Do you have any observations on E. P. Sanders’ new perspective on Paul—for example, that Paul did not teach them it is impossible to keep the law of God?

This text is from a transcript of a talk by David Gooding, entitled ‘The Gospel of Jesus Christ’ (1994).

Well, I should like to comment, I think, on that. Professor Sanders is a most prolific writer; he's written a vast detailed study of these matters. To answer him briefly would, in the nature of things, be manifestly unfair to his argument. But if you ask me for some kind of general comment, I'll answer as best I can.

That Paul did not teach that it is impossible to keep the law of God

Well, that depends how you look at it. In Galatians, and Romans 10, Paul makes the remark: 'For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby' (Romans 10:5). If you take that as a general statement of practical fact, at the level of daily living, to keep the law is good and healthy. And if you refrain from sinning as the law talks about it, you will certainly lead a more healthy life than if you engage in a lot of sinning. If you take it absolutely, however, and you attempt in that sense to keep Moses' law perfectly and, thus to qualify in the absolute sense for life, then you will find it isn't possible. Paul emphasises that point again in Galatians, when he said, 'If there had been a law given which could have given life, then righteousness would have been by the law' (Galatians 3:21); but that is impossible. In the absolute sense, the verdict is that we all have sinned in the past and we do come short. It means that in my flesh there dwells no good thing, and the object of the law, therefore, is to bring us to the point when we acknowledge we have broken and cannot keep it, and our mouth is shut. In that absolute sense, yes, we cannot keep God's holy law.

We make too much of justification as a legal concept. Professor Sanders seems to see it more as the restoration of a relationship

I cannot say I fully understand Professor Sanders' point at this juncture. He gets himself involved, as many others have in these past years, on what the Hebrew term for justify and righteousness means. It is used, so they say, in the sense of delivering and serving God's righteousness as his saving activity, his being loyal to the covenant that he made with Israel. It is seen in his restoring Israel to their covenant relationship with him, and it's altogether a relational matter, and not so much a legal matter. And so far as that is true of the Old Testament, it isn't altogether true, of course, but let me leave it for the moment, to come to our Epistle to the Romans. It seems to me to be a quite inadequate explanation of what Paul is talking about in Romans. Just let me cite you Romans 3:4: 'Yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy words, And mightest prevail when thou comest into judgment.' The question is, is God true or is he a liar? If God were found a liar, there would be something more to be said than to say that he hasn't been faithful to his covenant relationship. God himself would be proved a sinner.

The context, as you see, is the question of judgment. It is talking of God as judge when he comes to judge. If that isn't a legal thing, then I don't know quite what is. And when God judges, the question of the validity and legality of his judgment, its fairness and its justice, will be at stake. They, to my mind, are all legal concerns. And in this context, therefore, it seems to me that this is the likely meaning of justification throughout these passages of Scripture. And to take one that refers to us in chapter 8: 'Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifies' (Romans 8:33). Once more, the terminology is legal, 'Who shall lay anything to the charge of . . .' That is accusation in legal terminology. And the answer to it is, no, none shall raise the charge; but even if they could, no verdict of condemnation can be secured because it is God that justified and there is none to accuse because the only one who has the right to accuse would be Jesus Christ, our Lord, and he will not accuse the believer. He is the one who died for them, and intercedes for them. Both those contexts are very heavily legal contexts, by the nature of their words, and I myself am more inclined to believe that that is the predominant meaning of the term 'justify' in the Epistle to the Romans.