(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
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
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment