Sanders: Contrasting Paul and Judaism

Sanders on Paul

[Part 6: See Part: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

I want to conclude my study of Sanders – which deals specifically with Pauline theology – the same way I concluded the portion of his book on Judaism – by highlighting his conclusions. Of particular interest to Sanders study is to contrast Paul with the Jewish theology of the first century.

The Heart of Paul’s Theology

One of the main points Sanders labors to make is that while Reformed doctrine teaches that the center of Paul’s theology is the doctrine of Righteousness in Faith Alone, in actuality Paul’s central element is the doctrine of participation, ‘in Christ’. He says: “as long as one takes the central theme in Paul’s gospel to be ‘righteousness in faith alone’, one misses the significance of the realism with which Paul thought of incorporation in the body of Christ, and consequently the heart of his theology” [p.434].

Sanders appeals to another writer who has revealed several reasons why the phrase ‘righteousness in faith alone’ cannot be Paul’s’ central doctrine: 1) The phrase always only appears in Romans and Galatians wherever the controversy over the Law has to be dealt with, and even then – “very significantly” – only when the scriptural argument is based on the uncircumcised Abraham. 2) The phrase always appears in connection to Paul’s doctrine of ‘in Christ’. 3) Paul does not connect it to the other blessings of redemption such as the possession of the Spirit and the resurrected life. 4) Closely connected to point three, Paul has no use for the phrase ‘righteousness in faith alone’ when discussing ethics, baptism or the Lords Supper; ethics, for example, Paul discusses in relation to dying and raising with Christ (i.e. ‘in Christ’), he does not appeal to ‘righteousness by faith’ when exhorting his audience to live godly lives – again, enforcing the hypothesis that ‘righteousness in faith alone’ is not central to Paul’ theology [p.439].

Further to reinforce this hypothesis that ‘righteousness in faith alone’ is not central to Paul’ theology, Sanders appeals to his (Paul’) polemic against ‘works of the law’. Sanders shows in chart form [p.493] that the phrase ‘righteousness in faith alone’ by no means had a monopoly on his arguments against the law. On the contrary, many other phrases were used, aside from the familiar ‘righteousness by faith not by works of the law’ (Gal. 216) – i.e. Spirit… by faith… not by works of the law {Gal. 3:1-5); sons of Abraham by faith (3:7); blessed by Abraham by faith (3:9); promise of the Spirit by faith [not by works of the law] (3:14); etc. etc. Faith then – not ‘righteousness’ – is the foundation of Paul’ argument against works of the Law; you received the Spirit by faith, not by works of the Law, etc. In other words, you were saved, i.e. in Christ, by faith, and in so being, you were justified, Spirit possessed, crucified and raised with Christ and the such. The point being, ‘righteousness’ is only one of many that characterize a person’s status ‘in Christ’, it is not the central element, but only one of many.

Paul’s Usage of the Word-Group ‘Righteous’

Of further importance in Sanders is that the word-group of ‘to be justified’, ‘righteous’, and the such, did not have just one meaning in Paul. On the contrary Paul uses the ‘righteous’ word-group in several different ways:

“The righteousness of man is his uprightness before God with regard to his works (2:13) or the right relationship with God which is received by faith and not by law (4:11), being ‘justified’ or ‘made righteousness’ is the acquittal achieved by Christ’s death (5:9f., 18), or the possibility of salvation achieved by Christ’s resurrection in contrast to the acquittal of trespasses achieved by his death (4:25). It agrees with this that in general ‘righteousness’ is sometimes the forensic status of being justified (sanctified) from transgression so that one may then have life (5:1, 9) and sometimes simply the equivalent of life. In other terms righteousness may be either past, (5:1, 9) or future (2:13; Gal 5:5). Righteousness by faith in other words, is not any one doctrine.” [491-92]

Furthermore, ‘Righteousness’ is used in the sense of being ‘cleansed’ from sin [I Cor 6:9-11]; it is also used synonymously to being reconciled from past sins [Rom.5:6-9; 8:30]. Therefore justification is a reference to the intermediate state between being an enemy to God and the future state of glorification. The verb of justification is also used once in the sense of being ‘set from’ from sin (Rom. 6:7, cf. vs.18). So the family group of ‘justification’ is used by Paul (according to Sanders) in three ways: to be cleansed from sin; to be reconciled from past sins and to be set free from the power and enslavement of sin” [p.471-472].

