do the apostolic fathers support the premises of the...
TRANSCRIPT
0
DO THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS SUPPORT THE PREMISES OF THE
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON PAUL AND THE LAW?
revised
James B. De Young
Western Seminary
Portland, OR
A paper presented to
the Evangelical Theological Society
Atlanta, GA
November 17, 2010
1
DO THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS SUPPORT THE PREMISES OF THE
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON PAUL AND THE LAW?
James B. De Young
Introduction
This paper makes an inquiry into whether the Apostolic Fathers (AF) and their writings
(The Didache [AD 60-90?], 1 Clement [AD 95-97?], 2 Clement [AD 100? 120-140?], the Letters
of Ignatius [AD 98-117], the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians [AD 110], the Martyrdom of
Polycarp [AD 155-160?], the Shepherd of Hermas [AD 95-100? 140-154?], the Epistle of
Barnabas [AD 70-132], the Epistle to Diognetus [AD 150-225], and Papias [AD 130-140])
provide information that would contribute to the issue raised in Pauline studies in recent years.
Did the Reformation distort or misinterpret the biblical portrayal of Paul‟s understanding of the
relationship of the Jews and early Christians to the significance of the law and the doctrine of
justification?1 Specifically, did the Reformation erroneously define the theological controversies
lying behind the books of Galatians and Romans? According to the New Perspectives on Paul
(NPP), Paul was not condemning the Jews for attempting to gain personal merit to earn salvation
by keeping the law, doing works of the law. Instead, he was condemning the Jews for keeping
their ethnic identity as heirs of the covenant with Abraham so exclusive that they prevented
Gentiles from becoming heirs of it in Christ. The books of Galatians and Romans are not so
much about how to get into the covenant or relationship with God but how to stay in such. The
NPP seeks significant support for its position by reexamining the extra-biblical texts from
Second Temple Judaism (pseudepigrapha, apocrypha, rabbinics, Josephus, Philo, Qumran, and
others).
This study seeks to discover whether the AF basically interpreted Paul in line with the
way the Reformation later did, or interpreted him differently from the Reformation and more in
line with the claims of the NPP. It would seem that if the witness about Paul from the AF is
basically the same as that of the Reformers then the accusation of the NPP against the
Reformation would be seriously undermined. It seems that the NPP must find that earlier
Christians agree with its premises if it is to gain or maintain its credibility. The position of the
AF on these matters has been largely neglected.2
1 Others, such as E.P. Sanders, claim that Paul himself, not the Reformers, distorted the Judaism of his day, and the
Reformers followed Paul. I‟m going with the more evangelical view such as represented by James D.G. Dunn and
N.T. Wright that it was the Reformers who misinterpreted Paul. For either position the witness of the AF is crucial. 2 Nick Needham, “Justification in the Early Church Fathers,” in Justification in Perspective, edited by Bruce
McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 25-53. He cites several sources going back to the sixteenth century that
claim that at least some of the patristics foreshadowed the Reformation doctrine of justification. Needham traces
some important “strands of patristic teaching on justification” but his study is both narrower than mine (he deals
solely with “justification language”) and much broader than mine (he studies the first four centuries).
2
The approach of this study is to examine from the AF the chief terms redefined (in
comparison to the Reformation) by the NPP (righteousness; righteousness of God; covenant; to
justify and justification; faith of Christ; works of the law; salvation; gospel; imputation; believe
and faith), the chief texts involved in claiming support for the NPP (Gal. 2:16ff.; 3:10ff.; 5:1-5;
Rom. 1:5, 16-17; 2:13; 3:19ff.; 4:1ff.; 5:12-21; 9:30-10:4; 11:5-6; Phil. 3:2-6; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor.
5:14-21); and the AF‟s understanding of the role of the law in Second Temple Judaism. While
these authors were not involved in a dispute about the issues involved in the modern dispute over
Paul, it is hopeful that they will provide enough information to make some observations about
their interpretation of Paul relative to the issues involved in the NPP.3
This study is divided into the three sections just listed—terms and concepts, biblical
texts, and references to the Judaism of the first and second centuries. These will be evaluated for
their contribution to the debate about the NPP. This study is not exhaustive but sufficient, I
believe, to provide a foundation for making some observations.4 The primary limitation of this
study is to concentrate only on the AF and the time period of about AD 50-150.
The terms and concepts pertinent to the NPP
A review of the AF on the above terms and concepts reveals the following.
1. I consider first the term “covenant” (diaqhkh). For people such as N.T. Wright this
term is vital to their embrace of the NPP. It represents the covenant made with Abraham (Gen.
12-15-17). It is God‟s faithfulness to this covenant (which for the NPP is the meaning of the
phrase, the “righteousness of God”), as represented by Jesus Christ‟s dying—his faithfulness to
the covenant—which is the “good news,” the gospel, which Paul was proclaiming to his readers
and hearers. Wright and others frequently want to read the term “covenant” into the background
of the epistles of Galatians and Romans (even though the term infrequently occurs there [five of
thirty-three times]).5 So the question is: Do the AF read the Abrahamic covenant as crucial to
their understanding of Paul‟s teaching?
3 I wish to express my appreciation to my grad fellow, Chris Smith, who did much of the original word searches
used in this study. 4 Throughout I have cited the AF according to the chapter/section and verse enumerations as found in Michael W.
Holmes, editor and reviser, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Grand Rapids: Baker, rev.
1999). He has updated the work of J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English
Translations of Their Writings, 2nd
ed. 5 Of the thirty-three occurrences of “covenant” in the NT, two occur in Romans (9:4: several covenants including,
no doubt, the Abrahamic; 11:27: the new covenant), and three occur in Galatians (3:15, 17; 4:24: all contrasting the
Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic covenant). Paul uses the term four more times, twice for the new covenant (1
Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6), once for the Mosaic covenant (2 Cor. 3:14), and once for the Abrahamic covenant (Eph.
2:12). Hebrews uses the word most frequently (17x), most often for the new covenant (12x), a few times for the
Mosaic covenant (5x), but never for the Abrahamic covenant. But God‟s “promise” to Abraham occurs frequently.
Of the remaining occurrences of “covenant” the new covenant is the meaning in Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke
22:20; the Abrahamic covenant occurs in Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; 7:8; and there is an allusion to the Mosaic covenant
in Rev. 11:19. Thus of the thirty-three total occurrences, only eight refer to the Abrahamic covenant. The latter is
outpaced by the new covenant.
3
The term “covenant” occurs in only two of the AF, 1 Clement and Barnabas. The former
uses it twice (15.4; 35.7). In both cases Clement is quoting the Old Testament. In Psalm 78
(77):36-37 the words, “their heart was not right with him, nor were they faithful to his covenant,”
refer to Israel‟s failure to abide by the covenant from Sinai (herein the Mosaic Law or covenant).
This mention, and the other mention in Psalm 78 (v.10), seems clearly to refer to the giving of
the law from Sinai with the context expanding on the Exodus and events in the desert. There is
no mention of Abraham or the covenant made with him in the chapter. In 35.7 Clement cites
Psalm 50 (49):16-23. This psalm uses the term “covenant” in God‟s address to the wicked (v.
16): “But to the wicked God says, „What right have you to tell of my statutes, and to take my
covenant in your mouth?‟” The word occurs again (v. 5) referring to those who have made a
covenant with God “by sacrifice.” Clearly, again, the covenant refers to the Mosaic Covenant.
There is no reason to think that Clement changes the referent of “covenant” to refer to some
other than that of Moses given at Sinai.
The term “covenant” is used fifteen times in Barnabas. In his contexts he warns his
readers that they be not like the Israelites who during the time of Moses engaged in idolatry
while receiving the “Lord‟s covenant” and thereby proved themselves unworthy of it and lost it
(4.7-8; 14.1, 4). Christians need to avoid the mistake of Israel who claimed that their “covenant
remains valid” (4.6) and that they had the sign or seal of circumcision (9.6). He traces
circumcision to Abraham who points to Jesus by gematria (the 318 circumcised servants point to
Jesus and his cross; Gen. 14:14; 17:23). The author claims that the circumcision commanded to
Abraham was symbolic or typological, pointing to Jesus (9.7-9). Even the matters about unclean
food spoken to Moses were to be understood spiritually, not as actual food. Thus there is a
connection between Abraham (and presumably the covenant with him) and Christians. Israel‟s
failure happened in order that the covenant “of the beloved Jesus might be sealed in our heart in
hope inspired by faith in him” (4.8), that God might place within Christians the “implanted gift
of his covenant” (9.9). His point is that Christians are the true heirs of the covenant (presumably
the Mosaic covenant), since they and not Israel have circumcised hearts (9.1, 4). The physical
circumcision of the Israelites has been “abolished” (9.4). Thus Barnabas affirms that the Mosaic
covenant was really for Christians (by typology; 13.1, 6), that the Israelites were unworthy of it
(14.1, 4), that Christians receive it “through the Lord Jesus who was prepared for this purpose, in
order that . . . he might establish a covenant in us by his word” (14.4-5). Christians are called “in
righteousness” and given “as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations” (14.7, referring to
Isa. 42:6-7).
