Was There Legalism
in First Century Judaism
Or: Was Jesus and Paul Shooting at Phantoms?
C. W. Powell
[Paper prepared
for the Committee to Study Justification for the Reformed Church in the U.S.]
This study was not
incorporated into the final report, but some of the content was used.
My assignment was to consider
whether or not it is valid to say that Judaism had no legalism. There is no question that E. P. Sanders has
delivered a body of scholarship on this subject, which work has sent ripples
through the American perception of the Christian’s justification. Such things often occur in academia and
pass away, having left only a minimal effect on the brothers and sisters in the
pew. Such has not been the case with
Sanders’ work.
The reason that there has been an effect on the
brothers and sisters in the pew is because the affirmation that Judaism had no
legalism would require us to re-examine the theology of Paul the Apostle, for
it appears that his main contention with Judaism is exactly at this point. For instance,
“Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for
Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a
zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to
establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the
righteousness of God.” Romans 10:1-3
If there
were no legalism Israel in the days of Christ and the apostles, then it is
necessary to think very critically about statements like this and others in the
writings of the Apostle Paul. Either
the words do not mean what they appear to say, or Paul was wrong, deceived by
his own personal vendetta against the Jews, influenced, no doubt, by his
persecutions at their hands.
Sanders takes the latter
view. He is very critical of the
Apostle Paul. He is patronizing,
sarcastic, and often infantile in his treatment of the Apostle. A few examples should suffice. These are all taken from Sanders book Paul, A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. 1991.
There is an impressive body of scholarship from Sanders, but we have
used the Introduction because it was written for the purpose of
summarizing Sanders’ view of Paul. Most
men and women in the pew have only a cursory knowledge, if any, of Sanders, but
they may have been influenced by some of the new ideas about Paul’s views based
upon the body of Sanders’ works. This
article is for them.
We may sometimes suspect Paul of
rhetorical exaggeration, ‘countless beatings’ is an instance: he promptly
counts them. We can, however, accept
the count as accurate. p. 6
This is more worthy of a
schoolboy in a high school debate. Paul
doesn’t say that the ones he counted were all he had. It was nice of Sanders to take Paul’s count as accurate, but the
point is puerile. Such things might get
a few polite guffaws in polite American and English academia, but they are
little more than pigeon droppings on the Washington Monument, saying more about
the pigeons than the monument.
Paul in many ways remained the
same [after his conversion]. Paul the
apostle shared many of the characteristics of Paul the Pharisee. One of the principal ones was that he was a
zealot fully and totally committed to the course to which he felt called by
God. Further, in both careers he was,
by his own modest estimate, the best there was: [here follows quotations from
the Apostle, magnifying his office] …
He added, to be sure, that ‘it
was not I, but the grace of God’ (cf. Also Phil 4:13), but he thought that God
had chosen at least one of his apostles well.
p. 15
After a
quoting 2 Cor. 11:5, 21-23, in which Paul affirms what he had been as a
Pharisee, Sanders says,
Thus, as Pharisee and as
apostle, Paul could say that he was among the best, and there is no reason to
doubt his word. p. 16
Again, the smell of the high
school debating club: “Brutus is an
honorable man. So are they all, all
honorable men.” There is a titter among
the tea-drinkers.
Sanders says that Paul was
adept in turning aside the attacks made upon him:
He countered these attacks in
two ways. First, he claimed that,
though he did not preach with eloquence and wisdom, as did Apollos, he was in
fact not deficient, for he spoke the ‘wisdom of God’, which is foolishness to
humans: ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified’: and by the Spirit he spoke ‘the mind
of Christ’ (1 Cor. 1:2:16). His second
ploy [!] to defend himself despite his personal deficiency was more effective
and shows even better his quickness and resourcefulness: he turned his defects
into virtues, and his weakness became his strength. p. 16.
Once in a while, Sanders does
throw a bone to Paul, but he takes away with the left hand what he gives with
the right. He contends that the author
of Acts masked the differences between the Apostles, and that some wrote new
epistles, like 1 Timothy and attributed them to Paul. “Such efforts ‘saved’ Paul for mainstream Christianity, and his
letters became a central part of the New Testament as it developed between the
third and sixth centuries. His
passionate embrace of faith in Christ and the force of his writing have always
made him one of Christianity’s foremost spokesmen and by far its most exciting
and vigorous theologian-though he is still difficult to understand.” p. 22.
