^{Matt 7:24} “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. ²⁵ The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. ²⁶ But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. ²⁷ The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

I’ve been asked to share my thoughts on Dr. Don Garlington’s review of Dr. Robert Cara’s book “Cracking the Foundation of the New Perspective on Paul: Covenantal Nomism versus Reformed Covenantal Theology”. I’m no expert so I won’t be responding to everything that is stated:

Cara cites the following from 4 Ezra:

For God strictly commanded those who came into the world, when they came, what they should do to live, and what they should observe to avoid punishment. (4 Ezra 7:21)

For you have a treasury of works laid up with the Most High. (4 Ezra 7:77)

Now this is the order of those who have kept the ways of the Most High … they laboriously served the Most High, and withstood danger every hour that they might keep the Law of the Lawgiver perfectly. (4 Ezra 7:88-89)

The day of judgment is decisive and displays to all the seal of truth. … For then everyone shall bear his own righteousness or unrighteousness. (4 Ezra 7:104-5)

For the righteous, who have many works, laid up with you, shall receive their reward in consequence of their own deeds. (4 Ezra 8:77)

Here was Garlington’s response:

Fourth, the secondary literature under examination is highly selective and hardly does justice to the mass of materials available. Cara cites Bruce Longenecker’s two books on 4 Ezra but ignores Richard Bauckham’s essay. Sanders did concede that 4 Ezra, as a conspicuous exception to the “rule” of covenantal nomism, lapses into out-and-out legalism, although 2 Baruch already undertakes to correct the outlook of its author (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 427–28). Bauckham, by contrast, thinks that these two documents represent a variety of covenantal nomism that places extra stress on law-obedience. With regard to 4 Ezra, Bauckham makes several points. (1) Salvation is not represented as the result of weighing an individual’s deeds, but as the reward for the kind of life the righteous person has led in faithfulness to God and the Torah. (2) It is a false alternative to posit that there is an inconsistency between God’s grace and keeping the law. God gives salvation to those members of his elect people who have kept the terms of the covenant. (3) 4 Ezra illustrates how the basic and flexible pattern of covenantal nomism could take forms in which the emphasis is overwhelmingly on salvation by obedience to the law. 2 Baruch endorses essentially the same outlook. My only qualification is that Bauckham applies the term “merit” to the process of keeping the terms of the covenant. I would say, rather, that keeping the terms of the covenant is “righteousness.”

In response to Bauckham, I can only offer a few thoughts. Firstly, it seems to me that he is operating on a false dichotomy. It may very well be the case that the author of Ezra maintains that it is God rewarding those for “kind of life the righteous person has led in faithfulness to God and the Torah” and this is by “weighing an individual’s deeds”. Furthermore, the very idea that Bauckham is presenting seems to lack any content. How can you be rewarded for your life other than by looking at the deeds of your life?

If the person has kept the law, then what grace is needed? It seems that none would be necessary because the individual has kept his end of the bargain. One has to wonder what that sounds like…

As regards the later Tannaitic literature, the same thesis is forwarded. Predictably, Cara singles out the factors of free will, merit, and the relation of good deeds to the final judgment. In keeping with Sanders’ own assessment, some allowance may be made for individual Rabbis who may have embraced a notion of “works-righteousness” in relation to the judgment. But it is a question what was characteristic of these authors, and it is entirely possible to read them quite in keeping with a covenantal nomism model. As stated above, merit in the Rabbis mainly has to do with “God’s gifts in biblical history” (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 189–90). But the more pressing question pertains to the dating of these sources. Paul could hardly have read the Mishnah, Talmud, Tosefta and related literature, and to argue that the ideology of these volumes was extant in the first century serves to beg the question. At least some allowance must be made for the factor of development in the history of Judaism. In a nutshell, Cara culls passages here and there from these texts and then imposes on them an assumed framework. As ever, Reformed theology is the Procrustean Bed to which every text must conform. Moreover, Cara has fallen into the trap of what Samuel Sandmel once called “Parallelomania.”