It seems, then, that Barnabas primarily refers to the Mosaic Law rather than the
Abrahamic covenant. Also he does not use the terminology, “the new covenant” (of Jer. 31:31-
34). Yet Barnabas does trace circumcision and presumably the Abrahamic covenant back to
Abraham and affirms that the covenant was for Christians all along (by way of typology).
Barnabas seems to join together as one the covenant made with Abraham and the covenant made
with Moses.
4
Interestingly, Barnabas never names the people who had the Mosaic covenant, referring
to them only as a “certain people” (4.6), even though he refers to other peoples by name
(Syrians, Arabs, Egyptians; 9.6).
So what does this segment of our study reveal? Contrary to the NPP there is no explicit
assertion that God is fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant in Christians today. There is a sense that
the Abrahamic covenant lies in the background of what Barnabas and 1 Clement (perhaps)
instruct their readers in light of the coming of Christ. Like Paul in Romans and Galatians, 1
Clement and Barnabas focus almost exclusively on the covenant from Sinai. For the most part
one must read a reference to the Abrahamic covenant into the background of Paul‟s words (in
Gal. 3 he is more specific). For Barnabas the covenant does not have to be enlarged to include
gentile Christians because the unworthy Jews lost the covenant and Christians (by typology)
were the original recipients of it all along.
2. The phrase “righteousness of God” (dikaiosunh qeou) occurs infrequently. It is in Paul
only eight times in Romans (1:17; 3:5, 21, 22; 10:3 [2x]; plus two others as “his righteousness”:
3:25, 26) and once more in 2 Corinthians 5:21. It occurs elsewhere only three times (Phil. 3:9;
Jam. 1:20; 2 Pet. 1:1). The proponents of the NPP claim that of the three possible meanings of
this, as derived from the Old Testament (the attribute of God as his justice, on the one hand, or
his faithfulness on the other hand); an activity of God whereby he saves; and a status he confers
on those who believe), the first idea is the most prominent with the sense that God‟s
righteousness is his faithfulness to keep the Abrahamic covenant in or by the death of the truly
faithful Israelite, Jesus Christ. The “faithfulness of God” to the covenant made with Abraham is
a biblical truth.6 The crucial question is whether the “righteousness of God” carries this weight.
Interestingly, in the AF this phrase does not occur at all. The closest equivalent is “his
righteousness” with the “his” referring to God in the context (cf. Rom. 3:25, 26; 2 Cor. 9:9 [a
quote of Ps. 112:9]; Matt. 6:33). One of these passages (Epistle to Diognetus 9.2-5) includes the
6 This is acknowledged by virtually all interpreters of Paul. Thomas Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the
Apostolic Father (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rep. 1960), examines the OT precursors of carij, and links “grace” or
“unmerited favor” with aheb (“love”; God‟s love for Israel is unconditioned; cf. Deut. 7:7f.; 9:4f.; etc.), hanan
(“unmerited favor”), and hesed (“covenanted kindness”—the “fundamental relationship” [principally religious] in
Israel) (13). The hasid is the believing and upright man. The NT equivalent is “doing the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).
God‟s tie to Israel was the covenant which was grounded in “God‟s everlasting love and mercy” even when Israel
was unfaithful (14). Torrance goes on with observations pertinent to what later has become the NPP. He notes that
hesed brings people into a “positive relation to the righteous will of God, and entails righteousness or tsedeq. God
requires tsedeq of people as part of the covenant bond of hesed. But by showing hesed God gives the means
whereby people in the covenant may conform to his righteousness (17). Both hesed and tsedeq become “practical
equivalents for salvation and justification and forgiveness” (18). Thus “righteousness and love, grace and justice”
are held together as “differentiations within the same unity” (18). Righteousness and love are conceived as one.
Since love rises “out of the ground of the divine righteousness” it is “holy righteous love” and sinners “are put in the
right with God and his righteousness” (20). Interestingly, Torrance links the time of the LXX with the increasing
“hardening” of Judaism “into legalism” (18-19). Yet the LXX translates hesed into eleos most of the time, and
sometimes into dikaiosyne; but it translates hasid into hosios. Torrance concludes that grace in the NT is the most
characteristic element of the Christian gospel, and is embodied in Jesus Christ (34-35).
5
noun and adjective and the verb “justify” all together in the context—the only text to my
knowledge where this happens. Also it clearly refers to substitution and probably to imputation.
. . . In his mercy he took upon himself (anedexato) our sins; he himself gave up (aorist
middle; apedoto) his own Son as a ransom for (uper) us, the holy one for the lawless, the
guiltless for the guilty, “the just (dikaion) for the unjust,” the incorruptible for the
corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. (3) For what else but his righteousness (h
ekeinou dikaiosunh) could have covered our sins? (4) In whom was it possible for us, the
lawless and the ungodly, to be justified (dikaiwqhnai), except in (en) the Son of God
alone? (5) O the sweet exchange (antallaghj), O the incomprehensible work of God, O
the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous
person, while the righteousness of one should justify (dikaiwsh) many sinners!
It seems that this text is one of the finest in all of the AF. It teaches that the author
affirms substitution (uper is used six times). It speaks of “the just for the unjust,” reminiscent of
1 Pet. 3:18). Other texts come to mind (e.g., Rom. 4:3; 5:12-21; 2 Cor. 5:21—imputation? etc.).
What is the meaning of “his righteousness”? Does it bear the sense of “God‟s faithfulness
to the Abrahamic covenant,” as the NPP asserts? In the preceding words the author stresses the
mercy of God, his power and goodness, and the “great and marvelous plan” that he accomplished
in Christ (7.9-8.9) in the “present season of righteousness” so that “when it was impossible for us
by ourselves to enter the kingdom of God we might be enabled to do so by the power of God”
(9.1). This season follows another, when our “unrighteousness was fulfilled, and it had been
made perfectly clear that its wages—punishment and death—were to be expected” (9.2). Instead
of judgment, God has shown mercy (and here the above quote begins). Surely in this context
(9.3) “his righteousness” refers either to the attribute of God or his saving activity or perhaps
more clearly, the righteous status he confers on people who are unrighteous—they are declared
righteous [note (4) above] . It does not seem that “his righteousness” refers to God‟s faithfulness
to the Abrahamic covenant. In seven different ways the author describes what happened at the
cross, and says all of this was made possible by his righteousness. The issue is entering the
kingdom of God and “attaining life” by “the Savior who is able to save” (9.6). These concepts
are in line with the traditional view of justification. As shown elsewhere in this study, the only
references to “covenant” come from 1 Clement and Barnabas.
A couple other references need to be considered here. 1 Clement 18:15 says: “My tongue
will rejoice in your righteousness.” This is part of Clement‟s extensive quote (18.2-17 of Psalm
51:1-17, David‟s great prayer of confession and for pardon. David acknowledges various
attributes of God, including God‟s having lovingkindness and compassion (v. 1), and salvation
(v. 12); and he acknowledges God as “justified” when he speaks and blameless when he judges
(v. 4). The reference to “your righteousness” seems devoid of any reference to God‟s faithfulness
to the Abrahamic covenant. The words seem more reminiscent of Exodus 34 where God is
described as compassionate (v.6), abounding in lovingkindness (v. 6), forgiving iniquity and sin
6
(v. 7), and where the covenant of Sinai is renewed with Moses (34:10-28). However, Exodus 34
follows chapter 32 where Moses intercedes with God that he must keep his promise to Abraham
(citing Gen. 12:1-3) and not destroy his people for their idolatry associated with the golden calf
(32:10-14). So it is possible that David thinks of the Abrahamic covenant through Exodus 34.
But 1 Clement is exhorting humility and peace among the Corinthians so that the unity of
the church may be restored. He does not seem to be thinking of God‟s faithfulness to the
Abrahamic covenant. His use of “your righteousness” in 18.15 seems incidental to the whole
chapter (Ps. 51) which he quotes so that he might show the humility of David (see also 15.1;
16.1-2; 19.1-3)—the point he is trying to make.
I turn to another reference pertinent to the meaning of the “righteousness of God.” In
Polycarp‟s Letter to the Philippians 5.2, he writes that “deacons must be blameless in the
presence of his righteousness, as deacons of God and Christ and not of men.” The reference is
probably to God‟s righteousness rather than Christ‟s righteousness, in light of the preceding
sentence that affirms that “God is not mocked” (5.1), although “God and Christ” are mentioned
in 5.2. It probably is not a significant difference who the referent is. But the context points to the
attribute of God as righteous or perhaps the status that he confers on his own people. It does not
seem that God‟s faithfulness to the covenant is involved in light of the context that exhorts
deacons to “live in a manner that is worthy of his commandment and glory”—references to what
God has said and to his nature. The exhortation is not to the faithfulness of deacons but to their
living upright lives, their ethical purity, since “blameless” is expanded to refer to a whole list of
evil behaviors to be avoided (similar to 1 Tim. 3:8-13). Perhaps a reference to faithfulness could
be included in the words, “acting in accordance with the truth of the Lord,” but this seems
unlikely. Polycarp then follows with a list of evil practices that the young men are to avoid; and
young women should “maintain a pure and blameless conscience” (5.3). Of course, living a
godly life is living faithfully, and this would correspond to God‟s faithfulness, but to see the
faithfulness of God to the Abrahamic covenant as the key idea here is difficult to sustain in light
of the terms involved.
