Blamelessness? -- Part III-A

Commenting on a previous post, my friend Garrett asked if I would reveal which Hebrew words were translated with amemptos and I hope to do just that in this post. We will take a quick look at ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) in the LXX and its Hebrew counterparts in the HB. The hope is that by examining these usages we may begin to gain a better understanding of the semantic and ideological range that Paul had in mind when he said that he had become amemptos with regard to the Law (Phil 3.6).

In the LXX amemptos is used twelve times - once in Genesis (17.1) and eleven times in Job (1.1, 8; 2.3; 4.17; 9.20; 11.4; 12.4; 15.14; 22.3, 19; 33.9). In Genesis 17.1 God appears to Abram and says to him "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless (amemptos)." The Hebrew word that the LXX translates is תָמִֽים, for which BDB gives the following definitions: complete, whole, entire; whole, sound, healthful; complete entire; sound, wholesome, unimpaired, innocent, having integrity, while Holladay gives these glosses: whole, entire; intact; unobjectionable; free of blemish; blameless; sincerely, honestly; perfect. BDB lists Gen 17.1 under "sound, wholesome, unimpaired, innocent, having integrity" and Holladay lists Gen 6.9, a close parallel to 17.1, under "blameless." Gordon Wenham calls this injunction for Abraham to be tamim "an extreme command," in which "Abraham is expected to emulate Noah’s moral perfection" (Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 16-50. electronic ed. Dallas : Word, Incorporated, 1998 [Logos Library System; Word Biblical Commentary 2], S. 20). Synthesizing these findings, it appears that tamim could refer to a moral state that was marked by integrity, i.e. blamelessness.

The LXX translates a number of Hebrew terms as amemptos. In Job 1.1, 8 and 2.3 amemptos is used for one of the terms in תָּ֧ם וְיָשָׁ֛ר, a phrase meaning something like "upright and blameless." In 4.17 the qal verb יִטְחַר, which means "be clean" or the like, is translated with amemptos, as is the verb צרק, which means "to be righteous," in 9.20 and 22.3. Several other words are translated with amemptos as well: זכח, "to be clean," in 15.14; נָקִי, "free, exempt; innocent; clean," in 22.19; and חַ֥ף, "clean," in 33.9. Interestingly, only once in Job is תָמִֽים rendered as amemptos (12.4), which we saw in Gen 17.1. From all of these references in Job a few things can be surmised: amemptos carried with it an idea of exhibiting high personal morality, since in every case it is associated with a person and often matched with "righteous" or some similar word. (Amemptos also appears in Wisdom 18.21, but we will leave this reference to the side until we talk about the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.)

Thus, from the evidence from the LXX and HB, it appears that it is plausible to expect that Paul would use ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) to refer to human morality. That he applies it to himself in Phil 3.6 when thinking back on his relationship to the Law is interesting, though we will have to leave any preliminary conclusions aside until we have finished this survey in full.


Blamelessness? -- Part I
Blamelessness? -- Part II

Blamelessness? -- Part II

This is the second post in response to a question from my friend Garrett in the comments to a previous post. In this series I hope to gain a better understanding of what Paul meant by "blameless" in Philippians 3.6. In this post (Part II) I will give a truncated view of how I understand the immediate context -- specifically Phil 3.2-11 -- of Paul's usage of this word.

This sub-unit begins with Paul warning the Philippian church of an impending threat that is not yet present. The usage of blepete here seems to indicate this point. A translation of "look out for" or the likes would be better than "beware of," since "look out for" better captures the meaning of the imperative of the verb for "to see."

This threat seems to be Jewish in nature, whether from Jewish Christians or non-Christian Jews, and so Paul decides to engage this impending threat on its own terms. In vv. 4-6 Paul lays out his impeccable Jewish heritage and his personal achievements in his particular brand of Jewish religion. It is also clear that Paul is comparing his resume with those who represent this impending threat (3.4b "If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more").

All of these things, these privileges (circumcision, Israelite, Benjamite, Hebrew) and achievements (Pharisee, zealous, blameless), do not mean anything to Paul in light of the new life he has found in Christ (3.7). The things that were once gains to him (i.e., his Jewish past) are now all one big loss. As a matter of fact, Paul considers all things loss, so much so that he is willing to call all that is not Christ skubalon (3.8 "dung," "refuse," "rubbish," "crap").

Next is one of the most hotly debated passages in Philippians: (3.9 "...not having my own righteousness which is from the Law, but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ, the righteousness which is from God on the basis of faith"). It appears here that Paul is saying that in the past he thought he had his own righteousness from the Law but that through the faithfulness of Christ (or faith in Christ, a huge issue another day!) he now has a righteousness which is not his own, but is in fact from God.

In the verses that follow (10-11), Paul talks about three sorts of knowledge which are the results of the righteousness that is from God: knowing Christ, knowing the power of his resurrection, and knowing the partnership of his agonies, being conformed to his death. These phrases all have a participatory tinge to them, a tinge that should be understood clearly as a subsequent reality to being brought into proper relationship with God (v.9).