But the point is made. Sanders seems to be blind to his own
arrogance and is nothing loath to find arrogance and defect in the
apostle. The pigeons come back to mind. Sanders ought to be grateful that Paul
lived, for if there had been no Paul, there would have been no career for
Sanders.
We have spent very little
time studying those who follow Sanders in his view that Paul was arrogant and
mistaken. This paper is addressed to
those who believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that Paul and the
apostles spoke by the Spirit of God, believing that the words are not the words
of men, but the very words of God.
Thus, Paul’s evaluation of himself in his writings is true, being
inspired of God. As the Belgic
Confession puts it in Article Three:
We confess that this Word of God
was not sent nor delivered by the will of man, but that men spake from God,
being moved by the Holy Spirit, as the apostle Peter says; and that afterwards
God, from a special care which He has for us and our salvation, commanded His
servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit His revealed word to writing;
and He Himself wrote with His own finger the two tables of the law. Therefore
we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures.
The danger to the brothers
and sisters in the pew does not come from the curved pinkie set of elitist
academia, whose tenured professors so often have engaged in sophistry
concerning the Scriptures and look with disdain upon the unwashed masses and
feel it is their duty to deliver the ignorant from superstitious credulity with
respect to the Bible.
The danger comes from those
who accept Sanders position with respect to legalism in Judaism, but are very reluctant
to deny the inspiration of Paul’s writings. Because they want to take Paul
seriously, but are influenced by the position adopted by Sanders and his
followers, they find it necessary to re-interpret Paul’s writing. They think that Augustine, Luther, Calvin
and the Reformed Churches in particular have been one-sided in their
interpretation of Paul’s works and over-emphasized justification as
forensic. We are told that this
misunderstanding of Paul has caused no end of harm in the Christian community
and divided Protestantism from Rome, so we are told. This misunderstanding has also led to “easy believism” in
Protestantism for faith alone is not sufficient, for to faith must be added
good works to make it lively, for faith without works is dead being alone. Besides these, there are other reasons for
reexamining Paul, not the least of which will give us a new appreciation for
Roman Catholicism and its doctrine of infused righteousness, perhaps even
leading to a re-uniting of Protestants with the Church of Rome. It will also give us a renewed appreciation
for Judaism and their faith. So it
goes.
It is not necessary in this
paper to treat the large body of writing and the many authors who are engaged
in reinterpreting the Apostle Paul. It
will be enough for us to consider the question: Did Israel seek salvation by the works of the law, or by
faith? Was legalism systemic in the
religion of the Jews at the time of Christ?
If there was legalism, was it legitimate for the Jews to seek salvation
thereby?
Our method will be this: we will examine inspired Scriptures, other
than those written by the Apostle Paul, to see if the doctrines concerning
legalism are found in them. We believe
that Sanders’ method is seriously flawed.
His assumptions appear to include the idea that Paul must be judged by
first century Judaism, not Judaism judged by Paul’s writings. This might be valid except for the doctrine
of inspiration noted above, as expressed in the Belgic Confession. Although certainly Augustine, Luther,
Calvin, Zwingli and others were men of their times, yet their interpretation of
Scripture was not driven by the religious and philosophic fads of their
day. Instead, they rebuked the
religious fantasies of their ages by the Scriptures. The Spirit that lived in them and moved them was that the
Scriptures judged their age, not the other way around. Those who believe that Paul was so moved by
his age will take the same shallow view of the Reformers. Those who have no clear view of Scripture
become cynical in tyranny or neurotic in their self-absorption and guilt.
It is the assumption of this
writer that the Scriptures do not contradict themselves. If the Holy Spirit spoke through the Apostle
Paul, the doctrines that he expressed concerning Judaism will be found in the
other inspired writings. Any
modification necessary to our understanding of Paul’s writings will not be
found in searching the writings of first century Judaism, but in the writings
of Matthew, John, and the other apostles and prophets, including the writer of
Hebrews. In this paper we will look at
some pertinent passages in Matthew and in John. We will find that what is found in these apostles is also in the
other writers of the New Testament. Of
course, those who believe, like Sanders, that books like 1 Timothy were written
by those seeking to defend Paul in his prejudice will not be persuaded by this
paper. It is sufficient for us to
address those who believe the Bible, as we stated before.
