|
Running on MT by M.T.Mark Troughton of York Evangelical Church considers merit theology and how it might affect us todayI’m not a scholar, nor a scholar’s son. I have only a dilettante interest in Judaism. My interest in Jewish writings has come about through my interest in the Jewish Messiah who, unbeknown to most Jews, ushered in his kingdom in ‘already and not yet’ form 2,000 years ago. There are encouraging signs that many Jews are coming to faith in Jesus today. But that’s another issue. So I’m a dilettante - Jewish Messiah- loving Christian. It’s good to be able to see things through Jewish eyes and get a feel for how Jews see things (1 Corinthians 9.20). But I’m annoyed on two fronts. First, some voices today are claiming Reformed evangelicals are preaching a false gospel. This is owing to the fact that we have (apparently) misunderstood the Judaism of Paul’s day and swallowed the false assumptions of Luther who was himself labouring under gross misapprehensions about the ‘merit theology’ of the Jews Paul was opposing. So the Reformation got it wrong, apparently. I’m annoyed, secondly, because I feel some theologians today are trying to hoodwink me by postmodern slippery-semantic word playing. Like ‘merit’, for example. The bones I have to pick start with Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E.P. Sanders and continue with recent attempts to deconstruct Judaism, Luther and Paul. Sanders dismantles the traditional view of Second Temple Judaism as pursuing righteousness through law (’merit theology’) and in its place suggests ‘covenantal nomism’. To quote Tim Gallant on his http://www.rabbisaul.com/nomism blog: ‘Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one's place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression’ (Sanders, 75). He quotes Sanders again: ‘...in all the literature surveyed, obedience maintains one's position in the covenant, but it does not earn God's grace as such. It simply keeps an individual in the group which is the recipient of God's grace’ (420). Obedience to Torah (which would include employing the law's means of atonement for transgression), according to Sanders, indicated an intention to continue in the covenant. Those who repudiated obedience were repudiating the covenant, and thus disqualified themselves from it’. Not kosherThe case is made that Christianity is not much different from this type of ‘deconstructed Judaism’, the key to inclusion in the New Covenant being acceptance of Christ. We could discuss the issue of entry into the covenants Ð certainly very different under the Old Covenant (natural birth) as compared with the New (new birth). But I want to focus on ‘merit theology’. I would contend that ‘MT’ is hard-wired into the warp and woof of Judaism because its roots are fundamentally earthed in the notion of the neutrality of post-Fall man towards sin and the freedom of his will. And that Sanders’s deconstructed Judaism is therefore not kosher. In other words, Judaism is essentially Pelagian in its doctrine of the Fall. Yes, I know that sounds anachronistic, but I would argue the beast is the same, even though Pelagius was a fourth-century British monk. The ‘omelet’ was invented before the name ‘omelette’ was stuck on it as a label. Ditto pelagianism (which you’ll find back in Pythagoras and Zeno according to Jerome). Pelagianism and its offspringLouis Berkhof in The History of Christian Doctrines (pp.132-33) states: ‘According to Pelagius, Adam, as he was created by God, was not endowed with positive holiness. His original condition was one of neutrality, neither holy nor sinful, but with a capacity for both good and evil... his fall into sin injured no one but himself, and left human nature unimpaired for good. There is no hereditary transmission of a sinful nature or of guilt, and consequently no such thing as original sin. Man is still born in the same condition in which Adam was before the fall. Not only is he free from guilt but also from pollution. There are no evil tendencies and desires in his nature which inevitably result in sin. The difference between him and Adam is that he has the evil example before him. Sin ... depends on the voluntary choice of man. As a matter of fact man need not sin. He is, like Adam, endowed with perfect freedom of the will, with a liberty of choice or of indifference, so that he can, at any given moment, choose either good or evil.’ So what role does grace have in salvation? ‘The grace of which Pelagius speaks...does not consist in an inward working divine energy, or, in other words, in the influence of the Holy Spirit, inclining the will and empowering man to do that which is good, but only in external gifts and natural endowments, such as man’s rational nature, the revelation of God in Scripture, and the example of Jesus Christ’ (p.133). Semi-Pelagianism tries to steer a middle course between Augustine and Pelagius by giving a place both to divine grace and human will as co-ordinate factors in the renewal of man. ‘Fallen human nature retains an element of freedom in virtue of which it can co-operate with divine grace’ (p.138). This is what B.B. Warfield called ‘Auto-soterism’ (The Plan of Salvation, Eerdmans 1977), ‘the idea that salvation can be secured by man’s own power and wisdom’ (p.33). Such self-salvation leads inevitably to legalism and the centrality of law keeping for righteousness. Quoting Heinrich Weinel, Warfield states that these were precisely the circles from which the Apostle Paul came. ‘He can only be happy under a dispensation of law who can live a life-long lie ... The lie inherent in the law was the presumption that it could be fulfilled. Every one of Paul’s associates understood that the commandment could not be kept, but they did not own it to themselves. The elder behaved in the presence of the younger as if it could be kept; one believed it on the strength of another, and did not acknowledge the impossibility to himself. They blinded themselves to their own sin by comparing themselves with other just men, and had recourse to remote ages to Enoch, Noah and Daniel in order to produce advocates for their souls. They hoped God would allow the good works of the saints to cover their deficiencies, and they did not forget occasionally to pray for mercy, yet, on the whole they kept up the lie and went on as if they were well’ (Warfield, pp.37-38). Warfield is talking about nominal Christians, but there is a real similarity here with modern Jewish authors (see below). But is Judaism a homogenous entity that has never changed? The modern deconstructions of Judaism claim that there are Judaisms; that modern post-medieval Judaism is a different beast altogether from pre-medieval Judaism and particularly Second Temple Judaism. Rabbinic literatureRabbinic literature is divided into eras: the Zugot (the Second Temple era of 515 BC-70 AD, and particularly the period 142 BC-40 BC); the Tannaim, 70-200 AD; the Amoraim, 200-500AD; and so on under different titles up to the present day. Is there any continuity between them or is it a case of ‘liquorice all-sorts’? Jewish historians on ‘continuity’Ephraim E. Urbach in The Sages, The World and Wisdom of the Rabbis of the Talmud discusses the positions of leading Jewish historians regarding the question of the development of Jewish belief and practice, including G. Foot Moore’s Judaism in the first Centuries of the Christian era - the Age of the Tannaim (vols. I-II, 1927). Foot Moore emphasises the continuity of the teaching of ‘normative Judaism’ during this period, describing it as a blend of ‘ethical-prophetic and legalistic religion’ (Urbach, p.9). ‘The wars of 66-72 brought about changes in the social structure. The Sadducees and the priestly aristocracy left the stage of history. The Zealots perished in the course of the fighting, and the voice of the Essenes was also stilled immediately afterwards. The revival of Judaism after the Destruction was the work of the Pharisees. Judaism, which had been splintered into various sects, achieved, in the two generations after the Destruction a homogeneity and authority that characterise it to this day. Although a ramified development in the details of the Halakha took place in the schools of the Tannaim in the second century, yet this unfoldment does not evince different principles or new features in relation to the earlier epochs, nor are such to be found in the fundamentals of the religion and ethic. The basic tenets and principles had been fixed long ago and it was necessary to emphasise them and to make each generation more fully conscious of them, but not to search for them and reveal them’ (italics mine). So Foot Moore argues the continuity of Zugot literature with the Tannaic. Yitzak Baer in the 1950s argued, on the contrary, that Judaism became crystallised in the period between the conquest of the Orient by Alexander the Great (356-323BC) and his successors and the rise of the Maccabean Hasmonean State (140-37BC). The Jewish Hasid-Sage was born by the meeting of the Hebrew prophetic tradition with Greek culture (Hellenism). They were, according to Baer, the forerunners of the Essenes and Qumran. Baer states: ‘The spiritual outlook that prevailed in the time of the Second Temple served as the starting point in the history of Christianity, and above all remained authoritative among the Jewish people for all generations.’ So Foot Moore postulates the crystallisation of Judaism at the end of the second century AD, after the various Jewish sects had for the most part disappeared, whereas Baer argues for the continuity of Judaism from the earliest period (200BC) before the sessions and schism of the sects to the close of the Mishnah (200AD) (Urbach, p.13). Baer states, ‘The epoch of the Second Temple is essentially and ultimately the period when the foundation of all facets of our Tradition was laid’. Urbach is aware of the size of this generalisation and is uncomfortable with it. Leaving to one side vexed questions of continuity, his stated aim is to ‘give an epitome of the beliefs and concepts of the Sages (from the period preceding the Maccabean revolt in 165BC to the period of Arab domination of the Mediterranean, 700AD) as the history of a struggle to instil religious and ethical ideals into the every-day life of the community and the individual, while preserving the integrity and unity of the nation and directing its way in this world as a preparation for another world that is wholly perfect’ (Urbach, pp.17-18). The Sages speakA reading of the sayings of the Sages demonstrates a semi-Pelagian view of sin and the free will of man and therefore a heavy reliance upon works in order to become righteous before God. On sin and death, Urbach, pp.420ffQuoting Rabbi Joshua in the Mishnah (Shabbat 89b), Urbach writes: ‘Only death came with Adam’s sin, but not the necessity to sin. In regard to the possibility of transgressing and the freedom of choice between the way of life and the way of death, Ben Sira made no distinction between Adam and his offspring... This was the opinion of Rabbi Akiba (Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph, approximately 15-135 AD)... If free will was given to men, and it is in their power to be wholly righteous (italics mine), why should they be punished “on account of the serpent”?’ Interacting surprisingly for a moment with the thought of Apostle Paul in Romans, Urbach states: ‘The primary difference between Paul and his predecessors and his circle does not lie in the evaluation of Adam’s sin and its consequences, but in Paul’s complete negation of the Torah. He speaks of the inability of the Torah to give man life (Romans 8.3) and to bring about a change in his nature and character’ (p.423). Evidently Urbach believes that the Torah can indeed bring about such a change of nature and character - and therefore the righteousness it demands. Urbach continues, ‘there was no Tanna among Rabbi Akiba’s disciples that attributed the existence of sin to Adam’s transgression...’ (p.426). Here we have a denial of the transmission of original guilt or pollution Ð a Pelagian view of sin and free will. What follows supports the contention that works justify. On ‘reward and punishment’, we learn the following: ‘If a man says give this sela to charity in order that my children may live, or in order that I may merit thereby life in the world to come, he is a wholly righteous man.’ Urbach continues: ‘This Baraita reflects a widespread belief among the people, which the Sages continued to strengthen and even to utilise in urging the observance of the commandments and in denouncing transgressors’ (pp.436-437). On the reason for the commandments, Urbach, p.365 One reason of the precepts is the reward. ‘Rabbi Hananiah ben Aqashya said: The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to grant merit to Israel, therefore he multiplied for them Law and commandments...’. Again, ‘...the multiplicity of Torah and precepts brings merit to those who observe them, for the Divine Commander has no need of the commandment, but the commandment subserves only the benefit of man. The sole purpose of the precept is to endow man with righteousness’ (p.366). Again, ‘... precepts, Hebrew huqqim, are so called because they bring man to life in the world to come...’ Again, ‘...the observance of the commandments also gives him added holiness or... sanctity’(p.367). Again, ‘...the Sabbath enhances Israel’s holiness’ (p.367). Similarly, ‘...all the commandments serve to heighten Israel’s sanctity...’ (p.368). ‘The sanctity is, as it were, withdrawn from the precept itself and transferred to the act of the precept and to him that performs it’ (p.368). So we are not surprised to read later under ‘The Righteous and the wicked’ (p.483): ‘We have learned that the struggle against and defeat of the Evil Inclination makes a man righteous.’ There is no need for divinely imputed righteousness by faith in such a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian scheme of things. Why do I need God’s perfect righteousness by faith in God the Son when I can obtain my own through struggling to obey the commandments? This seems a far cry from Paul, in Ephesians 2.8-10: ‘For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.’ Leaving room for the human will to contribute to its own salvation naturally leads to the idea of obtaining salvation by merit, hence boasting in one’s achievements. Jewish ‘semi-Pelagianism’So what form does Jewish ‘semi-Pelagianism’ take today? Their view is still that of their ancient Sages - essentially Pelagian and therefore salvation intrinsically involves, if not depends upon, human merit. David H. Stern, a Messianic Jew, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary (p.362), commenting on Romans 5.12, explains the six main views of the nature of man after the fall, from Augustine to Pelagius. He notes, ‘As a rough approximation, we may say that the farther down the above list we move, the closer we come to what traditional Judaism can accept as a satisfactory theology of sin’. In his fascinating Gateway To Judaism, Rabbi Mordechai Becher gives a bird’s eye view of traditional Jewish belief and practice. These extracts clearly demonstrate a Pelagian view of sin and free will and lead naturally to a reliance on personal merit before God. Rabbi Becher quotes extracts from ancient teachings, ranging in date from the modern era (post-medieval to today) right back to the time of Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (approximately 15-135AD). On Circumcision - Engraving an Eternal Covenant, p.43 ‘...God wanted us to understand (by this sign) that just as the perfection of the body is done by a conscious human action, so too the perfection of the soul is left up to the human’s free will’. Bar Mitzvah, p.49‘The soul first descends into the world when the child is still a foetus in its mother’s womb. At this stage, the foetus has a completely pure soul without any desire for evil at all. According to tradition, an angel teaches it the entire Torah during this time. One understanding of this angelic tutorial is as a metaphor for the untainted, pure perception of the truth that the soul has before entering this world. Therefore the Torah is actually inherent in the Jewish soul and is its natural status quo. The child must, however, be born into this world of concealment and illusion in order to achieve moral success through its own free will and its own struggle. At birth, the “evil inclination” enters a person, i.e. he or she loses that incredible clarity that they possessed before entering this world. The soul’s desires are overshadowed by the physicality of the body and its yearning for spiritual fulfilment is muted by ego, selfishness and materialism. Childhood is a time when the physical world and all its overwhelming desires rule over the human being, and the soul and its aspirations are largely dormant. It is for this reason that a child is not held legally responsible for his/her actions. ‘Toward the end of childhood... the soul begins to awaken and manifests itself more overtly. When the child reaches adulthood, the soul has reached its full level of activity and therefore this person now has complete free will. He or she is able to choose between good and evil, the spiritual and the material...Since they now have both a “good inclination” and an “evil inclination” and the ability to choose between the two, they are fully accountable for their actions.’ Although we might expect the Rabbi to talk now about The Commandments and how to live, he deals with Death and the Afterlife first. After Death Ð Reward and Punishment, p.62‘The full consequence of an individual’s deeds in the physical world, ultimate reward and punishment, are found in the World to Come. Reward and punishment are not arbitrary; they are natural spiritual consequences of a person’s actions. ‘How does this process work? Whatever good a person chooses to do in this world increases the soul’s similarity to and compatibility with God, so that it becomes “closer” to him in the World to Come. Alternatively, one can act in a way that distances his soul from the Creator... a soul that accomplished good in this world, one that elevated itself and others [more on this below, Ed.], experiences the overwhelming joy of fulfilment in the realisation of its potential... Thus the soul creates both its own reward and punishment in the World to Come.’ In the next section we are told that meritorious deeds can have an impact on other Jews beyond the grave. Yahrzeit (commemorating the anniversary of someone’s death), p.71 ‘In this spiritual dimension, the soul is enjoying closeness to God in accordance with his or her own previous activities on earth. It has earned its particular place, and the soul is no longer capable of further perfection or elevation to a higher plane on its own. If, however, that soul served to inspire someone in the human world of action to do good things, then through that person’s earthly deeds the soul can posthumously acquire the ‘merit’ of those actions. The result is that the soul moves into a closer relationship with God, an experience called aliyah (ascending). We try therefore on the anniversary of death to do positive things in this world in the merit of the deceased’. Kaddish (a prayer said at a funeral), p.72 ‘By publicly calling upon the congregation to praise and acknowledge God, Kaddish bestows merit on the deceased and atones for wrongs that he or she may have done. It is a way for the mourner to counteract any act of the deceased that may have brought dishonour to God’s name or reduced people’s awareness of God’. (Note from Judaism 101 online at http://www.jewfaq.org: Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (approx. 15-135 C.E.). A poor, semi-literate shepherd, Rabbi Akiba became one of Judaism's greatest scholars. He developed the exegetical method of the Mishnah, linking each traditional practice to a basis in the biblical text, and systematised the material that later became the Mishnah). Why are there commandments? p.394‘In order to have a complete relationship with God it is necessary that we be as “Godlike” as possible. We must develop a similar intellectual framework, inculcating in ourselves the attributes of God, and act like He acts...God has provided us with the ultimate guide to becoming like Him - the 613 commandments with all their attendant details’. Refinement, p.395‘The purpose of the commandments is to refine the human being and bring him closer and closer to perfection’.. the process called tziruf. The Hebrew word tzerufah (from which tziruf derives grammatically) bears two opposing explanations. Depending on the context, the word can mean “smelted”, as in the method employed to separate the ore from the metal through the application of heat. Alternatively, it can mean “joining”, as in soldering, where heat is used to join metals... God’s commandments represent the source of the heat, and the person represents the metal. Just as heat burns away waste matter, God gave us 365 prohibitions (“thou shalt not”) to help eliminate the negative character traits contained within a person. And just as heat has the power to merge metals together, God gave us 248 obligations (“thou shalt”) to consolidate positive traits and to connect human beings to a higher level of consciousness... That humans need refinement is not a novel concept. Look at any infant: Is he or she a finished product? In our society, children receive 13 years of schooling before they are expected to contend with he challenges of life. Judaism believes that learning how to perfect oneself (and how to perfect the world) takes even longer - an entire lifetime of training. ‘The commandments are designed to develop people’s ability to serve God consciously, encouraging us not to rely on instinct, but to exercise our power of free will.’ Torah Study, p.409‘The obligation to study and teach Torah is emphasised repeatedly in the Bible and in the works of the Sages (Ed., please note that the Sages date from 200BC-700AD), and the reward for this mitzvah (commandment) is considered equal to that of all the others together.’ Referring to man as a ‘novel’, Becher continues: ‘The Creator is Eternal and Omnipotent, but He deliberately left His “novel” unfinished so that we could participate in completing it. In this way through our efforts, we come closer to achieving perfection by understanding God’s plan and purpose in creation. To study Torah is one of the primary means available to humanity to approach the “Mind” of the Creator and His vision ... without the proper attitude that motivates us to study the Torah ... then Torah study may fail to achieve its true purpose, which is the sanctification of life on the basis of the Torah.’ What is clear from this brief glance at present day and ancient Judaism is the shared assumption that there is a continuity from past to present in Jewish thought. Indeed, it is part of Jewish identity to be fiercely protective of this unbroken chain of tradition. Ethics of the FathersIn Pirkei Avos (Ethics of the Fathers, sayings dating from 350BC-200AD), Teachings For Our Times, Rabbi Berel Wein, states: ‘Avos reflects the true spirit of Judaism. It is the skeleton, so to speak, that underlies the flesh of the great corpus of laws, customs and lifestyle of the Jewish people throughout the ages.’ And, ‘Judaism is a religion of personal tradition, of binding the past to the present and to the future. It is a seamless chain of experience and memory... Therefore Avos begins by describing the transmission of the Jewish tradition from Sinai and Moses to the Men of the Great Assembly. Our faith is based on the proposition that our parents were not liars, that they personally witnessed the revelation at Sinai, saw Solomon’s dedication of the first Temple, heard Ezra’s sermon at the beginning of the Second Commonwealth and knew and assessed all of the men who appear in the book of Avos’ (p.5). Commenting on the very first saying of the Fathers, ‘All Israel has a share in the world to come, as it is said: And you people are all righteous; they shall inherit the land forever; a branch of my plantings, My handiwork, in which to take pride (Isaiah 60.21), Rabbi Wein states: ‘A Jew is born with a built-in annuity, for every Jew has a share in the World to Come Ð but the proceeds are not guaranteed. It is comparable to a child receiving a large sum of money from a parent, on the condition that the money be wisely invested. The child can make great profits or lose the entire amount, depending on how wisely Ð or foolishly Ð the nest-egg is invested. The same is true regarding our share in the World to Come. By living a Torah life, being a moral, upright person, and resisting the obvious temptations and distractions of this world, one safeguards and even enhances one’s share in the World to Come. Behaving in the opposite fashion, however, guarantees the diminishing or perhaps even the complete loss of that share.’ In other words, ‘My salvation depends on me. God took the first step, I have to contribute to my salvation to secure it.’ The Zugot eraThe term ‘Zugot’ refers to five pairs of legal scholars who ruled the Supreme Court Beit Din HaGadol from 142-40BC when the Second Judean State was established as an independent state to the end of Hillel the Elder's rule c.40BC. There were five pairs of these teachers: 1. Jose ben Joezer, and Jose ben Johanan Ð who flourished at the time of the Maccabean wars of independence In commenting of one of the sayings of Simeon ben Shetach, leader of the Pharisee party, Rabbi Wein in Avos quotes the saying: ‘He used to say: The existence of the world depends on three things: on Torah study, on the service of God, and on kind deeds’, and then comments: ‘Jewish tradition attributes the continuity of human life on this planet to the fact that there are 36 righteous people living at all times.’ In other words, their merit sustains the planet. The next saying is from Antigonos, leader of Socho, who ‘received tradition from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: Be not like servants who serve the master for the sake of receiving a reward, but rather, be like servants who serve the master not for the sake of receiving a reward; and let the awe of Heaven be upon you’. Rabbi Wein comments, ‘ ...doing the right and moral and holy thing for the sake of the action itself, without extraneous thoughts of honour, notoriety, praise, or reward entering into one’s motivation. This is a difficult level to achieve, but Jews are bidden to strive for it’. Does this deny the ‘merit theology’ that we have suggested runs through Judaism? On the contrary, it is the underlying assumption here that normally good deeds are deserving of merit, and that this is the ‘default position’ of Judaism, but that Jews should learn to strive for the higher notion of doing good for its own sake. This is confirmed when Rabbi Wein comments, ‘Giving charity is a good thing ... The gift will undoubtedly count as merit to the donor and thus somehow be of influence in Heaven, but the act of giving should be viewed as an independent action Ð good for the sake of good’. Rabbi Wein, for one, is assuming merit theology is part of the warp and woof of Judaism. The question is, is he projecting his modern Jewish merit-theology viewpoint onto the thoughts of the Sages of the Second Temple era? Or are his deductions their deductions too? The last of the Zugot Sages was the famous Rabbi Hillel. Rabbi Wein comments, ‘We are all his students and disciples, for his view of Judaism and Jewish life has shaped Jewish thought and attitudes from the very time he first appeared on the scene’ (p.35). Commenting on the saying of Hillel’s, ‘Be among the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them closer to the Torah’, Wein states, ‘The Sages counted bringing peace