3. The term “righteousness” (dikaisunh) occurs approximately eighty-six times
(including the references discussed under “righteousness of God”), but I‟ve subsumed under this
noun form a few instances of the adjective “righteous” (dikaioj) and even fewer occurrences of
the verb “justify” (dikaiow). Adherents of the NPP stipulate that this term refers predominantly
to a righteous status given by God; but it is never his own righteousness as an attribute that is
imputed to a person. There is no imputation of Christ‟s righteousness to the believer.7
7 N.T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 163-167. Wright
has, it seems, an awkward explanation of a major imputation text (2 Cor. 5:21), claiming that Paul is describing his
apostolic ministry in the second half of the verse as an ambassador of Christ (so 5:14-21). Paul embodies God‟s
righteousness—God‟s faithfulness to his covenant—in his ministry of proclaiming “be reconciled to God” (5:20).
7
In the AF some interesting phrases involving “righteousness” occur. Ignatius designates
Christ Jesus as the Christians‟ “hope and guarantee of our righteousness” (Phila. 8.1). Here the
“righteousness” must be the status attributed to the believer.
For the following discussion about “righteousness” I‟ve grouped the eighty-plus uses into
four possible categories. (1) The attribute of God, including his (a) justice or rectitude; and his
(b) faithfulness. Some of these references were discussed above under “righteousness of God” or
“his righteousness.” There are relatively few that fit here (1 Clem.18:15 [perhaps also in category
(3)];48.2 [2x]; 48.4; Phili. 9.1? Barn. 1.6? 3.4? 5.4?; Diog. 9.3? 9.5 [2x]).
The (2) category is that of the status of righteousness reckoned by God to those who
believe. This includes several references (1 Clem. 3.4? 10.6 [quote of Gen. 15:6]; 31.2; 35.2?
42.5? 2 Clem. 6.9; Phili. 2.3? 4.1? 8.1; Barn. 1.6; 13.7 [ref. to Gen. 15:6]; 14.7; Shep. 9.6? 17.1?
40.5? 93.7? Diog. 10.8).
The (3) category is that referring to God‟s saving activity, the saving action of God, and
includes a few references (1 Clem.5.7? 18.15? Did. 5.2? Barn. 3.4? 5.4? Shep. 9.6? Diog. 9.1?
9.5?). As I‟ve indicated each one of these is doubtful, or could be categorized also under another
area.
The (4) category is that of the believers‟ personal or ethical purity or virtuous living. By
far, most references to “righteousness” in the AF fall into this category (1 Clem. 3.4? 5.7? 13.1;
33.8; 35.2? 42.5? 48.4; 60.2; 62.2; 2 Clem. 4.2; 6.9 [2x]; 11.7; 12.1; 13.1; 18.2; 19.2 [2x]; Smyr
1.1; Phili. 2.3? 3.1? 3.3; 4.1? 5.2; 9.1? 9.2; Did. 5.2 [2x?]; 11.2; Barn. 1.4; 1.6 [2x?]; 4.12; 5.4?
20.2 [2x]; Shep. 6.6, 7; 7.3; 14.4; 17.1? 26.2; 33.1; 34.1; 36.3 [2x]; 38.2; 38.9, 10; 40.5? 45.4, 5;
46.1; 49.2; 54.4; 61.4; 76.3; 90.7; 93.7? 96.2; 102.2; Diog. 10.8?).
I‟ve created a (5) category for the frequent use of the phrase, “angel of righteousness,”
which only the Shepherd of Hermas uses (8x) and which he opposes to the “angel of
wickedness” (3x) (Shep 36.1, 3 [3x], 6, 8, 9, 10).
A few observations are in order. The books of 1 Clement and Polycarp to the Philippians
and the Epistle to Diognetus refer to categories (1-3), while the books of 2 Clement, Barnabas,
and the Shepherd emphasize personal purity or sanctification. Ignatius does not use the term. The
former observation may reflect 1 Clement‟s heavy use of quotations of the New and Old
Testament. In emphasizing ethical purity the books of 2 Clement, Barnabas and the Shepherd go
so far as to suggest earning salvation by personal effort; or, mean sanctification when they use
“righteousness” language (2 Clem. 4.2 [Only the one who “does what is right” shall be saved];
6.9 [“Who will be our advocate, if we are not found to have holy and righteous works?”]; 18.2
[“I pursue righteousness . . . because I fear the coming judgment”]; 19.3 [“Let us practice
righteousness , so that we may be saved in the end”]; Phil. 5.2 [“We will reign with him—if, that
is, we continue to believe”]; Barn. 4.12 [“If they are good, their righteousness will precede
them”—reminiscent of Rom. 2]; Shep. 6.6 [“. . . work righteousness . . . in order that you may
8
gain entrance with the holy angels”]; 7.3 [“Blessed are all those who practice righteousness; they
will never be destroyed”]; 38.2 [“If you exercise self-control regarding evil so as not to do it, you
achieve great righteousness”]; 46.1 [“All who serve the good desire [of righteousness] will live
to God”]).
Yet all these references may be understood as asserting that works must accompany faith
in order for one to be saved (as James 2; Gal. 5:6). Shepherd 96.2 speaks of the “fruit of
righteousness” lacking in those who “have the name” but are “devoid of truth” and lack fruit.8
In regard to the matter of imputation, 1 Clement 50.5-7 (cf. also 60.1-2) equates God‟s
reckoning language with the forgiveness of sins (he cites Ps. 32:1-2, as Paul does in Rom. 4:7-9).
Such suggests that the AF believed in imputation (cf. also Diog. 9.1-6 cited above).9
4. The term “justify” (dikaiow) occurs about seventeen times. I‟ve covered some of the
occurrences above under category (2) but here draw them all out. I‟ve divided them into several
categories. (1) Some uses mean “to justify” in the sense of “declare righteous,” corresponding to
the (2) category under “righteousness” above—God‟s granting a status of righteousness as in a
law court scene. It is a forensic idea. It is not the idea of making one righteous. There are several
examples (1 Clem. 30.3? 32.4 [2x: “being justified through (dia) faith” not through works, nor
other things—five are listed]; Rom. 5.1; Phili. 8.2; Shep. 17.1; Diog. 9.4, 5). (2) The texts
pointing to future justification and tied to resurrection are several (1 Clem. 30.3? Barn. 4.10;
15.7). (3) Texts pointing to vindication are several (1 Clem. 16.12 [quoting Isa. 53:11, “to justify
the just one, who serves many well,” following the LXX; the Heb. reads, “the righteous one, my
servant, will justify many”]; 18.4 [a quote of Ps. 51:4: “that you may be justified in your
words”]; Barn. 6.1; Shep. 33.7; Diog. 5.14).10
(4) There is one text that refers to social justice (1
Clem. 8.4 [“give justice to the widow”]). There are no texts in the AF, apparently, that mean
moral transformation. 1 Clement (32.4) and Diognetus (9.1-5) set in contrast faith and works,
and emphasize our inability to save ourselves.
8 Needham, “Justification,” 37, n. 35, finds that the Shepherd of Hermas (9.6; 54.4) and Barnabas (4.10) treat
“righteousness” as sanctification. Yet later (51, n. 71) Needham affirms that Barnabas (12.3) notes that people
cannot be saved unless they place their hope in God. In this same footnote, Needham accredits to Martin Chemnitz
(the Lutheran theologian of the sixteenth century) the observation that Hermas was a notable “corrupter of the
apostolic doctrine of justification.”
Note my more positive observation in the text above. Even Needham remarks that the Reformed systematic
theologian, Francois Turrettini of the seventeenth century, argued that the “alone” in “faith alone justifies” applies to
the verb not to the noun (43). Near the end of his article (52-53) Needham discusses the use of merit language found
in some fathers. He observes that the word “merit” may mean nothing more than “obtain God‟s blessing.” When it
goes beyond this to have some idea of “inherent moral value” there still may not be “some quid pro quo human
claim on God,” especially when the same author disavows “human merit in favor of divine mercy” (53). Again it
may represent nothing more than an author‟s belief that “faith without works is dead.” My study of the AF leads me
to agree with these last thoughts. 9 Ibid., 32, n. 26. Needham finds imputation in 1 Clement 50.5-7, and in several later church fathers.
10 Ibid, 28, n. 8. He cites the example of Clement 16 as supporting the idea that God or Christ is justified (hence
“declared righteous,” “shown to be righteous”).