To sum up: Paul thought that some sort of a Jewish threat was on its way to Philippi and he wanted to warn the church about it. Paul seemed to know that these enemies would use their Jewishness to their advantage, so Paul compares his Jewishness to theirs; and Paul finds his to be better than theirs. All of this is in the past, however, because Paul has encountered something better -- Jesus -- and has a better righteousness -- that which is from God.

With regard to the word "blameless," a question comes to my mind: How could Paul be comparing himself with those who comprise this impending threat with the word "blameless"? Paul seems to say that while his enemies have x, y, and z, he has 2x, 2y, and 2z. But how can being blameless be a comparison? Was Paul saying that he was more blameless than they were? That does not seem possible; one is either blameless or they are not. Right?

What is going on then? Perhaps the solution is found in the full phrase: "according to righteousness which is in the Law, having become blameless." It appears that Paul is comparing his pre-Christian standing with respect to the Law to that of his opponents; and Paul seems to say that he was in better standing than they were. Also, this state of blamelessness appears to be something that occurred through a process ("having become blameless" aorist/middle/participle), perhaps through repentance and sacrifice (which we'll talk about in more detail in the next post).

The problem, however, is that his opponents would have been able to say this same thing had they also repented and made sacrifice, two quite common practices among Jews of this period (especially very religious Jews). Thus, is Paul saying that he had less need to repent and make sacrifices than these enemies? Or is that conclusion reading way too much into this text? I am not finished thinking about this question by any means, but this conclusion seems to fit with the comparative nature of the rest of the list in vv. 5-6. Paul was more blameless than they before his encounter with Christ, i.e., he had less need to become blameless again and again through repentance and sacrifice.

I guess it is also possible that Paul was trying to indicate that they were not blameless in accordance to the Law and that he was. This would mean that he always took great care to take care of every sin, not matter how minute. Thus, the comparison would be that Paul took more care in making atonement for his sin than they did, meaning that they had blemishes still on their record. I suppose that this reconstruction also preserves the comparative nature of the section.

We will have to leave any final thoughts to later, when we have completed more work on this subject. However, the important thing to remember as we continue is that in this passage Paul obviously compares his pre-Christian standing to that of his enemies.

In the next post we will examine how the notion of blamelessness was understood during this period. To do so we will look at some texts from the Hebrew Bible, the LXX, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and the Mishnah, as well as some relevant data concerning the Greco-Roman understanding of this idea.


Blamelessness? -- Part I
Blamelessness? -- Part III A

Blamelessness? -- Part I

In response to my friend Garrett, who asked me to share some of my research into what Paul meant by the word "blameless" in Philippians 3.6, I'll start a series of posts in which I will explore some of the things that have been haunting my waking and sleeping hours lately (and those of my wife too!).

To begin I should better frame the question that I have been exploring. I'll talk about how I became interested in this subject, the work of some scholars in relation to this issue, and then, finally, I will pose the question as I see it.

Upon coming to Fuller I basically had two research interests: ethics and eschatology in Philippians and Paul's view of the Law. My mentor, Donald Hagner, advised me against the former because it could have proven to be too large for a dissertation and, instead, urged me toward the latter. I couldn't have been happier because my reading for the previous two years had been almost solely devoted to Paul and the Law. As is well known, there is a major divide in the study of Paul and the Law -- there are the traditional interpreters (TPP) and those who have been labeled "The New Perspective on Paul" (NPP).

The TPP basically posits that Paul stood against a legalistic form of Judaism, which had even infiltrated the Church through Jewish-Christian missionaries. Thus, Paul countered this works-based salvation of his opponents with insisting that salvation came through faith in Christ alone.

Many scholars (most famously E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright; though many of their predecessors anticipated their work) found this interpretation unsatisfactory. Their primary complaint was that the TPP was not reading Paul correctly because they did not have a proper, fair, and complete understanding of first-century Judaism. If we only mirror-read Paul's letters to gain an understanding of what he was countering, then we could, conceivably, conjure up a picture of a legalistic Judaism. However, according to the NPP, first-century Judaism was not legalistic, it was nomistic (Law-centered). The Law, however, only found meaning in the context of the covenant, which was graciously bestowed upon Israel by God. The phrase that Sanders coined for this idea was "covenantal nomism."

Thus, Paul was not opposing a legalistic Judaism, he was, according to the NPP, opposing Jewish-Christian missionaries who were imposing their ethnic badges (circumcision, Sabbath, food laws) on Gentile coverts. Paul's problem was that salvation was not ethnically-based, it was based, instead, on faith in/of Christ.

So we get two very different pictures of Paul's view of the Law between the TPP and the NPP. The same is true when we talk about Paul's pre-Christian self-evaluation. The TPP argues that Paul was plagued by his conscience because of sin in his life and found a salve for this frustration on the Damascus road. As a proof-text the TPP scholars point to Romans 7 where it appears that Paul himself reveals his pre-Christian views on his personal sin, namely covetousness. (It should be duly noted that many TPP scholars either no longer hold to this view exactly or have nuanced it in response to the NPP.)