I think Cara’s main point is to use 2nd-century Jewish sources against Sanders that uses the same sources for his conclusions. So, if one argues that the sources are too late and significant Jewish thought has developed by this point, then it still undermines both Sanders and Cara. This is probably in the same thought as Gathercole:

I have no intention in this section of trying to argue that this or that tradition from the Yerushalmi or the Bavli goes back to the first century. The function of the argument about the Rabbis here is that they are a supporting witness to the evidence of the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls we have seen above. Since for Sanders the Rabbis provide such vital evidence, I will bring some of the criticisms that have been made against Sanders’s interpretation of the Rabbis into the discussion.

Simon J. Gathercole. Where Is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5 (Kindle Locations 2469-2473). William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Kindle Edition.

Furthermore, the ability to read them in the light of covenantal nomism doesn’t mean we should. This simply would leave both in interpretive underdetermination. That also means the readers could’ve taken it either way. I also think Cara recognizes this in the book:

As mentioned several times now, scholars disagree on the usefulness of Rabbinic literature for determining Jewish views in the first century A.D. As I argued earlier, I see some usefulness. The Mishnah is the one Rabbinic document in which I have a modicum of trust. As shown previously in this appendix, information in the Mishnah and the Bible sometimes matches. Therefore, some of the information and ideas in the Mishnah were certainly floating around in the first century A.D. With even less trust, I do often consult the Tosefta. Other than these two documents, I have no confidence that the information in any other Rabbinic document is useful to make an argument about first-century views, although in theory, it is possible. In Chapters 2 and 3, I did include references to other Rabbinic literature, but these are presented more for information than an argument for Jewish views in the first century. Even for the Mishnah and the Tosefta, should only the statements by rabbis who lived before a.d. 70 be used? My view is that by a.d. 200 various Rabbinic views were ‘flattened out’ so that it is equally probable that the purported views of any rabbi did exist before a.d. 70.123

Robert J. Cara. Cracking the Foundation of the New Perspective on Paul: Covenantal Nomism versus Reformed Covenantal Theology (R.E.D.S Book 2) (Kindle Locations 5195-5204). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.

Continuing:

The first passage is Eph 2:8–10. Generally, the discussion is exegetically sound and useful. It is noted that “salvation” can have reference to justification, sanctification, or glorification, or all three. More accurately, “salvation” would include all aspects of the ordo salutis (p. 152, n. 76). In this passage, Cara opts for salvation as referring to justification solely. It is correctly observed that “this” in 8b looks to the entire clause of 8a. However, the argument entails the assumption that “works” are tantamount to “merit.” One may grant that “works” pertain to a “negative soteriological system” (p. 153). But in what sense? In answering, Cara falls back on the covenant of works (p. 153, n. 78). Then it is asserted that “Although Jew/Gentile concerns are not totally absent from Ephesians, the emphasis on Gentiles (Eph. 2:11) and their ‘works’ surely means general moral works as opposed to Jewish nationality markers” (p. 153).
This line of argumentation is flawed in four regards. The first is the artificial restriction of “salvation” to justification, because salvation always transpires in three tenses: I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved. It is only for the sake of polemics that Cara has to limit the term to justification in Eph 2.

This argument seems to grant the possibility of this merely referring to justification but thinks that it is an unwarranted move in this passage. There seem to be further reasons to suppose this doesn’t refer to all. Firstly, it is common that when Paul brings up works that it is often in reference to justification. He also brings up the topic of boasting. Secondly, aspects of the ordo salutis like election, predestination, etc aren’t based on faith (Rom. 9:11).

Second, the Torah itself does not distinguish between “general moral works” and “Jewish nationality markers.” It was just as “moral” for the members of Moses’ covenant to adhere to the purity, dietary, and sacrificial laws as to keep the Ten Commandments.

