. C., 12 Polaski, D. C., 68–69 Porter, S. E., 153 Propp, W. H. C., 31 Pursiful, D. J., 119–20 von Rad, G., 46 Räisänen, H., 5, 8, 138–39, 166, 173 Reicke, B., 129 Reinmuth, E., 106 Renz, T., 59 Reynolds, K. A., 75 Ridderbos, H., 129, 132, 179 Robertson, O. P., 58 Robinson, D. W., 6, 116 Rodriguez, R., 157 Rogers, T. A., 88 Rohde, J., 122 Röhser, G., 154 Roloff, J., 173 Rosner, B. S., 5, 20, 80, 118, 127, 131, 137, 157, 166–67, 171–72, 180–81, 184 Ross, A. P., 45 Rudman, D., 68 Ruffatto, K. J., 105 Runesson, A., 80 Ryken, P. G., 16 Sailhamer, J. H., 25–27 Sanday, W., 138 Sanders, E. P., 5, 9–10, 80, 82, 101, 117, 138, 152, 159 Sänger, D., 125 Sasson, J. M., 58 Schenker, A., 35, 40 Schiffman, L. H., 92 Schmidt, L., 31 Schnabel, E. J., 80, 84

4/11/19 5:28 PM

216

Index of Authors

Schreiner, T. R., 5, 15–16, 20, 26, 116, 120, 122, 127, 132, 138–39, 141–42, 144–46, 153, 159–60, 170 Schultz, R., 74 Schweitzer, A., 132 Schweizer, E., 128 Segal, A. F., 157 Seifrid, M. A., 121–22, 155 Seitz, M. A., 67 Silva, M., 116 Sim, D. C., 21 Skehan, P. W., 104 Skjoldal, N. O., 65 Sloan, R. B., 14 Smiles, V. M., 13–14 Smith, I. K., 173, 176 Smith, M. J., 117 Snodgrass, K., 14 Soards, M. L., 119 Söding, T., 170 Sowers, S. G., 88 Sprinkle, P. M., 36 Stanley, C. D., 120 Starling, D. I., 7, 167 Stead, M. R., 63 Steffeck, E., 112 Steiner, R. C., 58 Stern, S., 109, 110 Stettler, C., 173–74, 179 Stone, M. E., 107 Stott, J. R. W., 129, 141 Stowers, S. K., 81, 103, 139, 150 Stuart, D., 56 Stuckenbruck, L. T., 100 Tadmor, H., 52 Taylor, J. W., 122 Theophilos, M. P., 81, 98, 103, 107 Thielman, F., 5, 19, 127, 142, 152, 167–68, 170, 178 Thorsteinsson, R. M., 157 Timmer, D. C., 58

Blazosky Final.indd 216

Tobin, T. H., 12, 151 Tomson, P. J., 21, 80 Towner, P. H., 180, 185 Trimm, C., 28 Tzoref, S., 58 VanDrunen, D., 1, 11, 17, 29, 40, 56, 60–61, 67, 160, 171 VanderKam, J. C., 95, 97 Vermeylen, J., 67 Vielhauer, P., 14, 129 Vlachos, C. A., 170 Vos, G., 132 Vouga, F., 13, 117 Wakefield, A. H., 132 Ware, J. P., 90 Watson, F., 36 Watts, J. D. W., 65 Wellum, S. J., 28, 69 Westerholm, S., 5, 10, 26, 122, 152, 159, 180 Wildberger, H., 67 Williams, J. J., 153 Williamson, P. R., 28, 32, 67 Wilson, L., 73 Wilson, T., 127 Winger, M., 137 Wisdom, J. R., 123 Wise, M. O., 92–93 Witherington III, B., 118, 129, 139, 144 Wöhrle, J., 35 Wolter, M., 132, 157 Woyke, J., 127, 133 Wright, C. J. H., 31 Wright, N. T., 7, 19–20, 82, 121, 138, 141, 144, 146, 148, 151, 157, 159, 173 Yee, T.-L. N., 168–69 Young, N. H., 117, 122 Zetterholm, M., 110 Zimmerli, W., 59

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Index of Scripture

Genesis 1–2 28 1–3 77 1–11 27 2:7 26 2:16–17 26 3  30, 48, 76 3:22–24 95 4:7 28 4:11 27 4:11–12 28 4:16–24 28 6 67 6–7 69 6–9 111 6:11–13 29 6:17 28 7:11 67 7:21 28 7:22 28 8 32 8:20 32 8:20–21 32 8:21 68 8:21–23 29 9  28, 32, 45, 67, 69–70, 111 9:1 29 9:1–7  29, 34 9:2–4 29 9:3–6 27 9:5–6 29 9:6  27, 29 9:7 29 9:8–17 29 9:9–10 29 9:12 29 9:13 29 9:15–17 29 9:16  29, 33, 70, 96

