Download Covenantal Nomism

The New Perspective on Paul
Dr. David P. Teague
In 1977, E. P. Sanders published an influential book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. In it
he argues that Protestants have misinterpreted the nature of Palestinian Judaism since
the time of the Reformation. A new interpretation is needed, Sanders says, based on
what he calls “covenantal nomism.” Sanders research is important because it sparked
an important new movement in biblical studies called the “New Perspective on Paul.”
The purpose of this paper is to briefly explain the New Perspective and to offer a fresh
interpretation of the biblical data.
Introduction to the New Perspective
According to the classic Protestant view, Palestinian Jews kept the Law to make
themselves right with God. But Sanders argues that this is not a correct understanding.
As the chosen people of the covenant, Palestinian Jews would have already considered
themselves to be in a grace relationship with God. They kept the Law, not to earn God’s
grace, but to remain within the covenant.
Sanders developed the phrase “covenantal nomism” to describe his theory. (“Nomism”
comes from nomos, the Greek word for law.) Covenantal nomism is the view that
Palestinian Jews had a covenantal relationship of grace with God marked by keeping the
Law.
This is a very important development in biblical scholarship. What Sanders is claiming,
and many other leading scholars are now asserting as well, is that covenantal nomism is
a more faithful rendering of the original source material for Palestinian Judaism and that
we should reinterpret Paul in the light of this evidence.
The Weakness of the New Perspective
Although the New Perspective has made a valuable contribution in our understanding of
Palestinian Judaism, it runs into inconsistencies when it attempts to reinterpret Paul.
It does this when it assumes that Paul must have been a covenantal nomist. This
contradicts Paul himself, who clearly teaches that the basis of our salvation is the
imputed righteousness of Christ, not adherence to a covenant, as we see in 2 Cor 5:21
and Phil 3:9 (see also Rom 3:21-28):
2 Cor 5:21
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us,
so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Phil 3:9
… not having a righteousness of my own that
comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ –
the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
New Perspective scholars do not adequately explain these verses. Neither do they
successfully explain what Paul was attacking within Judaism. If Paul was a covenantal
1
nomist, then what made him so upset? The answers from New Perspective scholars are
inconsistent and non-persuasive. Until New Perspective scholars explain these matters,
they have not succeeded in their radical redefinition of Paul.
Another weakness of the New Perspective has been in its application to pastoral
theology. Auburn Avenue theology, named for a church, affirms that Paul was a
covenantal nomist and all Christians should be as well. Under this theology, distinct
conversion is not necessary for salvation, just faithfulness to a covenantal life within
one’s own church. Such a view raises serious questions about evangelism.
A Fresh Approach to the Biblical Data
As a reinterpretation of Palestinian Judaism, the New Perspective helps us to
understand the world in which Paul made his arguments. Covenantal nomism apparently
did exist among many Palestinian Jews, but this does not mean that Paul was a
covenantal nomist. The evidence is quite the opposite: his strident arguments against his
fellow Jews was actually an attack on covenantal nomism.
The evidence that Paul was attacking, and not affirming, covenantal nomism comes from
Romans 4.
There, Paul mentions the covenant of circumcision found in Genesis 17. Paul appears to
be describing how the Palestinian Jews of his time conceived of their relationship with
God. They felt their covenant had obligations, notably circumcision. Sanders picks this
up and calls it “covenantal nomism.”
In Romans 4, however, Paul also mentions God’s prior covenant with Abraham in
Genesis 15. That covenant was without covenantal obligations. Although Paul
acknowledges the covenant of circumcision, he does not make it the basis of faith.
Instead, he looks to the prior covenant of Genesis 15 as the basis of salvation.
In the context of the ancient Near East, the Genesis 17 covenant was a Suzerain
Covenant – a covenant made by a suzerain, or great king, which imposed covenantal
duties. The covenant of Genesis 15 was a Royal Grant Covenant — an unconditional
grant by a king without any covenantal duties imposed.
In Romans 4, Paul clearly bases salvation on the Royal Grant Covenant. This proves
that he was not a covenantal nomist. If Paul had been, he would have made the
Suzerain Covenant of Genesis 17 as the basis of salvation. He also would have imposed
circumcision on his male Gentile converts.
Faith: Based on Grace, Received in Humility
Paul’s perspective is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Although the Hebrew nation
enjoyed a covenant relationship to God, each individual needed to walk humbly with God.
They were not just to keep laws; they were to know the living God. God called them to
repentence, not just observance (Cf. Jeremiah 7:22-24, Isaiah 55, Amos 5:18-24, Micah
6:8).
2
The prophet Jeremiah warned about those who lived under the covenant yet were
unrepentant. He called such people arrogant and boastful (Jeremiah 9:23-24). Paul
builds on Jeremiah’s words when he repeatedly warns about the “boastful” — those who
lack spiritual brokenness before God (Romans 3:27, 1 Corinthians 1:26-31, 3:21,
Ephesians 2:9).
Similarly, Jesus challenged the arrogance of the Pharisees. The Parable of the Pharisee
and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) depicts a Pharisee who kept the law like a good
covenantal nomist, yet he failed to repent like the tax collector in the story.
Repeatedly in the Old Testament, God judged Israel and distinguished the arrogant from
the true, faithful remnant. Similarly, Paul recognized that the coming of the Messiah was
a divine event that sifted the nation. Those who responded to Christ were the faithful
remnant who proved that they belonged to God (cf. Luke 2:25, 2:36-38, Romans 9-11).
Those who rejected Christ showed what was truly in their hearts, despite their
adherence to the covenantal law.
Conclusion
In the past, the common understanding was that Palestinian Jews were all legalists who
kept the Law to make themselves right with God. While this may have been true for
some, the New Perspective at least opens the possibility that many Palestinian Jews
kept the Law as a way of remaining under God’s covenant.
In saying this, the New Perspective makes an important contribution to biblical
scholarship. But it then fails to acknowledge how Palestinian Jews sometimes used their
covenantal performances to hide from the living God, just as Paul once did.
They were hiding from God because they had failed to acknowledge who Christ was.
Those who rejected Christ proved that they were not right with God, despite their
covenantal observances.
So, it’s not that the Jews were trying to make themselves right with God. It’s that they
had rejected the Righteous One — Christ — and were using their covenantal nomism to
hide from God. This is the main point of Paul’s arguments. He urges his fellow Jews not
to persist in their arrogance but instead to humbly receive the grace of God found in
Christ.
3