These distinctions are not made explicitly but that doesn’t mean they aren’t made implicitly. For example:

^{1 Sam 15:22} But Samuel replied:

Third, to write that Jew/Gentile concerns are not totally absent from Ephesians is a palpable understatement. The entire section of 2:11–3:6 is devoted to Jew/Gentile equality in Christ. At one time, it was “the dividing wall of hostility,” i.e., “the law of commandments and ordinances” (the Torah) that stood in the way of that equality and presented a roadblock to the unity of “the one new man” in Christ. Moreover, the “mystery of Christ” is nothing other than the way in which Gentiles are now fellow heirs with believing Jews, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ (3:4–6). These data have a definite bearing on the claim that Paul has in mind “general moral works as opposed to Jewish nationality markers,” simply because the Torah, with its “commandments and ordinances,” was preeminently the “boundary marker” that distinguished Israel from the nations. Paul’s precise argument is that Christ has removed the erstwhile barriers that stood in the way of the creation of the one new man in place of the two (v. 15), whose effect was reconciliation, peace, and access in one Spirit to the Father (vv. 16–18).

I agree with this, but I think it reads something later in Paul’s argument back into what he has said prior. I think Paul starts with our initial sinful state and moves to our salvation to the unity of gentile/Jewish Christians. There is no reason to limit Eph. 2:8-9 to merely Jewish boundary markers is unwarranted. Furthermore, it ignores the context of what Paul has stated. He contrasts this state with the prior state of Christians being “under wrath”, “children of wrath”, and “dead in transgressions”. Christians are also created for these good deeds and this doesn’t come from them but rather is a divine gift.

Fourth, the proposition of 8b that salvation is “not from you” applies very well to Israel’s “willing and running” (Rom 9:16) to be the faithful people of God (= covenantal nomism). The problem was the nation was seeking to maintain (stēsai) its own covenant righteousness (tēn idian dikaiosynēn) and for that reason would not submit to God’s righteousness as eschatologically revealed in Christ (Rom 10:3–4).
But what about those who were never under Israel’s Torah? Paul and the NT at large is clear that pagan civilization was characterized by the darkness of idolatry. The Gentile world was enmeshed in the worship of nonexistent deities, and within the various belief-systems of the day individuals may very well have striven to earn the favor of the divinities in question. But even so, the root-problem was idolatry, which in human history has indeed manifested itself as various schemes of autosoterism. But underlying all such forms of endeavor is bondage to beings that by nature no gods (Gal 4:8). It is the gospel that delivers all idolaters, Jewish or Gentile, from the consequences of their idolatrous inclinations. Even Israel’s ongoing devotion to the Torah is denounced by Paul as idolatry (Rom 2:21–22; Gal 4:8–11).

This seems to beg the question as to why unbelievers that weren’t under the Torah are obligated to not be idol worshippers. Why shouldn’t they worship idols? On his scheme, God only made a covenant with the Jews. So, by what means do far-off pagans have? It seems that the covenant of works gives a better explanation of why unbelievers are condemned than NPP theological trends. While idolatry is the root of human evil (Rom. 1:18-32), sin is its result.

The review moves on to another text:

3 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, ² to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone.

³ At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. ⁴ But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, ⁵ he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, ⁶ whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷ so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. ⁸ This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.

 

The second text is Titus 3:4–7. The analysis of the context again is of use. Likewise, it is correct that the crux of the issues is: “he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (3:5). Predictably, the “deeds done by us in righteousness” are taken to be “works as human actions within a works righteousness soteriology” (p. 160). It is then argued that given that part of the context of the letter is some type of Jewish-Christian false teaching, it follows that even if “works” here were related primarily to Jewish nationality markers, the context of Titus 3:3-7 makes clear that nationality markers would still be within the works righteousness framework. It is conceded that the sins listed in Titus 3:9 do include Jewish issue and it is certainly possible that a part of the broad “works” in context included Jewish nationality markers and Jewish works righteousness. Added to this is the consideration that the verb dikaioō must be contrasted with “works done in righteousness.” The sum is that Paul first contrasts human “works” and “mercy” (vv. 5a and5b). He then connects “[God] saved us” (v. 5c) to “mercy” (v. 5b) and to “having been justified by grace” (v. 7a). Hence, human works are the soteriological opposite of God’s salvation-mercy-justification-grace, that is, human effort is here considered works righteousness. The contrast of works and mercy/grace matches that of Rom 11:6.