9
This last observation is crucial. For if the AF foreshadow the Reformation in their
understanding Paul on justification by faith, there is a presumption for thinking that they
foreshadow the Reformation in their understanding of Paul on the meaning of related phrases
such as “works of the law,” the “righteousness of God,” “covenant,” “faith” and “believe,” and
others.
I‟ve questioned 1 Clement 30.3 (“being justified by works and not by words”), as to
whether to place it in (1) or (2) since it may be an allusion to Romans 2:13, “not the hearers of
the law are just before God, but the doers of the law will be justified” (the first use of the verb
“justify” in Romans). 1 Clement begins his verse by saying: “Let us therefore join with those to
whom grace is given by God.” Thus he clearly is thinking of justification by faith, as he affirms
elsewhere (32.4). He also uses a present participle (“being justified”), and not a future verb, as
Paul does. But Romans 2:13 is at the heart of the debate with the NPP, with N.T. Wright
asserting that this verse shows that there is a future declaration at the judgment that one is
righteous on the basis of works done, and this declaration is brought forward into the present.
While there is a certain merit to this view regarding the role of works, it tends to cloud the
respective roles of faith and works (only faith is the means of justification, not works; Rom.
3:22-25; Eph. 2:8-9). Ortlund points out that Romans 2:13 is not contrasting faith and works but
mere hearing with doing; and that the issues of divine sovereignty and human responsibility must
also be considered in such a discussion.11
So 1 Clement 30.3 could also go into category (2).12
13
5. The noun “gospel” or “good news” (euaggelion) and the verb “to proclaim the gospel”
(euaggelizw) are used a total of thirty-two times. In the debate with the NPP, the words are
understood by the NPP as the announcement as to who is in the covenant [of Abraham], now
fulfilled by the faithful Jesus, not how to get into the covenant, to be saved from sin (so Rom.
1:16-17). The uses in the AF are as follows. (1) Most refer to the good news itself, regarding the
death, burial and resurrection of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-3), and that upon faith in Christ people
are delivered from judgment. The AF refer to one or more of these elements of the good news
(noun forms: Phila. 5.1, 2 [2x]; 8.2; 9.2 [2x]; Smyr. 5.1; 7.2; Barn. 5.9; 8.3; verbal forms: 1
Clem. 42.1, 3; Phili. 6.3; Barn. 8.3; 14.9 [quoting Isa. 61:1-2, cited by Jesus at the beginning of
his public ministry as recorded in Luke 4:18-19]).
11
Dane C. Ortlund, “Justified by Faith, Judged According to Works: Another Look at a Pauline Paradox,” JETS
52/2 (June 2009) 323-39. 12
Another point here against the NPP is that it tends to confuse the matter of Christian rewards. If the future
declaration that believers are righteous is based on our works then all believers would be so declared righteous
irrespective of the amount or kind of their works—there cannot be degrees of justification. But then how will
distinction be made between works that endure the testing, the proving, fire, and those that don‟t (Rom.14:10-12; 1
Cor. 3:12-15)? It seems better to say that believers are justified because they continue to believe to the very end, and
this faith is backed up by works as evidence of faith, and on this basis they are declared righteous. 13
There does not seem to be in these AF the idea found in some later fathers that forgiveness is mediated through
baptism, or that works of penance have salvific efficacy (as Needham, “Justification,” 41-46, finds)
10
In the next (2) category I‟ve placed the implications that flow from the gospel (1 Clem.
47.2 [quoting Phil. 4:15]; MPoly 1:1 [martyrdom “in accord with the gospel”]; 4.1; 19.1; 22.1
[the first, third, and fourth references all use “in accord with the gospel”]; Did. 11.3 [“rule of the
gospel”]). The (3) category includes references to one or more of the four Gospels (2 Clem. 8.5;
Did. 8.2; 15.3, 4; Diog. 11.6? Papias 3.14, 17; 6.2; 20.1; 21.1 [Papias refers to the written
Gospels of Mark, John, and that of the Hebrews]).
Some remarks are necessary. It is significant that already in these the earliest of
documents after the New Testament there is knowledge of written Gospels and that they are
known by their traditional names. Regarding categories (1) and (2) it is significant that never is
the “gospel” or its implications defined or described by content as pertaining to the fulfilling of
the Abrahamic covenant (per the NPP). Instead, as the church has traditionally defined the
gospel, it pertains to Jesus Christ as sent from God (1 Clem. 42.1; Phili. 6.3); to the coming of
the kingdom (1 Clem. 42.3)14
; to the forgiveness of sins and the purification of heart (Barn. 8.3);
to grace, healing, freedom, sight, and the year of the Lord‟s favor (Barn. 14.9); to the “flesh of
Jesus” (Phila. 5.1); to believing in Jesus and consequently being saved (Phila. 5.2); to Jesus
himself being the Old Testament (“the archives”), and to his cross, death, resurrection, and faith
in him, and being justified (Phila. 8.2); to Jesus‟ coming, suffering, and resurrection, and to his
finished work, conditioned by believing (Phila. 9.2; Smyr. 7.2); to being placed next to the
prophecies and the law of Moses and our suffering (Smyr. 5.1); and to Jesus‟ being revealed to
be God‟s Son (Barn. 5.9). There is not a hint here of Jesus‟ being the fulfillment of the
Abrahamic covenant and that this is the content of the “gospel.”
6. The term “law” (nomoj) used in the AF is especially crucial to the understanding of the
phrase, “the works of the law.” Traditionally, these words have been taken to mean works done
to keep the law, and are the basis of personal merit. Paul rejects personal merit as a means of
salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) or justification (Rom. 3:20-21, 27-28; Gal. 2:16 [3x]; 3:10-13). The NPP
asserts that the “works of the law” are those markers of Jewish identity (possessive genitive),
works like circumcision, food restrictions, and keeping the Sabbath, that marked off the
boundaries of who is a Jew. Paul condemns the Jews‟ insistence on maintaining these to keep
Gentiles from coming into the blessings and benefits of the Abrahamic covenant now fulfilled in
the death of Christ.
How do the AF use this term? The term occurs twenty-eight times with these functions.
(1) It refers to the law of Jesus Christ, and to the new covenant (I‟ve decided to group these two
ideas together; there is no explicit use of the terms, “new covenant”) (Mag. 2.1; Barn. 2.6 [where
the “law of Jesus Christ” is opposed to the “yoke of compulsion” (zugou anagkhj), an obvious
reference in the context to the law of Moses]; Shep. 59.3; 69.2 [“this law is the Son of God”];
69.3, 4 [2x], 5 [2x], 6, 7 [2x]). (2) It refers to the law of Moses (Smyr. 5.1; Barn. 2.6 [just
discussed above under (1)]; Diog. 5.10 [“reverence of (for) the law” is followed by the “grace of
14
This example raises the question: how does the kingdom pertain to the Abrahamic covenant?
11
the prophets” and “faith of the gospels” and “tradition of the apostles”]; Papias 4.5). (3) It refers
to community or national laws or legislation (Shep. 50.3, 4, 5 [4x], 6 [2x]; Diog. 5.10 [“they
obey the established laws”]). (4) Once “law” seems to refer to universal, moral law (Shep.69.2
[“This great tree . . . is the law of God, which is given to the whole world, and this law is the Son
of God”]; this may be a reference to the Mosaic law).
The use of “law” bears out the emphasis in Paul that the law of Moses was a “yoke of
compulsion” (so Barn. 2.6) in the sense that the one who confesses allegiance to it must live by it
but is incapable of doing so. Instead one becomes accountable to God (Rom. 3:19-20), cursed
(Gal. 2:10-13), and re-enslaved (Gal. 4:9). The definition that the NPP wants to make for the
terms “works of the law” does not explicitly occur in the AF. Instead “law” in the AF seems
consistent with the traditional view that the keeping of the law was an effort to gain personal
merit with God apart from, or in league with, faith. In contrast it is said that the angel Michael
“puts the law into the hearts of those who believe” (Shep. 69.3). There does not seem to be a
place where Jews are faulted for enforcing “boundary markers” to exclude Gentiles from the
Abrahamic covenant.
7. There are about one hundred and eight uses of “work” or “works” (ergon and its
plurals) occurring in various categories. Some of these examples overlap with the terms above
(for example, “works of the law”). The most frequent use is that of (1) Christian good works,
including “works of righteousness”; and I‟ve included God‟s works here as well (1 Clem.2.7;
33.1, 7, 8; 34.1, 3, 4; 38.2; 43.1; 48.5; 2 Clem. 4.3 [2x]; 6.9; 11.6; 12.4; 13.3; 16.3; 17.4; Eph.