The NPP, lead by Krister Stendahl (see especially his article entitled "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West"), could not see how this reading of Romans 7 matched up with a fair reading of Philippians 3, in which Paul states that he was blameless under the Law. Thus, to compensate for this problem, much of the NPP has espoused a view that Romans 7 must not refer to Paul himself; perhaps he was utilizing a "paradigmatic I" or the section should be taken as hypothetical or something of that sort. Either way, the NPP has allowed Philippians 3 to control the reading of Romans 7. It is also important to note here that Stendahl saw in much of biblical scholarship the influence of Martin Luther, who was clearly self-dissatisfied before his "tower experience." Consequently, it has become ever-so popular for the NPP to accuse the TPP of reading Paul through Luther's glasses.

So this leads, finally, to the question at hand. What did Paul mean when he said that "according to righteousness under the Law," he was "blameless"? To put it slightly differently, has the NPP utilized and understood Philippians 3 correctly or is the TPP's view correct? Also, what impact does understanding "blameless" in Philippians 3.6 have on one's interpretation of Romans 7? Lastly, at the end of the study, has the NPP been fair in accusing the TPP of offering Lutheran readings?

Since I'm a NT student trained in the historical-critical method, I will proceed in Part II of this series by examining the immediate context of Philippians 3.6 and in Part III I'll muse on what sort of ideas about blamelessness may have been in play during Paul's time.

Blamelessness? -- Part II
Blamelessness? -- Part III A

The Impossible Yoke: Part VIII

This will be my last post in this series in which I have examined Timo Laato's portrayal of Second-Temple Judaism's anthropology in the book Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach. Here I will interact with his summary (found on pages 72-75) and I will make a summary of my own. A note for the future: I will hopefully post more about the Philippians 3 passage as well as the Jewish literature surrounding the NT in the months to come, seeing that I am working on a project now regarding both of them.

Laato begins his summary by stating that soteriological free will is the "opinio communis" of the literature from the Second-Temple period, except for the documents from Qumran, which he categorizes as representing "an absolute fatalism" [he does note EP Sanders' hesitation with this distinction in the footnotes] (72). He continues by saying:

On the basis of free will man has not only the capacity always to choose good instead of evil. He has also the power always to do good (cf. the earlier quotations). Apparently everyone has an inborn propensity, but no hereditary compulsion to disobedience. It is fully conceivable to the very end to be obedient to the law. Otherwise God would bear at least to some extent responsibility for sins committed, since he would have created creation deficient. In view of a painful conclusion such as that it is self-evident that the Jews generally hold fast to human power of decision in the area of soteriology (73; emphases original as well as the unnecessary gender-specific language).

I can agree with Laato that the literature he examined stressed the free will of individuals. Where I cannot agree is that the literature did not state unequivocally that individuals had the "power to always do good." This is simply not the case. The same could be said about Laato's insistence on an individual's ability to be obedient to the law "to the very end." As I have intimated many times now, admitting free will does not make a positive anthropology by default. The support for Laato's claim is that otherwise God is on the hook for sin by not creating creation fully sufficient. This is a weak support at best and it certainly reveals that Laato is anachronistically reading the Calvinism/Arminianism debate into this literature.

That God granted free will to individuals, as the literature of Second-Temple Judaism almost unanimously avers, should be viewed as a gracious move on God's part. And the fact that an individual chooses death instead of life in no way falls back on God; that choice is the sole responsibility of the one that did the choosing. In other words, Laato's support for his complete-law-obedience claim is unfounded.

Laato then goes on to link the purity of the soul (found in the Babylonian Talmud [Berakhot 60b]) with free will, though this is not evident from the quotation he provides (which seems to be more about resurrection than anthropology) (73). He later claims that this idea of the purity of the soul is "a fundamental principle of rabbinicism and respectively of Judaism" (74), though no primary sources are cited. Instead Odeberg, on whom Laato heavily leans, is the only reference.

Laato continues by stating that sin may taint the soul's purity temporarily but will never make it "definitively corrupt" (74), again with only Odeberg cited. Laato also rightly indicates that "[w]hen a person acts lawlessly, the whole human being sits in judgment" (74).

He ends with two paragraphs about Second-Temple Judaism's reading of Genesis 3. "The fall into sin worked neither a total loss nor a partial limiting of the free will and respectively the purity of the soul," which can be seen in the fact that Adam and Eve are said to have the same capability of obeying God before and after eating from the tree of knowledge (74). "Human nature went through no delimitation of essence by sin" and thus "[t]he rebellion in Paradise serves as one (well typical) example of disobedience" (74-75).

Because of all of this, Laato claims that "[t]he gulf to the Pauline way of thinking...appears unbridgeable" (75). I cannot comment on this fully here, but I can say that when compared to the slanted and forced picture of Second-Temple Judaism that Laato has presented I have to agree. If we let these texts speak for themselves instead of reading later theological developments over them, then perhaps we can make more sense of these Jewish texts as well as those found in the Pauline corpus.

