E.P. Sanders wrote Paul and Palestinian Judaism with the intention of “destroying the [‘justification by works’] view of Rabbinic Judaism which is … prevalent … in much … New Testament Scholarship” [xii]. He believes that the common Protestant impression that Judaism is a religion of works and not faith is a false caricature. Contrary to mainstream Christian opinion, Sanders argues that Palestinian Jews had tremendous faith in the God of Israel and confidence in the Sinai Covenant. Although various rabbis and Jewish sects had different interpretations of how one should honor this Covenant, faith is always assumed. To correct the common, possibly mistaken view of Palestinian Judaism, Sanders proposes to examine the various flavors of Judaism circa the period of Paul the Apostle and attempt to fit them into a “pattern of religion” under a common hypothetical framework: Covenantal Nomism.

Sanders’ method is to survey various Judaic sources, including the Tannaitic Literature (Talmud, Mishnah, etc.), Dead Sea Scrolls (Essene Writings), Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Old Testament Scriptures from Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic sources. From the data presented in his survey, Sanders presents and argues the hypothesis that most Jewish soteriology fits the scheme of “Covenantal Nomism,” meaning “the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the Covenant and that the Covenant [my emphasis] requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression” [75]. In other words, Palestinian Jews understood themselves as a covenant people and as covenant individuals who awaited God’s imminent salvation promised through the covenant. This salvation was guaranteed, by implicit and explicit promises in the Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants, as long as the faithful Jew remained in these covenants.

According to Sanders’ pattern of religion (Covenantal Nomism), one remained in covenant through obedience to the covenant. If one became disobedient to the covenant, covenant membership came into jeopardy. To maintain membership, various forms of Judaism recognized four primary remedies: repentance, petitions for forgiveness, the merits of the Patriarchs, and the sacrificial system. Provided the disobedient Jew returned to covenantal obedience, he would remain in membership and be saved.

One advantage of Covenantal Nomism is that it helps explain why Judaism survived, despite the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the cessation of the sacrificial system. This pattern of religion had created a framework which allowed Rabbinic Judaism to continue, through repentance, petitions for forgiveness, and the merits of Abraham, without a sacrificial system. Another advantage of Covenantal Nomism is its relatively easy transference to the New Covenant of Christianity. Pastors often exhort Christians who stumble and fall into sin to return to the New Covenant in Christ, usually through repentance, petitions for forgiveness, and claiming the atoning death of Jesus Christ.

After outlining the Palestinian Jewish pattern of religion, Sanders utilizes this framework to suggest Paul’s soteriology departs from Covenantal Nomism. “Paul’s ‘pattern of religion’ cannot be described as ‘Covenantal Nomism,’ … Paul presents an essentially different type of religiousness” [543], defined as 1) “salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works,” [543] and 2) “works are the condition of remaining ‘in’, but they do not earn salvation.” [543]. The latter point is essentially in agreement with the pattern of religion of Paul’s Jewish contemporaries presented by Sanders. However, the departure of the first point is tremendous.

As Sanders evidences, Jews assumed maintenance of covenant membership, but Paul argues that covenant membership must be received by grace. Therefore, one could not join the righteous community through any form of covenant observance (including circumcision), but rather, God causes his elect to be enjoined into the covenant community and its new covenant law. Thus, grace precedes law, but law is necessary to maintain membership. Thus, Sanders’ conclusions imply Judaism is ineffective for salvation, since circumcision without complete obedience is worthless and Christians are the heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant [551]. “In short, this is what Paul finds wrong in Judaism: it is not Christianity” [552].

Sanders’ conclusions are problematic for the reformed systematic theologian. Luther’s “salvation by faith alone” loses its longtime Jewish debate partner and antithesis: “salvation by works.” If Jews of Paul’s day considered themselves saved by virtue of God’s Covenants with Israel and the Patriarchs, salvation is not received by works, it is assumed on the basis of the Covenant, which also means that faith itself is presumed. Second, in Sanders’ view, God’s election into the righteous community is through grace alone, implying that salvation is not by faith, but rather God’s sovereign choice. Faith counts for nothing in this election scheme, instead it is a spiritual gift or some other form of grace, given to those united in Christ. Thus, as Sanders’ argues, Paul is misunderstood by both mainstream Jewish and Christian scholarship.

In terms of method, Sanders’ approach is directionally correct; however, his analysis of Tannaitic Literature is far from exhaustive, but impressive nonetheless. Likewise, his data points from Qumran and other non-Biblical literature are selective, as are his choices from the Pauline Corpus. In fairness, however, Sanders has presented a new working hypothesis which deserves consideration and thoughtful analysis, and will undoubtedly continue to spawn tremendous scholarly discussion (as it already has). In fact, Sanders himself provides an update to his own conclusions in Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People.

In any case, whether or not one may agree with Sanders’ conclusions on Paul the Apostle, there is sufficient evidence demonstrated to correct the misconception that all Palestinian Judaism operated as the antithesis of Luther’s justification by faith alone. Further studies on this topic may demonstrate incidences of “justification by works.” However, the real issue is now Pauline Theology, which Sanders’ new perspective now seeks to update.