1.1; 10.1; 14.2; Rom. 2.1; 3.3; Smyr. 11.2; Poly. 6.2; 7.3; 8.1; Barn. 10.11; 19.1; Shep. 9.9; 16.5,
7, 8; 30.3; 36.3; 38.8; 39.10; 43.16; 50.7, 11; 51.7 [2x], 9; 55.5, 7 [2x]; 75.1; 91.1, 2; 98.2; 105.6;
Diog. 7.9). The next most frequent use (2) is that of “evil work” including that of the devil (1
Clem. 28.1; 2 Clem. 1.6; 16.3; 17.7; Barn. 4.1 [2x], 10; 21.1; Shep. 2.4; 15.6; 16.4; 29.2, 9; 33.1;
36.4 [3x], 6 [3x], 7; 36.10; 37.3 [2x]; 38.4 [2x], 5; 44.3 [2x]; 49.2, 4; 63.5, 6; 66.2; 72.3; 76.3;
77.1, 2; 91.2; Diog. 9.1). (3) There a couple references to being justified by works (1 Clem.
30.3—in a good sense; 32.3, 4; 39.4; Phili. 1.3). (4) There are a few references to God‟s works in
the creation (1 Clem. 33.2; Barn. 5.10; 15.3). (5) There are a couple references to Jesus‟ good
works (1 Clem. 33.7; Quad. 2). (6) There are a few references to human works in general as good
deeds (1 Clem. 59.3; Shep. 3.2; 87.2). Finally, (7) there are references to works of an angel of
righteousness in the Shepherd (36.3 [2x], 6, 8, 10).
In light of the preceding it seems that there is a significant interest in Christian living or
ethical confirmation of what Christians confess, and a concern for avoiding evil works. This may
reflect the concerns of the New Testament that Christians need to walk according to what they
believe—a concern deeply expressed in all of Paul‟s writings. Paul even endured slander as an
antinomian (Rom. 3:8). As reflected in the previous categories under the concept of “law” there
is virtually no use of the phrase, “works of the law.” It seems that the dispute over whether
justification could be by means of works has been settled by Paul and therefore it occasioned
virtually no discussion.
12
8. This idea that the dispute over justification by faith alone is settled in the AF also finds
support in the fact that the words, “faith” (pistij) and “believe” (pisteuw) occur very frequently
(about one hundred ninety-three times: respectively, one hundred thirteen times to one hundred
six times).15
The idea of believing is not disputed in the debate with the NPP. Rather it is the content
of what is believed (whether the gospel as traditionally defined or God‟s faithfulness to his
covenant with Abraham) that is disputed. But interpreting this phrase as the “faithfulness of
Jesus” (a subjective genitive) rather than “faith in Jesus” (an objective genitive) is not limited to
NPP proponents; many others take it this way as well (in Rom. 3:22, 26; Gal. 2:16; etc.).
I‟ve divided the meaning of the words into the following categories. (1) By far the most
frequent (about 120x) meaning is “to believe,” that is, to put faith in Jesus Christ or God. This is
not unexpected. However, many of these (about fifty) are disputed since it is not clear whether
the meaning refers to the first act of believing or ongoing faith in Christ, the perseverance of the
Christian. This same obscurity exists in the New Testament, and arises because both the Hebrew
term (tnwma,) and the Greek term (pistij) can have both ideas—initial believing or continued
believing (persevering in faith). The discussion about the use of Habakkuk 2:4 in the New
Testament involves the same perplexity. Is the author stressing original faith (so probably Rom.
1:17 and Gal. 2:11) or persevering faith (so Heb. 10:28)?
This phenomenon is aligned with the observation that Paul usually uses the present tense
in verbs and participles to describe those who believe, not aorist verbs and participles. Believers
(Christians) are those who continue to believe. For example, of the twenty uses in Romans (the
epistle where “believe” occurs the most often), the present forms occur twelve times, and the
aorist forms occur eight times. But almost all of the latter occur in the historical accounts of
Abraham, prophets, or the Jews who exercised faith in the past.
In contrast to Paul‟s use of present verbs and participles, Shepherd of Hermas repeatedly
uses the phrase (12x), “believers such as these,” and in all such cases the writer uses the aorist
participle. But other aorist participles occur (2 Clem. 2.3; Tral. 2.1; Phila. 5.2; Phili. 2.1; Barn.
12.7; 13.7; Shep. 23.4; 27.2; 31.3 [2x]; 40.4, 5; 69.2; 72.3; 76.3; 90.5; 94.4; 107.2, 3); and aorist
verbs occur (2 Clem. 15.3; Mag. 10.3; Rom. 7.2; Rom. 8.2; Smyr. 3.2; 6.1; Phili. 8.2; Barn. 7.2;
9.4; 11.11; Shep. 14.1; 23.6; 26.1, 2; 27.2; 28.3; 35.2; 36.10; 49.2; 50.7; 54.5; 99.3; Diog. 11.3;
Papias 16.1). There is one aorist infinitive (Barn. 16.7 [“before we believed in God”]), and only
one imperfect tense (2 Clem. 17.5).
In contrast, in far fewer numbers, there are present verbs (indicatives, subjunctives,
imperatives) (2 Clem. 20.2; Rom. 10.2; Phila. 8.1, 2; 9.2; Smyr. 3.1; Phili. 1.3; 5.2; Poly. 7.3;
Shep. 35.2; 36.3, 6 [2x], 10; 39.7; 43.17 [2x], 21; Diog. 12.8), present participles (1 Clem. 12.7;
15
Of 243 uses of pistoj in the NT, Paul has about 142 of them.
13
34.4; Tral. 9.2; Phili. 6.1; Shep. 16.4; 51.5; 69.3), present infinitives (1 Clem. 42.4; 2 Clem. 11.1;
17.3; Mag. 9.1; Shep. 31.3 [2x]; 107.3; Diog. 9.6), future verbs (Barn. 3.6; Shep. 108.6), and
one perfect verb (Diog. 7.1) and three perfect participles (Shep. 14.4; 15.1; Diog. 7.2). These
various tenses often occur in the same writer. So perhaps the distinction between Paul and the
AF should not be pressed. But there does seem to be a greater use of the aorist participle for
“believe” in the AF, especially in the Shepherd, than in Paul.
In addition, this category (1) has many disputed examples which may belong in category
(4) where “faith” may mean “faithfulness of God” or “faithfulness of Christ,” a concept
important to the NPP. I‟m not listing the examples for category (1), because of their abundance;
but I will take up some examples in light of the possible conflicts with two other categories.
Category (2) is the meaning “the faith,” the body of doctrine that Christians embrace.
Some of these examples may be disputed, that they too belong in category (1) or (2) (again the
same uncertainty appears in the NT) (Eph. 10.2 [“be steadfast in the faith”]; 20.2 [“one faith”];
Phili. 3.2 [“build yourselves up in the faith given to you”]; 4.2 [“continue in the faith delivered to
them”]; 4.3 [“think soberly about the faith of the Lord”]; Shep. 13.5? [“strong in the faith”]; 20.3
[“made powerful in the faith”]; 38.10 [“those who have stumbled from the faith”]; 39.9
[“uprooted many from the faith”]; 47.5? [“fickle in the faith”]; 48.4? [“full in the faith”]; 75.1?
[“continued in the faith”]; 95.4? [“one mind, one faith, one love”]; 100.2? [“withered in the
faith”]; Diog. 11.6 [“the faith of the gospels”]; Papias 3.2 [“matters of the faith”]; 3.3 [“given by
the Lord to the faith”]).
Category (3) are those many instances referring to ongoing faithfulness or persevering
faith, and many are disputed as belonging instead to category (1) (1 Clem. 5.6; 6.2; 10.7?
[“because of Abraham‟s faith and hospitality a son was given to him”]; 12.1? [“because of
Rahab‟s faith and hospitality”]; 55.6? [“Esther was perfect in faith”]; 64.1?; 2 Clem. 15.2?
[“faith and love”]; 10.2? [“let us have faith”]; Eph. 8.2 [“faith . . . unfaithfulness”]; Eph. 1.2?
[“persevering in the power of faith”]; Mag. 1.1 [“faith and love”]; 6.1 [“faith and love”]; 13.1
[“faith and love”]; Tral. 8.1 [“faith and love”]; Phila. 8.2?; 9.2? [“if you believe with love”];
Smyr. 1.1? [“established in . . . faith . . . and love”]; Smyr. 6.1? [“faith and love”]; 13.2? [“faith
and love”]; Poly. 6.2? [“faith . . . love”]; Phili. 9.2 [“run . . . with faith and righteousness”];
13.2? [“faith and patient endurance”]; Did. 16.5? [“endure in their faith”]; Barn. 1.4? [“faith and
love”]; 4.9? [“time of our faith”]; 11.8? [“faith and love”]; Shep. 46.1? [“practice . . . faith and
gentleness”]; 94.4? [“one faith, one love”]; 99.1 [“they are faithful”]; 100.2? [“withered in the
faith”]; Diog. 11.5 [“faithful”]).
In this category are several instances of the phrase, “faith and love,” especially in
Ignatius. It is unclear (hence I‟ve used ? with them) whether the idea is that of exercising initial
faith or perseverance in faith (and love); or, that “faith” is initial believing and “love” is
14
perseverance in believing.16
These may reflect Paul (Col. 1:3; 1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:3; Phile.