Genesis (cont’d) 9:22–23 45 9:22–25 45 9:25 27 12–50 27 12  34, 48 12:1 29 12:1–3  29, 31 12:3  28, 30, 48, 76–77 13:13 28 15  28–29, 32 15:9–21 29 15:12–21 32 15:13–14 30 15:17–21 95 17  29–30, 32, 69 17:1 29 17:4 32 17:7  29, 33 17:8 33 17:9  29, 32 17:9–14 27 17:13  30, 33, 70, 125 17:14  29, 33, 69 17:19  30, 33 20 28 20:6 28 22 27 22:17–18 29 26:5  27, 30, 68 27:29 28 34 37 38 27 39:9 28 Exodus 1–14 30 2:1–17 32 6:6–8 124 12:43–49 35

Exodus (cont’d) 15:26 30–31 18:13–24 31 18:22 148 19  26, 31, 33, 168 19–24 32 19:3–8 31 19:4–6  31–32, 72, 88, 113 19:5  31, 124 19:5–6 31 19:8 32 19:12–13 32 19:21–24 32 20  33, 63, 182, 184 20:1 182 20:3–16 183 20:10 35 20:13–17 158 20:15 63 21:12 174 21:12–17 184 21:15 184 21:16 184 21:17 184 23:23–33 42 24  32, 35 24:3 32 24:4–8 32 31:13–17 69 31:16  33, 70 34:13–16 42 Leviticus 3:17 33 10:19 33 12:3 34 16 124 16–17 35 17–20 33 17:8–16 35

217

Blazosky Final.indd 217

4/11/19 5:28 PM

218 Leviticus (cont’d) 17:10 33 17:10–14 34 18  35–41, 43, 45–46, 48–49, 51, 53, 71, 181, 189 18–19 38–39 18–20  35–36, 41, 97, 184 18:1 38 18:1–5 36 18:3  36, 52, 181 18:4–5  36, 45 18:5  36, 121, 158, 161 18:6–23  35–37, 41, 46 18:8  38, 46 18:9  38, 46 18:14 38 18:15 38 18:16 38 18:17  38, 46 18:19 38 18:20 37–38 18:21  36, 38, 42, 52, 184 18:22  38, 184 18:22–23  38, 46 18:23 37 18:24 37 18:24–25 37 18:24–30  36–37, 39 18:26  35–36, 184 18:28 39 18:29  37, 43 18:30  36, 52, 184 19  36, 39 19:1 38 19:2 35 19:3  38–39, 46 19:4 184 19:8 39 19:11–12  63, 184 19:15 148 19:18 36 19:19 36 19:26 38 19:31 38 19:34 36 19:37  36, 97 20  35–41, 43, 45–46, 48–49, 51, 53, 71, 189

Blazosky Final.indd 218

Index of Scripture Leviticus (cont’d) 20:1 38 20:1–2 37 20:1–21 38 20:2 38 20:2–5  38, 52, 184 20:2–21  37–39, 46 20:3 42 20:3–6 33 20:6 38 20:7–8 38 20:8 36 20:9  38–39, 46 20:10 38 20:11  38, 46 20:12 38 20:13  38, 184 20:14  38, 46 20:15–16  38, 46 20:17  38, 46 20:18 38 20:19–20 38 20:21 38 20:22 36 20:22–27 37 20:23  36, 39, 41, 52 20:26 38 20:27 38 21–22 35 23:14 33 24:8  33, 70 24:13 33 24:16 35 24:21–22 35 26 52–53 26:6 53 26:15 68–69 26:22 53 26:41 34 Numbers 5:11–31 63 10 26 11:33 33 15:27–31 39 19:13 39 19:20 39 35:33–34 67

Deuteronomy 1–3 41 1:17 148 2:24–3:11 42 4–30 26 4–31 41 4:5–8 31 4:7 42 4:15–19 42 4:20 41 4:32–33 42 5  63, 182, 184 5:19 63 7:4 42 7:6  31, 124 7:6–8 41 7:24–25 42 8:19–20 45 8:20 45 9:4–5 42 10:15 41 10:16 34 11:10 85 11:26–29 43 12:2–4 42 12:29–31 42 12:31 42 14:2 31 17:2 68 18:9–12 43 18:12 43 20:10–18 42 20:16 42 20:18 42 21:22–23 46 21:23 46 25:17–18 42 26:18 31 27  43–46, 52, 76 27–28  44, 93 27–30  7, 43–44, 46–48, 75–76 27:1 43 27:1–14 43 27:7 43 27:10 45 27:11–13 43 27:14 43

