What Luther (et al.) Didn’t Know
When Luther and many of the Reformers read Galatians, they naturally saw it in the light of their contemporary situation. The Roman Catholic Church was in effect perpetuating a practical doctrine of works righteousness. Do this, and have assurance of salvation. Pay your indulgences, and shave years off your time in Purgatory.1
So when the Reformers read Galatians and how a man is justified through faith in Jesus Christ, rather than by “works of the law,” this naturally seemed to be speaking directly to the abuses of the church in their day. Is it a legitimate application of Galatians? Certainly! Paul’s epistle does indeed condemn any doctrine that would claim grounds for justification other than faith in Jesus Christ.
But another question is this: was that the situation of Paul’s day? Was Paul dealing with 1st century Jews who were attempting to earn (merit) their way to heaven through good works? I think not. Reading Paul with the assumption that he was dealing with the same abuses in his day as the Reformers were in the 15th century led Luther and others, and still leads many, to stumble over other passages, such as the book of James.
Some recent discoveries in the last century shed new light on the 1st century Jewish situation and their general attitude toward the Law and justification. The one I want to focus on here is a Jewish hymn from the “Community Rule” scroll (1QS11) found at Qumran in 1949. This was one of the first discoveries of the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls.
First some background. The Qumran community is thought by most to have been a community of Essene Jews. Of all the Jewish sects, the Essenes were the most conservative. They separated themselves from the rest of the world in order to remain pure, they abstained from sexual relations, they kept strict community rules that even the Pharisees would have balked at, they had complex systems of ritual purification, and they did not recognize the Hellenized Temple cult because they considered it corrupt.
They were the strictest of the strict in the 1st century Jewish world and had harsh penalties for violations. If anyone would espouse a doctrine of justification by works, it would be them.2 So if we read their writings, we would expect to get merit x10. Earn your way straight into the Kingdom (or else)!
Instead, in one marvelous example of 1st century Jewish hymnody, we get this:
As for me,
my justification is with God.
in His hand are the perfection of my way
and the uprightness of my heart.
He will wipe out my transgression
through his righteousness.For my light has sprung
from the source of His knowledge;
my eyes have beheld his marvelous deeds,
and the light of my heart, the mystery to come.
He that is everlasting
is the support of my right hand;
the way of my steps is over stout rock
which nothing shall shake;
for the rock of my steps is the truth of God
and His might is the support of my right hand.From the source of his righteousness
is my justification,
and from His marvellous mysteries
is the light in my heart.
. . .My iniquities, rebellions, and sins,
together with the perversity of my heart,
belong to the company of worms
and to those who walk in darkness.
For mankind has no way,
and man is unable to establish his steps
since justification is with God
and perfection of way is out of His hand.
All things come to pass by His knowledge;
He establishes all things by His design
and without Him nothing is done.As for me,
if I stumble, the mercies of God
shall be my eternal salvation.
If I stagger because of the sin of flesh,
my justification shall be
by the righteousness of God which endures forever.
When my distress is unleashed
He will deliver my soul from the Pit
and will direct my steps to the way.
He will draw me near by His grace,
and my His mercy will He bring my justification.
. . .Blessed art Thou my God,
who openest the heart of Thy servant to knowledge!
Establish all his deeds in righteousness;
and as it pleases Thee to do for the elect of mankind,
grant that the son of They handmaid
may stand before Thee forever.
For without Thee no way is perfect,
and without Thy will nothing is done.
When I first read this years ago, it was a real eye opener. Wow, where did that come from? This does not look like the picture of Judaism that Luther and so many others painted. This hymn could almost have been written or sung by the apostle Paul. Writings like this should make us think again about how we view the 1st century Jews.
And in all fairness, it isn’t the fault of Luther and the Reformers that they did not have a better understanding of 1st century Judaism. They didn’t have the benefit of discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls. And many of the Jews in the time of the Reformation, in a post-Temple existence did in fact hold to a merit-based view of the kingdom.3
And I think therein lies the key. There is a marked difference between the pre and post-Temple Jewish existence, and so we should read phrases like “works of the law” with this in mind. I am not saying that we should force an extra-biblical view onto the biblical text. Rather, we must hear the biblical text with 1st century ears.
