LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

PAUL AND THE LAW

A PAPER

SUBMITTED TO DR. RODNEY WOO

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE

NEW TESTAMENT ORIENTATION II

NBST 522

BY

BRIAN DOUGLAS AUNKST

MORRISON, COLORADO

DECEMBER 9, 2012

ii

CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Decalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. Pentateuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 C. Intertestamental Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 D. The Law and Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 III. THE LAW AND THE APOSTLE PAUL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. Letter to the Galatians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Justification by Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Purpose of the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Freedom in Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B. Letter to the Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Righteousness and the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Sanctification and the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. End of the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 C. Other Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1. 1 Corinthians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2. Philippians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 IV. PAUL’S INTERPRETERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A. Early Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Church Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2. Augustine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3. Thomas Aquinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

iii

B. The Reformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. Martin Luther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2. John Calvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 C. New Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1. E. P. Sanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2. James D. G. Dunn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3. N. T. Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C. Recent Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. Thomas R. Schreiner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2. Douglas Moo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3. D. A. Carson, et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4. Frank Thielman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1

INTRODUCTION

Most Christians are familiar with the story of Yahweh giving the Law to Moses on

Mount Sinai, (Exodus 20:1-17, 32:15-16). This Law defined the Jewish people and their

worship practices for over 1000 years. However, in his letters, the Apostle Paul claims that he

has died to the Law (Gal. 2:19) and is no longer under the Law (Gal. 5:18, Rom. 6:14) although

Paul’s exact meaning has been debated by scholars. Some have argued that Paul’s view of the

Law and its relationship to believers changed as his ministry continued, while others contend that

Paul consistently presented the role of the Law in the Christian life. This paper will demonstrate

how Paul’s treatment of the Law, particularly in his letters to the Galatians and the Romans,

coherently argues that righteous from God comes by faith and not by works of the Law.

BACKGROUND

In order to understand how Paul viewed the Law, one must begin where he began, that is,

by understanding the Law as a first century AD Jew would have understood if. To do this, one

must review the roots of the Law and its original intent as found in the Old Testament (OT) of

the Christian Bible. An exhaustive analysis of this subject is beyond the scope of this paper;

however, a brief examination is necessary for a full understanding of the topic at hand.

Decalogue

Prior to their 400-year sojourn into the land of Egypt, Yahweh’s people, the people of the

covenant, consisted only of Jacob’s extended family, and there was no need for the codification

of any directives for living: Yahweh was their law. However, while in Egypt, Yahweh had

made Jacob’s descendants, Israel, into a great nation, who upon their exodus from Egypt

required a set of rules to function as the people and nation of Yahweh. This He did at Mount

Sinai as recorded in Exodus 20:1-23:19, reestablishing His covenant with Israel with the Book of

2

the Covenant.1 Most recognized of these covenantal rules is the Decalogue, or ‘ten words,’

which is commonly called the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:1-17, Deut. 5:6-21). These ‘ten

words’ are the essential substance of all OT law.2

Pentateuch

Large portions of the first five books of the OT, Pentateuch, are devoted to expansions of

the ‘ten words.’3 These theological developments, many of them ordinances and covenant

obligations, were called the Torah,4 which derives from the Hebrew verb yārāh, meaning “to

direct” or “point the way.”5 “In a more general sense it means “teaching”; in a narrower sense,

‘law.’”6 Also included in the Torah were the regulations concerning sacrifices and offerings,

which came to occupy a central importance in the life of God’s people, eventually to the

detriment of Torah itself.7

Intertestamental Period

Thanks to the work of Ezra during the return of the exilic Jews, the rebuilding of

Jerusalem and the Temple, and the reinstatement of the sacrificial system, Judaism became

firmly established as a religion of separation unto its own law and its own God.8 This period

1 Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, vol. 3, The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand

Rapids; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003), 208. 2 D. R. W. Wood and I. Howard Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Leicester, England; Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 673. 3 Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England et al., eds., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed.

(Nashville, TN: Holman, 2003), 1016. 4 R. Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 2, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973), 157. 5 Paul J. Achtemeier, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 1083. 6 Fahlbusch and Bromiley, The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 509. 7 Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans, Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of

Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000). 8 Roger Beckwith, “Intertestamental Judaism, Its Literature and Its Significance,” Themelios 15, no. 3

(April 1990), 78.