Before we begin our
examination, it is necessary that we try to have a definition of legalism. We
do not desire to slay one or two straw men, but a living and breathing heresy
that afflicts the brothers and sisters in the pew.
We will derive a biblical
definition of legalism from the Apostle Peter. This writer chooses not to use Paul’s very clear definitions,
because it is Paul’s doctrine that is being elasticized.. 1 Peter 1:18-20 will suffice:
Forasmuch as ye know that ye
were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain
conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without
blemish and without spot: Who verily
was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these
last times for you….”
Legalism is any empty way of
life that relies upon the corruptible things of this world to satisfy for
sins. Silver and gold are used as
illustrations because they are esteemed most valuable by the men of the world. The traditions of former generations teach
men to rely upon these corruptible things and to turn away from the redemption
that was eternally arranged in God before the foundation of the world, even the
bloody offering of the Lord Jesus Christ.
As Calvin says in his commentary on I Peter 1:18: “When, therefore, Peter condemned the
doctrine of the fathers, he viewed it as unconnected with Christ, who is the
soul and the truth of the Law.”
It is also true that the
offering of Christ was not made on any earthly altar or in any human temple,
but He appeared in the presence of God for us.
Its application is wholly spiritual: He was offered to God the Father of
all Spirits and He was made an offering for sins to purge our consciences from
dead works to serve the living God [Heb. 9:14].
Peter is repeating the
warning of the Lord Jesus about following the traditions of the elders [Mark
7:3] in thinking that men can be cleansed by the washing of water after the
vain ceremonies of the Pharisees. The words
of Christ are pertinent [Matthew 15-20].
Matthew 15:1-20
Then came to Jesus scribes
and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for
they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
But he answered and said unto
them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father
and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But
ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by
whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honor not his father or his
mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none
effect by your tradition.
Ye hypocrites, well did
Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people
draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but
their heart is far from me. But in vain
they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
And he called the multitude,
and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which
cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the
Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
But he answered and said,
Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let
them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the
blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Then answered Peter and said
unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever
entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the
draught? But those things which proceed
out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These
are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not
a man.
There are several important things to be observed
about this parable that are relevant to the issue of whether or not there was
legalism among the Jews.
1. Jesus
said that the Pharisees set aside the law of God by their tradition. They made the “commandment of God of none
effect.” It was a religion of vanity.
2. The
result was an externalism that left them unclean and defiled before God in
spite of all their washings and ceremonies.
It is not that which enters into the man [corruptible things] that
defiles the man, but that which comes out of him. Sin does not lie in the external act but in the wickedness of the
heart, the stew from which all sins arise.
Pr 4:23 “Keep thy heart with all
diligence; for out of it [are] the issues of life.” This matches the description of Christ in Mt 23:27
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto
whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full
of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.”
3. In
dispensing with the “washings” that the Pharisees demanded, Christ was striking
at the very root of their externalism and “vain traditions.” If external things can defile a man, then
external rites and ceremonies can cleanse the man. By affirming that nothing that enters into a man can defile the
man, Christ is affirming that nothing external can cleanse him, exactly what
Peter says about corruptible things such as silver and gold. Jesus was not shooting blanks, but was
aiming at a very real and vain externalism and legalism according to our
definition above.
4. The
effect of their legalism was to make the “commandment of God of none
effect.” The law was robbed of its
force and its purpose by their vanities.
Instead of seeing the law in its holiness and grandeur, they stripped it
of its glory, using all sorts of devices to justify themselves. Christ gives one illustration of the
sophistry they used to justify not caring for their aged parents.
5. One
of the purposes of the law is to make sin “exceeding sinful.” Because they reduced the law to ceremony,
keeping it could no longer fulfill this purpose, for their hearts were shut
against it’s true spiritual meaning.
They were content with appearing righteous before men.
Luke
18:9-14
And he
spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were
righteous, and despised others: Two men
went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a
publican.
The
Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not
as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this
publican. I fast twice in the week, I
give tithes of all that I possess.
And the
publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven,
but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house
justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be
abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Several
things can be said about this parable of our Lord Jesus as it pertains to the
question of whether or not there was legalism in Israel.