If one notices a common trend is that the NPP proponent always tries to limit what the Apostle means when speaking about “works” to merely Jewish Boundary markers. You might think this is the NPP’s “Procrustean Bed to which every text must conform”. I think Dr. Schreiner points out the immediate context seems to suggest a wider meaning than Jewish boundary markers:

Paul also considers the role of works in two of his latest letters: Titus and 2 Timothy. In Titus 3:5 – 7 salvation is ascribed to God’s mercy, to the renewing and regenerating work of his Spirit. Justification, Paul affirms, is by God’s grace. The saving work of God stands in opposition to human “works.” Human beings are not saved “by works of righteousness that we had done” (ex ergōn tōn en dikaiosynē ha epoiēsamen hēmeis). We don’t find any mention of boundary markers here. Indeed, works are further described as the righteous things carried out by human beings, confirming that the moral virtue of human beings is the subject matter. Works, though, do not bring salvation or justification. Justification is by grace instead of by works. Paul doesn’t say here that justification is by faith alone, but what he writes fits with that notion, for justification is by grace and works are excluded. Why are works ruled out? Paul doesn’t argue that works are legalistic. Instead, his comments in Titus 3:3 provide the reason. Before the advent of grace, “we too were once foolish, disobedient, deceived, enslaved by various passions and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, detesting one another.” Works don’t justify, not because they are legalistic, but because of human sin and disobedience. Salvation has to be by grace because human works fall far short of the standard God requires. When we say salvation is by faith alone, we are saying that salvation is entirely God’s work.

Thomas R. Schreiner. Faith Alone—The Doctrine of Justification: What the Reformers Taught…and Why It Still Matters (The Five Solas Series) (Kindle Locations 2419-2430). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Continuing on:

In reply, as Cara himself points out, Titus 1:10 singles out the circumcision party, 1:14 makes mention of “Jewish myths,” while in 3:9 there are “genealogies” “quarrels about the law.” These data suggest very strongly that Paul has in mind a decidedly Jewish alternative to his gospel. As such, a very Jewish-sounding phrase like “works of righteousness” is best taken as works that are tantamount to righteousness or amount to righteousness within the perimeters of the covenant. As such, these works are hardly meritorious or undertaken to earn salvation. Rather, any Jew of the period would have understood the covenant as the given or the presupposition of “works of righteousness.” Cara is thus obliged to wrench the works in question from the covenant and assign to them a works-righteousness meaning. As applied to non-Jews, the same observations pertain as in the case of Eph 2:8–10.

Cara also makes these further responses:

Given that part of the context of the letter is some type of Jewish-Christian false teaching, what points away from considering ‘works’ as primarily focused on Jewish nationality markers and not works righteousness? First, even if ‘works’ were related primarily here to Jewish nationality markers, the context of Titus 3:3-7 makes clear that nationality markers would still be within the works righteousness framework. Second, Titus 3:4-7 (and Titus 2:11-15) is a grand theological statement that is not focused on a particular Jewish-Christian problem but is being used to motivate Christians to be kind to non-Christians (Titus 3:1-2). Third, the ‘faithful saying’ comment in verse 8a confirms that Titus 3:4-7 is a theological ‘mini-speech’ that has been applied in many diverse circumstances. Fourth, the sins enumerated in Titus 3:3 are not specific to Jewish nationality markers, although some could apply. The sins listed in Titus 3:9 do include Jewish issues. It is certainly possible that a part of the broad ‘works’ in context included Jewish nationality markers and Jewish works righteousness.

Robert J. Cara. Cracking the Foundation of the New Perspective on Paul: Covenantal Nomism versus Reformed Covenantal Theology (R.E.D.S Book 2) (Kindle Locations 3008-3016). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.

Furthermore, this fits well with Cara outline:

Titus 3:4-7 is within the larger unit of Titus 3:1-11. This unit may be outlined as follows: (1) Practical instructions for Christians who interact with non-Christians (Titus 3:1-2), (2) Theological motivation and basisfor interacting with non-Christians (Titus 3:3-8a), (3) Given the theological motivaton, I insist—do good works and avoid foolish ones (Titus 3:8b-11).

