Thursday, March 19, 2009

Future of Israel - In light of the first century Judaism

I interrupt our series on the New Perspective on Paul to jump down a rabbit trail that caught my attention while studying what Sanders has illuminated about first century Judaism. (Note: for Sander's page references see the last heading in the previous blog.)

While reading Sanders book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and studying the New Perspective on Judaism which examines Jewish literature between 200 bce and ce 200, I discovered something of interest as a near side note.

When Paul states in Romans that 1) all Israel will one day be saved, but that 2) not all Israel are Israel, he wasn’t saying anything new, rather he was echoing what was common in Judaism of his day. It is most prevalent among the Dead Sea Scrolls and also among the Apocryphal literature but can also be seen among the Rabbinic literature as well – this common belief that “all Israel will be saved” but that “not all Israel are Israel”!

There is this pervasive thought among a certain sector of Christianity today that one day (i.e. in the eschaton – end) all Israel – by which is meant all those who are born of the blood line of Abraham, all those who are of national and ethnic decent etc – will accept Jesus on some type of compulsion. This belief is most common in the Left Behind epidemic in which many believe that the reference to ‘all Israel’ actually includes all ethnic Israelites from the past as well as those present and future. One friend actually suggested that since Jesus led the captives from Paradise to glory after his crucifixion (i.e. the thief on the cross, and presumably all previous Israelites – remember wicked Ahab! Yup, in glory) that Paradise – which then was emptied – is now filling up with unbelieving Jews until the eschaton (the end) when they will be led to glory again!

These theories are a gross misunderstanding of first century Jewish beliefs, of the nature of grace, election, covenant and law, of Paul and ultimately of the scriptures holistically and of the plan and purpose of redemption in particular!

Cleaning up some misunderstandings:

In the Dead Sea Scrolls the Essence community believed that they were the only “true Israelites” since they alone were the only ones to truly understand the covenants and laws of God. It was possible – through a rigorous process – to join the Essence community and become a part of “true Israel”, but for all the other ‘so-called’ Israelites outside of the community, because they would not join the ‘true Israelites’, they had forfeited their identity as ‘Israel’ as far is the Qumran community was concerned.

And in the Apocryphal (before Christ) and the Rabbinical (after Christ) literature the belief was similar: Salvation was based on Israel’s call and election in God (i.e. grace), but the law was given to separate those ‘in’ Israel from those ‘outside’ of Israel. So obedience to the law was necessary for an Israelite to remain in the covenantal relationship with God (i.e. to be saved!); those who obeyed the law and atoned for their sins in the prescribed ways will be saved, while those Israelites who rejected the law and refused to repent and atone for their sins would in a sense declare their rejection of the covenant and election of God. In other words, such a rebellious Israelite would – by rejection of the law – forfeit their status as an ‘Israelite’ and become no different then a pagan Gentile. And so even in the Apocryphal and Rabbinical literature ‘all Israel will be saved’ but ‘not all Israel are Israel’, i.e. only those faithful to the covenant by obedience to the law would remain as ‘true Israel’. Those Israelites who rejected the covenant by disobeying the law were no longer considered ‘true Israel’, but rather apostates!

So not even Jewish religion taught salvation to all ethnic Israelites, but only to those who remained faithful to the covenant, such a one was considered a ‘true Israelite’. So even within the Jewish religion there was an "Israel within Israel"!

Paul on the ‘true Israel’

Paul captures this common belief in Judaism and yet redefines it in terms of being ‘in Christ’; “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children” (Romans 9:6-7). Then Paul goes on to say that “Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:25b-26a).

Two things become clear here; 1) someone is not a descendant of Abraham just because they are an Israelite (ethnicity is irrelevant when discussing soteriology!) – through Paul’s elaborate argument he shows that a true Israelite is one who is of the promise which is obtained by faith, not faith plus (i.e. faith plus works or faith plus ethnicity). And 2) it is not until the full number of Gentiles comes in that “all Israel will be saved” – i.e. believing Israelites plus Gentiles equals “all Israel”. That is why Paul stresses elsewhere that there is neither “Jew nor Greek” (i.e. Gentile – Galatians 3:28) “for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (ibid, 3:29). And thus together we all ‘in Christ’ make up the “Israel of God” (6:16).

