A view from a notebook #4
James Dunn on E.P. Sanders; that is to say, the guy who coined the phrase the ‘New Perspective’ on the guy who kicked it all into gear:
He demonstrated that Judaism has always been first and foremost a religion of grace, with human obedience understood as a response to that grace. The covenant had been given by divine initiative, and the law provided the framework for life within the covenant. Doing the law was a means of staying in the covenant, not of getting into it in the first place.
- James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 338
What is first striking is my utter agreement with the first two sentences. True Old Testament Judaism should be a religion of grace and the covenant is intended to be followed by faith. It is the Law which provides the framework for covenant life and it again is intended to be followed/participated in by faith and grace. The covenant is itself a gift of divine grace. Of course it is! Sanders is bang on in all of this; this is of course the prime site of continuity with Christianity, in that nothing here has changed. It is very helpful for Sanders and others to’ve reminded the Church of that if it had forgotten (’though I doubt it had), otherwise we will not correctly imagine the relationship between the Testaments or the pattern of Christ throughout salvation history.
Of course, that isn’t what they were trying to remind us of.
This is where we begin to differ: 1) Popular Judaism of Paul’s time was broadly a) unfaithful and outside its covenant agreement because b) it was legalistic, following a righteousness of works and not grace which we know c) because Paul tells us it was. 2) Doing the law is absolutely not a means of staying in the covenant. Every monergistic reformed bone in my body would revolt and attempt to strangle me if I tried to claim it were. Doing the law is a sign of covenant membership, yes, but not one which establishes it prior to entering in; neither is it possible to leave the covenant as covenant membership is itself a thing of grace.
Dunn goes on to quote Sanders on the term ‘covenantal nomism’:
[C]ovenantal 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. … Obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such. … Righteousness in Judaism is a term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect.
Sanders quoted in Dunn, 338-339
See above for criticisms. I’ve already covered the bases. It makes no sense to maintain one’s status amongst the elect - if one is elect then one cannot become unelect unless God can all-of-a-sudden change his mind. My immutable, that is: unchanging; sovereign, that is: the King of heaven who does as he pleases; God, that is: knows everything before the creation of the world, doesn’t make mistakes and is perfectly happy in the unity of the Trinity; yeah, HIM, he doesn’t elect people he doesn’t mean to. Even if that made sense, which it really doesn’t, God wouldn’t be doing it, and his word says that he doesn’t do it.
So I think I can put Open Theism at the bottom of Sanders’ slippery slope, too. It’s a merry little theological pickle we’re developing down there.
Now, I realise that they aren’t espousing all the conclusions I’m drawing from their work - but I’m relatively sure that it always leads in that direction. Most things seem to that aren’t Biblical Christianity. Dan Phillips would be proud.
Explore posts in the same categories: Theology, Imputation, NPP