Robert J. Cara. Cracking the Foundation of the New Perspective on Paul: Covenantal Nomism versus Reformed Covenantal Theology (R.E.D.S Book 2) (Kindle Locations 2964-2966). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.

This has Paul making practical points for Christians to only move to a general theological reason for their interactions. It leads into particular bad examples that are relevant to them (Titus 1:10). It seems that this is to posit another false dichotomy for the traditional position.

The handling of 2 Tim 1:8–10 proceeds along the same lines as the other passages. The nub of the argument pertains to 1:9: “who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago.” It may well be, as Cara maintains, that “works” here are used in the broad sense of any kind of human effort. But even so, as applied to Israel, these works are easily understood along the lines of covenantal nomism. It is an assumption on Cara’s part that the Apostle has in view “works-righteousness.” Moreover, the pronouncement of 1:10 is decidedly eschatological: “and now has manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” The reasoning is salvation-historical: it is the appearance of Christ that has rendered obsolete any and all forms of “works”—of whatever variety—that preceded his coming. As always, Paul’s thought is Christocentric.

I disagree with the claim that these “works” can be easily understood in terms of covenantal nomism. It seems that this is a clear case this couldn’t refer to merely Jewish boundary markers. This is because being saved is in conjunction with God’s calling. Furthermore, it seems that he assumes this was only for Israel. I understand this along just referring to believers qua believers:

Once saved by grace, we’ve been “called with a holy calling” (NASB; cf. Eph 4: 1), “not according to our works” 551— the holy God has set us apart for ministry. 552 For Paul, believers’ salvation and their Christian vocation are closely intertwined. Yet as R. Yarbrough notes, Paul’s emphasis is not on how humans should live but on “God’s remarkable, effectual, and ennobling summons to deliverance, worship, and service.”

Köstenberger, Andreas J. . Commentary on 1-2 Timothy and Titus (Kindle Locations 4387-4392). Holman Reference. Kindle Edition.

Continuing on:

Third, the question of a final or eschatological justification (vindication) is integral to this whole debate. In lieu of anything like a full discussion, suffice it to say that the prima facie meaning of texts like Rom 2:13 and 2 Cor 5:10 is to the effect that the works demanded by the new covenant are the sine qua non of a favorable verdict in the last judgment. In terms of the former passage, there is to be a latter-day vindication of “the doers of the law.” Commenting on the latter, it is G. K. Beale who writes that although this verse does not speak of justification as such, it does exhibit a “manifestive justification.” That is to say, the last judgment for believers, which is according to works, is “reflective of and further attesting their justification that has been openly manifested in their bodily resurrection.”

Fifth, so much of argumentation hinges on categories like the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, imputation, and the ordo salutis, all of which are artificial in exegetical

I think Rom. 2 is about Christian gentiles and the Law is fulfilled by them, in that Christ fulfills it for them. The reformed maintain the eschatological judgment for works. There is no apparent problem with accepting Beale’s comments:

http://spirited-tech.com/2018/07/18/the-law-and-the-new-testament-2/

In fact, another false dichotomy is this distinction between Jewish nationalism and soteriological legalism, Andrew Hassler makes this statement in his article “Ethnocentric Legalism And The Justification Of The Individual: Rethinking Some New Perspective Assumptions” :

If certain Jews were trusting primarily in ethnic works to connect them to the people of God, works that necessarily excluded Gentiles, while having at best an ambiguous understanding of how the mercy of God undergirded such works, then the case can be made that their ethnocentrism was part and parcel of a more explicit soteriological legalism. The ethnocentrism was a natural outworking of the legalism—as John Piper has pointed out, “Ethnocentrism and self-righteousness are morally inseparable.”12 In other words, when one’s hope transfers from the impartial grace of God that makes no distinction to any kind of human performance, one tends to guard this performance fiercely, because one’s very life depends upon it.13 Thus, the natural outworking of a legalism that was attached to Jewish works was prejudiced against those who did not do the works that made one a Jew. Thus, we could label this approach “ethnocentric legalism.”

Further Suggestions:

“Works” and “Works of the Law” in Paul

Sola Fide

How To be Correct on Romans 4:1-12