What would a man who wrote or sang the hymn of 1QS11 have said is necessary for justification? Would he say that one needed to do enough good works to earn or merit salvation? Certainly not! The text of the hymn is clear. It’s almost proto-Pauline in its view of man’s basic relationship to God. Man is totally unable to establish his way, and he “belongs to the company of worms.” Salvation is of God’s mercy alone. Only God is able to justify, and the grounds for man’s justification is God’s own righteousness! So to the 1st century Jews, the idea that one could not earn salvation was by no means a new idea, nor one with which they really would have had any disagreement.
On the other hand, would the writer of this hymn have said that the “works of the law” were necessary for justification? If he were an Essene, or anything close to it, I think he would have. And this is what Paul takes issue with. Even as the Jew sings of justification coming from God, he assumes one thing: in order to attain to the the glorious state that the hymn expresses, you must be Jewish. And to be a Jew, you obviously must be of the circumcision, which is the first basic “work of the law.”
This is clear from the context of the hymn. The rest of the “Community Rule” scroll is filled with condemnations against apostates (the Sadducees and Pharisees of Jesus’ day) and reveals the stifling sectarian exclusivity of the community, which they considered to be the only pure assembly. Is that in conflict with the hymn itself? A Qumran sectarian would not have thought so (though we certainly would, reading through the lens of Paul). Jewishness was basic to them, not because of some ethnic megalomania, but because it was the Jews who were under the blood of sacrifice. Even the Qumran sect, while rejecting the Hellenized Temple cult, looked forward to the coming of “The Righteous One” who would purge and purify the Temple. To Israel belonged the Temple and the sacrifices to atone for sin, or so they thought. And that was why they believed they could claim that God justified them apart from their own righteousness and yet at the same time require that Gentiles become Jewish (come “under the law”) in order to enter the Kingdom. Because in their mind, the sacrifices applied to those of the circumcision.
This is where Paul interjects. No, he says, you do not have to be Jew! With the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who was prefigured by the Old Covenant sacrifices, the shadows are passing away. The realization of all that was promised has come. The circumcision is not the line that separates the justified from the unrighteous, and it never really was. Rather, it is and always has been faith in Jesus Christ. The blood of Jesus’ sacrifice applies not only to those of the circumcision, but rather to all who believe in Christ and confess Him.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
Colossians 3:11For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Romans 10:12-13
So were the Reformers wrong? What does this say about our traditional application of Paul against merited salvation and works-righteousness? Is it still valid? I think it is. Paul’s insistence on faith in Jesus Christ as the instrument of justification does indeed by necessity exclude a meritorious role for our righteousness. Even if that is not the exact issue that he is addressing.
What difference does it make? Well, it gives us a more nuanced understanding of what Paul means by “works of the law.” He is not speaking about a belief that one can earn their way into heaven. He is not even speaking of “good works” in general. And so we need not pull our hair out and engage in mental and exegetical gymnastics to synthesize Paul with James. The “works of the law” that Paul talks about are not the same thing as the “works” that James speaks of when he says “a person is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”
As when we read the 1st century Jews, we should not take the plain sense of James 2:24 to mean that one might earn or merit their salvation. I believe the basic difference between Paul’s “works of the law” which do not justify and James’ “works” which do, is this:
Paul’s “works of the law” deals with those who would make being Jewish—being “under the law”—a requirement for justification; James is dealing with those who espouse belief and show no fruit. Paul’s theme is faith in Jesus Christ apart from the “works of the Torah”; James’ point is faith in Jesus Christ that results in good “works.” “Works of the law” cannot justify; good “works” flowing from faith in Jesus Christ are required for justification.