3

also saw the development of several sects within Judaism, each with their own interpretation of

Torah.9 One of sects was the Pharisees who “were zealous observers of the law, prominent

among the people and especially concerned with ritual purity, tithing food according to [Old

Testament] law, and correct observance of Sabbath.”10

The Law and Jesus

As the fulfillment of the Law (nomos), Jesus’ attitude is best evidenced by His teaching

to His disciples in Matthew 5:17-18. While the purpose of the Law was fulfilled in the person of

Jesus Christ, but its legalistic conformity stood exposed and condemned.”11 The Gospels record

no instance of Jesus violating the Law;12 however, He was critical of the intense legalism of the

Pharisees and their ritualistic practices (cf. Luke 11:53-54, Matthew 9:2-7, 12:1-2, Mark 2:22,

among many others).13 He attended the synagogue regularly and yet did not hesitate to break

“the purity laws (Mark 3:13–17) or rigid interpretations of Sabbath law (Mark 3:1–6).”14 These

two specific areas continually caused conflict: observance of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27) and

personal defilement (Mark 7:14-23).15 “Jesus upheld the law — not, however, by casuistry, but

by bringing it to its eschatological fruition, so that the intentions of God in creation and in the

Law and the Prophets are fulfilled.”16

9 Steven L. Cox and Kendell H. Easley, Holman Christian Standard Bible: Harmony of the Gospels

(Nashville: Holman, 2007), 245. 10 Achtemeier, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 782. 11 Walter A Elwell and Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Baker Reference

Library (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996). Logos eBook. 12 T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, eds., New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Downers Grove,

IL: InterVarsity, 2001). Logos eBook. 13 Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, eds., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels,

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 217. 14 Elwell and Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Logos eBook. 15 Alexander and Rosner, eds., New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Logos eBook. 16 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, vol. 2 (Grand

Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988), 172.

4

THE LAW AND THE APOSTLE PAUL

One Pharisee who was brought up in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), studied under the Rabbi

Gamaliel, and was trained in the “strict manner of the law of our fathers” (Acts 22:3), resulting

in him “being zealous for God” (Acts 22:3) was Saul of Tarsus. After his conversion, it was the

Apostle Paul’s job to “work out in theological terms the relationship of believers, both Jew and

Gentile, to the Mosaic law.”17 Unfortunately, Paul never wrote a comprehensive doctrinal

statement, so all that can be known about his concept of the Law must be gleaned from his

various epistles. Given the occasional nature of these letters, the interpreter must exercise

discernment and wisdom in order to properly understand Paul’s way of thinking.

Letter to the Galatians

Paul’s letter to the Galatians has been called “the Magna Charta of evangelical

Christianity.”18 According to Longenecker, “It is necessary, therefore, to understand Galatians

aright if we are to understand Paul and the rest of the [New Testament] NT aright.”19 Paul’s

chief reason for writing to the church in Galatia was to ensure they did not forsake the only true

Gospel, as preached by him (Gal 1:6-10), and that Gospel is expressed in Galatians 2:16

(ESV),20 “We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus

Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not

by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”21

17 Alexander and Rosner, eds., New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Logos eBook. 18 Maxie Dunnam, Galatians/Ephesians/Philippians/Colossians/Philemon, The Preacher’s Commentary

(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982). Kindle eBook. 19 Richard N. Longenecker, vol. 41, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated,

1998), xli–xlii. 20 Unless otherwise noted, all Bible references are taken from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version

(Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001). 21 William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of Galatians, vol. 8, New Testament

Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 21.

5

Justification by Faith

Justification is “the exculpation of guilt or the demonstration of the correctness of an act

or statement.”22 It is a judicial term used of God “whereby He declares that a sinful person is

righteous, based on a belief and trust in Jesus Christ rather than in the person’s own good works.

It is a change of state from guilt to righteousness.”23 Justification is the cornerstone of Paul’s

theology.24 The sole condition for being justified, according to Paul, is faith (2:16), a concept he

further defines in his letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 2:8).

