Getting "Saved": The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament
336
Getting "Saved": The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament
336Paperback
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780802866486 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Eerdmans, William B. Publishing Company |
| Publication date: | 11/03/2011 |
| Pages: | 336 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.00(w) x 9.00(h) x 0.83(d) |
About the Author
Jason A. Whitlark is assistant professor of New Testament at Baylor University. He is also the author of Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in Light of the Reciprocity Systems of the Ancient Mediterranean World.
Read an Excerpt
Getting "Saved"
The Whole Story of Salvation in the New TestamentBy Charles H. Talbert Jason A. Whitlark
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
Copyright © 2011 Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. WhitlarkAll right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8028-6648-6
Chapter One
Paul, Judaism, and the RevisionistsCharles H. Talbert
Within the context of both non-Christian Jews and Christian messianists who held a variety of soteriologies (legalism, covenantal nomistic legalism, and sola gratia), Paul engaged both in an intra-Jewish and an intra-Christian messianist dialogue. In each he critiqued both legalism and covenantal nomistic legalism in the name of a sola gratia soteriology.
* * *
There are varieties of ways that Paul's relation to non-messianic Judaism has been understood. (1) Judaism was legalistic; Paul was right in recognizing and opposing it (so the Protestant Reformers and many of their heirs). (2) Judaism was not legalistic; Paul or his interpreters got it wrong; the apostle either did not oppose Jewish legalism because it did not exist or, if he did, he was misrepresenting ancient Judaism (so modern revisionists). (3) Palestinian Judaism was not legalistic, but some Hellenistic Jewish adherents got it wrong and were legalists; Paul rightly recognized and opposed the latter group. (4) Middle Judaism was diverse. (a) Some were legalistic (e.g., Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to become Jews = part of God's people). (b) Many were synergistic. They advocated a legalistic covenantal nomism. A Jew got into the covenant by God's grace but remained in the covenant, and got into the age-to-come, by works of the Law. (c) Some held to sola gratia (by grace alone) insofar as both Gentile and Jew were concerned. This type of piety held that one not only got in by grace but also remained in the people of God by grace and ultimately got into the age-to-come by grace. It will be the contention of this paper that the fourth alternative is the most accurate of the lot. Viewed in terms of this schema, Paul critiques (a) and (b) in the name of (c). His critique was first of all an intra-Jewish argument. There was one genus: Judaism. Within that genus, a number of species were in tension with one another over who represented the true tradition with reference to the scriptures of Israel. Paul was an example of one of those species of Middle Judaism. His critique was secondly also an intra-messianist argument. The diversity of non-Christian Judaism about the role of the Law was reflected in early Christian Judaism as well. Paul, then, it will be argued, was also a critic of messianists who fell into categories (a) and (b). To ascertain just exactly how this works out is this paper's purpose.
The argument is organized around three questions. (1) When Paul polemicized against "works of the law," was he accurately addressing a real situation? (2) If so, what did Paul find wrong with "works of law"? (3) How did Paul avoid the pitfalls of the very positions that he critiqued? How did he understand divine enablement (= grace), after getting into the people of God, to work? The paper will take up each question in order.
Did Paul Accurately Address a Real Situation?
Three readings of Paul and ancient Judaism set the stage for our search for an answer to question one. (1) The foil for scholars of Pauline theology at the end of the last century was the reading offered by the Protestant Reformers and their heirs. According to the Reformers, Judaism of Paul's time was a religion of works righteousness within which God had given humans the law so that we might earn salvation by fulfilling it. Paul, in this reading, attacks the claim that salvation can be earned by acts of obedience to the law. Critics of this view contend that such an approach results in a distorted view both of Paul and of Judaism.
(2) The "new perspective on Paul," initiated above all by E. P. Sanders, starts with a revised view of ancient Judaism. Palestinian Judaism, says Sanders, was that salvation is in Christ alone and thus could not be by the law. As a result of Sanders's work on Paul and ancient Judaism there has been a paradigm shift in the way the apostle is read. After Sanders, most scholars would accept covenantal nomism as an accurate description of the Judaism Paul knew. The new perspective, however, is now being challenged by yet another reading.
(3) Timo Eskola may serve as a representative of scholars who argue that the depiction of ancient Judaism offered by Sanders is itself skewed. The soteriology of ancient Judaism, so the post–new perspective reading goes, was synergistic. Once covenantal nomism is set in an eschatological context, it becomes legalistic nomism. How so? One may be a part of God's people by grace, but in order to stay in the people and in order to enter into the age-to-come, one must obey the law. Obedience is the condition for eschatological salvation. If legalism means that keeping the law is the way to gain eschatological salvation, then in an eschatological framework covenantal nomism becomes legalistic nomism. So the soteriology is synergistic. By God's grace one gets in the people but by human effort/obedience one gets into the Eschatological Age beyond the last judgment. It is this synergistic, legalistic covenantal nomism against which Paul fights. At the moment when many Pauline scholars are celebrating the paradigm shift associated with Sanders's work, yet another shift of equal import seems to be occurring.