In my final analysis, Laato is guilty of the same thing as EP Sanders - namely, reading their presuppositions onto the texts. Both claim that the other side of the theological fence is not reading the texts faithfully, while they each are doing exactly that!

Thus, to wrap this series up, it does appear that free will was a major part of Second-Temple Judaism, but this fact does not equate to a positive anthropology. Perhaps one could say that the anthropology of the literature that we have examined is more positive than that of, say, Calvin, but that is not what Laato is claiming. Laato is claiming that the texts which we have looked at present us with a polar opposite view of human capability than that for which Paul argues. To fully evaluate this we would have to look more in depth at many Pauline texts, but I feel that we can say that Laato's reading of Second-Temple Judaism was not fully sympathetic.


The Impossible Yoke: Part I
The Impossible Yoke: Part II
The Impossible Yoke: Part III
The Impossible Yoke: Part IV
The Impossible Yoke: Part V
The Impossible Yoke: Part VI
The Impossible Yoke: Part VII

The Impossible Yoke: Part VII

This post continues my series dealing with Timo Laato's perception of Jewish anthropology around the NT period in Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach (1995). This time we will focus on Laato's reading of Philo (25BC - AD40) and Josephus (born AD37/38). All of the information here from Laato's book can be found on pages 71-72.

Starting with Philo (Quod deus sit immutabilis 10, 45-50; though I will only quote this in part):

But man, possessed of a spontaneous and self-determined will, whose activities for the most part rest on deliberate choice, is with reason blamed for what he does wrong with intent, praised when he acts rightly of his own will...But the soul of man alone has received from God the faculty of voluntary movement, and in this way is made like to Him, and thus being liberated, as far as might be, from that hard and ruthless mistress, necessity, may justly be charged with guilt, in that it does not honor its Liberator. And therefore it will rightly pay the inexorable penalty which is meted to ungrateful freedmen...

As Laato himself notes on page 71, Philo's ideas about human free will fit nicely with the rest of the literature we have surveyed. According to Philo, people have inside them the ability to reason out what is good and what is bad and should be praised for choosing the good and should be counted as guilty for choosing the bad. It seems to me that Philo's anthropology at this point is indifferent, not unlike most of what we have seen up to this point. One can choose good but one can also choose bad. The last part of the quote that Laato provides, in which Philo comments on Duet 30:15,19, may shed some light on this however:

So then in this way He put before us both truths; first that men have been made with a knowledge both of good and evil, its opposite; secondly, that it is their duty to choose the better rather than the worse, because they have, as it were, within them an incorruptible judge in the reasoning faculty, which will accept all that right reason suggests and reject the promptings of the opposite.

Here Philo does take a legitimately positive turn. He seems to say that an incorruptible part of one's reason will (says Philo with confidence!) accept that which is reasonable (the good) and reject the opposite (the evil). This is unabashedly positive. Philo is not saying that everyone will choose the good, because some unreasonably ignore this inner judge, but he does seem to say that simply submitting passively to reason will lead one down the correct path.

Now we turn to Laato's reading of Josephus, whom he paraphrases as follows (drawing from De bello Iudaico 2:119-166; Antiquitates Iundicae 13:171-173, 18:11-25):

The Essenes refer all things (including the evil and the doing of evil) back to divine predestination. The Sadducees in contrast believe that good and evil originate in human free will alone. The Pharisees on the other hand do indeed ascribe all things to destiny and God. To do right or wrong depends on the person himself, although destiny play a part in any case.

So according to Laato's understanding of Josephus (which seems sound by the way) he would say that the Essenes have a negative anthropology, while the Sadducees and Pharisees have varying positive views of anthropology. My complaint will sound familiar: the fatalism of the Essenes does seem to highlight the fact that humans do not contribute to their religious standing before God but the freedom of the will that is advocated by the Sadducees and Pharisees is not entirely positive because it does not assume that all will choose correctly (it "depends on the person himself").

What I have tried to highlight time and again in this series is that the doctrine of free will may be illustrative of one having a more positive anthropology than a fatalist, but it still does not make a clear and overt positive anthropology.

I will end this series with the next post in which I will critique Laato's conclusion to this matter and offer some of my summations.


The Impossible Yoke: Part I
The Impossible Yoke: Part II
The Impossible Yoke: Part III
The Impossible Yoke: Part IV
The Impossible Yoke: Part V
The Impossible Yoke: Part VI
The Impossible Yoke: Part VIII

The Impossible Yoke: Part VI

This post continues my series dealing with Timo Laato's perception of Jewish anthropology around the NT period in Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach (1995).

Up to this point, Laato has dealt with some Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal texts which deal with human free will. Now he turns to the rabbinic material and he interacts mainly with Jacob Neusner here. Laato notes that Neusner believes that the Mishnah (the Oral Law which was codified around AD 200) "is based on free will" (Laato, 68-69).