So Paul has captured the common Jewish belief that “all Israel will be saved” on the one hand and that “not all Israel are Israel” on the other and has redefined ‘Israel’ as those who are ‘in Christ’ – i.e. believing Jews and Gentiles.

This ridiculous notion that one day all ethnic Israel (based I suppose on the arbitrariness of God) will one day be saved, that the state of Israel will (I’m going to use a term nobody like because I don’t know how else to accurately express it) ‘forcibly’ be saved while the rest of the human race must come to believe ‘the hard way’ (i.e. without being forced into it) is absolutely foreign to the scriptures, to the Old Testament, to the New Testament to the belief of Judaism in between the Testaments and during the time of Christ and as in Paul. It is an abuse of the scriptures by way of ‘proof-texting’ as a result of placing our stock in current events then scouring the scriptures for some ‘proof’ that ‘such a such’ must be unfolding bible prophecy!

So will all Israel be saved? We must answer with a resounding YES; but then we must remind ourselves that not all Israel are Israel, but only those who are 'in Christ' or - to word it another way - those who have a 'covenantal' relationship with God.

No one is saved based on some type of arbitrary ethnic superiority! The scriptures do not teach this false dichtonomy. If you are 'in Christ' then you are a member of the Israel of God!

Just a thought

Derek

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Highlights on the New Perspective on Judaism

(Part 5: See Part: 1, 2, 3, 4)

Introduction:

The material covered by Sanders – in a well accomplished attempt to be thorough – is quite extensive and the issues, long. I have decided that since we could easily get bogged down in endless quotes and the such on numerous points, and eventually lose interest, that perhaps it is best to summarize without defense the issues I believe are most relevant to Sanders study.

Therefore, in order that we might be brief, I will summarize the issues in categories (below) with the following conclusion in mind: Sanders has discovered a basic unity among nearly all forms of first century Judaism(s) regarding the following subjects.

Covenantal Nomism:

I briefly defined covenantal nomism in the previous blog, but I believe an ancient rabbinic piece of literature further illustrates Sanders ‘covenant nomism’ with the following parable:

“I Am the Lord Thy God (Ex. 20:2). Why were the Ten Commandments not said at the beginning of the Torah? They give a parable. To what may this be compared? To the following: A king who entered a province said to the people: May I be your king? But the people said to him: Have you done anything good for us that you should rule over us? What did he do then? He built the city wall for them, he brought in the water supply for them, and he fought their battles. Then when he said to them: May I be your king? They said to him: Yes, yes. Likewise, God. He brought the Israelites out of Egypt, divided the sea for them, sent down the manna for them, brought up the well for them, brought the quails for them. He fought for them the battle with Amalek. Then he said to them: I am to be your king. And they said to Him: Yes, yes.” [p.86]

… “He continues: ‘Now just as you accepted my reign, you must also accept my decrees: ‘thou shalt not have other gods before me’’” [ibid]

As if the matter were not clear enough let me add: “‘When it says ‘I Am the Lord thy God’, it means this: Am I not he whose kingship you took upon yourselves at Sinai?’ When the Israelites answer affirmatively, God replies, ‘You have accepted my kingship, accept my ordinances’”. [p.85, see also p.93-94, 263, 422 etc]

And this is covenantal nomism, that God called them by grace, they accepted his lordship, he then gave them his ordinances and they willingly obey as a proper response to God, the king who did all he did for them.

Original Sin:

It seems important to acknowledge a crucial distinction between Judaism and Christianity (as if there aren’t several crucial distinctions?), unlike Christianity (at least since Augustine, via Paul), Judaism had no doctrine of ‘original sin’ [p.115]. For them, sin was simply defined as transgression of the Torah. Therefore, there was not a human ‘condition’ which required perfection in order to be ‘elected’ (or ‘saved’).

