What do you think?
Rate this book
The Law’s Universal Condemning and Enslaving Power: Reading Paul, the Old Testament, and Second Temple Jewish Literature
While much has been written about the apostle Paul’s view on the relationship between Gentile Christians and the Mosaic law, comparatively little attention has been paid to Paul’s writings on the laws of Moses and how they apply to Gentile unbelievers. In this book, Bryan Blazosky examines Paul’s teaching on the subject and how it relates to the lessons of the Old Testament and literature of the Second Temple period. Blazosky explicates Paul’s views on Gentiles and law as they are articulated in the New Testament texts Galatians, Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Timothy, and he compares the Pauline perspective to those expressed in other Jewish writings, such as the Old Testament, the third Sibylline Oracle, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, and 4 Ezra. Through a comparison of these texts, Blazosky finds that Paul―in line with the Old Testament and other Jewish texts―interprets the Mosaic law as having the power to universally condemn. Despite being gifted to Israel, the law’s ability to curse, condemn, and enslave reaches beyond its covenantal boundaries. As the first book-length study on the relationship between Gentile unbelievers and the Mosaic law in Pauline literature, The Law’s Universal Condemning and Enslaving Power will be welcomed by all who study the New Perspective on Paul, Gentile accountability, and the New Testament.
208 pages, Hardcover
Published June 3, 2019
1 person is currently reading
10 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 8, 2020
This revised version of Blazosky’s PhD thesis at Ridley College is a very interesting study into the applicability of the Jewish Law(s) (however conceived) for non-Jews (gentiles), both in ancient Israel and early Jewish literature and then specifically in Paul’s letters (Romans Galatians). Blazosky’s thesis is well organised and I must say that it is written in a very clear style. His moderation and mediation of the Pauline secondary literature was clear and helpful, even for me a junior Pauline scholar who is not focused specifically on this area of Pauline thought. I won’t give a detailed analysis of the book here, so much as present its major conclusion, some of its highlights, its drawbacks, and some points of contention and contribution to areas that I’m particularly interested in.
Blazosky argues, both from a close and fair reading of HB/OT and paracanonical textual evidence, and Paul himself from Galatians and Romans, that not only is the Mosaic law (or God’s commands elsewhere, e.g. “Noahide”) applicable to gentile unbelievers but that they are culpable for not following these laws. Key texts that stood out to me were Leviticus 18 and 20, 2 Kings 17, the Sybilline Oracles, LAB, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. From Paul, the key witness is Romans 2:14-15 where he argues that the law does play a role in the condemnation of Gentiles (more on this in a moment).
Even though the work is an acknowledge study in “biblical theology”, I appreciated the close attention to the primary sources, as well as to my delight the inclusion of rabbinic analysis. I found his analysis of the texts to be quite balanced and fair, and his treatment of arguments and counterarguments methodically was very helpful. The bibliography leans decidedly in an Evangelical direction (e.g. important recent texts like the work of Matt Thiessen and Paula Fredriksen are missing), and in some discussions the bibliography is slightly outdated (e,g, Romans 7, prosopoieia in Paul’s letters, the gentile audience of Paul’s letters). I was also surprised that his study proceeds without pointing to any particular works or arguments in a footnote justifying the authenticity of Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Timothy (22-23).
However, there are numerous highlights and insights. First, his observation of 2 Kings 17 and the intricate connection between the Land and the law (71), even with the gentiles got me thinking about instances in ancient Jewish literature in the STP period where law observance is specifically died to the Land, even for gentiles. For example, the circumcision of boys in 1 Macc 2:46 or the episode in Josephus where refugees are being forced by the local Jews to circumcise. Another great observation was his point that in the STP, Jewish authors speak about the law as light (e.g. Sir 45:17; T. Levi 19:1; 2 Bar 17:4; LAB 9:8). This got me thinking about the visuality of Law both in the early Jewish material as well as the rabbinic material. Additionally, his analysis of the stoicheia in Galatians also merits attention, as he argues that while it does not expressly refer to demonic beings, they can certainly be conceived as a part of such elemental spirits (130).
