Merit vs. Ethnicity?

Josh asks,

Are "merit legalism" and "ethnic superiority" mutually exclusive? Many contemporary studies of St Paul's theology seem to assume so. So, from whence the assumption that there is a complete and clear break between works-righteousness and ethnic pride; that the two are somehow unrelated? It seems to me that works-righteousness always brings with it a notion of being part of the Super-Holy Holiness Club, and ethnic pride always comes with "My nation is holier than yours, because we celebrate the Feast of Garter Snakes every year."

Response

This is a good point. God’s giving of Torah as a whole separated Israel from the nations into covenant with Him, as teh family of Abraham. Performing the works of the law therefore marked a Jew out as distinct and privileged, but it was more like re-affirming a distinction & privilege already gained. So, 'merit legalism' and 'ethnic superiority' DO come together indistinguishably.

'Earned grace' seems different again, though. It seems to assume a universally low starting point for atomised individuals (no covenant structure), and a universal system of timeless 'good deeds', performed individually to gain God's favour. While both systems result in pride, are they the same mechanism? I'm not sure, but I suspect not.

I suspect 'earned grace' is in fact so far from any recognisable biblical mentality that a far wider and more profound range of arguments apply than those typically used since the Reformation (Pauline arguments against Jewish use of Torah-works for ethnic privilege). The latter seem best suited for contexts more solidly biblical to begin with.

A counterargument to earned grace

Earned grace is built on an utterly alien foundation: the late western notion of the isolated, self-contained individual. Any counterargument must therefore start with the biblical narrative of covenant structures (kings and a people).

So we should narrate the story of exile under those covenant structures - humanity sent out of God's garden under the fallen king, Adam. We should procede to the restoration in proptotype under Abraham and his household, and to the giving of the law 430 years later to distinguish and covenant with Abraham's seed. In this part of the story we should emphaisze the relationally dependent aspects of restoration, just as we emphiasized the relationally dependent aspects of the exile. So, Abrahams household and decendants participated in the restoration God established with Abraham as head.

Perhaps we should note (in an aside) that God's restoring favour is by grace and choice alone, because it was the desendants of Abraham by promise that were to receive the naming as Abraham's seed, and not by flesh. We do this in an aside not because we disparage grace and choice, but because we are not attacking a mentality that requires this kind of emphasis in a response. That mentality says 'God is bound to show me favour, because I am related to Abraham.' Rather, we are attacking the mentaility that says 'God is bound to show me favour, because I am a self-made man of good deeds'. Grace and choice do not operate in scripture against good deeds, but rather affirm them (see for example Noah). Grace and choice operates against the presumption of automatic fleshly privilege: and our imagined opponent can't even begin to understand what that is yet; he's still a complete individualist.

So, with that aside given, we procede to the story of a replacement king, a king who will be in the line of David yet a sucessor to Adam; a king in whom the whole creation finds its rest and redemption. We should emphasize the urgent call to Israel during the arrival and just after the enthronment of this king, "Align yourself with the king! Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and destroy you in his wrath!"

We should emphasize that in line with the entire story, this is a relational call out of estrangement: forsake the exile of humanity, enter restoration - and when you come, bring all your people. Thus, entire households are called out of Israel and the gentiles to align themselves with the new king, and do so through baptism.

The narrative should continue, emphasizing the same points, over and over. Israel's destruction as a people signalled the end of the age of division between Jew and Gentile, and the beginnning of an age where humanity was one man again. But rather than being exiled under Adam in their oneness, we are restored in our oneness to the redemptive rule of Christ. It is creation, the earth, the people, that God has dealt with, and in relation to them every 'individual' stands.

So this idea that the atomised timeless individual can employ a timeless, universal system of earned grace to climb into favour is completely out-of-whack to begin with. It doesn't even get off the ground, in terms of the biblical story. There's no room for it. If God is ever pleased with anyone, it is emphatically (1) a matter of taking a role in the unfolding story, (2) always for the sake of others, and (3) because they aligned themselves with and entrusted themselves to God's purposes - latterly expressed in the new king.

Now, if our imagined earned-grace opponent should ever get past his individualism and begin to exalt in his relationship to one who was shown favour, or even to humanity as a whole (these days shown favour in Christ), then is the time to bring in specifically Pauline arguments against the presumption of fleshly inheritance, against the grace that must come because we are children-of-Abraham with circumcision and temple (or in this case, of Christ with baptism and right doctrine).

Then we must show him that merely because he is a human gurantees nothing; merely because he is of a Christian family guarantees nothing: if he would be assured of God's favour, he must have the faith that aligns himself with God in Christ. That means that he must do the things of faith; he must be a particular sort of person: a renewed one. Flee then to Christ if you would have God's favour assured.