This is very important to the discussion at hand, and especially so when we begin to discuss how it relates to Paul: Salvation was based solely on ‘election’ and not on ‘justification’ for some universal human condition. Your place as one of God’s elect was not based on ‘justification’ or ‘righteousness’, but on whether or not you were ‘in’ Israel and thereby elected by the grace of God. As we’ll see in a moment, righteousness had a completely different roll in Judaism then it does in Christianity – which is where much of the confusion in the current debate seems to revolve around. [p.112-114 ff.]


Righteousness and Law in Judaism:

Closely connected to the fact that Judaism had no doctrine of original sin is that they therefore did not require ‘repentance’ as a means to join the people of God. As I already said, one became a member of the elect by being elected in grace, not by being good enough (works), nor by repenting for sins since “[h]uman perfection was not considered realistically achievable by the Rabbis, nor was it required” [p.137]. God did not choose you because you were perfect (righteous), neither did he need to make you 'righteous' to elect you, but because of his sovereign grace he elected you.

Repentance was important to the Jewish religion, but it was not status-achieving, rather it was status-maintaining [p.178]. That is, repentance was done only after one was ‘in’ or apart of the elect. Since obedient to the Torah was a natural response to being called and elected by Gods grace, it is only natural that when someone failed to be obedient to the law (i.e. transgressed the law) that they repent (i.e. said sorry and promise not to do it again).

This again, like we saw under ‘original sin’, is also closely connected to the Jewish doctrine of righteousness. It was not necessary for one to be perfect or righteous in order to join the covenant community of God, but after one becomes a member (by grace of course) they have the responsibility to abide by the Torah, and by this they confirm the covenant. Therefore, “[t]he righteous are not the sinless, but those who confirm the covenant” by their obedience to Torah [p.143, see also p.204-5, 312, 362, 368]

This is very important: Judaism did not teach that one had to be righteous (i.e. sinless) to belong to the covenant community of God, Paul, however does! Judaism did not teach that one was made righteous by the Torah in terms of salvation; it taught rather that one was made or remained righteous by the Torah only in terms of covenant maintenance, that is, it was how they stayed in the covenant, not how they got in the covenant. This is a crucial distinction and I believe it is key in understanding the debate on the New Perspective on Paul, and it may be key in deciphering the current debate between Piper and Wright.

Rewards/Punishments and Law in Judaism:

I just want to add a word here about Rewards and Punishment in Judaism. According to them, it seems that reward and punishment was dealt out by God both in this life and in the life to come based on works of the law. That is, even though one were a member of the elect, at the eschaton, one would be judged and rewards or punishment would be distributed according to their works. However, this was not an issue of salvation, but only of rewards and punishment (which remains vague, as they do in Christianity). Of course those outside the covenant will also be judged by their works, but will only receive punishment since they are not apart of the elect [p.107 ff.].

Salvation is based on election; rewards and punishment are based on works [p.181]. It is extremely noteworthy that Paul is in perfect agreement with Judaism on this point, as we shall see.

Atonement/Repentance:

Repentance in the Rabbis was considered so efficacious that a single act of repentance outweighed a lifetime of sin and disobedience [p.176]. But repentance – as stated above – was only necessary after one ‘gets saved’ (to use modern language).

As far as atonement goes; “the universally held view is this: God has appointed means of atonement for every transgression, except the intention to reject God and his covenant”. [p.157, italics added]

There is an interesting discussion of the Jewish use of ‘intention’ which I will not get into, except to summarize. Basically, with so many Jews living throughout the world, if it was not always possible to travel to Jerusalem and offer the appropriate atonement sacrifices, the ‘intention’ of the individual was efficacious enough that his/her sins would be covered. In Judaism it was believed that neither the Day of Atonement nor the act of sacrificial atonement actually had any mystical power in and of themselves, but rather it was God himself who made the atonement efficacious. [See p.142 ff. especially p.164 and 168, 180 ff.]

All Israel will be Saved

For a discussion on “All Israel will be Saved” and on Individual salvation within the covenant community, see the next blog. It is very interesting to observe Judaism on this point in light of Paul’s redefinition of “all Israel”.