(As an interesting side note: it seems Sanders holds – as the interpretive arching scheme of the atonement – to the view of Christus Victor; p.445 – 448 ff.)

Paul and Covenantal Nomism:

Sanders goes to great length (Section 5, Chapter V) to show that Paul did not hold to a Covenant Nomism “pattern of religion”, he says:

“The heart of Paul’s thought is not that one ratifies and agrees to a covenant offered by God, becoming a member of a group with a covenantal relation with God and remaining in it on the condition of proper behavior; but that one dies with Christ, obtaining new life and the initial transformation which leads to the resurrection and ultimate transformation, that one is a member of the body of Christ, and one Spirit with him, and that one remains so unless one breaks the participatory union by forming another.” [p.514]

The reference to breaking the union with Christ by “forming another” is in reference to becoming an idolater. According to Sanders, the only way to break the union of being ‘in Christ’ is by forming another union with something or someone else. Unlike Judaism which taught that one remained in the covenant by obeying the Torah and thus being righteous, Paul teaches that one remains in Christ by not giving oneself over to another.

Sanders concludes that this is “one of the major conclusions of the study: Paul’s ‘patter of religion’ cannot be described as ‘covenantal nomism’, and therefore Paul presents an essentially different type of religion from any found in Palestinian Jewish literature.” [p.543 – italics original]

I want to note here that I am not convinced of Sanders conclusion on this point. If – even in Paul – Christ is seen as being the climax of the covenants (as Wright shows), and if Jesus was the true answer to the problem of creation in the way that Israel was meant to be, yet they failed, then to be ‘in Christ’ – as Sanders understands Paul’s central doctrine to be – is to be ‘in Israel’, that is, to be in the True Israel. Christ did in point of fact declare a New Covenant, one that superseded the previous covenants because while the old covenants pointed to Gods answer to a corrupted creation, Christ himself was the fulfillment of those covenants. And if in Judaism, as Sanders contends, the dominant covenantal idea was that one was elected on the basis of being ‘in Israel’ (something Pharisee Paul no doubt would have known all too well), then it seems to me that while ‘righteousness’ had a different function in Paul then it did in Judaism, nonetheless, Paul’s doctrine of being ‘in Christ’ is very much a covenantal concept. To be ‘in Christ’ is to essentially accept the New Covenant he offered by his death and resurrection “that one dies with Christ, obtaining new life and the initial transformation which leads to the resurrection and ultimate transformation” as Sander says. I understand this concept to be very covenantal. But is it ‘nomistic’? We shall see below that I believe it is.

Paul: Righteousness by Works?

In quoting Romans 2:12-16 and commenting on verse 13 (“For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified”) Sanders observes: “If there is any passage in Paul that is aberrant, it is Rom. 2:12-16, but not because it mentions judgment on the basis of works. The curiosity is rather that it mentions righteousness by works, which Paul otherwise insists must be by faith and not by works” [p.516 f]. The solution to this problem seems to be in the word “will” – future tense. So there is a strong sense in which justification is a future declaration based on the works of a person while the present declaration of justification is based on the grace of God which comes by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9). So in Romans 2:13 the word group of ‘to justify’ is in reference to the question of punishment and not to one of being saved as it usually is in Paul.

Sanders finds this point very interesting (as do I) that on the very “point which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism – grace and works – Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism. There are two aspects of the relationship between grace and works: salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works; works are the condition of remaining ‘in’, but they do not earn salvation” [p.543 – italics original]

If this is Sanders conclusion of the place of works within Paul then I must conclude that Paul’s ‘pattern of religion’ is very much ‘covenantal nomistic’. That is, I argued above that to be ‘in Christ’ is to accept the New Covenant Christ offers and thereby participating in his death and new life (as Sanders emphasis’) but that ‘works are the condition of remaining ‘in’’ Christ as Sanders shows above. Is this not the very definition of ‘covenantal nomism? Sanders should know; he’s the one who coined the phrase and then gave it its definition: “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]. In other words, that one’s place in God’s redemptive scheme is based on God’s grace and election, but that works are the natural response of those ‘in’ that relationship and are necessary to remain ‘in’.

