Reading Paul and Palestinian Judaism 9: Covenantal Nomism
On page 422, Sanders gives a clear definition of covenantal nomism, which he sees as the dominate soteriology in Palestinian Judaism:
- God has graciously chosen Israel as his people
- He gave them the law, which implies …
- God’s promise to maintain the election, and …
- the requirement to obey
- God rewards obedience and punishes transgression
- The law provides for means of atonement, which results in …
- maintain or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship
- All those who are kept in the covenant by God’s mercy, atonement, and [intended] obedience belong to the group which will be saved.
He concludes that this is markedly different from a system of legalistic works-righteousness. As before, I have no doubt that some will look at this system and conclude that it is in fact legalistic (perhaps, for instance, the Free Grace movement and other like minded folks might arrive at a similar conclusion). No doubt about it, the Rabbis et al were very concerned to see their people in God’s way following his commands. However, to me, I don’t find the basic contours of Sanders’ presentation of covenantal nomism to be radically different from my understandings of the Gospels call to ‘follow Jesus’ and Paul’s appeal to be ‘in Christ’.
I see the biggest problem with 6-7
“6.The law provides for means of atonement, which results in …
7.maintain or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship”
The means for atonement in the law is very limited (even though it is unlimited in one sense being it is corporate/national, e.g., day of atonement). It is limited in that it does not cover ALL covenant transgressions. For example, in an individualistic sense, there was no means of atonement for the adulterer, murderer, idolater, sorcerer, etc. A murderer could not find in the law a pattern/means (e.g., sacrifice two goats and one bull) to follow in order to be atoned and ‘maintain covenantal relationship’…instead if the law was kept by the letter such a one was to be put to death and thus cut off from the covenantal relationship.
Israel as a nation was guilty of these transgression which could not be atoned for under the law and thus the ‘covenantal relationship’ could not be maintained ‘under the law’ . . . a new way had to be provided. This ‘new way’ is what Paul preached.