Evaluating
the New Perspective on Paul (14)
“Justification
and a Final Judgment According to Works” (Part One)
In
the course of our exposition of the new perspective on Paul, we noted the important
role played by E. P. Sanders' treatment of Second Temple Judaism. According to
Sanders, the Judaism of the apostle Paul's day taught and practiced a pattern
of religion that he terms “covenantal nomism.” Covenantal nomism regards the
covenant relationship between the Lord and His people, Israel, to be one based
upon sovereign election and grace. Contrary to the assumptions of traditional
Protestantism regarding the occasion for the apostle Paul's teaching on
justification, the new perspective argues that Second Temple Judaism did not
teach a kind of Pelagian moralism or works righteousness religion. Not only did
the Judaism of Paul's day teach that entrance into covenant with the Lord
depends upon His gracious initiative and promise, but it also acknowledged the
need for the Lord's continued gracious pro- vision of forgiveness and atonement
for sin. Works performed in obedience to the law were necessary to “maintain” a
covenant member's place within the covenant community. But they were never thought
to “merit” the Lord's favor or to serve as the basis for the covenant
relationship itself. Works performed
in obedience to the law of God were indispensable to “maintain” the covenant
relationship, but were not viewed as the basis for “entrance” into the
covenant.
One
interesting question that this understanding of covenantal nomism poses is that
of the role of works in the present maintenance as well as future or
eschatological vindication of those who belong to the covenant community.
Though Sanders, as we acknowledged previously, may have demonstrated that
Second Temple Judaism was not “Pelagian” (to speak anachronistically) in its
view of how one enters into the covenant, his
assessment of Second Temple Judaism still leaves unanswered the question whether
it was not “semi-Pelagian” in its understanding of how the covenant is
maintained.
If works play an
indispensable role in the maintenance of the covenant relationship and in the
final vindication of those who belong to the covenant community, the specter of
a doctrine of justification by works still remains. As we have seen, according
to writers of the new perspective, the doctrine of justification is principally
an answer to the question, who belongs to the covenant family of God? However,
God's gracious initiative in establishing the covenant does not secure or
guarantee the covenant member's maintenance or future inheritance of the
covenant's promises. The pattern of religion characteristic of Second Temple
Judaism is one of “entrance” by grace and “maintenance” by works. Put in terms
of the language of justification, this means that belonging to the covenant
people of God is partly by grace and partly by works. Justification, which
according to the new perspective means belonging to the covenant community,
remains an unfinished matter, since continued member- ship in the covenant
community requires that members of the covenant persevere in the way of
obedience to the law. Such obedience to the law, accordingly, would not only
maintain but also finally constitute the ground for the covenant member's
future justification or acquittal.
It
is not surprising to find, therefore, that among proponents of the new
perspective, there are those who draw a connection between Paul's doctrine of
justification and a future or “final” justification. This future or final phase
in the justification of those who believe in Christ is related to the apostle
Paul's understanding of the final judgment. Since this final judgment clearly
is a judgment “according to works,” it seems that the justification of
believers has at least three distinct phases, a past, a present, and a future.
N. T. Wright, for example, argues that justification in Paul's perspective
occurs in three tenses or stages. The present justification of the covenant
community is founded upon “God's past accomplishment in Christ, and anticipates
the final verdict.” In the past event of Christ's cross and resurrection, God
has accomplished in history something that anticipates what He will do at the
end of history, namely, vindicate or justify His people for whom Christ acted
as the “representative Messiah of Israel.” Through faith believers are united
with Christ and become participants and beneficiaries of this past event.
Baptism, which is the event in the present that incorporates believers into the
covenant community, effects this present justification or participation in
Christ, and at the same time anticipates the resurrection of believers in the
future. According to Wright, the future justification of believers, which will
occur in the context of the final judgment, represents the ultimate completion
of the believer's justification. This future justification will be on the basis
of the whole life of faith.
These
features of the new perspective's view of justification in relation to the
final judgment and vindication of those who be- long to the covenant community
require our consideration of the question of the relation between justification
and the final judgment. Since the final judgment is closely linked to the works
performed by those who are judged, it naturally raises the question of what
this means for our under- standing of justification. This is not a new
question, of course, since it played an important role in the context of
sixteenth century debates regarding justification. One of the principal
objections of the Roman Catholic Church to the reformational view of
justification by faith alone was that it failed to do justice to the biblical
theme of a final acquittal before God that would be based upon works. Since
justification and final judgment are judicial acts, which involve the
pronouncement of a verdict by God as Judge, the place of works in the setting
of the final judgment inescapably compels the question whether the doctrine of
justification “by faith alone” adequately summarizes the apostle Paul's
teaching. Does the justification of believers require a final phase or
“completion,” which will be determined by the works of those who are justified?
And, does this mean that the justification of believers is, in the final
analysis, based upon faith plus works? We will seek to answer these
questions next month.
Dr.
Cornelis P. Venema is the President of Mid-America Reformed Seminary where he
also teaches Doctrinal Studies. Dr. Venema is a contributing editor to The Outlook.
This
article, with the others in this series, is used by the gracious permission of
Dr. Venema and The Outlook, edited by Wybren Oord