5).
Category (4), referring to the “faithfulness of Christ” or “God” is the one most in line
with the proponents of the NPP. There are several (about seventeen) possible references (1 Clem.
3.4? [“with respect to faith in him”; en th pistei autou]; Eph. 16.2? [“someone corrupts faith in
God”; pistin qeou]; 20.1 [“involving faith in him and love for him”; or “his faith and his love”;
en th autou pistei kai en th autou agaph] Mag. 1.1 [pistei Ihsou Cristou]; Rom. 1.0 [pistin
kai agaphn Ihsou Cristou]; Phila. 8.2 [pistoj h di autou]; Phili. 4.3? [thn tou kuriou pistin];
Did. 10.2 [pistewj . . . “made known to us” dia Ihsou]; Barn. 4.8? [“in hope of his faith”—note
covenant in the context; en elpidi thj pistewj autou;]; 16.9? [“the word of his faith”; o logoj
autou thj pistewj]; Shep. 22.8? [“having put on the faith of the Lord”; thn pistin tou kuriou];
43.4 [“strong in the faith of the Lord”; en th pistei tou kuriou]; 43.9? [“have faith in a divine
spirit”; pistin qeiou pneumatoj]; 61.2? [“put on the faith of the Lord”; thn pistin tou kuriou];
note: as in 22.8, how can one put on the faithfulness of the Lord? So these seem best for category
(1)—to put on faith in the Lord]; 63.6 [“strengthened in the faith of the Lord”; en th pistei tou
kuriou]; 93.5 [“fell asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God”; pistei tou uiou tou qeou].
Of the preceding only about ten uses potentially lend themselves to the idea of the
faithfulness of Christ or of God. A couple texts show how God‟s faithfulness is expressed (Shep.
50.7 [“remembering the promises he promised and trust him to keep them”]; 2 Clem. 11.1 [“we
do not believe God‟s promise”]). These uses belong in category (1) and parallel Romans 3:3.
Several of these uses parallel uses of pistij Ihsou Cristou (in various forms) in Paul.
Of Paul‟s uses five have “righteousness” connected to the phrase (Rom. 3:22, 26; Gal. 2:16 [2x];
Phil. 3:9), while three do not (Gal. 2:20; 3:22; Eph. 3:12). It is especially crucial to the NPP that
“righteousness” should be connected to “faithfulness,” since it is Jesus‟ faithfulness that displays
God‟s righteousness in keeping the Abrahamic covenant. It appears that none of those in the AF
have such a connection with righteousness. As I‟ve indicated above some clearly belong in
category (1) so that Jesus or God is the object of faith; the usage is not a subjective genitive so
that Jesus Christ is producing or doing the faith, that is faithfulness (since Christ exercising faith
is inappropriate), and in particular, faithfulness to the covenant. Most translators (Lightfoot,
Holmes, Lake) of the AF take most of these uses as objective genitives (“faith in Christ,” etc.).
In the above list, there are several possible references to the faithfulness of Christ or of
God, in my judgment (Eph. 20.1 [“the divine plan with respect to the new man Jesus Christ,
involving faith in him and love for him”; en th autou pistei kai en th autou agaph]17
; Mag.
16
Torrance, Doctrine of Grace, 70, finds that Ignatius makes grace into a reward for human effort, and that “faith
and love” reflect this: love concerns “doing rightly” both in actions and beliefs, and so love turns faith into
faithfulness. I read Ignatius more positively, as noted above. 17
Holmes, Fathers, 149, translates this initially as, “involving faith in him and love for him”; but suggests in a
footnote (n. 29) that it possibly may be “his faith and his love.”
15
1.1 [“a union of flesh and blood from Jesus Christ . . . and of faith and love” [pistewj te kai
agaphj]]; Rom. 1.0 [“in accordance with faith and love of Jesus Christ our God”; kata pistin
kai agaphn Ihsou Cristou tou qeou]18
; Phila. 8.2 [“. . . and his resurrection and the faith which
comes through him”; h pistij h di autou]; Did. 10.2 [“concerning the knowledge and faith and
immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant”; pistewj . . . dia
Ihsou]; Shep. 43.4 [“those who are strong in the faith of the Lord”; en th pistei tou kuriou];
63.6 [same words as 43.4]; 93.5 [“fell asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God”; en
dunamei kai pistei tou uiou tou qeou]).
But it seems that none must be rendered the way the NPP would desire; and one in
particular argues against it (Shep. 43.9). When the idea of God‟s faithfulness to the covenant is
present it is expressed in different ways than using a genitive construction (above, by 2 Clem.
11.1; Shep. 50.7). It seems that in one place the phrase “faith of God” cannot be interpreted as
“God‟s faithfulness” (Eph. 16.2), since the partial sentence reads: “by evil teaching someone
corrupts faith in God” (pistin qeou). This usage then may give a trajectory by which the same
phrase should be similarly interpreted—excluding the idea of “the faithfulness of God.”
When Paul wants to refer to the faithfulness of God or Christ, he uses a form of pistoj
(“faithful”). And this parallels the use of the New Testament as a whole. Yet Paul never uses this
Greek term in Romans, and uses it only once in Galatians (to refer to people).19
A few more categories appear in the use of “faith” or “believe.” (5) The idea of trust or
belief in other people (not God or Christ) and other things (not the gospel) occurs (1 Clem. 39.4
[“servants”]; Rom. 7.2 [“things I‟m writing”]; 8.2 [“believe me”]; 10.2 [“information”]; Poly. 7.3
[“that you are ready”]; Phili. 6.1 [“things spoken against anyone”]; Barn. 12.7 [“believe” that the
serpent on the pole can give life]; Shep. 27.2 [2x: “slander”]; 28.3 [“my word”]; 35.2 [2x: “trust
righteousness . . . not trust unrighteousness”]; 36.3 [“trust the angel of righteousness and his
works”; so also 36.6, 10]; 36.6 [“trust” not the “angel of wickedness” and “his works”; so also
36.10]; 43.9 [“a divine spirit”], 17 [2x: “the spirit that comes from God . . . not the earthly
spirit”], 21 [“divine spirit”]; 51.5 [believe that one “will have a reward”]; 108.6 [“shepherds”];
Diog. 12.8 [“a virgin—Mary?—is trusted”]; Papias 16.1 [“this doctrine”].
18
Ibid., 167, n. 58. Holmes says here that Jesus is the object, not the subject of the two nouns (hence “faith in and
love for Jesus”). 19
Of 66 occurrences in the NT, 50 refer to human beings as “faithful,” 14 refer to God or Christ, and 2 refer to the
“word” as faithful. Interestingly, Paul never uses this adjective in Romans, and uses it once, of people, in Gal. (3:9,
with the sense of “believing” Abraham). A few times Paul uses it of God (1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor. 1:18; 1 Thess.
5:24; 2 Thess. 3:3; 2 Tim. 2:13), but apparently never of Christ. None of the references involving God identify God
as faithful to a covenant. It would seem that if God‟s faithfulness to the covenant of Abraham was an idea pervasive
in the understanding of Paul there would be at least one reference explicitly saying such. In the AF there are a few
references to God being “faithful” (using pistoj) to the promises (1 Clem. 27.1—faithful to his promise of
resurrection)
16
The idea (6) of being entrusted with something occurs (1 Clem. 43.1 [“work”]; Mag.
6.1[“ministry of Jesus Christ”]; Phila. 9.1 [2x: “the Holy of Holies . . . the hidden things of
God”]; Diog. 7.1 [“administration of human mysteries”], 2 [“administration of heavenly things”].
The use (7) of “faith” as the name of a virgin occurs once (Shep. 92.2).
The Biblical Texts As Discussed or Cited in the Apostolic Fathers Pertinent to the New
Interpretation of the NPP
When one makes a search for the biblical texts that are at the center of the proposals of
the NPP (see list above) one discovers that there are no such texts cited or discussed by the AF.
The indices in Lightfoot‟s multi-volume work on 1 Clement and the Letters of Ignatius and of
Polycarp list none of the texts from Galatians and Romans. Holmes‟ edition is similar: only
Barnabas 13.7 cites Romans 4:11, 17 which quote Genesis 15:6; 17:5. I discussed above the
possible allusion to Romans 2:13 (in 1 Clem. 30.3) under the fourth term (“justify”).
There are a couple of allusions or quotations that are important. 1 Clement quotes
Genesis 15:6, which may be representing what Paul does in Romans 4:3—to affirm that God
reckons righteousness to the ungodly who believe. Later (31.2) he speaks of Abraham‟s
“attaining [literally “having worked”] righteousness through faith.” Ignatius (Phil. 8.1) speaks of
Christ as “our righteousness” (thus alluding to 1 Cor. 1:30 or 2 Cor. 5:21?) and then virtually
quotes part of Isaiah 53. Barnabas 14.7 cites “righteousness” and “covenant” found in the quote
of Isaiah 42:6-7. Shepherd 17.1 reflects Romans 4:3 by saying that the Lord “instilled
righteousness in you in order that you may be justified and sanctified from all evil.” The
Shepherd is arguing that the previous condition of the readers was that of evil. This is not the
case of a problem of “boundary markers” or Jewish ethnic identity (as the NPP argues), but of
real (moral) evil.