One surprising connection, perhaps because he does not seem as familiar with discussions going on among scholars of Paul within Judaism (PWJ), is how his study might serve to help inform why gentiles in Galatians and potentially Romans were trying to observe the law, like circumcision in the first place. If Blazosky’s analysis of Romans 2:14-15 is correct, surely if gentiles will be judged by the law then abiding by the law, including circumcision, would be important? The part of his argument he takes the hardest line on is how sin, death, flesh, and the law are all intertwined: “A person is under the reign of all or none” (189). Certainly Paul is clear that the law is intertwined with all of these things, but I find it hard to follow the logic of being judged by the law, but then being freed by it once sin, death and “sarx” are dealt with. In my mind, Blazosky has not really considered the implication Paul understands believers being (partially) “in pneuma” (in the spirit) has for his conclusions. He does say that “Yet Paul is equally clear that hamartia, thanatos, and nomos are only able to enslave people who are en sarki (“in the flesh”)” (161). What about for those en pneumati? In my opinion he is throwing out the baby with the bathwater here, and that in light of his own analysis of Rom 2:14-15, the law is applicable to gentiles because they will be judged by it. The arrival of the messiah allows gentiles to access law abiding behaviour (Rom 2:25-29) through the spirit. And the problem of circumcision then and why it explicitly is not applicable to gentiles would be done away if one simply read the arguments of M. Thiessen.
In the end a very interesting volume and I really enjoyed reading it.
Blazosky argues, both from a close and fair reading of HB/OT and paracanonical textual evidence, and Paul himself from Galatians and Romans, that not only is the Mosaic law (or God’s commands elsewhere, e.g. “Noahide”) applicable to gentile unbelievers but that they are culpable for not following these laws. Key texts that stood out to me were Leviticus 18 and 20, 2 Kings 17, the Sybilline Oracles, LAB, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. From Paul, the key witness is Romans 2:14-15 where he argues that the law does play a role in the condemnation of Gentiles (more on this in a moment).
Even though the work is an acknowledge study in “biblical theology”, I appreciated the close attention to the primary sources, as well as to my delight the inclusion of rabbinic analysis. I found his analysis of the texts to be quite balanced and fair, and his treatment of arguments and counterarguments methodically was very helpful. The bibliography leans decidedly in an Evangelical direction (e.g. important recent texts like the work of Matt Thiessen and Paula Fredriksen are missing), and in some discussions the bibliography is slightly outdated (e,g, Romans 7, prosopoieia in Paul’s letters, the gentile audience of Paul’s letters). I was also surprised that his study proceeds without pointing to any particular works or arguments in a footnote justifying the authenticity of Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Timothy (22-23).
However, there are numerous highlights and insights. First, his observation of 2 Kings 17 and the intricate connection between the Land and the law (71), even with the gentiles got me thinking about instances in ancient Jewish literature in the STP period where law observance is specifically died to the Land, even for gentiles. For example, the circumcision of boys in 1 Macc 2:46 or the episode in Josephus where refugees are being forced by the local Jews to circumcise. Another great observation was his point that in the STP, Jewish authors speak about the law as light (e.g. Sir 45:17; T. Levi 19:1; 2 Bar 17:4; LAB 9:8). This got me thinking about the visuality of Law both in the early Jewish material as well as the rabbinic material. Additionally, his analysis of the stoicheia in Galatians also merits attention, as he argues that while it does not expressly refer to demonic beings, they can certainly be conceived as a part of such elemental spirits (130).
One surprising connection, perhaps because he does not seem as familiar with discussions going on among scholars of Paul within Judaism (PWJ), is how his study might serve to help inform why gentiles in Galatians and potentially Romans were trying to observe the law, like circumcision in the first place. If Blazosky’s analysis of Romans 2:14-15 is correct, surely if gentiles will be judged by the law then abiding by the law, including circumcision, would be important? The part of his argument he takes the hardest line on is how sin, death, flesh, and the law are all intertwined: “A person is under the reign of all or none” (189). Certainly Paul is clear that the law is intertwined with all of these things, but I find it hard to follow the logic of being judged by the law, but then being freed by it once sin, death and “sarx” are dealt with. In my mind, Blazosky has not really considered the implication Paul understands believers being (partially) “in pneuma” (in the spirit) has for his conclusions. He does say that “Yet Paul is equally clear that hamartia, thanatos, and nomos are only able to enslave people who are en sarki (“in the flesh”)” (161). What about for those en pneumati? In my opinion he is throwing out the baby with the bathwater here, and that in light of his own analysis of Rom 2:14-15, the law is applicable to gentiles because they will be judged by it. The arrival of the messiah allows gentiles to access law abiding behaviour (Rom 2:25-29) through the spirit. And the problem of circumcision then and why it explicitly is not applicable to gentiles would be done away if one simply read the arguments of M. Thiessen.
In the end a very interesting volume and I really enjoyed reading it.
Displaying 1 of 1 review