1.
Again, Jesus was aiming at a real target, not some
abstraction. He certainly knew what
was in man and His words penetrated to the core of things. His words in this place were directed
towards those who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised
others.” Presumably there were those
who smarted under His arrows.
2.
He thanks God that he is not like other men. He does not claim any merit of his own, but
gives God glory for everything that he is.
There is no humility here, and certainly not brokenness nor a sense of
unworthiness. But he does give God
credit for it all. He also prayed in
the inner man—he did not pray out loud:
he spoke from his mind and spirit.
His error was not that of outward pretense. His error went much deeper than that. He was blind to his own arrogance and the horror of his own
condition. The lie was in his own
heart. He only deceived others because
he was deceived himself.
3.
The critical point for our purpose is the fact that he
feels himself righteous before God on the basis of God’s gifts to him. He does not take credit for his virtues, but
thanks God for them. He is punctiliously
correct: his virtues come from God; he
is supposed to be thankful; he goes to the place of worship and thanks God for
these virtues; what more could God want?
4.
He then catalogues all the virtues that he is thankful
for. He isn’t an extortioner, unjust,
an adulterer, and certainly not like the publican who was at the place of
worship the same time he was. For our
purpose it is important that he only speaks of things of the body, of external
things. He speaks in his heart before
God and no doubt thinks himself truly thankful. But he seems to be unaware of the plague of his own heart. [1 Kings 8:38] He seems to be unconscious that only men in the image of God can
be extortioners, unjust, and adulterers.
Pigs and dogs and possums cannot commit these things, for they arise
from the soul, the image of God, not from the “corruptible things.” He seems to be unaware of the sins of his
soul, for he only names sins that can be seen of men. He is thankful to God for what he does; the publican is
sorry for what he is.
5.
The Pharisee’s frame of reference is interesting: he is
focused on his own virtues [the gifts of God] and the publican. He was not focused on God or even on the
sacrifice.
6.
He speaks of the ceremonies that he performs which are
even more than the law commanded: he fasted twice on the Sabbath [see the
Greek] and gave tithes of all. We may
presume this included the mint, the anise, and the cumin.
7.
It is a good prayer in his eyes. We can imagine his thoughts of the sweet
aroma that would permeate the courts of the heavenly temple and nostrils of
God. This writer suspects that there is
no stench in heaven, but that this prayer would have been one, if such were
possible.
8.
What was the man’s fault? He illustrated Christ’s point: the Pharisee flattered himself in
God’s eyes and despised others. He no
doubt fancied himself very humble and faithful to God, but he couldn’t see his
own arrogance. He couldn’t truly
worship God, because he had his eyes on himself and on others who were not
worthy.
9.
His abominable externalism was not because he
worshipped in the eyes of men, or did things to be seen of men, but because he
trusted in externals. Externalism is
not hypocrisy in itself, for it can be very sincere in trusting in ceremonies
and “corruptible things.” It is
hypocrisy only in the sense that the emphasis on ceremonies and the deeds of
the body hide the corruption of the heart.
10.
True worship is in spirit and in truth, not in
externals. For the Christian, the true
communion in the body and blood of Christ is the recognition that Jesus Christ
is the true Bread of Life and that the life of the Christian is tied up in the
death and resurrection of Christ. In
this communion with Christ, the believer is crucified with Christ and yet
lives. He lives not in himself or even
in the gifts that God gives, but Christ lives in Him. This life is “by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and
gave himself for me” as Paul put it. The
first and most basic affection that must grip our hearts in the Lord’s Supper is
the fact of our natural guilt before the Lord; we are unworthy of such a feast,
but we trust in Christ’s broken body and shed blood alone for the forgiveness
of our sins. What we chew and sip and
swallow can never commend us to God. It
is what is going on in the heart of the worshipper that is vital. Our unworthiness is not primarily involved
in what we have committed sin, but that we are sinners.
11.
We are not worthy; we have done no works that are
worthy; we have nothing in ourselves even as the people of God to justify us
before the Lord; rather, our very life comes out of death. We are worthy of death, but no life can even
come out of our own death. Though we
richly deserve to die our own death cannot give us life, but only the wrath of
God forever and ever. Our life is
wrapped up in the death of Jesus Christ
12.
