Covenant in Judaism

I've been reading through Mark Elliott's The Survivors of Israel (sadly Mark died a couple of years ago) about covenant in Judaism. In chapter six he points to two hypothetical extremes in Judaism in regard to covenant as either unconditional and inviolable, or as conditional, legal, and individualistic. The former views the covenant as static and nationalistic, while the latter is potentially dynamic and universalistic. There are a spectrum of possibilities between both and Elliott rejected E.P. Sanders' view of covenant as inviolable (esp. Sanders' appeal to m.Sanh 10.1). since in the literature surveyed (DSS, 1-2 Macc, Pseudepigrapha) "by far the dominant view of covenant among these groups was the conditional, individual, dynamic, and dualistic" variety. Elliott's work has not received the attention that it deserved!

Adam and Christ in Covenant Theology - Part II

In looking over some very thoughtful comments in my earlier post on Adam/Christ in Covenant Theology I need to make a few follow-up remarks.

1. I think Covenant remains a very useful unifying tool, especially when tied to eschatology and christology, for elucidating and the overarching meta-narrative of the biblical storyline. But this needs to be done with care so that the biblical covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, New Covenant) are not flattened out to make way for covenants attributed to the eternal divine decisions to provide salvation through Christ.

2. There clearly was an Adamic arrangement (call it a covenant, dispensation, or administration as ever you please), and Adam was created for immortality and Eden was a foretaste of that paradisal state. There was something interim and provisional about the Edenic state. There is also a clear link to the task given to Adam and that given to Israel as being Lords and Masters of God's creation. So I am happy conceptually with a covenant of works/covenant of creation, if you will, as long as we don't read into it a law/gospel antithesis and then project that antithesis further along into the life of Jesus, where Jesus becomes a heavenly frequently-flyer traveller who gives us his bonus points. Likewise, to follow one commentator, yes, Jesus takes us forward to the new Jerusalem which is an eschatological Eden (a la Greg Beale).

3. I probably should mention (thanks to John Davies for reminding me) the work of William Dumbrell which is most informative on this subject, esp. his works Covenant and Creation and The Search for Order.

The New Covenant - Guest Post by Bill Dumbrell

I am glad to include a guest post by Bill Dumbrell on "the New Covenant" which I hope will inform many of the work that Bill has done in the past in this subject and arouse the attention of others to the significance of "covenant" for biblical theology.

- MB

The New Covenant

The New Covenant of Luke 22:20 was Jesus' only significant interpretation of the purpose of his death, fulfilling by his resurrection the prophetic expectations of a revived Israel (cf. Ezek 36:25-27, Ezek 37:1-14 and Ezek 37:14-28 with John 3 and 4). In the construction of NT theology, we must give major weight to Jesus' action. Like the intersecting covenants of the OT (see my publications, 1984, 2002) we might expect the significance of the New Covenant to control the future of the revived Israel of Acts 2 (see my Romans 2005 and, published in Australia, Galatians and John).

The onset of the New Covenant meant the full implementation of God's undertaking to Noah (Gen 6:18) to maintain his covenanted purposes for the New Creation (Gen 1:26-28; Gen 2 - see Dumbrell 2002). I note that the use of heqim berit (Gen 6:18a) in the OT always points to maintenance, not commencement. Moreover, Gen 6:18b with 6:18a indicates that the salvation of Noah is that maintenance of purpose for creation. 'Covenant' from Gen 6:18a onwards becomes the language by which God's promise structure for history proceeds. That a divine intention to bring to a conclusion the work commenced with creation should be given the title of 'covenant' should not surprise. Biblical covenants are divine promises unilaterally imposed, firmly backed by covenant arrangement.

Jeremiah's New Covenant which Jesus' death and resurrection inaugurated, but not completely implemented until the Parousia, meant the dismissal of disobedient national Israel's election for service and the end of her institutions: law, temple, sacrificial atonement etc. Divine creational law (cf. the Decalogue), however, continues with a general obligation for all and to be written in the heart of believers (OT and NT). Jesus' New Covenant meant the onset of the New Creation age begun by the appointment of a New Israel (cf. John 20:22 correlated with John 1:12).

The New Covenant was thus the implementation of the Abrahamic Covenant of which the Sinai Covenant with Israel had been a subset. Paul's New Covenant ministry (2 Cor 3:6) that recognized all of this (cf. Rom 6:14, Gal 2:23, 2 Cor 3:6) confronted Jewish Christians (cf. 3:6 - note the present of 'kills') who saw Jesus as operating within the continuing Mosaic Covenant.

This was the problem facing Paul in Galatians, Romans and 2 Corinthians and we may see traces of it elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles. Paul's in his appraisal of Israel carefully recognized the changed position resulting from the cross (cf. Rom 2:1-3:20; 9:30-10:8; 7:1-6, 6:14, etc.).

The general reluctance of NT scholarship to accept a covenant emphasis, in view of Jesus' action and the Jewish character of the early church is puzzling. It is an undervaluing of how OT theology of kingdom and covenant works its way through the whole Bible. The usual objections of lack of reference to the terms, apply to the OT as well as to the new but the notion is basic to the correlation of the two Testaments/Covenants.

Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification

One provocative volume on Pauline studies in recent days is by Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006). Available in the UK and Europe through Alban Books for £16.99 and through Hendrickson in the USA for $29.99.