Finally, Diognetus 9.3, 5 comes closest to espousing the imputation of Christ‟s
righteousness to sinners by saying that the “sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous
person, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners” and calls this “the sweet
exchange” (see quotation in full above). If this indeed reflects Paul (2 Cor. 5:21 or Rom. 5:12-
21) then the term “exchange” argues that the early church did hold to imputation and derived it
from Paul.20
This suggests that the NPP is in error in dismissing any doctrine of imputation, as
foreign to Paul, if Diognetus finds it.
What should one make of the general absence of these texts? Obviously the AF did not
enter into the debate now surrounding such texts and their new interpretation as propounded by
the NPP. I think that it is correct to say that these fathers believe that such matters surrounding
justification, righteousness, the covenant, and others, were basically settled and did not in their
20
Note how in the preceding words Diognetus reflects Romans 3:25-26 when he talks about the “former season of
unrighteousness” and the “present season of righteousness” (9.1).
17
time need explanation, refinement, or discussion. They thought that they were following the
teaching of the New Testament as they knew it, especially Paul‟s.
The Apostolic Fathers’ View of Contemporary Judaism (of the Second Temple)
On the whole the AF do not make significant reference to the Judaism of their day, or to
that of the preceding century. However, there is some discussion or passing reference made to it.
Clement (in 1 Clement) portrays a positive attitude toward Israel, at least toward the Old
Testament patriarchs. Early on he cites many from the Old Testament whose “humility and
subordination” exercised through their “obedience” have improved not only his readers but
generations before them and “likewise those who have received his oracles in fear and truth”—
presumably a reference to the Israelites. He describes (29.1-3) the one whom Christians worship
as “loving our gentle and compassionate Father,” and then cites the text that affirms that Jacob
“became the Lord‟s portion, and Israel his inherited allotment” (Deut. 32:8-9; he follows this by
alluding to Deut. 4:34; 14:2 and other texts that describe Israel as the nation the Lord has taken
for himself). Then he immediately adds: “seeing then that we are the portion of the Holy One”
(30.1).
He asks his readers to consider the gifts that God has given, and begins with Jacob from
whom “come all the priests and Levites who minister at the altar of God” (note the present
tenses; 32.2). Further, he exhorts the readers to do everything the “Master has commanded us to
perform” and begins with the “proper services” that the high priest and other priests and Levites
should offer (40.1-5). As an example of abiding in the “designated rule of his ministry” the
author cites the fact that the various kinds of sacrifices and offerings are made in the designated
place at the altar in the sanctuary in Jerusalem (41.2-3). This text suggests that he wrote before
AD 70.
Throughout, Clement assumes that God has chosen Christians “to be his own special
people” (64.1; cf. 1.1), and applies to them the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament.
While he never indicts Israel for unbelief or disobedience he does extol God‟s “mighty love” as
shown to Israel when she was a “stiff-necked” people during the rebellion at the giving of the
law (53.3; quoting Exod. 32:7-10).
2 Clement 14.1 gives an oblique, negative evaluation of Judaism. The author says that if
Christians, who belong to “the first church, the spiritual one,” fail to do “the will of the Lord, we
will belong to those of whom the Scripture says, „My house has become a robbers‟ den‟” (an
obvious reference to Jesus‟ actions and words in the Temple, recorded in Matt. 21:13).
Barnabas is different from 1 Clement. As shown above regarding the discussion of
covenant, Barnabas takes a negative view of Israel. Early on he asserts that God has abolished
the sacrificial system of the Old Testament in order to bring in “the new law of our Lord Jesus
Christ, which is free from the yoke of compulsion” (2.6). He exhorts his readers that they not “go
18
astray like they did” 2.9). Christians are not to become “as it were, „proselytes‟ to their law”
(3.6). He warns them not to lose the covenant as “those people (Israel under Moses) lost it
completely” by turning to idols (4.6-8). Even after many signs and wonders Israel was
“abandoned” (4.14). He asserts that the Son of God came in the flesh so that he “might complete
the full measure of the sins of those who persecuted the prophets to death” (5.11). The
synagogues are composed of “evil men” (alternate reading at 5.13). The calf of the red heifer is a
type of Christ whom the Jews slaughtered (8.2). Further, the circumcision “in which they have
trusted has been abolished” (9.4) because Israel disobeyed (9.4) and failed to see the types of
Jesus in the Old Testament and to realize that Moses spoke spiritually when he spoke of clean
and unclean foods (10.1ff.) and other matters. From the very beginning the covenant is for
Christians, not for Israel (6.19; 13.1-6). Israel is not worthy of it “because of their sins” (14.1, 4).
Finally, Barnabas discusses how “those wretched men went astray and set their hope on the
building, as though it were God‟s house, and not on their God who created them” (16.1). Instead
God dwells in those who have received forgiveness of sins (16.8); they are a spiritual temple
(16.10). Christians have replaced Israel as the new people of God (5.7; 7.5).
It is unavoidable to conclude that Barnabas viewed Israel as under compulsion to do their
law, though they failed to do so. Intrinsic to his evaluation is the fact that he understood that
Israel had to do all the law but failed. Thus they proved unworthy of the covenant. Throughout,
Barnabas contemporizes the Israel of the Old Testament with the Judaism of his day. Also, there
is not a mention of the exile even though N.T. Wright maintains that it is in effect in the thinking
of the Jews at the time of the New Testament and lies in the background of understanding Paul.
Ignatius views Israel as opposed to grace. In his study of the Letters of Ignatius Lightfoot
shows somewhat convincingly that the error opposed by Ignatius was that which combined
Judaism and Gnosticism (very much like Colossians, especially 2:16-23). Some passages bear
this out. To the Philadelphians, Ignatius writes about the Old Testament prophets who “were
saved by faith through union with Christ” (5.2). He goes on: “But if anyone so interprets them as
to find Judaism in them, listen not to him. It is better to hear the circumcised teaching
Christianity than the uncircumcised teaching Judaism” (6.1). But he adds that if either of them
“fails to speak of Jesus Christ” he is a “tombstone and grave of the dead” (6.1). He hints of the
legalism of Judaism when he says: “I believe in the grace of Jesus Christ, who will release every
bond from you” (8.1). The “every bond” may refer to the power of evil generally (so Lightfoot),
or to the oppression of heretical teachers; but the words may best refer to the “oppressive yoke of
Judaism” (so Hilgenfeld).21
The immediately following words involve a reference to the Old
Testament. Ignatius exhorts everything to be done in accordance with the “teaching of Christ”
and refutes those who do not believe the gospel because they do not find the gospel in “the
archives”—the Old Testament (8.2). Finally, Ignatius declares that in contrast to the prophets
who anticipated Christ, “the gospel is the imperishable finished work. All these things together
are good, if you believe with love” (9.2). The implication is that Judaism was not complete.
21
J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, rep. 1981), part two, 2:270.
19
Ignatius expresses even clearer thoughts about the legalism of Judaism in his Letter to the
Magnesians. Ignatius writes: “Be not deceived by strange doctrines or antiquated myths, since
they are worthless. For if we continue to live in accordance with Judaism, we acknowledge that
we have not received grace” (8.2). As Lightfoot comments, “Judaism” denotes the doctrine “of
the permanent obligation of the Mosaic ritual, more especially the observance of Sabbaths”; that
is, “conformity to the external rites of the Jews” (as in Gal. 1:13; 2:14).22
Ignatius affirms that
the way of grace was true even under the old covenant. “If, then, those who had lived in
antiquated practices came to newness of hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath but living in
accordance with the Lord‟s day . . . how can we possibly live without him, whom even the
prophets, who were his disciples in the Spirit, were expecting as their teacher? (9.1-2). The first
part of this text again refers to the practices of Judaism.
Finally, Ignatius writes: “It is utterly absurd to profess Jesus Christ and to practice
Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, in which „every
tongue‟ believed and „was brought together‟ in God” (Magnesians, 10.3). Clearly, Ignatius saw
no compatibility between Christianity and Judaism. In his appeal to Isaiah 46:18, Ignatius was
claiming that Christianity, not Judaism, was the true fulfillment of the prophecy.23
Clearly,
Ignatius assumes that there is a continuity of legalism extending from Old Testament Israel
through the Judaism of the New Testament period (Second Temple Judaism) to his own time.
In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius does reflect Galatians 3:28 and Ephesians 2 and
other texts. He writes of Christians as a “faithful people, whether among Jews or among
Gentiles, in the one body of his church” (1.2).
In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the author notes that the Jews assisted in the martyrdom of
this saint, “as is their custom” (presumably they assisted in other martyrdoms; 13.1). He says that
the cremating of the body of Polycarp came about “at the instigation and insistence of the Jews”
(17.2; 18.2). It‟s interesting to observe that the conflict between Jews and Christians was not
over how to become Jews or boundary markers but over Christ worshipped as the Son of God
(18.2).