Does that imply meritorious earning? Not at all. It is all of grace, through faith. And so we may say with the Reformers: Sola Fide . . . just as long as we qualify that fides sine operibus non fide.4
FOOTNOTES:
- Whether all these things are still generally taught by the Roman Church is another topic of discussion. ↩
- There is some debate over whether the Qumran scrolls are actually representative of an Essene community, partly because they do not seem to teach pacifism, which, according to Josephus, another of the Essene tenets. However, it’s also possible that the Essenes were not pacifistic in essential belief, but simply abstained from serving in a military body that was corrupted by Hellenists. Be that as it may, I think it does not make much of a difference. Even if the Qumran community would not have considered itself Essene, the “Community Rule” exhibits many of the other things that would have characterized the Essenes. ↩
- I may deal with the topic of where and when the idea of merit came into the Jewish worldview later. Here’s a hint though, it has to do with the Temple. ↩
- “Faith without works is not faith.” ↩
Tags: Community Rule, Dead Sea Scrolls, Essenes, faith, Galatians, grace, James, Judaism, justification, Luther, Pauline studies, Pelagianism, Pharisees, Qumran, Reformation, Reformed, temple, works, works of the law
History, Romans, Theology | Christopher Kou | 
February 2, 2010 6:18 PM
Subscribe
Well written! I believe I mostly agree. (so long as we mean this the same way.) A couple things I would point out:1.) The Essenes may've had a lot right (love that hymn! is it set to music?), but they were a pretty small segment of Jews in that day. Jesus gave a fair amount of rebuke to the more typical groups of Jews that did indeed have an issue with self-sufficiency and works-salvation.2.) You're right to mention that the Reformers didn't need the Dead Sea Scrolls to interpret anything. Cultural context is good, but I would hold to the perpiscuity of Scripture even without extra-Biblical documents to back it up. The Reformers seem fairly spot-on to me when it comes to Galations. Which leads me to…3.) I think your points are fine, but you're making too much of a distiction: you and the Reformers are arguing the same thing. Whether it be circumsicion/Jewishness or any other righteous, God-commanded work, none of it will justify one before God. (the Reformers' point, I think.) It may've been circumsicion in Paul's day and Papal indulgences in Luther's, but the point remains the same. I don't think you can tie Paul's words down to one specific meaning that can be taken from something extra-biblical, when his words are clearly speaking against *any* works in the place of Christ.4.) Fully agreed: a faith that claims to be faith but lacks works is dead. James knew what he was talking about. But I do balk a little at the phrase, "good works required for justification". It did take *somebody's* works, but they are Christ's, not ours (whether or not they are given to us). True faith will always be accompanied by works, but I agree with the Westminster's terminology in saying that faith is the "alone instrument" for justification.(please excuse spelling errors. I'm lost without my spellcheck. 0:)
Hey there! Thanks for the comment. Yes, that is a great hymn, isn't it?Okay, here's the thing. The Essenes, while a small segment of their day, were pretty much an extreme sect of the Pharisees. They were much more strict than anyone in Jerusalem. Which is why there weren't IN Jerusalem. My point in bringing this out is that while not typical Jews in a sense, they were atypical in that they were MORE strict, rather than less. The problem with the Pharisees and Sadducees was not that they thought they could earn their salvation at all. Which is what I'm pointing out here, and which many other writings from various Jewish sources indicate.This is why the Reformers had the view of the 1st century Jews that they did. Because they did not understand the historical context. Which is fine. They applied the Bible to their own situation, and while I would say the application was not a direct one from Scripture, it was no less valid. That is what I'm saying, not that they catagorically didn't need any earlier writings to interpret anything clearer. Obviously, I think they did.Paul's use of the phrase "works of the law" is very specific, as you'll find when you study the phrase and its usage more closely. It has a definitive relationship to the Torah, and is not intended as a blanket term to cover ALL good works. Otherwise, he would be found in contradiction to James. This is something that can be had directly from the text. Earlier Jewish writings illuminate the 1st century situation, but aren't needed to get to that understanding. In fact, many of the Reformers did have a more nuanced understanding of works, which has been largely lost in our modern tendencies of oversimplification.
The point of the circumcision is not a works-earning point. It is a sign of covenant. It is basically being a part of the community. For a Jew to say "you must be circumcised" and "you must be a Jew" is the same thing. It was not seen as some sort of way to score merit points, and so has no real correlation to the medieval Roman Catholic teachings on works or infused righteousness.James did know what he was talking about, and still he gave us the ONLY place in the Bible where we can find the phrase "faith alone." The problem for modern sloganeering Reformed Christians is that he says "a person is justified by works, and NOT by faith alone." To then insist that works in general (not "works of the law" which Paul speaks of) holds no role or instrumentality in justification at all, is to simply disregard James.Also, to say James is talking about Christ's works and not ours here does not make sense in the context. He is clearly talking about the works of the believer, which are the fruits of faith. I would have to say with James that works are instrumental and necessary to justification, but surely not the grounds. For when we say that "faith without works is not faith (or dead, as James says)," we must logically conclude that works are a REQUIREMENT to validate faith, and thus for justification. This is why it is so important to understand how Paul and James differ in what they mean by the very particular "works of the law" and the more general "works."Until we can loudly declare with James that "man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone," and know what we mean by that, and still know how to reconcile it with what the Reformers meant by "Sola Fide," we are not doing justice to either Paul or James.One of the difficulties is that in Latin, "faith" has two words: fide and credo. Credo means belief. Fide has a closer meaning to faithfulness, which includes works resulting from credo.