4/11/19 5:28 PM

219

Index of Scripture Deuteronomy (cont’d) 27:15 45–46 27:15–25  43, 46–47 27:15–26  44–46, 184 27:15–68 43 27:16 45–46 27:17 45 27:18–19 45 27:20 45–46 27:20–23 45 27:21 46 27:22 46 27:23 46 27:24 45–46 27:24–25 45 27:26  13, 43, 46–47, 75, 81, 96, 119–21, 134, 189 28 43 28–29 44–45 28–30  46–47, 76 28:15 44 28:20 73 28:36–68 44 28:45 44 28:58  46, 120 28:62 44 29 44 29–30  62, 68 29–32 68 29:2–9 44 29:16–18 42 29:18–20 96 29:18–20 LXX  96 29:18–21  44, 47, 76 29:18 44 29:18–19 47 29:19 63 29:19–20 MT  63 29:19–21 96 29:20 MT  63 29:20 LXX  120 29:20–21  46, 63 29:21 120 29:21 MT  63 29:27 46 29:27–28 44 30:6 34 30:6–8 158

Blazosky Final.indd 219

Deuteronomy (cont’d) 30:7  42, 46, 63 30:10 46 31:12 35 31:16–20 68–69 32 52 32:8–9 41 32:39–43 67 32:43 42 33:1 99 33:2 109–10 Joshua 7:11–15 68 8:30–35 52 8:33 52 8:35 52 23:6–13 51 1 Kings 4:31–34  31, 51 8:9 51 8:21 51 8:57–58 51 10:1–13 51 12:25–33 52 13:24–28 53 14:24 51 20:35–36 53 2 Kings 15:29 52 17  52–53, 71 17:1–6 52 17:7–23 52 17:8 52–53 17:11 53 17:11–12 52 17:15 52–53 17:15–17 52 17:21–23 52 17:22–23 52 17:24 52 17:24–41 51–52 17:25 52 17:26 53 17:27 53 17:34 53

2 Kings (cont’d) 17:41 53 2 Chronicles 3–4 165 3:6–18 165 28:1–3 72 32:19–22 72 33:1–9 72 34–35 72 Ezra 7:10 68 7:21–23 72 Nehemiah 9:13–14  68, 97 9:16 72 9:26 72 9:27 72 9:29 72 9:30 72 9:33 72 9:34 72 10:29 63 Esther 3:8 72 9 72 Psalms 1 74 2:5 74 3 74 5:9 153 7:11 74 9:15–20 72 10:7 153 10:15–16 72 11:5 74 13:1–3 LXX  153 14:1–3 153 18 74 19  61, 113 21:8–12 74 24:1 72 36:1 153 56 74

4/11/19 5:28 PM

220 Psalms (cont’d) 59 74 59:5–13 72 67 72 68:21 72 68:30 72 79:1–10 72 98–99 72 105:20 LXX  150 106:20 150 110:5 74 119 74–75 119:21 74 119:53 74 119:85 74 119:89–91 73 119:118 74 119:126 68 119:142–44 73 119:150 74 119:160 73 135:4 31 138:4 109 140:3 153 147:19–20 72 Proverbs 3 73 3:13 73 3:33 73 8 85 8:22–23 85 8:34 73 16:4–5 73 28–29 73 Ecclesiastes 3:17–20 73 12:13 74 12:13–14 74 Isaiah 1–12 57 1–39 65 1:15 57 1:21–23 57 1:22 57

Blazosky Final.indd 220

Index of Scripture Isaiah (cont’d) 1:29 57 2:6–8 57 2:9–17 57 2:18–22 57 3:14–15 57 3:16 57 5:7 57 5:8 57 5:15 57 10 54–55 10:1–2 57 10:12–19 56 10:25 55 13 65 13–14 54–57 13–23  54, 56–57, 59, 64–65, 69 13:9–13 65 13:22 56 14:11 56 14:13–14 56 15–16 54–57 17 57 17:1 57 17:3–4 57 19–20 54 21 57 21–23 57 22  57, 64 22:12–13 57 22:14 57 23  54–55, 57 24  54, 65–71, 76, 95–96, 112 24–27 64–65 24:1 64–65 24:1–3 66 24:1–6  62, 64, 70, 97, 189 24:1–23 66 24:2  65, 71 24:4–20 66 24:5  62, 66–68, 70, 82, 96–98, 100, 112 24:5–6  56, 66–71, 77, 81, 96–97