What I will say here is that Judaism taught (in agreement with Paul) that though all Israel will be saved, not all Israel (i.e. national, ethnic Israelites) are Israel, but that there was an Israel in Israel. God elected Israel (the group), but the individual Israelite still had the responsibility of 'status-maintenance', as stated, there was no sacrifice that could keep someone 'in' Israel who's intention was against God and his ordinances (eg. wicked Ahab, etc.).

“The explicit statement that ‘all Israelites have a share in the world to come’ appears in Sanhedrin 10:1” [p.147, 361, 369-71], but is also extremely prominent among the Essence Community (i.e. Dead Sea Scrolls).

Conclusion: I have attempted to summarize the prominent points in Sanders work which I believe are relevant, and to define some of the main terms and ideas (such as 'righteousness' in Judaism), whether or not I succeeded, I don't know, but soon I will bottom-line all of this and illustrate how I think it works and how it contrasted (or agreed) with Christian soteriology.

Stay tuned,

Derek

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Sanders and Covenantal Nomism

(Part 4 - See Part: 1, 2, 3)

Law in Grace, Grace in Law

Before we begin it is important to define what is meant when referencing ‘Judaism’ or ‘first century Jewish religion’ and other similar terms. It is often said that there is no such thing as ‘a’ Jewish religion since there were so many different and opposing sects in Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducee's, Essence, and Zealots etc). Since this is the case can we in any way refer to ‘a’ first century Jewish religion? Sanders says, “To the frequent assertions that there are many Judaisms in the Palestine of the period studied, one can reply ‘yes’ or ‘no’, depending on just what is meant. There were obviously different groups and different theologies on numerous points. But there appears to have been more in common than just the name ‘Jew’”, such as their unanimous voice – if somewhat tweaked on various points – of their doctrine of salvation. [p. 423 – all page references in this blog are from Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism ©1977].

So when discussing first century Jewish religion I am speaking with our conclusion in mind – that they are generally agreed on the subject of soteriology.

Let me begin then by summarizing that the ‘pre-70’s’ interpretation of Judaism (as illustrated in the previous blog) was believed to be a works for salvation religion, i.e. a legalistic religion: “The legalistic conception of mans relationship with God led to the view that at the judgment all of one’s works would be counted and weighed, the verdict on a man’s fate being determined by the balance of merits verses demerits” [p.45].

Contrary to this pre-70’s understanding of Judaism stands Sanders observation of what he has coin ‘covenantal nomism’: “Covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression” [p.75].

So while the old interpretation of Judaism was that one had to be more then 51% obedient to the commandments of God to be saved (i.e. works based religion or legalism), Sanders interpretation is that one is saved on account of being ‘in’ the covenant, and obedience to the law of the covenant is expected, but when one does transgress the law there is a way to atone for those sins. Thus one is not ‘in’ the covenant by obeying the law; rather one is elected (i.e. grace) to be ‘in’ the covenant and therefore expected to be obedient. The difference – subtle but of the utmost importance – is how one becomes ‘in’ the covenant.

Yet anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Judaism in the first century will note how precise and overly concerned they were regarding every detail of the law. So the question becomes; if they taught salvation by election, and not by works of the law, then why were they so concerned about every minute detail of the law? After quoting the midrash extensively Sanders concludes: “The reason for defining the commandments so precisely is to be able to do what God enjoined. The reason for doing what God enjoined is that he dwells with his people” and again he concludes further: “Why are the commandments so narrowly defined and the mode of fulfillment so thoroughly discussed? Because keeping the commandments is Israel’s response to the God who has chosen them, who has made a covenant with them, and who dwells with them – even when they are not perfectly obedient” [p.82].

There is a Christian sermon somewhere in all of this, for the Christian can (should) certainly be able to relate. Jesus said bluntly, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” [John 14:23]. And so if we love God – Father and Son in this text – and if we are thankful for the ‘exodus’ of the cross, we will show our appreciation quite naturally by striving to be obedient to what Jesus commanded, and of course the bottom line – the engine that drives redemption history both in Judaism and in Christianity – is that – as the midrash says – the ‘Shekinah dwells’ in their midst, or – as the Jesus put it – that God (i.e. Jesus and the Father) will make their ‘home with him’.