Several proof-texts are laid out on pages 69-71:

Rabbi Aqiba says in Avot 3:15:

Everything is foreseen; and free choice is given. In goodness the world is judged. And all is in accord with the abundance of deed[s].

The Sifre on Deut 11:26 (par. 53) says:

See, this day I set before you blessing and curse [...] (Dt. 11:26-30): Why is this passage stated? The reason is that, since it is said, "Life and death I have placed before you, a blessing and a curse" (Dt. 30:19), perhaps the Israelites might say, "Since the Omnipresent has placed before us two ways, the way of life and the way of death, let us go in whichever way we choose." Accordingly, Scripture says, "Choose life." (Dt. 30:19)

The Mekhilta on Ex. 15:26 says:

"...saying, If you will diligently hearken": In this connection sages have said, "If one has obeyed one commandment, he is given the opportunity to obey many commandments, as it is said [...], 'If you begin to hearken you will continue to hearken.' If one has forgotten one religious duty, he is made to forget many religious duties, for it is said, 'And it shall be, if you begin to forget that you will continue to forget' (Dt. 8:19)."

In the Babylonian Talmud (Beahhot 33b) Rabbi Hanina (ca. AD 225) says:

Everything is in the hands of heaven except fear of heaven. For it is said, "And now, Israel, what does the Lord, your God, require of you but to fear" (Deut. 10:12) [cf. BT Megilla 25a and Niddah 16b]

These quotes and the analysis of Neusner lead Laato to say that "[a]ll told, free will is denied in no place in the rabbinic literature" (71).

A few things should be noted. 1) This material was generally codified during the late second century and beyond, though some remnants of earlier material may remain. This may explain the difference in outlook of the earlier Jewish writings that we have examined.

2) While these texts do seem to have a more positive outlook on the human ability to do what God demands, they still do not rule out the possibility of choosing the wrong way. In other words, a truly positive anthropology not only understands the human ability to choose but also the reasonable expectation that humans will be able to choose correctly. These texts simply do not not give that level of assurance.

Thus, up to this point it seems that Laato has made a good case that Judaism in the period around the NT held to free will. However, simply holding to free will does not make a positive anthropology.

Next (and last) Laato looks at the philosopher Philo and the historian Josephus.


The Impossible Yoke: Part I
The Impossible Yoke: Part II
The Impossible Yoke: Part III
The Impossible Yoke: Part IV
The Impossible Yoke: Part V
The Impossible Yoke: Part VII
The Impossible Yoke: Part VIII

The Impossible Yoke: Part V

This post is a continuation of my series of posts about the anthropology of second-Temple Judaism. So far I am simply evaluating the way in which Timo Laato has used texts in Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach. The next two passages that Laato quotes on page 68 are from 2 Baruch (i.e., the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch). He believes that both of these passages highlight a positive anthropology in the Judaism around the NT period.

The first is 2 Baruch 54:15,19 (from A.F.J. Klijn's translation in Charlesworth, OT Psuedepigrapha, [1:640]:

For, although Adam sinned first and has brought death upon all who were not in his own time, yet each of them who has been born from him has prepared for himself the coming torment. And further, each of them has chosen for himself the coming glory...Adam is, therefore, not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam.

And the second is 2 Baruch 85:7 (1:651):

And these things which I have said earlier should be before your eyes always, since we are still in the spirit of the power of our liberty.

Klijn has dated 2 Baruch to around AD 100 (1:617) and has noted that, though most of the oldest manuscripts are in Syriac, it is likely that 2 Baruch also existed in Greek (we have a few pieces of manuscripts that exist in Greek) and probably Hebrew as well (1:616). One of the primary things highlighted by 2 Baruch is the way in which Judaism coped with the destruction brought on by the Romans in AD 70 (1:620). All of these things point to the fact that 2 Baruch is roughly contemporaneous with much of the NT writings, though Paul's letters are generally quite earlier. So, 2 Baruch may reveal first-century sentiment that can be helpful in understanding the NT.

Like we have already seen, simply admitting free will does not necessarily a positive anthropology make. The phrase "each of us has become our own Adam" reveals this. If someone has become his own Adam, then he can end up like Adam, being punished for his sin. This shows the negative side of freedom clearly.

Again, the picture is not as clear as Laato would like to tell us it is. At best, the literature we have surveyed thus far reveals that Judaism of the second-Temple period believes humans are able to choose to follow God or not, but that this freedom does not mean that they also have the wisdom to make the correct choice.


The Impossible Yoke: Part I
The Impossible Yoke: Part II
The Impossible Yoke: Part III
The Impossible Yoke: Part IV
The Impossible Yoke: Part VI
The Impossible Yoke: Part VII
The Impossible Yoke: Part VIII

The Impossible Yoke: Part IV

The pseudepigraphon 4 Ezra is the book from which Laato harvests his next proof for a positive anthropology in the Judaism of the NT period. He cites 8:55-58a (I will utilize the translation by Bruce Metzger in Charsleworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [1:544]):

Therefore do not ask any more questions about the multitude of those who perish. For they also received freedom, but they despised the Most High, and were contemptuous of his Law, and forsook his ways. Moreover they have even trampled upon his righteous ones, and said in their hearts that there is no God...