Isaiah (cont’d) 24:6  66, 68 24:10–12 65 24:13 65 24:14–16 65 24:16 96 24:16–23 65 24:17–23 66 24:18 67 24:20  62, 65 24:21 66 26 97 26–27 65 26:9 97 26:19–27:1 67 26:21 67 26:21–27:1 54 27:17 65 28–33 65 29 175 29:13 174 29:13–14 175 29:14 175 34 54–55 37 56 37:21–38 54–55 42:6  31, 88 47 55–56 47:8 56 47:11 56 49:6 31 59:7–8 153 63 54 63:1–6 54 66:24 62 Jeremiah 1–45 59 6:19 60 9  57, 59 9:13–15 60 9:13–16 57 9:17–22 57 9:23–24 57 9:24–25 58 9:25–26  55, 57–58 16:10–13 60

4/11/19 5:28 PM

221

Index of Scripture Jeremiah (cont’d) 25 59 25:15–33 58 25:31 58 31 144–45 31:32 68–69 31:33 144–45 33:20–21 69 38:33 LXX  144 44:1–23 60 46–51  54, 59–60 47 54 48 54–56 48:7 56 48:13 56 48:26 56 48:35 56 49:1–6 54 49:7–22 55 49:23–27 54 50–51 54–55 50:28–29 55 50:31–32 55 51:11 55 Ezekiel 16:59 68–69 18 181 18–20  62, 97 18:19 181 22 184 25 56 25–32 54 25:1–7 54–55 25:8–11 55 25:12–14 55 25:15–17 55 26–28 56 26:1–28:19 54–55 26:1–28:29 55 26:2–3 55 27:3 56 28:2 56 28:7 56 28:20–24 54 29–32 54–55 29:6–8 55

Blazosky Final.indd 221

Ezekiel (cont’d) 31:10–11 55 32:22–23 55 33:7–16 185 34 57 35:1–15 54–55 35:5–6 57 Daniel 2 72 4 72 6:25–27 72 7 72 9:5 72 9:11  63, 68, 72 Hosea 4:4–6 59 6:7  59, 68 8:1  59, 62, 68 Joel 3:1–3 54 3:4–8 54–55 3:9–21 55 3:19–21 54–55 Amos 1–2  40, 54, 58–62, 77 1:3–5 54 1:3–2:3  56, 59 1:9–10 55–56 1:11–12 55–56 1:13–15 55–56 2:1–3 55–56 2:4  60, 68, 97 2:4–5 59 2:6–16  59, 62 Obadiah 3–4 55 10–15 55 Micah 5 54 5:5–6 55 5:7–15 54

Micah (cont’d) 5:10–14 54 5:14 110 5:15 54 Habakkuk 1:4 59 1:11 55 2 55 2:4  55, 121 2:5 55 2:5–9 55 2:5–20  54, 59 2:7 55 2:8–17 55 2:18–19 55 2:19 56 2:19–20 56 Zephaniah 1:1–3:8 58 1:2–3 58 1:4–14 58 1:14–18 58 2:1–3 58 2:4–6 54 2:4–15 58 2:8–10 55 2:13–15 55 3:1–5 59 3:1–5:7 58 3:6 58 3:8 58 3:9–20 58 Haggai 2:21–22 54 Zechariah 4:10 63 4:10–14 63 4:14 63 5 63 5:1–4  62–64, 68 5:3 62–63 5:3–4 62–63 5:5–11 64

4/11/19 5:28 PM

222 Zechariah (cont’d) 5:6 64 5:7–8 64 5:9–11 64 6:5 63 7:8–14  59, 64 9–14  59, 63 9:5–8 55 9:7 55 13 64 13:8–9 64 13:9 64 14 64 14:12–19 54 14:15–21 59 Malachi 1:2–5 54 1:4 57 3:22 MT  68 4:1–3 54 4:4 68 New Testament Matthew 15 174 15:9 174 18:21–35 177 Mark 7 174 7:7 174 7:8–10 174 Acts 7:34 122 15 112 15:20 112 15:29 112 16:4 178 17:7 178 21:25 112 Romans 1–2 150–51 1–3  23, 137, 154, 193 1–11 162