This justification brings with it the righteousness of God, as Paul explains using

Abraham as his example (Gal. 3:6-18). Interestingly, “English employs two word families

(‘righteousness’/‘righteous’ and ‘justify’/ ‘justification’) to translate only one family of words in

Greek—the noun dikaiosynē, the adjective dikaios and the verb dikaioō,”25 which Paul uses to

demonstrate their cooperative, interdependent relationship. Paul continues his argument in

Galatians 2:21 that God’s righteousness is not available through the Law; this belief nullifies the

work of Christ on the Cross.

Purpose of the Law

Since justification is not by the Law, Paul explains the purpose of the Law (Gal. 3:19-24).

The primary purpose of the Law is to reveal sin and the sinner for what they truly are in God’s

eyes (3:19). God’s Law provides the perfect standard by which all men are measured and fall

short (Romans 3:23). Paul also declares the Law was temporary “until the offspring should

22 Achtemeier, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 520. 23 David S. Dockery, Trent C. Butler, Christopher L. Church, et al., Holman Bible Handbook (Nashville:

Holman, 1992), 679. 24 Martin H. Manser, Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical

Studies (London: Martin Manser, 1999). 25 Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments,

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000). Logos eBook.

6

come to whom the promise had been made” (3:19). This purpose of the Law ended with the

coming of Jesus Christ, who became mankind’s new standard.26

The other purpose of the Law was to be “our guardian until Christ came” (3:24), again

indicating the temporary nature of the Law’s purpose.27 Youngblood, et al., define a guardian as

“a person legally responsible for the welfare and property of a minor.”28 Continuing with his

legal analogy, Paul compares those who lived before Christ as minors needing a guardian to look

after their best interests (cf. Gal. 4:2).29 In this way, the Law enslaved those who were under its

jurisdiction until the coming of Jesus Christ, which freed them to walk in the Spirit as sons of

God.

Freedom in Christ

In Galatians 2:4, Paul introduces another contrast between slavery under the Law and

“our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus.” Having understood that the Galatians were being

misled into circumcision (and slavery to the Law), Paul continues this theme in chapters four and

five. He admonishes the Galatians for returning to slavery (4:1-11) and uses the illustration of

Hagar and Sarah to compare their former life of slavery to their present life of freedom (4:21-

31). In chapter five, Paul finishes by exhorting the Galatians to “stand firm, and do not submit

again to the yoke of slavery” (5:1) under the Law.

26 Thomas R. Schreiner, “The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul,” Journal for the Study of the

New Testament 35 (1989): 55. 27 Max Anders, Galatians-Colossians, vol. 8, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville: Broadman

& Holman, 1999), 38. 28 Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison, eds., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary

(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995). 29 David J. Lull, “‘The Law was our Pedagogue’: A Study in Galatians 3:19-25,” Journal of Biblical

Literature 105, no. 3 (1986): 488.

7

Letter to the Romans

Paul’s epistle to the Romans is the longest and most complex of his letters. While

scholars debate the overall purpose or theme of Paul’s letter to the church in Rome, what is

apparent is its position as the theological treatise on his view of the Law in relation to

believers.30 While Paul’s epistle to the Galatians is “the first complete statement of Gentile

Christian theology,”31 his epistle to the Romans “is best understood as a more carefully

articulated account of some of [those] major themes.”32 In fact, Romans and Galatians cover so

much of the same material that some scholars believe they were composed together; however,

Paul’s arguments in Romans are more thoroughly developed and better articulated than those in

Galatians.33

Righteousness and the Law

Just as in his letter to the Galatians, Paul expresses his theology as his Gospel, which he

articulates in Romans 1:16-17 asserting, “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from

faith for faith, as it is written ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” Paul uses the various forms of

“the noun ‘righteousness’ (dikaiosynē), its related adjective ‘righteous’ (dikaios), and the verb ‘to

justify,’ ‘to pronounce/treat as righteous’ or ‘put right’ (dikaioō)” over 100 times in his letters,34

demonstrating its significance in his theology, and it is a central concept in Romans, where it

appears 33 times.35 The righteousness of God accentuates the deplorable condition of mankind’s

30 Brand, Draper, England et al., eds., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1410. 31 Achtemeier, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 327. 32 John William Drane, Introducing the New Testament, (Oxford: Lion, 2000), 338. 33 Ibid. 34 Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 830. 35 Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI;

Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 100-01.

