N.T. Wright builds much of his case on “Second-Temple Judaism”, arguing that it has been mischaracterized by many and that Paul is in agreement with “Second-Temple Judaism”. John Piper summarizes those claims in the 9th chapter of The Future of Justification.
“According to Wright, the term “works of the law” referred not to law-keeping in general, but to the acts of circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and dietary regulations. These, he explains, were pursued, not for the purpose of earning a right standing with God, or getting saved, or entering the covenant people of God, but rather as a “badge” to show that those who did these “works of the law” would be found on the last day to belong, by grace, to God’s people.” As a result of this, the problem of Paul’s opponents was that they used these “badges” to exclude Gentiles. For Wright, the issue is ethocentrism, not “legalism”.
“Badges, what are stinkin’ badges?” you might ask. They would be signs pointing to a deeper reality. But was this what got Paul so worked up in his letter to the Galatians? No! He thought it was a gospel issue at work, and those who continued to teach as the Judaizers did were condemned- not wrong and misled and therefore overly strict and judgmental- anathematized! I have a hard time reconciling this with the idea of “badges”.
As a covenantal theologian, I see the various covenants as part of the over-arching covenant of grace. There is progress and development taking place, and the covenants are administered differently. As a result, we see that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of grace- God had redeemed them. The covenant stipulations (we call them the 10 Commandments) were how redeemed people were to live under God’s rule- NOT what someone does to earn heaven. But, as Paul notes in Romans 9-11 they (most Jews) had begun to live by works, not faith. So, I can give N.T. Wright credit for recognizing the gracious character of the Mosaic covenant (if he does that), but we can’t confuse that with 2nd-Temple Judaism.
Piper summarizes Wright’s logic: Free and gracious entrance into the covenant => a life of obedience to God out of gratitude for this grace => final justification on the basis of the entire life lived.
So close, and yet so far. As a Christian, my proper obedience is a function of faith and love because God has first loved me and made some great promises of future grace to me. But my final justification cannot be based on that, for that is still tainted through and through. But, I get ahead of myself!
N.T. Wright thinks he sees a similarity proving his point in the Qumran documents. These are documents hidden by the Essene sect in a cave near Qumran, which were discovered in the mid-20th century. The document Wright quotes, 4QMMT, was published in 1994.
“Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen that you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and so keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end of time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel.”
Based on Wright’s presuppositions (Paul’s doctrine about justification is about covenant community, not salvation) he sees this as confirming his argument that we have largely misunderstood Paul. The Qumran community used “boundary-markers” or “badges” that were ethical in nature, not just ceremonial. As a result, Wright has Paul (and Qumran) teaching that our future justification is on the basis of works we have done, not the works Jesus has done in our place.
But my mind went to thinking, who ever confused the Qumran community, the Essenes, with mainstream 2nd-Temple Judaism? This assumes Wright is correct in his interpretation of the section of 4QMMT (which I don’t think he is). In other words, Wright makes an unwarrented leap of logic to project his suspect interpretation of the Qumran document as mainstream Judaism to undermine hundreds, if not thousands, of years of Christian theology. This seems to be just so much wishful thinking.
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply