Paul and the Gospel of God

Contents

SMASHWORDS EDITION

Dedication

Preface

Chapter 1. Background and Development of the Two-Covenant

Chapter 2. The Gospel, Faith and Salvation Romans 1

Chapter 3. The Gospel and the Question of Israel Romans

Chapter 4. The Sonderweg Interpretation Romans 11:25

Chapter 5. Summary and Conclusion

Bibliography

About the Author

List of Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Copyright

Notes

SMASHWORDS EDITION

* * *

PUBLISHED BY: Mark Clark on Smashwords

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God.

// Romans 1:1

Mark Clark demonstrates through clear writing and careful exegesis of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans that the Apostle Paul does not maintain a view of Two Covenants, one for Jews and one for Gentiles, but one covenant for all people which has been brought to fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Clark explores what Paul’s theology means for the church and its mission today. This is a recommended read for all those interested in Paul’s theology and how it impacts our lives.

~ John W. Martens, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Theology, University of St. Thomas

The Apostle Paul’s understanding of the gospel, was challenged in his own day as it is in our day. Among the different gospel proposals today is what is known as the Two Covenant View. In this book, scholar-pastor Mark Clark reviews the background history of this proposal and exposes its shortcomings. Using the letter to the Romans as the basis for his critique, Clark engages in an exposition of Romans, that capitalizes on the best of exegetical scholarship to reaffirm the Apostle’s one covenant gospel. The book is an important contribution to the articulation of Pauline theology and a compelling critique of the Two Covenant View.

~ Sven Soderlund, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies, Regent College

Preface

One of the most pressing issues for the church thus far in the twenty-first century is, once again, its attitude toward the Jewish people. After centuries of relative neglect, modern Zionism, the Jewish Holocaust, and the reestablishment of the state of Israel, there has arisen the question of the relationship—both religiously and politically— between Jews and Christians. There has been an increasing awareness among Christians in recent years of Christianity’s history of anti- Semitism, made more prominent by the events of the Holocaust. As Christians began to study their past in light of the Holocaust, many saw that tragedy as the result of anti-Jewish sentiments present in Christian Europe for centuries.

Recent scholarship has reacted in different ways to this connection between Christianity and anti-Semitism. Some scholars have argued that Christianity by its very nature is anti-Jewish. The most significant book in this regard is Rosemary Ruether’s Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism,¹ wherein she argues that anti-Judaic sentiment is built into the fabric of Christian faith from apostolic-times—and thus its presence in the New Testament, specifically in the writings of the Apostle Paul—through patristic-times and into the modern Christian era.

But it is another view on the issue that has become far more popular and influential in modern Christianity, which this book addresses. A view that has gained far more traction among New Testament scholars. This interpretation is known as the two-covenant view. Popularized by such scholars as Krister Stendahl and Lloyd Gaston,² this view claims that the truth of Christianity does not negate the truth of Judaism, and that in fact, both religions are equal paths to God in the post-Christ era—Christianity for Gentiles, and Judaism for Jews. This model focuses primarily on issues revolving around Paul’s theology in the book of Romans. It argues that Paul’s mission was directed exclusively toward Gentiles because he saw the gospel of Christ as the means by which they must be saved; and that Jews need not believe in Christ for they are deemed God’s covenant people through Abraham and Moses. According to this view, Paul’s vision was for a Jewish community faithful to the law—alongside a Gentile community faithful to Jesus.

In short, this is the very popular modern question of the exclusivity of Christianity. Is it true that Jesus is the only way? I would like this book to be a contribution to the discussion of how Paul is to be understood and interpreted in light of modern Western history and the ensuing debate. I would like to offer a way of understanding Paul and his theology that both retains his gospel and sets him free from the charge of anti-Semitism. Moreover, I would like to do so without having to adopt the conclusions of Ruether or those of the two-covenant view.

The way to achieve this goal is by examining Romans—the epistle around which most of this debate centres—to gain a proper understanding of Paul’s conviction: that salvation is through faith in Jesus, and that this is true for both Gentiles and Jews.

Such is the gospel that Paul was set apart to preach. Such is the gospel of God (Rom. 1:1).

This book is a publication of Mark Clark’s Masters Thesis in New Testament Studies from Regent College, Vancouver, B.C.

Chapter 1. Background and Development of the Two-Covenant View

Introduction

The two-covenant view of salvation contends that the New Testament, and the Apostle Paul specifically, do not teach that Jews need to believe in Christ in order to be saved. It suggests, rather, that they are saved through the covenant God made with Abraham— maintained through the Mosaic law—even in the post-Christ era. Hence, there are two salvific covenants: one in which Jews are deemed covenant members of the people of God through their descent from Abraham and faithfulness to the law, and one in which Gentiles become covenant members through Christ.

This view has a long history, going back in seed form all the way to rabbinic discussions in the Middle Ages, and particularly to the writings of Maimonides.¹ However, we will limit our review to work done in the last century. Of particular focus will be four writers who have played an integral role in advancing the two-covenant view: Franz Rosenzweig (1886-1929), Krister Stendahl (1921-2008), Lloyd Gaston (1929-2006), and John Gager (b. 1937).

Franz Rosenzweig (1886-1929)

The modern inception of the two-covenant view can be traced to post-World War I dialogue between Jews and Christians, and specifically to the work of Franz Rosenzweig. As Joseph Gudel notes, in virtually every historical work examining the factors that have influenced modern Jewish-Christian relations, the person of Franz Rosenzweig is prominent.² Rosenzweig was a Jewish philosopher and theologian who, in 1925, published two works, The New Thinking³ and the widely celebrated The Star of Redemption.⁴ These were followed by a translation of the Torah from Hebrew to German in collaboration with Martin Buber,⁵ along with other smaller works.⁶ He has been compared to such Christian thinkers as Søren Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, and Reinhold Neibuhr, as well as Jewish scholars such as Martin Buber and Abraham J. Heschel.⁷ He has been called one of the most profound Jewish thinkers of the 20th century.⁸

Rosenzweig’s conclusions about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity became the foundation upon which Pauline scholars developed the two-covenant theory. Krister Stendahl, for example, asserts, In important respects Paul’s [two-covenant] thought approximates an idea well documented in later Jewish thought from Maimonides to Franz Rosenzweig.⁹ Likewise, Lloyd Gaston argues that Paul can be understood, at least implicitly, as affirming something like the two-covenant concept of F. Rosenzweig.¹⁰

The basic teaching of Rosenzweig is that God's soteriological plan is a co-existence between Judaism and Christianity. This idea originally appeared in his famous book, The Star of Redemption (henceforth The Star). The Star is primarily a philosophical inquiry examining three fundamental elements of existence—God, the World, and Man—and the relationship between these in the context of creation, revelation and redemption.¹¹ The Star does not once use the term religions, but prefers instead the word Forms; these Forms, Rosenzweig says, are descriptions of the eternal transcendent world. He speaks of Forms as various attempts at expressing and enacting transcendent reality. Of the many Forms, he believes that Christianity and Judaism are superior, and that both are equally true; he asserts that they express more accurately than any others the true state of the world and what lies beyond it.¹² The Star affirms Judaism as a tenable theological and philosophical worldview that can successfully be lived in time, [and] it affirms the same for Christianity.¹³ It assigns both Judaism and Christianity distinct but equally important roles in the spiritual structure of the world.¹⁴

The Apostle Paul, asserts Rosenzweig, views Judaism’s role in the post-Christ era as one of validation for God’s saving of the Gentiles through Christ: The pastor who was asked for the proof of Christianity by Frederick the Great, Rosenzweig explains, argued conclusively when he answered: ‘Your majesty, the Jews!’ The Christians can have no doubts about us. Our existence stands surety for their truth.¹⁵ He contends that Paul sees it necessary for the Jews to remain until the final consummation for the purpose of legitimizing Christianity: That [Jews existing for the ‘surety of Christian truth’] is why, from the Christian point of view, it follows logically that Paul should let the Jews remain to the end—till ‘the fullness of the peoples shall have come in.’¹⁶

Christianity is fully dependent on Judaism not only for its inception, but also for its continued validity.