At this point one must ask once again: What do the available sources say about getting into the people of God and/or the age-to-come in ancient non-Christian Judaism? We will begin with the question of the admission of Gentiles. In ancient Judaism there were basically two avenues by which Gentiles could facilitate their entrance into God's people and/or the age-to-come. The first was by becoming a proselyte. Sanders claims that "the formal definition of a true proselyte and a faithful native-born Israelite is the same: a man is properly in Israel who accepts the covenant, intends to obey its commandments, performs them to the best of his ability and the like." Sanders is also aware, however, that there is substantive difference between the two. In the case of the native-born Israelites, circumcision is a response to the grace of election. They are "in" unless they give evidence of being apostate. In the case of the latter, proselytes must bear the burden of proof to show that they accept the covenant and intend to keep the law. That is, they must take a human initiative to align themselves with the elect people—by works of the law. Ancient sources reflect this.
Josephus says that many Greeks "have agreed to adopt our laws" (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.123 [Thackeray, LCL]). He also says that Moses took measures regarding Jewish customs "to throw them open ungrudgingly to any who elect to share them. To all who desire to come and live under the same laws with us, he gives a gracious welcome, holding that it is not family ties alone which constitute relationship, but agreement in principles of conduct" (Ag. Ap. 2.209-10 [Thackeray, LCL]). The ethical emphasis in what is said here is obvious. A Gentile's ethical convictions relate him/her to the Jews and apparently have the same importance as racial origin. In yet another place, Josephus reiterates: "We ... gladly welcome any who wish to share our own (customs/laws)" (Ag. Ap. 2.261 [Thackeray, LCL]). Precisely what the ritual was by which one became a proselyte in the first century cannot be exactly known. What seems clear from Josephus's statements, however, is that a Gentile "got in" the people of God by works of the law.
Justin's Dialogue with Trypho offers further, if later, evidence. In chapter 8, after Justin has told Trypho of his conversion to Christ, his Jewish dialogue partner tells Justin that his profession is empty. Trypho then gives his prescription for salvation to Justin. "If, then, you are willing to listen to me ..., first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God." Here a Jew addresses a philosopher (1) who has been converted to Christ (3-8). Trypho seems to be calling for Justin to become a proselyte. This would be accomplished by works of the law. This sounds very much like what has traditionally been called legalism. One "gets in" by works of the law.
The case of Izates makes concrete what the previous statements have said in general terms. In Jewish Antiquities 20.17-41, Josephus tells of the conversion to Judaism of Izates of Adiabene through the witness of a Jewish merchant named Ananias. This Ananias told Izates that circumcision was unnecessary for him to be a Jewish convert. Later, in 20.42-48, another Jew named Eleazar came from Galilee and told Izates that, according to the law, circumcision was necessary. Izates thereupon complied and was circumcised. In the case of Eleazar, in order for a proselyte to "get in" the people who would get into the age-to-come, he had to be circumcised. This is what is normally called legalism.
The second avenue by which a Gentile might enter the age-to-come was by being a "righteous Gentile," that is, a Gentile who keeps the law. (1) In Rom 2:10, 14-15, in the context of an argument that operates with a nonmessianic Jewish logic, Paul speaks of Gentiles who do by nature what the law requires and who receive glory, honor, and peace from God at the last judgment. The initiative of these righteous Gentiles receives approval from God in the last judgment. This sounds like legalism. From the period before A.D. 70, two Hellenistic non-messianic Jewish documents speak the same way. (2) The Testament of Abraham, written in Greek probably in Egypt in the first century, makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile. The sins mentioned are not specifically Jewish. Everyone is judged by the same standard— whether the majority of his/her deeds are good or evil. Both Jew and Gentile get into heaven by having a majority of their deeds be righteous. This is what has traditionally been called legalism. (3) The Apocalypse of Zephaniah, written probably before A.D. 70 outside of Palestine, makes no mention of covenant or election. All people, Jew and Gentile, are judged on the basis of their deeds, which are written down by angels throughout their lives. The good and the evil are then weighed in balance at the judgment. Only repentance, which can come at any point before the last judgment, effects atonement. Again, this soteriology is what has normally been called legalism. (4) After A.D. 70, the Palestinian Jewish 4 Ezra 3:36 brings to completion one complaint Ezra makes to God about the fate of God's people. What other nation has been as mindful of the commandments as Zion? God may find individual Gentiles who have kept God's commandments, but he will not find any nations besides Israel. (5) In the Tosefta, Sanhedrin 13:2, there is a debate between Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer. Eliezer contends that "none of the Gentiles has a portion in the world to come." To which Joshua responds: "If it had been written, 'The wicked shall return to Sheol—all the Gentiles' and then said nothing further, I should have maintained as you do. Now that it is in fact written, 'All the Gentiles who forget God,' it indicates that there also are righteous people among the nations of the world, who do have a portion in the world to come." (6) In Sifra, Parashat AhareMot, Pereq 13.15, Rabbi Jeremiah asks: "How do I know that even a Gentile who keeps the Torah, lo, he is like the high priest?" The argument unfolds: the Torah is given to humans and its promises are to humans; the righteous nation enters; it is the righteous who shall enter it. The conclusion is reached: even a Gentile who keeps the Torah.... (7) In Sifre, Piska 307, Rabbi Judah the Prince speaks about a righteous Gentile. This philosopher protested to the prefect about the official's burning a copy of the Torah. The prefect replied: "Tomorrow your fate will be the same as theirs (the Jews)." Whereupon the philosopher replied: "You have conveyed good tidings to me, that tomorrow my portion will be with them in the world to come." In all of these traditions about the righteous Gentiles, it seems that such people get into the age-to-come by means of their works. This does not sound like covenantal nomism. In the case of both proselytes and righteous Gentiles, the soteriology sounds more like what has traditionally been called legalism than anything else.