The book of 4 Ezra was probably written c. AD 100 (certainly not much after AD 120, though the first two and last two chapters are likely Christian additions which can be dated to the mid- to late- third century), likely in Hebrew (or Aramaic), though it was translated into Greek, Latin, and many other languages at some point (1:519-20). The manuscripts that preserve 4 Ezra are in Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Coptic (Sahidic), Georgian, and Greek (1:519). All of this evidences that 4 Ezra was somewhat popular in the early church and that it likely represents something of the Judaism during the first century.

This book is highly apocalyptic, having many similarities with the NT book Revelation (1:522), and the section from which our passage is taken (the third vision; 6:35-9:25) is a description of the final judgment and the fate of the righteous and the wicked (1:518). The immediate context of our passage is a conversation between God and Ezra in which Ezra is interceding on behalf of those who have done wicked things. He is hoping that God will relent in his punishment (8:45).

However, as our passage reveals, God will not relent (8:55). They deserve their punishment because they were granted freedom and freely chose not to follow God, i.e., they rejected the Law and God's ways (8:56). Their disdain for God is ultimately manifest in their sin of trampling on the righteous (remind anyone of the eighth-century Israelite prophets?; 8:57)).

Of what relevance is this passage to the anthropology of the Judaism in the NT period? Again, as we have seen in the previous three posts, freedom is granted and humans have the ability to choose God. This certainly seems positive; even though this passage is couched in judgmental language. Those who are wicked deserve to be punished because they freely chose not to follow God. This implies that some, like Ezra himself, will choose the correct path -- which is found by living by God's Law and his ways (8:56).

There is a negative side to the anthropology in 4 Ezra as well. I believe that the best proof of this is 8:3, where God responds to Ezra's plea to relent in punishing the wicked:

Many have been created, but few will be saved

It is hard to imagine this as a positive view of human capability. Though humans may be free, if most of them choose incorrectly, then surely this reveals their inability to follow through with the demands of following God, up to and including the Law (8:56).

Thus, the picture that 4 Ezra paints of human ability is a bleak one. The positive side is that all are free to choose God, but the negative side is that the majority will not.

Not quite as clear cut as Laato would have us believe.


The Impossible Yoke: Part I
The Impossible Yoke: Part II
The Impossible Yoke: Part III
The Impossible Yoke: Part V
The Impossible Yoke: Part VI
The Impossible Yoke: Part VII
The Impossible Yoke: Part VIII

The Impossible Yoke: Part III

Getting back to my project, I am now going to examine the second quote from Second-Temple literature that Laato uses in Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach to highlight the positive anthropology of NT-period Judaism.

He quotes from the Psalms of Solomon 9:4-5 (I will quote from the version prepared by R.B. Wright in Volume 2 of Charlesworth's The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [2:660]; Pss. Sol. have a date from around 70-45 B.C. [R.B. Wright in Charlesworth, 2:641]):

Our works (are) in the choosing and power of our souls, to do right and wrong in the works of our hands, and in your righteousness you oversee human beings. The one who does what is right saves up life for himself with the Lord, and the one who does what is wrong causes his own life to be destroyed; for the Lord's righteous judgments are according to the individual and the household [Syr, according to every person and his house].

At the first superficial inspection of this text, it clearly appears that humans choose to do right and wrong and that this ability to choose has eschatological ramifications (the right choices lead to life and the wrong choices lead to destruction).

The way that God is characterized in this passage as well should also be noted. He is clearly shown as righteous, which means that he has the proper credentials to be the judge of humanity. He is also seen as one who oversees humanity, which may sound positive ("I'm looking out for you!") but certainly has a judgmental feel, especially considering the content of 5b. Lastly, God judges according to the individual and the household, thus doing away with the idea that nowhere in Second-Temple Judaism was personalized judgment in view.

This passage could not be clearer in its portrayal of the human ability to choose between good and evil. If we continue reading beyond the place where Laato's quote stops, we can begin to see a fuller picture of the anthropology of this passage. Pss.Sol. 9:5-7 [Charlesworth, 2:660-61]:

To whom will you be good, O God, except to those who call upon the Lord? He will cleanse from sins the soul in confessing, in restoring, so that for all these things the shame is on us, and (it shows) on our faces. And whose sins will he forgive except those who have sinned? You bless the righteous, and do not accuse them for what they sinned. And your goodness is upon those that sin, when they repent.

The picture from this passage is that repentance is available and necessary for those that sin, furthering the positive anthropology here. Since humans are capable of repentance on their own, they are still the ones choosing life or destruction. Also, if humans decide not to repent, then the sins of humanity are not on God but on humanity because each human had every opportunity to repent and chose otherwise.