between humans as one of the deeds that bring reward both in this world and in the hereafter’ (Shabbos 127a). Again the question arises, Is Rabbi Wein projecting post-medieval Judaism onto Second Temple Judaism? Has he misunderstood the Judaism of the Second Temple era? Or is ‘merit theology’ endemic to Judaism wherever you come across it? It seems there is a continuity right the way through wherever you look. In chapter two of Avos, Rabbi Wein comments on the saying 2/1 of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, the Rabbi who was responsible for assembling and redacting the teachings and rulings of the Oral Law into the Mishnah (220AD). It is claimed by Jews that God gave Moses the Oral Law on Sinai and that this Oral Law is the true representation of Judaism because it has been preserved intact right the way through to the present day. Saying 2/1 of Yehudah HaNasi reads thus: ‘Rebbi says: Which is the proper path that a person should choose for himself? Whatever is a credit to himself and earns him the esteem of fellow men. Be as scrupulous in performing a “minor” mitzvah (commandment) as in a “major” one, for you never know the reward given for the mitzvos. Calculate the cost of a mitzvah against its reward, and the reward of a sin against its cost. Consider three things, and you will not come into the grip of sin: Know what is above you Ð a watchful Eye, an attentive Ear, and all your deeds are recorded in a Book.’ Rabbi Wein comments, ‘The approval of God and also of one’s fellow human beings is the true source of legitimate human pride and glory... There are certain mitzvos for whose performance the Torah itself mentions long life as a reward, and there are mitzvos for whose performance the Talmud promises partial reward in this world and complete reward in the World to Come.’ By way of illustration Rabbi Wein writes of a modern rabbi by whose example of courtesy a woman was later on encouraged to fund the studies of her grandson at yeshivah (Jewish college), even though she herself was a non-practising Jew. Rabbi Wein states, ‘the Torah studied by this young student undoubtedly accrues to the credit of that rabbi, now no longer alive. One never knows truly the effects and reward of mitzvos and good deeds’ (p.55). Saying 2/2 of Rabbi Gamliel (Gamaliel - possibly Paul’s rabbi, possibly a relative as there were three Gamliel’s in the same family, all of whom were rabbis) states: ‘All who exert themselves for the community should do so for the sake of Heaven, for then the merit of their ancestors will assist them, and their righteousness will endure forever. And you I will bestow on you a great reward, as though you had achieved what you wished.’ Rabbi Wein comments, ‘For by acting “for the sake of Heaven”, one guarantees Heavenly aid and the mobilisation of the merit of pious ancestors to the cause at hand... Those who strive to work for the public “for the sake of Heaven” must realise that the Lord will bestow great reward for their efforts, even if those efforts are not initially blessed with the success they envisioned and hoped for... Accomplishment, however, can only be assessed much later; but when it comes, even generations later, it always redounds to the credit of the predecessors who laboured honestly for the public good.’ JosephusIn his 2003 lecture on the ‘New Perspective’ given at the European Leadership Forum, D.A. Carson criticises E.P. Sanders’s work for not having included, amongst other things, the work of Josephus (AD37-c.100). Josephus was a Pharisee, a first-century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Carson states, ‘he often writes about “grace” (Greek charis) in his works. He repeatedly asks, ‘Was this grace given because such and such deserved it or not? Answer: because he deserved it, otherwise God would not be fair’. Carson argues that the Hasidim or Pharisees of the first century were merit-oriented in their view of salvation, something which is not hard to see in the gospels, e.g. Luke 18.9-14. This idea of ‘confidence in the flesh’ forms the indispensable backdrop to Paul’s repudiation of works righteousness in Philippians 3, for example: ‘Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh — though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, 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. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.’ Being earnest is important, but we cannot merit the merit God offers us in Christ. It is a grace gift, freely accepted by faith in ‘the earnestness’ of Christ. Plus nothing. More tea and muffins anyone?Bibliography Mark Troughton© Evangelicals Now - September 2007 |