The “Remnant” And What It Says About “Second Temple Judaism”
Introduction In reference to NPP, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. made the following observations: “...there remained in Paul’s day a faithful remnant (e.g., Rom. 11:5; cf. Luke 2:25ff., 36–38), individuals found, no doubt, among the various mainstreams, even within the religious establishment (Luke 23:50–51; cf. John 3: 1ff.; 7:50–51; 9:16; 19:39). But these, as the idea of the remnant suggests, were the exception . [N.T] Wright relentlessly insists…
Introduction that Paul ‘did not (as it were) abandon Judaism for something else’ throughout his writing. But, while Paul certainly did not abandon the religion of the Old Testament, [even so,] for the sake of fidelity to it and to the God of Abraham, he most certainly did abandon the dominant streams in the Judaism of his day, which were relentlessly opposed first by Jesus and then by himself. Judaism and Christianity are two different religions….
Introduction Not to recognize that fact will inevitably distort the interpretation of Paul as well as Jewish-Christian dialogue today [emphases mine—AT].” I believe this critique of NPP’s description of first-century-A.D. Judaism is not just “spot on,” but it embraces what I believe to be one of the most effective scriptural rebuttals of “covenantal nomism” that can be found—namely, the necessary inference to be drawn from the “remnant”
Introduction theme found throughout Scripture. And just what is this remnant theme? Simply this: In reference to the Jews (and the theme is not limited to them), there is an easily discernable pattern consisting of (1) a saved minority (a faithful remnant, if you will) who knew they had failed to keep God’s law perfectly and were, as a result, humbly aware, as sinners, that they were totally dependent upon God for their salvation by grace through faith, and…
Introduction (2) an unsaved majority who didn’t, but nonetheless believed they were in a covenantal relationship with God and thus saved. Instead, they were, unless they repented and believed the gospel, under God’s wrathful judgment. Until one sees this remnant theme—a pattern that runs throughout Judaism (but is, at the same time, broader than just national Israel)—one has missed an important…
Introduction biblical truth and interpretive tool that is a powerful curative for Sanders’ “pattern of religion,” a pattern that made him think that Paul believed that the only thing wrong with the Judaism of his day was that it wasn’t Christianity. Although Sanders and those who have tweaked and popularized his thesis, like James D.G. Dunn and N.T Wright, claim the “pattern of religion” for first-century Judaism was grace-based and therefore not disposed…
Introduction in the least to any sort of “works-righteous- ness,” their view is the complete antithesis of the actual pattern of religion that Paul addresses in his letters. Yes, there can be no doubt that many Jews of Paul’s day believed they were in a saved condition simply because they were Jews, God’s chosen people. But according to Sanders et al., the Judaism of Paul’s day consisted of two basic groups: the first a…
Introduction faithful, saved majority , and the second , an unfaithful, unsaved minority . Yet, this is the complete opposite of what Paul believed and taught, which was that there was a saved, faithful minority (viz., the remnant) who were not just circumcised in flesh, but in their hearts as well (cf. Rom. 2:28-29; 9:27-28; Isa. 10:22-23), and a faithless, unsaved majority who were under God’s judgment (cf. Matt 23:37-38). It was those in this latter group,…
Introduction those categorically not remnant, who, Paul informs us, had been broken off by their unbelief (cf. Rom. 11: 11-36). It was these same sort who were told on that first Pentecost after the Lord’s resurrection and ascension into heaven that they needed to “Be saved from this perverse generation” (Acts 2:40b), a generation of Jews, except for the faithful remnant, who were not in a right relationship with God. Thus, it is this…
Introduction remnant distinction, pattern, theme, or motif, and its impact on NPP that is essential to the overall theological critique of the doctrine. My experience has been much the same as professor Gaffin’s, in that I have encountered almost a total absence of any references to a faithful remnant being factored into the NPP view. I think the reason for this may well be that one’s acceptance of NPP and its various accoutrements simply assumes a “pattern of…
Introduction religion” which blinds them to the faithful- remnant motif, and its implication for their view, that is so clearly depicted in both the Old and New Testaments. This means that NPP views the scriptural references to Jesus’ and Paul’s condemnation of the self-righteous Jews of their day as evidence of the exception rather than the rule , and consequently repre- sentative of only a small contingent of first- century Jews. In other words, to NPPers,…
Introduction and this has been evidenced in my interaction with these brethren, their remnant of the Jewish nation, at least until we get to Acts 2, is an unfaithful minority . This is a serious mistake, and will cause anyone who embraces it, and I’m speaking specifically of Sanders’ covenantal nomism, to fail in their interpretation of Scripture, and to do so miserably.
There Are, And Always Have Been, Two Israels One of the first questions that came to my mind when I was introduced to NPP was, “What about the remnant?” In other words, if the “pattern” for the majority of first-century Jews was a pure grace-based religion, as Sanders and other NPPers claim, of whom did the “remnant” Paul mentioned refer (cf. 9:27; 11:5)? That is, if the only thing Paul found wrong with national Israel’s “pattern of religion” was that it wasn’t Christianity, as…
There Are, And Always Have Been, Two Israels Sanders asserts, and some of my brethren who are not NPPers think, then who was Paul talking about with his term “remnant”? When attempting to answer this question, what Paul says in Romans 11:1-10, cannot—indeed, must not—be ignored: “(1) I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. (2) God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do…
There Are, And Always Have Been, Two Israels you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, (3) ‘LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life?’ (4) But what does the divine response say to him? ‘I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’ (5) Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace…
There Are, And Always Have Been, Two Israels [my emphasis—AT]. (6) And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. (7) What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded [emphasis mine— AT]. (8) Just as it is written: ‘God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear,…
There Are, And Always Have Been, Two Israels to this very day.’ (9) And David says: ‘Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a recompense to them. (10) Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see, and bow down their back always.’” Notice how Paul reaches back to a period in time hundreds of years before the beginning of what is now called second-temple Judaism (viz., that period between the destruction of…
There Are, And Always Have Been, Two Israels the first and second temples), and uses the story of Elijah and the seven thousand who had not bowed to Baal (cf. 1 Kings 19) to talk about “a remnant according to the election of grace” (v. 5) that was in existence in his day (i.e., “at this present time”). As noted by the red-letter emphases in the above pericope, another designation Paul uses for the remnant is “the elect” (v. 7), which, without getting into all the bad theology that exists about…
There Are, And Always Have Been, Two Israels what this term means, is just another way of referring to those who are in covenant relationship with God and thus saved. But then, in the very same verse, Paul goes on to mention “the rest,” who are, he says, “hardened.” If “the rest” he’s talking about refers to the rest of national Israel (i.e., those who were not remnant), and it clearly does, then NPP’s “pattern of religion” for first- century Judaism isn’t anywhere close to…
There Are, And Always Have Been, Two Israels being true. Thus, it is simply beyond me how anyone, particularly a brother in Christ, can read what Paul wrote and not understand that he was referring to two very different groups, two very different “patterns of religion,” two very different Israels. This is predicated on Paul’s earlier statement that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (9:6). Thus, when taking into consideration Paul’s reference to “the…
Recommend
More recommend