Rosenzweig also suggests that both religions are equally necessary in the world because neither Form by itself contains the full truth: The truth, the whole truth…belongs neither to them [Christians] nor to us [Jews]; we both have but a part of the whole truth.¹⁷ For the world to contain full truth, therefore, the two Forms—Judaism and Christianity—must co-exist, representing and containing their respective parts of truth and their respective quests for eternity.

Rosenzweig agrees with the Christian assertion that Christ is the means by which a person is saved. However, he says, it is only Gentiles who need saving—Jews are already in covenant relationship with God. Notes Rosenzweig,

We are all wholly agreed as to what Christ and his church mean to the world: no one can reach the Father save through him…. But the situation is quite different for one who does not have to reach the Father because he is already with him.¹⁸

According to Rosenzweig, Christianity was intended to be a Gentile religion. Faith in Christ is not a necessary requirement for Jews to be considered members of the covenant people of God because they are already in covenant with God through Abraham and Moses. These covenants were not annulled or superseded by the establishment of the new covenant in Christ. Pauline scholar H.J. Schoeps points out that Rosenzweig is one of the few [scholars] in recent times who has noted this inner connection between Moriah and Golgotha,¹⁹ two mountains representing two equally legitimate and salvific ways to relate to God.

According to this interpretation, there are two separate covenant-people of God and two separate covenants that are entered through two different routes: Jews through Abraham and Moses, and Gentiles through Christ. For Rosenzweig, it is not wrong for Jews to come to faith in Christ. It is, however, not necessary, because Christ does not represent a point of division between the old and new covenants; rather, Christ represents a further revelation of God (beyond the law) to the world for the sake of Gentile salvation.

Rosenzweig’s own testimony illustrates this point well. In 1913 Rosenzweig began a focused exploration of his own faith. This involved conversations with his cousins, Hans and Rudolf Ehrenberg (both of whom had become Christians), and his friend and colleague, E. Rosenstock-Huessy. Nahum Glatzer explains:

During a highly decisive, soul-searching debate between [Rosenzweig and Rosenstock-Huessy] in the night of July 7, Rosenstock-Huessy forced Rosenzweig to veer from a relativist position into a non-relativist one. There seemed only one way out of the dilemma: acceptance of Christianity. Rosenzweig made only one personal reservation; he declared that he "could turn Christian only qua Jew," i.e., by remaining loyal to Judaism during the period of preparation and up to the moment of baptism.²⁰

This period came to an end, however, after Rosenzweig attended a Day of Atonement service in a synagogue in Berlin on October 11, 1913. Prior to that day, Rosenzweig had not thought it possible that the spiritual perception of the ‘reality of God,’ could be experienced by a person within the Judaism of his day. He had thought that a true experience of faith calls for the mediator, Jesus.²¹ After attending this Day of Atonement service, Rosenzweig wrote a letter to Rudolf Ehrenberg in which he acknowledges, To the Christian no one can reach the father save through the ‘Lord,’ [Jesus]...[but] the situation is quite different for one who does not have to reach the father because he is already with him.²² Here, he speaks, of course, of his Jewish roots. Looking back on the events of October 1913, Rosenzweig’s conclusive and rhetorical question is: Shall I become converted, I who was born ‘chosen’? Does the alternative of conversion…exist for me?²³

Consequently Rosenzweig, having been on the verge of becoming a convert to Christianity [after being raised] in a largely assimilated Jewish household,²⁴ did not convert. Instead, he gained an even deeper respect for Judaism and remained a