Blazosky Final.indd 222

Index of Scripture Romans (cont’d) 1:13 158 1:18–32  139, 147, 150 1:18–3:8 155 1:18–3:18 152 1:18–3:20  10, 12, 137, 143, 150, 153–54, 162 1:23  139, 150 1:29–32 182 1:32 150 2  15, 139, 141 2–4 175 2:1 139 2:1–5 139 2:1–11 139 2:1–16 144 2:4–5 139 2:6 139–40 2:6–11  139–40, 145, 149 2:6–16  15, 144–45 2:7  140–41, 143–44 2:7–10 145 2:8 140 2:8–9 140–41 2:9 140 2:10  140–41, 143–44 2:11  139–40, 145 2:12  15, 138, 140–43, 145–50, 152 2:12–13 149 2:12–14  142–43, 145, 153 2:12–15 148 2:12–16  3–4, 15–16, 137–40, 146–52, 154, 162, 188, 191 2:13 141–45 2:13–16 140–41 2:14  1, 16, 138, 142–45, 149, 151, 153 2:14–15  3, 11, 18–19, 138–39, 141–51 2:14–16 15 2:15  142, 144–45, 147, 149 2:16  16, 153 2:17–20  25, 31, 187 2:17–24  153, 188

Romans (cont’d) 2:26–27  141, 143 2:26–29 143–44 2:27  1, 148 2:29 141 3:1–2 187–88 3:2 1 3:6  148, 153 3:9 153–56 3:9–18  16, 153 3:10–18  146, 152–53 3:10–20 144 3:12 143 3:15–17 153 3:16 16 3:19  4, 16, 140, 152–53, 188 3:19–20  137, 152, 154–55, 162 3:20  4, 143, 155 3:21 163 3:21–22 188 3:22–25 124 3:26 163 3:27–31 137 3:29–30 188 4:13–15 4 4:14 163 4:25 124 5–8  137, 154, 161, 170– 71, 189 5:1–11 124 5:12 155 5:12–19 161 5:12–21  155–60, 171 5:12–8:17  137, 154–55, 159, 162 5:12–8:39 156 5:13–14  4, 155 5:14 163 5:15–21 161 5:20  11, 161 5:20–21  4, 155, 161 5:21  155, 159, 161 6  19–20, 155, 158–59 6–7  9, 156, 158, 160 6–8 155

4/11/19 5:28 PM

223

Index of Scripture Romans (cont’d) 6:1–3 158 6:1–13 155 6:1–8:30 170 6:2  19, 155 6:2–10 161 6:3  19, 158 6:3–5 155 6:4–6 163 6:6  19, 155 6:9 161 6:9–10 161 6:11–13 155 6:14  17, 156 6:14–15  4, 155–56, 159 6:14–16 158 6:16 158 6:16–23 160 6:22 158 7  4, 19–20, 156, 159–60 7–8 159 7:1  4, 20, 157–58 7:1–3 4 7:1–6  4, 18–20, 156–59 7:2–3 156 7:4  18–19, 156, 158–59 7:4–6  4, 19, 21, 25, 156– 57, 159–62, 179, 188 7:5  18, 159, 162 7:5–6  156, 162 7:6 163 7:7 160 7:7–11  161, 170 7:7–12 156–60 7:7–25 160 7:8  4, 160 7:8–11 160 7:9–11 160 7:12  25, 160 7:13–25 156 7:13–8:4 160–61 7:14  145, 160 7:15–20 160 7:18 159 7:22 161 7:23 161 7:23–25 161

Blazosky Final.indd 223

Romans (cont’d) 7:24  161, 179 7:25 161 7:25–8:3 161 8:1 163 8:2 161 8:2–3 162 8:2–8 161 8:2–13 162 8:3–4 161 8:3  154, 161, 179 8:5–8 144 8:11–13 159 8:12 158 8:31–39 124 9:3 158 9:4  1, 25 9:4–5 187–88 12–15 162 12:1 158 12:2 163 13:3–5 11 14 175 14:5–6 175 15:4 163 15:7 162 16:17 158 16:25–26 163 1 Corinthians 1–3  131, 175 1:19 175 1:30 124 2:6–8 131 5:7 124 5:7–8 124 5:13 148 6:2–3 148 6:9 182 7:18–19 175 8–10 166 8:1–3 166 9:19–23  22, 115, 165–67, 169, 185, 188 9:20 166–67 10:1 10 10:19–21 131