So with John Calvin in his commentary on James:The conclusion . . . has no other meaning. Man is not justified by faith alone, that is, by a bare and empty knowledge of God; he is justified by works, that is, his righteousness is known and proved by its fruits.Or to put it another way, man is justified sola fide. NOT sola credo.
Also, I think the directly relevant article of Westminster Confession is XIV.2By [saving]faith, a Christian BELIEVES to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and ACTS differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding OBEDIENCE to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.Also XVI.3 "Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ." This is a clear allusion to Ephesians 2:8, which says faith is not of yourself. So then, both faith and works are graces given by God. That is the only way we can say that good works justify (as James says) and yet, they earn (or merit) nothing. Because they are God's gifts to us!And since you quoted XI.2, we might as well get the whole thing:II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it NOT ALONE in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.This is, of course, a reference to Galatians 5:6"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only FAITH WORKING through love."
Oh, and finally . . . while I don't believe I know of any setting of that hymn to music, that is definitely something I want to do at some point. :c)
*sigh*Well, here's where we diverge again. You call the believer's works part of the grounds for justification, I call them only the fruit and not in any way the grounds. Your side claims mine oversimplifies, my side claims your word-play leads to dangerous places. These arguments have already been run many times before. I hardly need try again.I would, however, be pretty curious to hear your commentary on Pastor Derek's Romans series. He says things better than I can… seems practically irrefutable to me. (Read Romans 3! "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." I know you'll want to say that Paul was referring to the Torah and becoming a Jew… but I think that's doing damage to the plain meaning.)I do, by the way, entirely agree with that John Calvin quote: "… his righteousness is *known* and *proved* by its fruits." Works are indeed the way true faith is proven before men; they are not, however, our basis for being right in God's eyes.Thanks for the discussion. Always good to talk about this stuff. =)
When you do write that hymn, let me know!!
Alright then. Always good discussing. Just to clarify though. I believe I explicitly said that works AREN'T part of the grounds of justification. ;c)Neither, for that matter, is faith. The GROUNDS for justification is Christ's sinless and spotless sacrifice.
Aye, all true… but you also said "good works flowing from faith in Jesus Christ are required for justification". I call this a contradiction! (unless you mean it as I do and the Westminster does, that true faith must be *accompanied* by works because God makes it so, yet the works themselves are *not* the instrument of salvation, but true faith alone.)Logic, logic! What do they teach in the schools these days? =)~Hurray for friendly debates between siblings in Christ! I pray God can use both sides for good.Goodnight. =)
Yes, logic. And classical theological terminology. There is a marked distinction in theology between things that are necessary, things that are instruments, and things that are grounds. Something that is necessary and instrumental is not necessarily the grounds (and quite often isn't).Also, if you were to accurately translate "fide" as faithfulness, which necessarily includes much more than mere belief, then I would agree it is the alone instrument.I don't think we can get away from instrumentality of works. "Justified by works" in James sort of demands it. The word "by" is extremely instrumental, not consequential. But that is not the same as saying that works are the grounds (which is another precise technical term) for justification, which they are not. It's much the same as saying that faith is required, but not the grounds for justification, which also it is not.You kind of betray your own point by saying "true faith alone" is the instrument, for what is true faith but a faith that shows fruits? That is like saying "only faith that shows fruit (works)."Discussions are always good. I'm sure we shall have more (unless you want to carry on this one). Until next time! Goodnight.
The pleasantness of this exchange is exemplary.
It's always a joy to read you, Christopher. I'm curious to hear what you have to say about the later parts of John 6, specifically:28Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" 29Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." 30So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" 32Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." 35Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
Perhaps two things are worth some more thought: 1) Claims which appear to discredit Luther and the Reformers for needing a better understanding of Judaism through such finds as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and 2) The character of the Essenes which we know more of now through the Scrolls and the traditional, ecclesiastical text of the Book of Hebrews.
1) Presumably the Essene community was known by Luther and the Reformers, although I know of no exclusive treatise from Luther or the reformers about that community. It was certainly known by Josephus (e.g. Antiquities, xvii, 21) and I haven’t found any argument yet outside this article which leads me to believe that they didn’t have resources similar to that of Josephus.
Furthermore, according to my own studies, I have not found the Essene community to be conservative in any ‘kind’ sense of the term. The Essene’s were characterized by strict “communal solidarity” which FAR exceeds biblical moderation in terms of a covenantal community. (Although I do have great respect for some of the stands they took in their community rules.)