8

sinfulness; both the Jews who had God’s Law and the Gentiles who did not (Romans 1:18-3:20)

stand equally condemned by a righteous God. According to Paul, “No one will be declared

righteous in God’s sight by keeping the law.”36

Having painted this bleak picture of mankind’s present situation, Paul returns to his

opening theme and offers the hope of righteousness “apart from the law…through faith in Jesus

Christ for all who believe” (Romans 3:21-22);37 this, in fact, according to Paul is “the only way

for them to be brought into a right standing with God.”38 In verse 23, Paul advises that “all have

sinned and fall short” of God’s righteousness, but that righteousness is granted to “all those—and

only those—who put this faith into practice.”39 He completes this part of his argument asserting

that rather than overthrowing the Law, those of faith uphold the Law, which emphasizes that his

argument is not against the Law as such, but against the presumptuous attitude of those to whom

God had entrusted it.40

To illustrate the inability of the Law to justify, Paul uses the example of Abraham, the

father not only of the Jews, but also of “many nations” (4:17, cf. Gen. 17:5). He correctly

observes that Abraham was declared righteous before he was circumcised, which Paul explains

sealed the righteousness he had received by faith (4:11), thus opposing the view that fulfilling the

Law through circumcision brought righteousness.41 Following the argument to its conclusion,

36 Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman,

1995), 114-115. 37 James R. Edwards, Romans, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011),

97. 38 Mounce, Romans, 113. 39 William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, vol. 12, New

Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 127. 40 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, vol. 38A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1998), 161. 41 C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary (New York;

London: T&T Clark, 1975), 224-225.

9

Paul extrapolates to “his offspring”—not the offspring of his flesh through the Law, but the

offspring of his spirit through faith.42

Sanctification and the Law

Anticipating some to misunderstand their newfound freedom from the Law as

sanctioning antinomianism, Paul abruptly addresses that possibility in Romans 6:2: “By no

means!” has a believer been issued a license to sin by Jesus Christ. On the contrary, Paul urges

believers to not allow sin to have “dominion over [them], since [they] are not under the Law but

under grace” (Rom. 6:14). Paul spends the next three chapters clarifying the continuing role of

the Law for the believer43 and exhorting them to live by the Spirit in a way that is pleasing to

God.44

This section confuses many because on one hand Paul seems to suggest that the Law has

been superseded for Christians, while on the other hand proposing there is an ongoing

relationship between them; however, Paul makes several key points concerning the Law. First,

the believer can no longer be condemned by the Law (7:1-6). Second, the believer, as well as the

unbeliever, is convicted of sin by the Law (7:7-13). Third, the believer cannot be delivered from

sin by the Law (7:14-25).45 Paul also details how the Gospel delivers believers from

condemnation under the Law (7:4-6), thus freeing them to fulfill the Law’s requirements through

Jesus Christ (8:4) since “the law of the Spirit” has freed them from “the law of sin and death”

(8:2).

42 Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 286-288.

43 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 301. 44 Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 243. 45 John MacArthur, Romans: Grace, Truth, and Redemption, MacArthur Bible Studies (Nashville, TN: W

Publishing Group, 2000), 50.

10

End of the Law

Finally, in Romans 10:4, Paul affirms that Jesus Christ is “the end of the law for

righteousness to everyone who believes.” Again, Paul here is proclaiming an end to the Law as a

means of salvation,46 having been fulfilled by Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:17-18, Rom. 13:10). Christ

was and has always been the intended end of the Law (cf. Gal. 3:24).47 His fulfillment thus

terminated the need for sinful mankind’s futile efforts to obey the Law and thereby achieve

righteousness.48

Other Letters

While it is beyond the scope of this paper to perform an in-depth analysis of the subject

of the Law in other Pauline epistles, a cursory review is instructive to demonstrate the unity and

coherence of Paul’s view of the Law throughout his ministry.