1 Corinthians (cont’d) 10:22–23 166 10:31 166 14:21 152 15 169–71 15:3 124 15:3–5 169 15:12–13 169 15:14–19 169 15:21 171 15:21–22 188 15:26 171 15:51–58 169 15:54–56 169 15:55–56 170 15:55–57  169, 186 15:56  22, 115, 169–71, 189 15:57 169 15:58 169 2 Corinthians 4:4 131 8:9 124 Galatians 1:3–4 116 1:4  12–14, 122–24, 128, 132–33, 163, 179, 188 1:6–9 115 1:14 174 2:15 117 2:15–16 124–25 2:19 17 2:19–20  17, 133 2:20 124 2:21 122 3  7, 19 3–4  8, 11, 14–15, 18–19, 116 3–5 15 3–6 131 3:1–5  122, 126, 131 3:1–14 119 3:2 125 3:3 125–26 3:5 125 3:6–9 119

4/11/19 5:28 PM

224 Galatians (cont’d) 3:6–14 123 3:9 119 3:10  3, 15, 96, 119–21, 126 3:10–13  13, 188 3:10–14  7, 13, 19–20, 119, 125 3:11–12 121 3:13  5–6, 8, 13, 15–16, 115–16, 121–25, 133, 166, 180–90 3:13–14  3, 6–7, 17, 19, 116 3:13–5:1 8 3:14  15, 121–22, 125 3:15–4:7 15 3:19  129, 132, 187 3:19–25 25 3:19–4:11  130–31, 188 3:21 116–17 3:21–22  116–17, 127, 189 3:21–23 152 3:21–25  117, 130 3:21–26 3 3:21–29 118 3:21–4:7 118 3:21–4:11  116, 127, 129, 133 3:21–4:27 119 3:22  15, 116–17, 130 3:22–23  6, 127 3:23  13, 15, 25, 117, 127, 130 3:23–24 117 3:23–25  17, 20, 116–17, 132 3:23–29 119 3:23–4:5 8 3:24 11 3:24–25 117 3:25  15, 117, 130 3:25–26  3, 117 3:26 117–18 3:27–29 118 3:28 118 4  14, 129 4:1 10 4:1–2  118, 127, 130

Blazosky Final.indd 224

Index of Scripture Galatians (cont’d) 4:1–5 128 4:1–7  17, 118 4:1–11  10, 116, 129, 132, 188 4:2 130 4:3  15, 118, 127–28, 130, 132–33 4:3–5  17, 118, 131, 179 4:3–7  118, 122, 132 4:4 130 4:4–5  6, 13, 15, 118, 127 4:4–9  17, 116 4:5  118, 130 4:6 118 4:7 118 4:8–9 131 4:8–11  11, 126 4:9  118, 130 4:9–10  127, 131 4:9–11  176, 179 4:21 13 4:21–31 15 4:21–5:1  126, 131, 188 4:21–5:6 119 4:23 125–26 4:24–25 126 4:25 126 4:26 126 4:28  119, 126 4:29 126 4:30–5:1 122 4:31–5:2 119 5:1  119, 126 5:2 119 5:2–4 119 5:2–11 175 5:13–16 126 5:13–6:10 125 5:16–17  126, 130, 180 5:16–18 131 5:16–23 126 5:18  15, 126 5:19–21  131, 182 5:19–23 126 5:24  133, 179 6:12–13 180 6:12–15  132, 175

Galatians (cont’d) 6:14  128, 131–33, 179 6:14–15 188 6:15 132 6:18 116 Ephesians 1–3 167 1:7 124 2:1–3  167, 179 2:2  131, 167 2:11 175 2:11–12 167–68 2:11–13 168 2:11–17 188 2:11–18 168 2:11–22 167 2:13 167 2:13–15  22, 115, 165–67, 169, 185 2:14  168, 179 2:14–15  167–68, 178 2:15  168, 177–79 2:16–18 167 5:2 124 6:11–12 131 Philippians 3:3–5 175 Colossians 1:12–14  124, 177 1:22 179 2  172, 175, 177, 178 2:3 175 2:6 176 2:6–8 174 2:6–23 174 2:6–4:1 177 2:8 174–75 2:8–23  22, 115, 131, 173–74, 176, 178–79 2:10 178 2:11  175, 179 2:11–14 178 2:11–15  20, 177–78 2:11–17 175 2:13–16 177