The Epistle to Diognetus (1.1) distinguishes Christianity from the polytheism of the
Greeks and “the superstition of the Jews” [thn Ioudaiwn deisidaimonian]. He develops this
distinction further in the next chapters. The Jews‟ worship is “altogether mistaken” (3.2). He
focuses first on the “stupidity” (3.3) of idolatry (ch. 2), then (ch. 3) characterizes Judaism as
“folly” (3.3), and as not the “least bit different” from the idolatry of the Greeks (3.5). He
specifically characterizes Judaism as “superstition concerning the Sabbath, and pride in
circumcision, and hypocrisy about fasting and new moons”; and asserts that such are “ridiculous
and not worth discussing” (4.1). He goes on to indict Judaism as “impious” (4.3), as “ridiculous”
to “take pride” in circumcision “as a sign of election, as though they were especially beloved by
22
Ibid., 2:123-124. 23
Ibid., 2:134.
20
God because of this” (4.4), as having a “lack of understanding” (4.5). He says that Christians
rightly keep away from the “thoughtlessness and deception common to both groups and from the
fussiness and pride of the Jews” (4.6). Later, he asserts that Christians are “assaulted as
foreigners” by the Jews (5.17). Finally, he asserts that God sent the Word but he was
“dishonored by the chosen people” (11.3). While Diognetus probably writes during the 2nd-
3rd
centuries his parallel references to the Greeks and to the Jews point to his treating them
characteristically.
It is clear that the author of the Epistle to Diognetus did not see Judaism as engaged in
good works. Instead he characterizes its Sabbath keeping, circumcision, and rituals—what the
NPP designates “boundary markers”—as “superstition” and “impious”—terms pointing to his
believing that Judaism was unfaithful to God. Thrice he indicts the Jews for pride, with regard to
the Jews‟ doing their “works” and their being God‟s chosen people. These words suggest the
idea that the Jews sought personal merit by their works, and that they did not view their election
as by grace. Both of these ideas directly contradict the claims made by the NPP about Second
Temple Judaism.
From these several references, there is a basic thrust of distinguishing Christianity from
Judaism, and that grace prevails in Christianity but not in Judaism. It is reasonable to say that the
AF, if the above citations are representative, did view Judaism as oriented toward doing works
for personal merit in contrast to Christianity as oriented toward grace. This observation contrasts
with the claims of the NPP regarding Judaism—that the Jews believed that their belonging to the
covenant was based on grace, that they kept the law in order to stay within the covenant, not to
get into it by personal merit.
Conclusion
It seems fair to say that the AF basically agree with the traditional, Reformed view of
Paul‟s teaching, namely, that Israel was seeking to establish its own works-oriented-and-merited
righteousness than God‟s righteousness (Rom. 9:30-10:4). And this is what Paul was once
seeking (Phil. 3).
As shown above, there is no explicit indication that the Abrahamic covenant lies in the
background of the discussion of the “righteousness of God” or justification. It may, however, be
assumed in some places.
There is support in a few AF for the doctrine of imputation—imputing to believers a
righteousness that comes from Christ. Hence there is a righteousness transferred from God to the
believer (note Diog. 9.1-6; 1 Clem. 50.5-7; 60.1-2). This finding is at odds with the claims of the
NPP.
21
In regards to “justification,” there seems a great emphasis on the present declaration of
one‟s status before God. A few AF hint at a future declaration. There is much support for the
evidentiary role of works, that works must accompany the initial faith placed in Christ.
The understanding of the “gospel” and the proclamation of it are traditional. The “gospel”
refers to the work of Jesus Christ accomplished at the cross and his resurrection; and proclaiming
this content and many related matters. There is no understanding that the term refers to the
covenant and declaring who is in it.
There seems to be no indication that the AF understood the meaning of “works of the
law” in Judaism to refer to boundary markers. Rather, they seem to view works as works done to
earn personal merit, at least where these are explicitly discussed. The AF contrast “the law of our
Lord Jesus Christ” with being “free from the yoke of compulsion” found in Judaism (Barn. 2.6);
they contrast the “grace” of Christianity with Judaism (Mag. 8.2); and they portray Judaism as
“impious” (Diog. 4.3) and taking “pride” both in its election and in works (circumcision, Sabbath
keeping, fasting and feasts) (4.1). These instances suggest that the AF regarded Judaism as merit
oriented.24
The AF bear witness that the keeping of the law is the issue that had been basic to the
hostility between Christians and Jews during the century since the New Testament.25
There seems to be possible support for the idea of the “faithfulness of Jesus” in about
eight or nine instances of the phrase (or, something like it), “the faith of Jesus.” Yet there are
well over a hundred additional instances of “faith” where this is not the case. And even these
few instances could have the traditional sense, “faith in Jesus” (an objective rather than
24
With this conclusion concurs Torrance, Doctrine of Grace, 133ff., in his understanding of the Judaism of that
time. He asserts that Judaism, congruent with how the LXX translated several Hebrew terms, separated
righteousness and grace, justice and mercy (133); and became oriented toward “legalism,” a “doctrine of salvation
by works of righteousness,” and “self-justification.” He uses all these terms to indict the AF as being such by
interpreting the gospel in terms of Judaism. That is, the AF were influenced away from “a doctrine of justification
by grace alone” by a “degenerate Judaism” (137) and “naturalistic” Hellenistic thought (136). From my reading the
AF I think Torrance is too extreme, since the AF make a distinction between the grace belonging to Christianity and
compulsion and pride belonging to Judaism. 25
J.B. Lightfoot (The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 4th
printing, 1967]), 313ff.,
writes about the increasing hostility that formed with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in A.D.
70. The rabbis expressed “the bitterest reproaches of the Christians,” denouncing them as “more dangerous than the
heathen” and introduced into their daily prayers anathemas against the Christians (p. 314). As the fall of Jerusalem
was impending Christians denounced the national sins of the Jews as bringing the chastisement of God on their
country. They pointed to Jesus‟ own words about the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24). And they withdrew from
the city and refused to share the fate of their countrymen. Later, the Bar-cochba rebellion (A.D. 132-135) made
Christians the “chief sufferers” according to Justin in his Apology (p. 316). The Romans put down the rebellion and
forced every Jew out of Jerusalem, but allowed Christians to settle there freely. For the first time a Gentile bishop
was appointed over the city. In addition, by the mid second century (still within the range of the AF) two sects of
Judaizing Christians emerged, the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. While neither was orthodox in its view of the person
of Christ and both insisted on rigid observance of the Mosaic law, the former allowed Gentiles into the privileges of
the covenant while the latter did not (pp. 318-322). It is probable that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was
written by a Jewish Christian, probably from the Nazarenes (pp. 319-320, and footnotes). These sects show that
observance of the law was still the premier issue between Gentile believers and Judaism. It seems that this brief
overview of history covering the time of the AF accords well with the evaluation of Judaism found in the AF.
22
subjective genitive). There are no instances where the “faith of Jesus” is connected to
righteousness, a chief premise of the NPP. It is interesting that there is never the translation, “the
faithfulness of Jesus,” given in Holmes, Lightfoot, or Lake. Several times they leave the phrase
ambiguous, as “the faith of Jesus.”
It is interesting that there is little if any discussion of the texts basic to the dispute with
the NPP. It is probable that these texts lie in the background of the AFs‟ understanding of
justification, the righteousness of God, and other terms. It may be that some AF are ignorant of
Paul‟s teaching. Also, they may have considered that such issues were commonly understood
and for the most part settled, as they moved on to deal with other matters (such as the rise of
forms of Gnosticism). They also found themselves in the midst of persecution and this
commanded their attention.
The Epistle to Diognetus is especially revealing. It understands Judaism as characterized
by being impious (ungodly; asebej) and taking pride (alazoneia) in both its works (e.g.,
circumcision, Sabbath, and foods) and in its election (4.1, 3). These ideas contradict the
assessment of Second Temple Judaism made by the NPP on these two very issues, namely that
Judaism did not attribute to personal merit both its election to the covenant or its works to stay
within the covenant. “Pride” suggests attaining something by personal merit.26
Overall, it seems that this study shows that the AF foreshadow how the Reformation
would later understand Paul in these important matters concerning justification. There is little
support for the premises of the NPP.
26
If someone protests that the AF are dealing with a Judaism of a later period, beyond that of Second Temple
Judaism, it is interesting that the warning against pride in personal merit as the basis of God‟s care for Israel arises
early within the OT itself. For example, Moses warns Israel not to think that their getting into Canaan was by their
own righteousness or merit (Deut. 9:4, 5, 6; cf. 32:27). Are we to think that Judaism was never susceptible to this
temptation later in its history? Paul faults Israel for “pursuing a law that would lead to righteousness” (Rom. 9:31),
and that prior to his conversion he himself had a righteousness of his own which was from the law (Phil. 3:6, 9).