Especially since E.P. Sanders published his book “Paul and Palestinian
Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of religion” (Philadelphia, 1977), some
theologians insist that (all) the first-century Jews held to a theology called
‘covenantal nomism’.
Earlier many churches and theologians believed that first-Century Jews held to some form of legalism as if they could (by doing righteous deeds) contribute to their own salvation. Sanders, however, argued that this constituted a
misunderstanding of Paul’s letters and a caricature of Jewish thought as if it
constituted a form of legalism (whereby justification does not come by grace
but by human efforts).
“Covenantal nomism”, according to Sanders, includes the following
points:
·
God has graciously chosen a people to make a
covenant with them, and He has given them his law.
·
God has promised to maintain this covenant, and He
requires of them a response in obedience.
·
God rewards obedience, and He punishes willful
transgression.
·
Through atonement God provides a means to forgive
sins committed, thereby maintaining the covenant relationship in spite of sins
committed.
·
All who are maintained in the covenant through
obedience, atonement, and God’s mercy will be saved in the end.
In the final analysis the impression is given that the Christian view
is not so different from the view of the Jews in the time that Paul wrote his
letters. Although we were first chosen
by grace, we still need to show obedience in order to continue in the covenant.
Nobody can perfectly keep the obligations of the covenant, but such
shortcomings are graciously forgiven by the mercy of our covenant God.
This reasoning, then, gives the impression that we are first
unconditionally accepted and justified by God, while at the last judgment our
works (of obedience) will be taken into consideration for our final
justification.
To many Christians, this seems to be quite in line with the thinking of
most Christians! In fact, it seems to be
an attractive way of explaining what must happen if we stress our covenant
heritage without creating the false impression that every one who (in baptism)
receives God’s (unconditional) promises will be saved regardless of their later
lifestyle. It appeared attractive to me when I wrestled with these issues in
the nineties, and apparently it seemed attractive to a number of reformed
leaders at the time, such as Steve Schlissel, Norm Shepherd, and John Barach. Tom Wright, who used to be well known for his
rigorous academics and staunch orthodoxy, holds to similar ideas.
When I talked this over with my wife, we agreed that we used to think along
very similar lines. God has graciously saved us (essentially by allowing us to
be born into a Christian community). As lambs of the Good Shepherd, we were
justified by the love of God and the sacrifice of Christ. And then, as we got older it was our
obligation to live within the covenant. We were to live like good Christian
folk, faithfully attending the church services, refrain from gambling, stealing,
drunkenness, and shopping on Sundays. Of
course, we knew that we could never perfectly please God, and the good things
we did we could only do by the grace of God.
Yet, God would remain faithful to his covenant promises, so if we would
continue living by the basic rules of our church culture and say daily “sorry”
for our sins, then we could rest assured that we could count on God’s
forgiveness that He secured for us on Golgotha.
Perhaps this was not the official theology of our church, but it seems
to have been some a popular folk-theology for the people in the pews.
We knew that “all people are wretched sinners in the face of a Holy
God” and we learned about “total depravity”, but these were mantras that had
not effectively changed our personal convictions that we (as faithful members of
a true church) held at the time. Or, they were only true for those outside the
covenant of grace. So, if someone would
confront us with a sin, we would not hesitate to defend ourselves and to deny
our state of sinfulness, which we were supposed to embrace.
If nothing else, this should make the topic relevant for us today! What, if anything, is wrong with this
theological theory? If it is the right approach, and if this was held by (all)
first-Century Jews, what then was Paul’s problem? Are Jews so different in their beliefs from
Christians, or are Catholics (in their theologizing) so different from the
Reformed?
Here are a few important considerations:
1 First-Century Jews
had a different concept of sin and grace than Paul.
Don Carson challenges Sanders’ claim that
first-Century Jews all adhere to covenantal nomism. Looking at the writings of Flavius Josephus, a
well-known first-Century Jewish author, he examined all the instances where
Josephus used the word “χαρις” (grace). Josephus acknowledges that God
pours out his grace… yet not on undeserving sinners but on those who try to
follow the law. Westerholm points out that the Jewish thought
claimed that “Israel’s willingness to obey (God) made them worthy recipients of
what was nonetheless a divine gift, out of all proportion to their merits” So, when first-Century Jews, like Josephus,
wrote about people being saved by grace, they meant something quite different
from Paul’s teachings. Paul insists that
there are no worthy recipients of God’s grace, so God’s gift of salvation
cannot include any role of humans doing “God-pleasing works”. Sanders agrees that “a concept of original or
even universal sin is missing in most forms of Judaism.”
So, first-Century Jews seem to have had a much less serious view of
their own sinfulness and consequently a much weaker view of God’s grace.
Consequently, they could not imagine the desperate need for a divine
substitute, offered in the crucifixion of the Messiah.
2 Jewish history (in
the biblical record) would suggest that Israel was not “a worthy recipient of
God’s grace”. Reading the record of the
Old Testament, or the summary in Stephen’s speech, it is impossible to see
Israel as “worthy recipient of God’s grace”.
Throughout history humans have tried hard to destroy what God had built,
and at best there have been short periods of blessed harmony with God and at
best there has been a “small, righteous remnant”. Yet, if we were to quickly respond that this
must be where we fit in, then –in our self-righteous pride- we still miss the
point! Paul’s insisted that there is nobody who does good, and (keeping) the
law can only condemn somebody, for nobody can perfectly keep it.