4/11/19 5:28 PM

225

Index of Scripture Colossians (cont’d) 2:13  175, 177, 179 2:13–14  124, 176, 178, 180, 188 2:13–15  165, 169, 173, 177, 186 2:14  19–20, 173–74, 176–79 2:14–15 179 2:15 178 2:16 178 2:16–17  175, 177–78 2:17 176 2:18 180 2:18–19  176, 178 2:18–23 180 2:20  131, 133, 179 2:20–22 174 2:20–23  174–75, 178–79 2:21–23  175, 180 2:22 174 11–13 175 11:16 175 1 Thessalonians 5:10 124 1 Timothy 1  172, 182, 184–85 1:3–4 180 1:3–7 182 1:4 180 1:5 185 1:7 180 1:7–10 180 1:8 180–81 1:8–9 181 1:8–10  22, 115, 184–85, 188 1:8–11  165, 169, 180–81, 186 1:9  138, 184–85 1:9–10 181–85 1:10  182, 184 1:15  185, 186 2:5–6 185 4:1–5 182 4:1–7 180

Blazosky Final.indd 225

2 Timothy 2:5 181 Titus 1:8 185 1:10 175 2:14 124 Hebrews 5:12 129 10:1 176 1 Peter 2:9 31 2 Peter 3:10 128 3:12 128 Apocrypha 1 Esdras 4:37 148 Tobit 13:12 91 Judith 9:7–9 90 16:17 91 Wisdom of Solomon 6:1 89 6:4 89 7:17 128 13–14 90 13:1–2 130 14:12–31 91 14:30 92 15:2 92 17–18 89 17:2 192 18:4 89 19:18 128 Sirach 10:6–19 90 10:12–18 104 10:19 104

Sirach (cont’d) 16–17 83 17:11–12 83 17:11–13 70 17:12  85, 96 17:13 83 24 85 24:8 85 24:19–34 85 24:21 85 24:22 85 24:23 85 35:21–36:13 104 35:22–23 91 36:1–13 91 41:5–10 104 44:18 96 45:17 89 Baruch 3:9 84 3:36 84 3:37 84 4:1  70, 84–85 4:30–35 91 1 Maccabees 1:49 96 2 Maccabees 7:36 167 Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 1 99–100 1–5 100 1:3–7 99 1:4 99 1:9 99 2:1–5:3 99–100 5:4 99–100 5:4–7 99 5:4–9 100 37–71 97 83–90 97 91–107 100 91–108 97 94–103 100

4/11/19 5:28 PM

226 1 Enoch (cont’d) 94:8 100 96:7 100 99:1–4 83 99:2  83, 100 99:6–9 100 99:14 100 2 Baruch 15 108 17:4 89 41–42 107 48:22–24 108 48:26–50 108 48:38 108 48:39–40 108 48:47 108 51:1–10 84 51:3 84 51:4 84 54:13–14 108 59:2  83, 89, 108 72:1–6 91 77:3 108 77:4–7 108 82 108 84:1–6 108 3 Maccabees 1:3 178 4 Maccabees 6:18 181 4 Ezra 3:17–22 160 3:19 107 7  106–107, 151 7:19–25 106 7:20–24 107 7:21 107 7:34–38 107 7:46–48 107 7:70–79 107 8:55–56 107 9:29–37 83 9:31 107 9:36–37 83 13  107, 114, 151

Blazosky Final.indd 226

Index of Scripture 4 Ezra (cont’d) 13:33–34 107 13:38  107–8, 151 Apocalypse of Abraham 8 90 31 90 31:1–3 91 Jubilees 2:8 128 5:8–16 149 20–22 90 Liber antiquitum biblicarum 1–8 104 9 104 9:7–8 104 9:8  89, 105 9:11–10:7 104 11  104, 114 11:1 105–6 11:1–2 105 11:1–5  83, 104 11:2 106 11:3 105 11:5 104–5 32:7 105 51:3 105 Letter of Aristeas 15–16  84, 90 31 84 Psalms of Solomon 2:30–31 90 9:9–11 83 10:1–8 83 10:3–5 70 10:4 83 Sibylline Oracles 2:73 184 2:206 128 3:36 101 3:37–38 101 3:80 128 3:195 103 3:218–64 101

Sibylline Oracles (cont’d) 3:218–90 101 3:256–60 101 3:257 103 3:265–82 101 3:273–79 102 3:283–90 101 3:300–302 101 3:311–13 101 3:327–330 101 3:350–52 101 3:573 102 3:573–600 102 3:573–623 101–2 3:580 102 3:586–600 102 3:595 101 3:599–600 103 3:601–6 101–2 3:601–18 102 3:619–23 102 3:656 178 3:669–700 102 3:686–87 102–103 3:757–59 102 3:761–66 101 5:75–85 90 5:274–80 90 11:182 181 Testament of Job 11:6–11 176 11:7 176 11:11 177 Testament of Levi 13:1–4 89 14:1 89 14:3 89 14:3–4 90 14:4 89 19:1 89 Testament of Moses 10:1–8 91 Dead Sea Scrolls 11QTa LX, 16–21  43