What about the native-born Jew? How does such a one "get in" the age-to-come? Without trying to be exhaustive, let us look first at selected Hellenistic Jewish sources before turning to selected Palestinian Jewish materials. When one moves out from Palestinian Judaism to the Hellenistic Jewish world, the two pre-A.D. 70 sources previously mentioned come into play: the Testament of Abraham and the Apocalypse of Zephaniah.
First, in the Testament of Abraham the soteriology for Jews is the same as it is for Gentiles. Everyone is judged by the same standard—whether the majority of his/her deeds are good or evil. The Jews, as well as the Gentiles, get into heaven by having a majority of their deeds be righteous. Second, in the Apocalypse of Zephaniah there is no mention of covenant or election. The patriarchs are mentioned but only as examples of pious men. Angels write down the good deeds of the righteous and the evil deeds of the wicked. At the judgment the good and evil are weighed in balance. Every person is judged on the basis of earthly deeds. In both of these sources, "getting in" the age-to-come is a matter of righteous behavior, not election. This is what has traditionally been called legalism.
Turning now to Palestinian Judaism, we may begin with rabbinic Judaism. There are two foci in rabbinic soteriology: election and obedience. Sanders says they are to be understood sequentially: "getting in" by election and "staying in" by obedience. Friedrich Avemarie, however, argues that the two foci represent two models instead of two stages. Some sources place the emphasis on election, others on obedience. Sanders's favorite text is found in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:1. "All Israelites have a share in the world to come, for it is written, 'Thy people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land for ever; the branch of my planting, the work of my hands that I may be glorified.'" Here the emphasis is on election, Sanders claims. The initial assertion ("All Israelites have a share in the world to come"), however, is qualified by its supporting scripture citation ("Thy people shall be all righteous"). Furthermore, what follows qualifies "all Israelites." There are some who have no share in the world to come: for example, those who deny the resurrection; those who deny the law's heavenly origin, and others. Indeed, in 10:1-4 a long list of exceptions to "all" is found. These presumably are those whose behavior constitutes apostasy. Even with the exceptions, however, the focus is still probably on election. Nevertheless, there is even here no entry into the age-to-come apart from one's obedience to the law. This is soteriological synergism, legalistic covenantal nomism.
Other evidence points more toward a focus on obedience in the soteriology of Palestinian Judaism. (1) Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 say John preached "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." Taken alone, this sounds like a call for an atoning activity done within a covenantal nomistic context so as to "stay in" the people of God who would survive the last judgment. Matthew 3:8-10 and Luke 3:8-9, however, say John told his Jewish auditors to bear fruit that befits repentance, not to presume on their ethnicity/election, and that without this fruit their election would not enable them to survive the fire of the last judgment. Here Jews must do more than avoid apostasy. They must actively seek the atonement of repentance and then act obediently. In John's preaching one "gets in" the age-to-come only if he/she has acted obediently. Descent from Abraham, taken alone, is soteriologically ineffective. This is a synergistic, legalistic covenantal nomism.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Getting "Saved" by Charles H. Talbert Jason A. Whitlark Copyright © 2011 by Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark. Excerpted by permission of William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contents
Acknowledgments....................ixAbbreviations....................xi
Contributors....................xii
Introduction Jason A. Whitlark....................1
Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists Charles H. Talbert....................11
Enabling [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]: Transformation of the Convention of Reciprocity by Philo and in Ephesians Jason A. Whitlark....................35
Between Two Epiphanies: Clarifying One Aspect of Soteriology in the Pastoral Epistles Charles H. Talbert....................58
Fidelity and New Covenant Enablement in Hebrews Jason A. Whitlark....................72
Indicative and Imperative in Matthean Soteriology Charles H. Talbert....................95
Salvation, Grace, and Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark Michael W. Martin....................119
"I Have Prayed for You": Divine Enablement in the Gospel of Luke Andrew E. Arterbury....................155
The Fourth Gospel's Soteriology between New Birth and Resurrection Charles H. Talbert....................176
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]: A New Covenant Motif in the Letter of James Jason A. Whitlark....................195
Milk to Grow On: The Example of Christ in 1 Peter Clifford A. Barbarick....................216
Divine Assistance and Enablement of Human Faithfulness in the Revelation of John Viewed within Its Apocalyptic Context Charles H. Talbert....................265
Bibliography of Modern Authors....................283
Index of Ancient Sources....................304