3 Paul challenges
contemporary Jews in their (partial) reliance on their own works of obedience. He
will have nothing of combining human’s good attitudes and efforts with the grace
of God. Even for Christians (who have God’s indwelling Spirit) there can be no
credit whatsoever for their good deeds. Paul makes it very clear, what the
Reformers later affirmed, that our only credit comes from Christ’s sacrifice
and that we can only receive its benefits through living faith. Those who were
truly predestined and justified will produce fruit of faith- not as condition
for their final justification but as proof of true faith and justification.
As maturing Christians realize, even our best efforts are affected by
efforts to please others and to get public support or praise. Most things we do
are done to boost our image and status; our comfort and our confidence are at
best secondary objectives. We will not
be able to have God squarely and always at the center of our lives!
4 The views of Tom
Wright are more complicated as he also insists on “Jesus as the one who ends
the exile status for the Jews.” Although this is an important aspect, Wright
insists that this is the dominating perspective for Paul, whereby Christ
redeemed the children of Abraham and where Paul’s (primary) concern was how the
gentile believers could be incorporated into this covenant community of the
redeemed. He then redefines the term
‘justification’ as “God’s declaration that we are in that covenant.”
As Piper
paraphrases Wright, “The gospel is the message of … the death and resurrection
and lord- ship of Christ over the world. The Holy Spirit uses this news to
awaken faith in the heart. This is God’s divine call through the gospel. By
this (effectual!) call and faith, we are made partakers of Christ’s victory and
become part of God’s family. Then … justification comes in and declares to us
what has happened to us. It thus gives assurance—but does not save, or convert,
or make us part of God’s family.”
This is how Wright describes the process as
Paul sees it: Calling, faith, and justification come to the elect almost
simultaneously, yet in that order. This invites all kinds of questions and
concerns. Does Wright not confuse covenant with election? Are not all in
baptism told that they belong to the covenant community? Yet, how does this come
after true faith exists, which will not even be the case in all who are in the
covenant. When Peter on Pentecost
declares that “The promise is for you (Jews) and to all (gentiles) who will
still be called”, does he not pronounce that his audience is in the covenant-
prior to their actual conversion and faith?
One problem is that men like Tom Wright are
very academic and very clever, and most people would feel intimidated even
attempting to contradict his genius. Most critics of Wright point out that he uses
dikaioo (the Greek term for
justification) in a very unnatural way.
Is it not God’s declaration that we are reconciled to Him the crucial
aspect of our salvation? How then could it be a message of assurance only,
after the fact of (effective) calling and the existence of true faith?
Like other followers of Sanders,
Wright distinguishes between this (first) justification and a later
justification. In Piper’s
words, It seems that, even though Wright says dikaioo is ‘a declarative word, declaring that something
is the case’, rather than a word for making something happen or changing the
way something is,”21 nevertheless, he wants to clarify that God’s future act
of justification is more than a declaration ‘that something is the case.’ It is
an event that accomplishes final deliverance.”
In Piper’s
words, “In the future at the final court scene, God the Judge will find in our
favor on the basis of the works we have done—the life we have lived—and
in the present he anticipates that verdict and declares it to be already true on
the basis of our faith in Jesus.”
Both Carson and Piper carefully examine
Romans 2, 3 in their evaluation of Wright’s theories. This is then how John
Piper gives
his view:
“I believe in the necessity of a
transformed life of obedience to Jesus by the power of the Spirit through faith
as a public evidence and confirmation of faith at the Last Day for all who will
finally be saved. In other words, I believe it is actually true, not
just hypothetically true, that God “will render to each one according to his
works to those who by patience in well- doing seek for glory and honor and
immortality, he will give eternal life”(Rom.2:6–7). I take the phrase
“according to”(kata) in a sense different from “based on.” I think the best way
to bring together the various threads of Paul’s teaching on justification by
faith apart from works (Rom. 3:28; 4:4–6; 11:6; Eph. 2:8) is to treat the
necessity of obedience not as any part of the basis of our justification, but
strictly as the evidence and confirmation of our faith in Christ whose blood
and righteousness is the sole basis of our justification. How this is the case,
while justification is by faith alone apart from any basis in that very
obedience, has been one of the main themes of my preaching and writing for the
last thirty years.”
I thank God for gifted godly men, who have studied these complicated
issues in great depth and found the suggested solutions wanting. I have
benefited most from the teachings and writings of Don Carson, John Piper, and
Stephen Westerholm. While some leaders
in reformed churches have embraced this new view of covenant and justification,
it is amazing that Baptist scholars (who, according to some reformed leaders
are by their affiliation by definition Arminian) are among the leading
theologians to preserve the Reformed doctrine of grace.
Resources used:
·
D.A. Carson, “The New Perspective on Paul”, a series
of three lectures, free downloads on i-tunes.
·
John Piper, “The future of justification, a response
to N.T. Wright” (Crossway Books, 2007). (available as pdf file on the Desiring
God website)
·
Stephen Westerholm, “Justification by faith is the
answer. What is the question?”, CTQ 70 (2006):197-217 (available as pdf file on the Internet)
·
Stephen Westerholm, “Justification Reconsidered:
rethinking a Pauline theme” (Eerdmans, 2013)
For further study:
·
Douglas J. Moo, “The Epistle to the Romans”, NICNT
commentary. Eerdmans, 1996
·
D.A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, editors:
“Justification
and Variegated Nomism”, Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, Volume 2: The
Paradoxes of Paul