4/11/19 5:28 PM

227

Index of Scripture 1QM I, 1–2  94 I, 5  94 XIII, 1–2  94 XIII, 4  94 XIII, 16  94 1QS I, 11–19  47 II, 4–10  93 II, 25–III, 12  92 V, 19  93 1QSa I, 1–3  93 1QpHab XIII, 3  90 XXII–XIII 90 CD 3:12 83 3:12–17 82 Philo De Abrahamo 4–5 87 De congressu eruditionis gratia 1:120 83 De decalogo 32–49 88 De gigantibus 52 178

Legatio ad Gaium 1:54–55 178 De opificio mundi 3  87, 90 De specialibus legibus 3:8–63 183 4:12–14 184 De vita Mosis 1:96–97 128 2:12–14 83 2:14 83 2:44 88 2:48 87 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 3:183 128 7:151 181 11:202 181 Against Apion 1:42 178 2:152 181 2:154 88 2:169 178 2:210 127 2:217 181 2:281 88 2:281–84 90 2:284 88 Jewish War 1:377 128

Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 56a–59b 111 59a–b 111 Tosefta Talmud ‘Abodah Zarah 8:4–8 111 Other Rabbinic Works Exodus Rabbah 5:9 110 Mekilta Baḥodesh 1 109 5 109 Sifre 37 85 343 109–10 Apostolic Fathers Diognetus 8:2 128 Shepherd of Hermas Visions 13:3 128 Classical and Ancient Christian Literature Calvin Institutes 2.7.6–8 16

Hypothetica 7:8 181

Blazosky Final.indd 227

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Blazosky Final.indd 228

4/11/19 5:28 PM

Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements

1. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible, by Gerald A. Klingbeil 2. War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-​First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens 3. Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, edited by Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr. 4. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, by Knut Martin Heim 5. Divine Sabbath Work, by Michael H. Burer 6. The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation, by Ralph K. Hawkins 7. Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1–11: Reading Genesis 4:17–22 in Its Near Eastern Context, by Daniel DeWitt Lowery 8. Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18–20 and Its Echoes throughout the Tanak, by Joshua G. Mathews 9. Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446, by Bryan C. Babcock 10. Wrestling with the Violence of God: Soundings in the Old Testament, edited by M. Daniel Carroll R. and J. Blair Wilgus 11. Wealth in Ancient Ephesus and the First Letter to Timothy: Fresh Insights from Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus, by Gary G. Hoag 12. Paul and His Mortality: Imitating Christ in the Face of Death, by R. Gregory Jenks 13. “Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?” Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus Narratives, edited by James K. Hoffmeier, Alan R. Millard, and Gary A. Rendsburg 14. Honor, Shame, and Guilt: Social Scientific Approaches to the Book of Ezekiel, by Daniel Y. Wu 15. Hostility in the House of God: An Investigation of the Opponents in 1 and 2 Timothy, by Dillon T. Thornton 16. Hope for a Tender Sprig: Jehoiachin in Biblical Theology, by Matthew H. Patton 17. Making Sense of the Divine Name in Exodus: From Etymology to Literary Onomastics, by Austin Surls 18. Trees and Kings: A Comparative Analysis of Tree Imagery in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition and the Ancient Near East, by William R. Osborne 19. Bearing Yhwh’s Name at Sinai: A Reexamination of the Name Command of the Decalogue, by Carmen Joy Imes 20. Poor and Rich in James: A Relevance Theory Approach to James’s Use of the Old Testament, by Nelson R. Morales 21. “I Will Walk among You”: The Rhetorical Function of Allusion to Genesis 1–3 in the Book of Leviticus, by G. Geoffrey Harper

Blazosky Final.indd 229

4/11/19 5:28 PM

22. Signs of Continuity: The Function of Miracles in Jesus and Paul, by Greg Rhodea 23. Atonement in the Priestly Torah: The Meaning of kipper and the Purpose of the Israelite Sanctuary, by James A. Greenberg 24. The Law’s Universal Condemning and Enslaving Power: Reading Paul, the Old Testament, and Second Temple Jewish Literature, by Bryan Blazosky

Blazosky Final.indd 230

4/11/19 5:28 PM