So their concern for the law was not unto salvation but onto relationship; that is, if they have a covenantal relationship with the God who delivered them and called them into relationship with himself, and if this holy God dwells among them, then obedience to his commandments is only a proper response. It is not a means of getting ‘in’, but rather it is how one lives when one is ‘in’.

Thus Sanders observation he coined ‘covenantal nomism’ is that they had a covenantal relationship with God (i.e. grace) which called for obedience to his laws (i.e. nomos, gr. ‘law’).

In a sense Christianity is also a covenantal nomistic religion (John 14:23 above), that is, it is a religion of grace, called and elected by God, and as a proper (natural) response to the called who elected us and died for us (exodus) we obey his "teaching".

When I say, "in Christ", I mean it in this fashion: that those who are "in" Christ and those who have entered a covenantal relationship with God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth (cf. Gen. 1:1-3; John 1:1-14; 2 Cor. 4:6; Col. 1:15-23)

Derek

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Qualifications on Sanders

(Part 3 - See Part: 1, 2)


Following our study from the previous blog, before I try to make any attempt at summarizing Sanders argument, I must add here at least one very large qualification: it has become evident to me that I am held hostage to the mercy of the work and nature of Sanders study. That is, I do not have access to either Rabbinic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Apocryphal/Pseudepigrapha of the period of and before Christ; furthermore, even if I did have access to this wide body of literature I would not be able to access them in their original language! And even if I did have access to them and if I understood the original language my primary interest lay in Biblical, not Rabbinical, studies. I am only interested in this study insofar as it relates to and shines light on the context of Christ and his Message. Therefore I am wholly dependant upon Sanders, on the specific material he references and the such, without the means to “verify” and cross-check the context of his work.

What this means is that when Sanders quotes a certain Rabbi I am compelled to trust that he has quoted accurately, that he has not taken the said Rabbi out of context and that he has not ‘ignored’ other Rabbi’s who might disprove his thesis. This does not mean, however, that I must accept the conclusions which he has drawn from the material he has referenced, for indeed to that my response is that I have my own mind.

So then the question becomes: can I trust Sanders work? The answer I believe is yes and the reason is due to scholarship support since the 70’s of Sanders thesis of first century Judaism. However, I am not so blind as to assume that just because the majority support a view that I must agree also (if I were, I would on the one hand join the bazillions of people who have accepted Tim Lahey’s caricature of the End Times exemplified in his novel series ‘Left Behind’, and on the other hand, wholly accept Darwinian evolution and the ridiculous notion of a ‘Big Bang’). However, there is something to be said about the fact that Sanders study has literally altered (it seems to me) an entire generation of scholarship, but what is most interesting is that many of those who accepted his thesis regarding the generally accepted first century Jewish doctrine of soteriology, are also those who have rejected his conclusions regarding the affect of this study on Paul (i.e. the New Perspective on Paul) which adds credibility to his work and is a testament to his reliability.

For these reasons primarily I accept Sanders work as reliable, until or unless I read other scholars to the contrary, and only if they can be more convincing. Furthermore, I have concluded most of Paul and Palestinian Judaism, the major sections regarding the wide body of literature in Palestine from 200 bce to 200 ce, and have been persuaded that the ‘official’ religion of Judaism was in fact a ‘grace based religion’ (which I believe is in keeping with Old Testament soteriology) and not a religion that taught ‘works righteousness’. However, I am not convinced that the ‘official religion’ was properly understand and practiced by the average Jew. It’s the difference between the orthodox Christian doctrine of sin nature (Augustinian) and the common unorthodox Christian practice of Semi-Pelagianism (especially among Pentecostals – see Olson, Arminian Theology ©2006, and see also Alan Jacobs, Original Sin, ©2008).

Now then, having acknowledged my weakness in this area – and I believe also my justification for moving forward – let us turn to the question: Was first century Judaism ‘officially’ a religion of ‘justification by works’ or ‘justification by grace’?

Followers