The kingdom of God belongs to those who are poor
in spirit, according to our Lord. The
Pharisee certainly did not come in poverty to God. It is true that he offered to God some wonderful gifts that God
had given him, and he was thankful for them.
But he forgot the most important, as his own scriptures declared: “Thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I
give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a
broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not
despise.” [Psalm 51:16,17] Again,
“Thus saith
the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool:
where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place
of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things
have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him
that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. He that
killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as
if he cut off a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he
offered swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an
idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their
abominations.” (Isa 66:1-3) The very
sacrifices that God had ordained became abominable because of the externalism
and the alienation of the hearts of the worshipper!
13.
The parable was spoken by our Lord against
“trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.” It is opposed to anyone who trusts in
anything in themselves, included the works of God that they can be thankful
for. No matter how commendable and
admirable internal righteous affections might be, and though they be the work
of God, they cannot be the basis of any trust concerning righteousness. What could be plainer? The publican did not even offer his
contrition and poorness of spirit to God as a ground of righteousness, but simply
called upon the mercy of God.
14.
The Pharisee was not justified, according to Christ. The publican was. The publican was not justified for his prayer and the Pharisee
was not lost because of his prayer.
Jesus is not telling us how to be saved, or what prayer to pray to be
saved. Jesus is rather telling us how
those who are saved pray. They pray out
of a sense of contrition and brokenness, not despising others, but standing
alone before God. The Pharisee was not
alone before God; he had the publican in his mind and he had a bundle of good
works on his mind. He thought he was
thankful, but the stink of his arrogance made his thanksgiving stink before
God. It was no sweet savor that
ascended from the Pharisee to God. It
was quite the contrary. The sweetness
came from the publican, but not because he was a publican. [As an aside, the modern publican would
probably not be justified either, because he would be up front along side the
Pharisee, thanking God he was not a Pharisee.]
John 5:37-40
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne
witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his
shape. And ye have not his word abiding
in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:
and they are they which testify of me.
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honor from men. But I know you, that ye have not
the love of God in you. I am come in my
Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name,
him ye will receive. How can ye
believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh
from God only? Do not think that I will
accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even
Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye
believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how
shall ye believe my words?
Jesus
had greatly offended the rulers because He had healed a man on the Sabbath and
had told him to take up his bed and walk.
This was in violation of the tradition of the elders. The practice of the Jews in keeping the
Sabbath days was well known and the Jews were often accused of laziness because
of it. They considered it a badge of
honor and a sign of their loyalty to Moses.
In response to their complaint that Jesus had broken the Sabbath, He
replied that He worked on the Sabbath just as His Father worked on the
Sabbath. This was even a greater
offense to them because in claiming God to be His Father, He was making Himself
equal to God. [John 5:18].
Again, in response to their charge of blasphemy, Jesus
makes a number of claims concerning His equality with God. He then attacks their fundamental claim that
in doing the word of God given by Moses they had eternal life. “Search the scriptures;” He says, “for in
them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of
me.”
Their very claim that that were obeying the words of
Moses was refuted by the fact that they did not believe in Christ. They “thought” they had eternal life, but
this was a false and vain hope because they misunderstood the meaning of the
word that was given by Moses. Their
boast that they had God’s word “abiding in them” was refuted by their unbelief
concerning Christ. [John 5:38]. They
did not have the true source of life because they did not come to Christ, who
is that Source. [John 5:40] Their whole
life was empty and vain because they did not have faith in Christ.
Thus, they stood accused of the very thing that Peter
was later to describe, a “vain conversation” received by tradition from their
fathers. Their entire observance of the
law, including their fastidiousness concerning the Sabbath was rendered void
because they did not believe in Christ.
Their faith was not in Christ, but in their observance
of Moses, for this was the ground of their persuasion that they had eternal
life [John 5:39]. It was therefore a
vain faith, an empty faith. Faith is
validated not by its intensity or by works done in terms of it, but by its object,
Jesus Christ. Jesus declares null and
void the faith that the Jew placed in the Scriptures given by Moses and his
[the Jew’s] observance of the commandments given by Moses—for this is the
meaning of “think ye have eternal life.”
