The Law & Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law

Rating:
Summary: A New View on the Law & Works?
Review: Schreiner appears to defend the old perspective on Paul, but if he is actually saying that works are necessary to inherit salvation (chapters 7-8) he is actually presenting a "different gospel" and in effect supporting the new perspective on Paul by default. A very tricky approach.

Rating:
Summary: Able rebuttal of New Perspective
Review: Schreiner's work provides a good response to the New Perspective on Paul and the Law which has swept NT studies over the past fifteen or so years. He approaches the problem from a modified Lutheran standpoint.

Schreiner begins with an overview of the state of NT scholarship on Paul and the Law. He focuses on the impact of Sanders and Dunn, but also takes into account the earlier views of Schweizer and Davies and the more recent contributions of Laato, Westerholm, and Thielman, as well as the Reconstructionists.

He then explores the issues of: the meaning of 'nomos' in Paul; why the works of the Law can't save; the purpose of the law; the temporary nature of the Mosaic covenant; the fulfillment of the law by Christians; and Paul and justification by works. He concludes with a brief sketch of other NT writers on the Law.

Schreiner ably defends the position that Paul was (at least in part) addressing Jewish legalism, that he almost always refers to the Mosaic law by 'nomos', that Christians fulfill the Law by the power of the Spirit, and that works are necessary for final salvation. Works of the Law cannot save because no one keeps the Law perfectly, he contends.

Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: An able critique, but not thorough in its own formulation.
Review: The previous reviewers are quite accurate in their apparaisal of Schreiner's critique of the so-called "New Perspective" on Paul. He shows how it is lacking time and again in the terms Paul sets out for the Law.

However, although he is correct in his defense against the New perspective, I am unconvinced that he adequately lays out a correct understanding of "nomos" from the Greek NT. Quite simply, he does not deal with the totality of Paul's statements on the Law, and thus is forced to charicature Paul's position just as surely as the New Perspective does. If the New Perspective desires to say Paul was not critiquing "authentic" jewish religion and re-defines him in that light, Schreiner for his part reads Paul in light of Calvinist formulation. THis is more accurate, but not the same as exegeting a true "Biblical Theology" of Paul's use of the Law as he claims to aim.

I would suggest that anyone interested in a thorough formulation of this look to Frank Thielmann's outstanding "Paul and the Law, A Contextual Approach." Thielmann examines the WHOLE of the Pauline corpus in his work. And his conclusions as a result are, in my mind, far more convincing.

Rating:
Summary: A New View on the Law & Works?
Review: The previous reviewers are quite accurate in their apparaisal of Schreiner's critique of the so-called "New Perspective" on Paul. He shows how it is lacking time and again in the terms Paul sets out for the Law.

However, although he is correct in his defense against the New perspective, I am unconvinced that he adequately lays out a correct understanding of "nomos" from the Greek NT. Quite simply, he does not deal with the totality of Paul's statements on the Law, and thus is forced to charicature Paul's position just as surely as the New Perspective does. If the New Perspective desires to say Paul was not critiquing "authentic" jewish religion and re-defines him in that light, Schreiner for his part reads Paul in light of Calvinist formulation. THis is more accurate, but not the same as exegeting a true "Biblical Theology" of Paul's use of the Law as he claims to aim.

I would suggest that anyone interested in a thorough formulation of this look to Frank Thielmann's outstanding "Paul and the Law, A Contextual Approach." Thielmann examines the WHOLE of the Pauline corpus in his work. And his conclusions as a result are, in my mind, far more convincing.

Rating:
Summary: Good Until Chapter Seven
Review: This book is a pretty decent critique of the New Perspective view on Paul. It is also a good expousal of the traditional Protestant view of the Law/Gospel paradigm (Schreiner takes a NCT/Lutheran approach to the Law). However, when one starts to read the final two chapters one will detect that there are alarming conclusions regarding justification, works, and judgment. In chapter 7, Schreiner argues that Paul taught that good works are necessary FOR salvation (not as a necessary RESULT of salvation). He argues this based on certain passages in the Pauline epistles (e.g., Romans 2:13). He also argues that the rest of the New Testament writers also argued for works as necessary for final salvation (Chapter 8) based on certain New Testament passages (e.g., James 2:14-26). This is the same author who once believed that righteousness was "transformative" rather than "forensic". In fact, this book was published when the author held to the "transformative" view. Many readers should be wary of this and warned of the many disasters of those who claim to be traditional Protestants yet expouse a system that is anti-Protestant. Theological inconsistency is a serious matter. The last two chapters gives this book one star.