Therefore in my opinion it can be shown that – based on Sanders definition – Paul’s ‘pattern of religion’ can be described as ‘covenantal nomism’ and so I disagree with Sanders here. However, it is interesting to note that according to Sanders, “Paul’s view [of supposedly rejecting a covenantal nomism ‘pattern of religion’] could hardly be maintained, and it was not maintained. Christianity rapidly became a new covenantal nomism” [p.552].

Contrasting ‘Righteousness’: Judaism and Paul

This is perhaps one of the most important aspects of Sanders study in light of the debate that has since erupted as evidenced by Pipers book The Future of Justification and Wrights forthcoming response simply titled Justification.

The key to unlocking this debate is in the use or application of terms! As I’ve said before and will again emphasis here: The term ‘righteousness’ had a completely different function in Judaism then it does in Paul. Until one can grasp this concept (as I have gone to great pains to carefully explain to a fellow blogger on another site who failed on every point to understand this) the cloud fogging the issues surrounding this debate will never go away.

As a matter of fact I’m not sure Piper feels the weight of this exegetical principle. In a little foot note on the bottom of page 36 [Future of Justification] he actually belittles this principle by stating – contra to Wright – that it is the words themselves that are most important, not how they are employed. In doing this Piper – an experienced and influential theologian of sorts – commits the fallacy of eisgesis, of interpreting into the text what he wants the words to mean rather than pulling out of the text what the words were intended to mean. I feel it adds weight here to the fact that Piper must know that he in doing so is committing a fallacy that will mislead his fans and that D.A. Carson – someone I would consider to be akin to Piper – on another subject acknowledges this principle in favor of Wright and contra Piper! [See Carson’s Becoming Conversant, p.116ff].

Now without further ado, here is the distinction as the New Perspective sees it:

“To be righteous in Jewish literature means to obey the Torah and to repent of transgressions, but in Paul it means to be saved by Christ. Most succinctly, righteousness in Judaism is a term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect; in Paul it is a transfer term. In Judaism, that is, commitment to the covenant puts one ‘in’, while obedience (righteousness) subsequently keeps one in. In Paul’s usage, ‘be made righteous’ (‘be justified’) is a term indicating getting in, not staying in the body of the saved. Thus when Paul says that one cannot be made righteous by works of the law, he means that one cannot, by works of the law, ‘transfer to the body of the saved’. When Judaism said that one is righteous who obeys the law, the meaning is that one thereby stays in the covenant. The debate about righteousness by faith or by works of law thus turns out to result from the different usage of the ‘righteous’ word-group” [Sanders, p.544]

I could not have summarized it better myself, so there you have it, the distinction between the use of the word “righteous” in Judaism and its most common use in Paul.

Conclusion:

Paul and Judaism Disagree: Covenantal Nomism

• 
  
  Judaism: Patter of Religion – Covenant Nomism


• 
  
  Paul: Patter of Religion – Participation; it’s all about dying and rising with Christ

Paul and Judaism Agree: Grace and Works

• 
  
  Judaism: Judgment and rewards based on works while salvation based on grace.


• 
  
  Paul: Same as Judaism – Judgment and rewards based on works while salvation based on grace.

Paul and Judaism Disagree: Application of the word group “righteous”

• 
  
  Judaism: Righteousness – relates specifically to remaining in the covenant by doing good works.


• 
  
  Paul: Righteous word-group – has a wide range of applications but mostly relates to getting saved.

It must be remembered that Sanders study was not called 'the New Perspective on Paul', and to while - obviously - I see and finally understand - I think - the distinctions which Sanders study has drawn, I as yet do not see how it changes (or even if it changes!) Paul's doctrine of righteousness by faith alone and not by works of the law. While I do see a repositioning of this doctrine from the Reformed understanding of its' central place to being subservient to Paul's doctrine of participation (i.e 'in Christ' language). This does not in my mind remove the doctrine of righteousness by faith alone - properly understood and articulated.

Several years after Sanders book Paul and Palestinian Judaism was published ('77) another highly acclaimed scholar, James Dunn, wrote a book around 1983 titled The New Perspective on Paul. While this edition is no longer available, a updated edition has been published 2008 containing several essays between those dates and with a new introductory chapter (some say worth the price of the book itself) responding to his critics. Since the essays in this book began to be published soon after Sanders', and since the very phrase of which this perspective was refered was coined by Dunn, there then seems to be the most obvious next book to study as I try to understand the issue and contentions.

Until then continue to grow and be challenged in your faith.

Derek