This faith was declared null and void, not because it was not followed
zealously nor with great sincerity, but simply because it was directed toward
the wrong object. Faith in Moses and
his words could never bring life, if the life-giving element was missing. The life-giving element was the promise
concerning Jesus Christ, without which all observance of commandments and days
and ceremonies were vain indeed.
Because of this, Moses himself would become their
judge, not because of any lack of zealousness to the law, but because of their
lack of faith in Christ. This means
that every “Israelite indeed” who had faith in the promises of Moses concerning
the coming of Christ would believe and trust in Christ when He came. “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have
believed me,” Jesus said. [John 5:46].
If legalism is “any empty way of life that relies upon
the corruptible things of this world to satisfy for sins,” then the disease was
present in Israel with a vengeance, for they did not trust in Him who had come
in His father’s name, but in the things that they did of the law of Moses to be
seen of men. “How can ye believe, which receive
honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?” They knew nothing of the “rest of God” in
their hearts in ceasing from their own works, but contended constantly for the
observance of the ceremonies of Sabbath-keeping.
Conclusion.
The Apostle Paul, then, is not adding new content to
the teachings of Jesus as set forth by the writers of the Gospels, when he
affirms that Israel did not find the righteousness of God because they did not
seek it by faith. [Romans 9:31-33: “But
Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the
law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it
were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a
stumbling stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not
be ashamed.”]
Paul’s meaning is not that Israel did not have faith
absolutely, but that their confidence in seeking righteousness by the works of
the law was misdirected and vain. It is
exactly what Jesus said in John 5: your
firm persuasion that you are the people of God and have eternal life is
rendered null and void because you are seeking righteousness in the wrong way,
by the “works of the law,’ and not by trust in Christ. These works can never form the ground of any
assurance of eternal life for this is a misdirecting of faith to a different
object than the Lord Jesus. What Jesus
declared null and void, the Apostle Paul declared null and void.
Jesus also affirmed that faith in Him was all they
needed for eternal life. “Verily,
verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent
me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed
from death unto life” [John 5:24] As
John would write in his first epistle:
“He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God
hath not life” [1 John 5:24]. Paul affirms the same thing: “For ye are dead, and your life is hid with
Christ in God” [Col 3:3].
Paul did not invent a new disease in Israel, nor did
the Reformers and their followers invent a new disease when they said that
Israel vainly followed the law, persuaded that they would inherit eternal life
by doing so. Paul and the Reformers
were simply affirming what Jesus Himself had said. No works can form the ground of righteousness, not even those
commendable things that the Pharisee could thank God for and attribute to the
works of God in him. Faith in keeping
the commandments of Moses, no matter how intense, can never bring eternal
life. That would make expectations of
the law beyond its power to perform.
Life is in Christ alone. The
true Israelite” believed in Christ when He came.
The corruptible things of the world cannot defile the
already-corrupt soul and neither can they cleanse the soul. The man is defiled by what comes from him,
not by what goes into him. No man can
offer to God any thing of either his body or soul that can redeem him from his
sins, for his body and soul belong to those corruptible things that cannot rise
to heaven. If man is to be cleansed
from his sins, the offering for sin must be one than can rise to heaven, to the
temple in heaven not seen by the eyes of men, into the very presence of God
Himself. It is the blood of Christ, not
offered upon earthly altars nor offered before the eyes of men, but offered to
God His Father in the horror of darkness that covered the earth in the hour of
His passion. His offering was not
before the eyes of men, but in the presence of God Himself and directed to
Him. [Psalm 22 and Hebrews 9:24]
Peter contrasts all the vain offerings that men offer
up to God, including those works which the Pharisee can attribute to God
working in him, with the offering of Christ which is precious beyond any
price. He includes even those works
offered in faith, if the faith be in the works. We are born of corruptible seed and are like the grass and all
the glory of man is like the flower of grass.
It withers and blows away. Only
Christ is born of incorruptible seed for He is the life of men. It is He who was “foreordained before the
foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by
him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory;
that your faith and hope might be in God.”
[I Peter 1:20-25].
So the Reformers did not misinterpret Paul. Paul did not invent something new and
strange in terms of his egoism and vindictiveness against Israel; he simply
unpacked what was already there in the teachings of Christ and the other
apostles.
