Ever since the theological doctrine of the covenant of works was codified in the 17th century in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) it has come under criticism and outright rejection.  In past years rejection has come not only from the broader evangelical community but also from within the reformed camp itself, most notably from John Murray, Herman Hoeksema, and Daniel Fuller.

Most recently, however, rejection of the covenant of works has come from proponents of the so-called, federal vision.  Among the proponents of the federal vision, two authors have specifically written against the traditional understanding of the covenant of works, Rich Lusk and James Jordan. Jordan, for example, writes that "the confusion over merit and works came into the Protestant tradition as a hangover of Medieval theology."

Despite the fact that Qohelet tells us that there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl. 1.9), in recent years a school of Pauline interpreters have raised their banner declaring they have a new perspective on Paul. What exactly is the nature of this new perspective? One of the earliest proponents of the new perspective, E. P. Sanders, argues that the historic Protestant interpretation of Paul is incorrect. Paul did not face opposition from pharisaical legalism; rather, the Judaism of Paul’s day was a religion of grace, not works.