Even within the 1Qs itself
(which you quoted above), we find explicit references to being a part of their community, and not just a covenantal community in general. Prior to the Hymn, it states that any man who “refuses to enter the covenant of God” with them “walks in the stubbornness of his heart, for his soul detests the wise teaching of just laws. His knowledge, powers, and possessions shall not enter the Council of the Community…He shall not be reckoned among the perfect; he shall neither be purified by atonement, nor cleansed by purifying waters, nor sanctified by seas and rivers, nor washed clean with any ablution.”
Furthermore, their literature is notorious for treating the doctrine of election as taught in the Palestinian Talmud and other Rabbinical doctrines as being too elastic. Their attitude in regard to the Covenant was that only the initiates of their own “new covenant” were to be reckoned among God’s elect and, as such, united already on earth with the angels of heaven. 1Qs states that “God has given them to His chosen ones and has caused them to inherit the lot of the Holy Ones. He has joined their assembly to the Sons of Heaven, to be a a Council of the Community, a foundation of the Building of Holiness, an eternal Plantation throughout all ages to come.”
These kinds of categorical claims are found in excess throughout 1Qs, and I (personally) do not find them to be conservative in any kind sense of the term, because they give an impression that one cannot be justified without entering into their “covenantal community,” primarily because their community was in “true” covenant with God. So, even though the hymn you cited expresses one aspect of their views of justification (and I must say, the entirety of that hymn is marvelous), it does not cover their community’s emphasis found outside their hymns and liturgy. And so, the argument of their “conservative” hymn teaching justification does not do justice to their teaching of justification outside that hymn, which I presume was understood by Luther and other Reformers who glanced through what was known about the Essenes.
Let’s not forget, that at a glance, certain characteristics of the Essenes could very well have been understood by Luther and the reformers simply because of the works of Josephus and his sources (e.g. an Essene was forbidden to eat food prepared by people not belonging to the brotherhood, Wars II,143 – an Essene took a baptismal bath twice daily before meals, Wars II, 129, 132, and also 4Q414). So maybe Luther and the Reformers weren’t so naive after all (even without the Dead Sea Scrolls hymn).
2) It’s also interesting to note that the Book of Hebrews begins attacking certain doctrines which we know now to be taught exclusively among the Essene Community; the most important of which involved their eschatology.
The Essenes taught that in the eschatalogical age (soon to come in their own day) God would reign supreme over all, but not by taking upon Himself human nature as the Messiah, but rather sending “The Prince of the Congregation,” also known as the “Prince of light” who is Michael the archangel, a.k.a. Melchizedek. According to their own literature, Michael the archangel would be sent to usher in the “last days” and God would put all enemies under Michael’s feet. But that’s not all, God would call three human beings (already existing) to become individual Messiah’s (one priest Messiah, one King Messiah, and one Prophet Messiah)that would reign over all the earth to subdue evil and bring in the new heavens and new earth. (For starters, review IQM xviii, 4Q285, 4Q161, 4Q266, 1QSb v, 21, 25, 28, 4QpIsa, 4Q161, IQM xv, 4; xvi, 13; xviii, 5, IQs ix, 11)
Ironically, all of these views are the first to be dealt with step by step in the first few chapters of Hebrews. And so, seeing that these interpretations of the Essenes are known to us now, and the book of Hebrews sheds light on this being known early in church history, it is my position that Christians today would be wise to avoid praising the Essene community in their treatment of scripture.
I at least do not view them as conservative in its Godly sense.
Jonathan, thanks for your well thought out comment and your contribution here in the details on the Qumran community. Yes, I agree, the “conservatism” of the Essenes is not something that we should consider exemplary by any stretch of the imagination. I probably should have made that clear.
I am sure Luther and the Reformers knew OF the Essenes. But they probably had only Josephus to go by, and Josephus really oversimplifies the complexities of the community. That’s why I suggested that they did not know quite what we know.
My article here was simply to highlight the apparent contradiction between the ultra-conservatism of the Qumran community and adherence to what we (and I am sure Paul) would certainly call “works of the law” as opposed to their hymn which seems to espouse justification by grace apart from merit.
It is interesting that the Qumran sect did hold strongly (in writing) to the “sovereignty” of God, but yet the dead sea scrolls themselves are not characterized by treating God as sovereign….They just talked a lot about his sovereignty. If anything characterizes their scribal copying, it would not be characterized as treating it like God’s own Word. I would characterize it to be more like “scribal creative freedom.”