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