IN ADDITION TO:
Hypothetical question: What if it turned out that the New Perspective view that the “works of the law” refer to Sabbath observance, food laws, and circumcision—those things that identified Jews--- is essentially what the early fathers understood by “works of the law,” while the so-called “old perspective” (that it represents the Judaizers’ attempt to secure salvation through moral effort) lacks similar parallels?
Well, Paul's meaning is not up for debate, for it is clearly stated in Ac 15:
v. 1 - "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot
be saved." And to that end is
v. 5 - "Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, 'The Gentiles must be circumcised and
required to obey the law of Moses.' "
What if it turned out that Calvin in his commentary on Romans says about 3:20 that “it is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean.”
Context. . .the issue is whether it means circumcision only, or the ceremonial law only, or all Mosaic law, or all works of merit.
That is not a negation of Paul's meaning of "works of the law."
And what if Calvin then cites Chrysostom, Origen and Jerome as saying these refer to the Jewish “ceremonies” (which is wrong in Calvin’s view), and then Augustine that these are any works done apart from God’s grace (which for Calvin is also an incorrect limitation).
Because Calvin correctly understood it (as usual) to be
all works of merit, with or without God's enablement, as the NT shows it to be; e.g.,
2 Tim 1:9, Tit 3:5, Ro 4:2, Eph 2:8-9,
And then, what if (surprisingly and uncharacteristically) Calvin doesn’t cite any of the fathers in favor of his view (that these are all works, even those produced by God in his own people)?
He doesn't need to cite anyone. It is clearly stated by Paul, which is
authoritative to the church.
And what if it turned out that Calvin’s assessment is basically right — that the early church holds to a quite different view of “works of the law” than he does?
The only difference Calvin asserts is that "works of the law" refers to all works of merit, whereas the early church's "quite different view of works" is limited to the ceremonial law (if, in fact, that is even the case).
And Calvin's view of "works of the law" is the same as Paul's; i.e., all works of merit (2 Tim 1:9, Tit 3:5, Ro 4:2, Eph 2:8-9).
What if Calvin’s earliest source on this, Origen, says in his Romans commentary (around 240 A.D.) that “the works that Paul repudiates and frequently criticizes are not the works of righteousness that are commanded in the law, but those in which those who keep the law according to the flesh boast; i.e., the circumcision of the flesh, the sacrificial rituals, the observance of Sabbaths or new moon festivals"?
Yes, boasting is precisely the issue, going all the way back to Abraham whose righteousness was not merited, but imputed (Ro 4:2, 1 Co 1:29, Eph 2:9).
It's about removing all means of boasting or taking credit for God's work of salvation and justification (Eph 2:8-9, Ro 3;28),
it's about rendering mankind powerless to share in his glory, which is
justly due him, and him
alone (Isa 42:8, 48:11).
And what if it turned out that even prior to this from Paul to Irenaeus (around 180 AD) that this (so-called "new perspective" type) understanding of “works of the law” is ubiquitous in the tradition prior to Origen.
Would the "new perspective" view of "works of the law" still be heretical and anti-Christian?
It matters not what early Christians believed if it does not correspond to what can be demonstrated from Scripture.
And that "works of the law" means all works of merit is clearly demonstrated in the NT.
But I always try to stay open to the chance that I could be wrong. As I said I've believed the Old Perspective for over forty years, and only now am reconsidering in light of the new evidence coming out.