On the other hand, this passage does have a negative anthropological feel to it in one respect. It almost presupposes the need for repentance. However, characterizing this fact as "negative anthropology" is simply off-base. The anthropology here is more realistic, in that humans are presented as sinful beings, which is demonstrable in the life of anyone who is being honest. God does not leave sinful humans dangling above the fires of hell; instead he provides them a way to experience his goodness through repentance.

Continuing to the end of this psalm, Pss. Sol. 9:10-11 [Charlesworth, 2:661]:

You made a covenant with our ancestors concerning us, and we hope in you when we turn our souls to you. May the mercy of the Lord be upon the house of Israel forevermore.

Here the tension between grace and works is evident. The psalmist admits that God made a covenant with his ancestors. According to the caricature of Judaism presented by the New Perspective on Paul, one would expect Jews around the NT period to understand that membership in this covenant was a matter of birth, which then leads to national (even racial) pride and boasting. This passage reveals something different.

The psalmist says "we hope in you when we turn our souls to you." This "we" can only be his contemporaries who were Jews by birth (especially if we are convinced by the contention that these psalms have a pharisaic pedigree, which R.B. Wright seems to doubt, along with the Essene-origin theory [R.B. Wright in Charlesworth, 2:642].). The point that I am trying to make is that the psalmist is presenting us with the fact that Jews by birth must nevertheless turn their souls toward God in order to be part of the covenant and it is only through this turning toward God that his mercy will be shown to Israel forevermore.

Thus, while the grace of the covenantal election comes into the picture in this last passage, free will still plays a role in covenant membership. If covenant membership is predicated upon one's ability to turn his/her soul toward God, then this passage certainly leaves us with a feeling that its anthropology is unreservedly positive (humans have the ability to gain positive standing before God).


The Impossible Yoke: Part I
The Impossible Yoke: Part II
The Impossible Yoke: Part IV
The Impossible Yoke: Part V
The Impossible Yoke: Part VI
The Impossible Yoke: Part VII
The Impossible Yoke: Part VIII

The Impossible Yoke: Part II

In a previous post I stated that I wanted to examine the idea of the (in)ability of Law-observance in Judaism near, chronologically, to the NT. To begin I want to examine some quotations taken from Timo Laato's book Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach (1995). In section 4.1.1 he examines the notion of "human freedom" in Judaism, which is a key component in the discussion of the (in)ability of Law-observance.

On page 67 Laato quotes Sirach 15:11-20, which he dates to 200 BC. I will not reproduce the quote as it appears in the book since it is likely a translation from German into English of a translation. So, to excise one step, I will quote from The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (AP 105-06). Sirach 15:11-20:

11-Do not say, "It was the Lord's doing that I fell away"; for he does not do what he hates. 12-Do not say, "It was he who led me astray"; for he has no need of the sinful. 13-The Lord hates all abominations; such things are not loved by those who fear him. 14-It was he who created humankind in the beginning, and he left them in the power of their own free choice. 15-If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. 16-He has placed before you fire and water; stretch out your hand for whichever you choose. 17-Before each person are life and death, and whichever one chooses will be given. 18-For great is the wisdom of the Lord; he is mighty in power and sees everything; 19-his eyes are on those who fear him, and he knows every human action. 20-He has not commanded anyone to be wicked, and he has not given anyone permission to sin.

This passage seems to be highlighting a few things that are important to our discussion.

1. Humans have the ability to choose to keep the commandments, i.e., to choose between life and death.
2. This ability to choose is a power given by God from the beginning of human history.
3. Choosing to follow the commandments of God is the faithful choice, the satisfactory choice, the choice that expresses love toward God.
4. God is effectively taken off the hook for the sinfulness of humanity because, though he knows all human action, he never commanded (much less forced) anyone to be wicked and to sin.

The question of the (in)ability to fulfill the Law remains however. It is clear that the choice to not fulfill the Law (in toto or in part) is a decision that falls squarely on the shoulders of the one who so chooses. Can the same be said of the choice to follow the commands? Was a Jew, according to the author of Sirach, the one responsible for the fulfilling of the Law? Let's take another look at Sirach 15:14-15 (AP 106): "It was he [the Lord] who created humankind in the beginning, and he left them in the power of their own free choice. If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice."

The logic of these two verses is clear. God created humanity, God gave them the power to have free will, the free will can be used to fulfill the commandments (which is equivalent to acting faithfully), and this choice is solely the responsibility of the one choosing (it is identified as "your own choice"). Not only is the basic logic easily spotted, so are some underlying meanings.

This ability to choose is called a "power" that can be enacted. "Power" conjures up ideas of effectiveness and capability. If this "power" can be harnessed, then it seems possible that one could ably fulfill the Law. All the Jewish believer would have had to do was reach out, through the power of his/her will, and choose to do the commands faithfully.

Moreover, while it could be interpreted a bit more positively, Sirach 15:19 has a very negative ring to it. To paraphrase: God is keeping his eyes on believers and he knows every human action. It is hard to read this verse in any other way than the hallway monitor, who watches those who follow the rules and those who don't. Those who follow the rules don't get detention, those who don't do.

Chapter 15 leaves us with the impression that the book of Sirach teaches that humans have the God-given ability in their own beings to fulfill the Law, even completely. As Charles Talbert put it, this passage and others "focus exclusively on human freedom" (Reading John [1994], 181). However, if we give any credence to the idea that the book of Sirach has a basic coherence of thought from beginning to end, then chapter 33 leaves us with an unresolved tension (J.J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls [1997], 34). The specific reference that Collins has in mind seems to be Sirach 33:13, which reads as follows: "Like clay in the hand of the potter, to be molded as he pleases, so all are in the hand of their Maker, to be given whatever he decides." Collins sums up his ideas on the tension between Sirach 15 and 33 like this, "the exercise of human choice is conditioned by the inclination with which a person is fitted at creation" (34).

However, this tension exists partly because of the context of each of the passages. Chapter 15 seems to be, in part, a defense against theodicy, while chapter 33 is presenting the reader with a magnificent picture of God as creator, the one responsible for all that is, the one who even chooses the pathways of humanity. Despite the apparent thrusts of each section, the tension remains.

Thus, free will and predetermination are intermingled here, but chapter 15 teaches that the ultimate responsibility for sin is to found within the one who has chosen not to keep God's commandments. The strong emphasis on human freedom in chapter 15 necessitates that one lean more toward the free will of human beings and the ability to fulfill the Law, whether this freedom was given and empowered by God or not.

I will continue this series of posts later with a quotation from the Psalms of Solomon.

The Impossible Yoke: Part I
The Impossible Yoke: Part III
The Impossible Yoke: Part IV
The Impossible Yoke: Part V
The Impossible Yoke: Part VI
The Impossible Yoke: Part VII
The Impossible Yoke: Part VIII

The Impossible Yoke: Part I

In recent discussions in my class on Paul and the Law we have considered whether or not first-century Jews (in part or in whole) thought of the Law as a burden that no one could bear. A passage that is important to this issue has to be Acts 15:1-11, specifically verse 10, which says: "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" This is, of course, from Peter's speech in the so-called "Council at Jerusalem." The "you" refers to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem generally and to those who were formerly Pharisees specifically and the "disciples" refers to Gentiles who were following Jesus.

The first question worth investigating is what exactly is this yoke that is being placed on Gentiles? Is it circumcision only as 15:1 seems to indicate? Or is the more immediate context of Peter's speech to control this term; which would mean that the yoke indicated circumcision and the rest of the Law of Moses as well (15:5). The latter seems most convincing. Thus, Peter claims that the observance of the Law (including circumcision) is a yoke that neither he, his fellow Jewish-Christian brother, nor their ancestors could bear (15:10).

But was this the case in reality? There is other biblical support for the idea. Matthew 23:4 reveals Jesus talking to the crowds about the scribes and Pharisees. He says that they "tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders." In Galatians 5:1 Paul contrasts the freedom believers have in Christ with what the Judaizers are trying to force on them, namely a yoke of slavery. Romans 7:7-25 could also be called upon here, but many say the testimony there "is expressed in terms of his now Christian backward look at his life before Christ" (Fee, Philippians, NICNT, 309n.20), which has sufficiently altered his judgment.

There is also support for the opposite, i.e., that the Law could be fulfilled. In Philippians 3:6 Paul claims that he was blameless when it comes to righteousness which is in the Law. This means that as far as his pre-Christian interpretation of the righteousness with regard to the Law was concerned, Paul had complete legal rectitude. He was (literally) faultless in his completion of the Law. There is a major issue to clear up however. In Romans 7 Paul appears to admit to coveting, which is against the Law. So how could he state in Philippians 3 that he was blameless in accordance to the Law? It should be remembered that the Law not only pointed out sin (as is clear in Romans 7) but that it provided a way for restitution...through sacrifice. So Paul is not claiming in Philippians 3:6 that he was sinless, only that as far as the Law was concerned he had insured that all his ducks were in a row. As Bruce says "To conform with the righteousness required by the law called for infinite painstaking, but (as Paul had proved) it was not impossible" (Philippians, NIBC, 110).

From a reading of the major commentaries, it also appears that except for a few examples (1QS and 4 Ezra, notably) the Jewish literature of the time presupposed the ability to fulfill the requirements of the Law. This is a particular subject that I hope to delve into with more zeal over the next few weeks and months. I will start by finishing a book called Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach by Timo Laato. In the book he basically argues that Judaism's anthropology was quite optimistic and Paul's was pessimistic. Perhaps I will discover some more primary literature there which will shed light on this subject. If I do or if I don't, I will post my findings here!


The Impossible Yoke: Part II
The Impossible Yoke: Part III
The Impossible Yoke: Part IV
The Impossible Yoke: Part V
The Impossible Yoke: Part VI
The Impossible Yoke: Part VII
The Impossible Yoke: Part VIII