Justification within the Covenant

Some of the answers to these questions lay in the concept of covenant, a word that I find rarely used in “relational theology”. Israel viewed themselves as a people of Abraham’s covenant, and the covenant was a controlling factor in how they lived and viewed their world.

The Abrahamic covenant was given before the Law, and was not fulfilled by the Law, but by God’s fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham (Rom. 4, Gal. 3:16-18). This covenant, which was meant to bless “all the families of the earth” (Gen. 12), had been turned into a club for those of Jewish decent by the 1st Century BC. The Gospels tell how Jesus came and passed judgment on Israel and renewed the covenant so it would accomplish the original purpose. In His death and resurrection, Jesus became the mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15), and as such is the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham, foreshadowed in the Torah, sung about in the Psalms and looked forward to in the Prophets. In the renewed covenant Jew and Gentile are put on an equal footing, and together, can lay claim to the promises of Abraham .

“ Recent scholarship supports the view that Paul’s understanding of justification had less to do with individual righteousness through keeping the law and more to do with becoming part of a community of faith.” (Heppner) In fact, according to Wright, (The New Testament and the People of God) the 1st Century Jewish concept of covenant was so controlling that they would have even understood the term “forgiveness of sins” primarily as a way of putting away the whole nation’s sins, and only secondarily from an individual perspective. This is quite a different reading than I’ve been taught in the typical Protestant interpretation that exalts the individual’s perspective.

Further, Judaism was never considered a religion where people tried to earn their way into God’s favor (that does not mean that certain sects within Judaism didn’t try to do that). Rather, the Law was a sign that one was already in the covenant. This is called “covenantal nomism” in theological circles. “The meaning of "covenantal nomism" is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God's covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one's status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.” (Mattison)

So, what does this have to do with the NT? Jesus died on the cross and rose again justified before God and instituted a New Covenant. This implies that Jesus was interested in a “people of God”, not just individual salvation. Not only that, but Paul probably would not be writing from the context of individual salvation either. Our reading of Paul and what he meant by “justification” takes on a different meaning when we read it from a covenantal perspective, rather than trying to answer the question “How is one saved?” We need to be reading the NT from the perspective of the covenant, and the "people of God" rather than trying to find answers to questions concerning individual salvation.

Additionally, if the Law was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, and not a system of legalism, as the Reformers have taught us, and Paul was not concerned with addressing legalism, the meaning of "justification by faith" my take on a different meaning too....

This is too long as it is, so it will have to wait for another post...