VanLandingham (henceforth VanL.) contests the picture of second-temple Judaism as having a soteriological structured along the lines of E.P. Sanders' "covenantal nomism" and argues that it was more works orientated than is often recognized. At the same time, VanL. advocates that Paul is in many ways equally works orientated in his view of final justification by works. In this sense VanL. argues against the grain of both revisionist and reformed readings of Paul and Judaism. He wants to reevaluate the relationship between divine grace and human rewards as they relate to the destiny of the individual in Judasm and the writings of Paul. He writes:

"My thesis is that in the letters of Paul and in much of the literature of Judaism from the Greek and Early Roman periods, a post-mortem or Last Judgment of God determines an individual's eternal destiny. Moreover, both corpora agree that an individuals' behavior during his or her lifetime provides the criterion for this judgment: good behavior is rewarded with eternal life, bad behavior with damnation . . . This book also examines the notion of divine recompense within the framework of God's grace and mercy as understood in early post-biblical Jewish texts and in Paul's letters. God's grace and mercy may be present throughout a person's life, working on his or her behalf; but one's deeds determine approbation at the final judgment. On this subject, I find no difference between Paul and his Jewish contemporaries" (p. 15).

In chapter 1 VanL. looks at the theme of the election of Israel and he finds that in accounts of Abraham's election that divine grace is remarkably absent - election is a result of Abraham's obedience. In chapter 2 VanL. examines the criteria for eternal life. VanL. maintains that in much literature it is not God's covenant with Israel but one's behaviour that determines one's destiny. VanL. shifts his focus to Paul in chapter 3 and he asserts that at the final assize God could potentially reject believers for moral failure and God's judgment is principally retributive and behaviour forms the "sole" criterion. Then in chapter 4 VanL. offers his solution to the paradox of justification by faith and judgment according to deeds. VanL. contests the forensic meaning of justification and contends that it refers to forgiveness of sins and freedom from sin at the beginning of the Christian life. He writes in his conclusion:

"What happens to the Christian initiate at the time of faith or baptism of course has an effect upon how that person will be judged by God, but he or she is not ultimately approved solely because of the work of Christ, or because of baptism, or because of faith in Jesus as Christ and Lord. The Last Judgment is not a judgment over the work of Christ or even over what the Holy Spirit has done in the believer; it is a judgment over the individual and what he or she has done. The work of Christ has made it possible to receive approbation in a judgment according to deeds, but not because God is merciful toward the Christian based on Christ's merit, nor because in God's perception Christ's death has made it as though the Christian has never sinned. Rather, the process of salvation is worked out as follows: At the time of faith, a person who has been 'made righteous' is forgiven of past sins (which then become a dead issue), cleansed from the guilt and impurity of sin, freed from the human propensity to sin, and then given the ability to obey. The Last Judgment will then determine whether a person, as an act of the will has followed through with these benefits of Christ's death. If so, eternal life will be the reward; if not, damnation"
(p. 335).

I do not have time to enter into a major discussion with VanL.'s book. But if he is right it would have tremendous repercussions for understanding Judaism and Paul. Overall, VanL. offers a very careful analysis of texts from second-temple Judaism and Paul and his case is worth listening to as he questions many assumptions, both modern and ancient, about Judaism and Paul. In the final analysis, however, I am not convinced by much of his exegesis and I hope at a later date to offer a more extensive article review and engage with his treatments of 1QS and Romans 2 in particular - But that's for another day.

The commendations include:

“With Judgment and Justification Chris VanLandingham enters the fray that is the study of the Apostle Paul against his Jewish backdrop. But rather than simply logging another entry into the catalog of oft-repeated and well-worn arguments, VanLandingham proffers a thesis sure to challenge the positions of all parties in the debate. To those who have followed and advanced the “New Perspective” on Paul first put forth by E. P. Sanders, VanLandingham marshals an impressive array of evidence culled from Jewish sources to argue that the mainstream Judaism of Paul’s day was indeed a religion that urged good works as the path to God’s favor. He radically reinterprets the doctrine of “justification by faith” by arguing that Paul himself fits well into the mold of contemporary Judaism by teaching that those who have experienced forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ must themselves produce a life of good deeds to secure a favorable judgment in the end. Not only will the arguments of this book change the landscape of Pauline studies, but they should also be heard as a contributing voice to Christian theology. This book is not just an engaging piece of scholarship; it will prove to be one of those rare scholarly works that challenge the convictions of those who read it.”
—Jeffrey S. Lamp, Associate Professor of New Testament, Oral Roberts University

“Chris VanLandingham’s stunningly provocative and well-argued thesis demands careful engagement. E. P. Sanders was simply wrong as were those who built uncritically on his foundation. Election in Second Temple Judaism was a reward for obedience. Salvation was earned as quid pro quo. The Apostle Paul, for his part, agreed with his Second Temple peers and encouraged his hearers to accrue the good works necessary for the reward of eternal life. Justification (by faith), never employed in forensic contexts, has been almost completely misconstrued. VanLandingham calls for a complete overhaul in our understanding of both Second Temple Judaism and Paul. The theological implications would be breathtaking.”
—A. Andrew Das, Niebuhr Distinguished Chair and Associate Professor of Theology and Religion, Elmhurst College

Chris VanLandingham earned his Ph.D. in Judaism and Christianity in the Greco-Roman World from the University of Iowa under the supervision of Dr. George Nickelsburg. He has served as an Assistant Professor of Ancient History at Oral Roberts University and as an Adjunct Professor of Ancient History at St. Gregory's University, both in Tulsa, Oklahoma.