1 & 2 Corinthians

While the word Law (nomos) is used only nine times in this letter, Paul’s view of its role

in the sanctity and ethics of believers can be seen clearly.49 In 1Corinthians, Paul clearly tells his

readers that Christian freedom and its attendant responsibilities are not based on law, but on love

(cf. Rom. 13:10).50 He explains to the Corinthians that since he is no longer under the Law (1

Cor. 9:20), “All things are lawful to [him], but not all things are helpful” (1 Cor. 6:12), especially

when doing them causes another to stumble in his walk with the Lord (1 Cor. 8:13). His further

46 Thomas Schreiner, “Paul’s View of the Law in Romans 10: 4-5,” Westminster Journal of Theology 55

(1993): 115. 47 John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, F. R. Fay et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Romans

(Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 342. 48 Kenneth Boa and William Kruidenier, Romans, vol. 6, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville:

Broadman & Holman, 2000), 309. 49 Hawthorne, Martin, and Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 535. 50 Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 383-384.

11

urging against the slavery of circumcision echoes back to his arguments against the Law and

legalism in Galatians and Romans (cf. Gal. 6:15, Rom. 2:29).51

Philippians

Again in Philippians 3, Paul is forced to warn yet another church to beware of those who

would enslave them to the law through “mutilat[ing] the flesh” in circumcision (3:2-3), once

again recalling his contentions made in Galatians and Romans (cf. Gal. 2:12, Rom. 2:29).52

Despite his superior “confidence in the flesh,” Paul pronounces his own inability to become

righteous under the Law, despite claiming to be “blameless” under its tenets (Phil. 3:4-9).53 On

the contrary, Paul’s righteousness “comes through faith in Jesus Christ” (cf. Gal. 2:20).

PAUL’S INTERPRETERS

Early Interpretations

The first interpreters of Paul’s letters were obviously their original recipients; however,

no records of those are extant. Even in his own day, Paul was controversial; however, as one of

the earliest interpreters of Christ, Paul held great influence among Christians from his own time

to this day, and his works have been interpreted from that day to this one, although the

interpretations have varied widely over that time.

Church Fathers

The earliest known interpreter of any of the Pauline epistles is Clement of Rome

(Clement I) who was a presbyter in the Roman church in the late first century (died AD 100). In

51 Hawthorne, Martin, and Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 314. 52 Ibid., 539. 53 Anders, Galatians-Colossians, 243.

12

1 Clement 32.4, he mentions Paul’s term “justification by faith.”54 Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch

in Syria (died AD 107) was also heavily influenced by Paul’s writings, as evidenced by his own

Letter to the Romans in which he sharply contrasts Christianity and Judaism.55 Additionally,

Paul influenced the theology of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Barth, and scores

of other theologians to the present time.56

Augustine

Universally acknowledged as one of the world’s greatest theologians, Augustine, the

Bishop of Hippo in Latin Africa, became the theologian who revived Paul’s gospel of grace in

the fourth century AD.57 After a youth spent in wanton lasciviousness, Augustine was inspired

to read Paul’s letter to the Romans and converted to Christianity, “and the great mind was

liberated for the glory of god and the good of mankind.”58 Augustine’s theology began with the

universal sin of mankind through Adam and their likewise universal inability to save themselves

(cf. Rom. 2:1), thus necessitating salvation through God’s grace, which Augustine scripted

systematically and deeply in his Confessions.59 Moreover, like Paul, Augustine believed that the

Law had been supplanted, and that under Christ, love was the supreme law.60 Augustine’s

philosophy dominated Christian thinking for nearly 1000 years.

54 Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments,

electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000). 55 Ibid. 56 Thomas R. Schreiner, “Interpreting the Pauline Epistles,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 3 (1991):

4. 57 Hawthorne, Martin, and Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 690. 58 D. Stuart Briscoe, Romans, The Preacher's Commentary Series (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982),

locations 210436-210441. Kindle eBook. 59 Hawthorne, Martin, and Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 690. 60 Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and

Differences (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1995), 118-19.

13

Thomas Aquinas

In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, an Italian theologian and Dominican preacher

began emphasizing a return to the Gospel and academic learning. He employed Aristotelian

philosophy, emphasized human reason, and, like Augustine, “believed that faith was based in

God’s revelation in Scripture.”61 In addition to Aquinas’ masterwork, Summa theologiae, his

commentary on Romans “reveals how deeply he [Aquinas] was committed to the Pauline

doctrine of justification by faith, gratuity of grace, predestination, merit, good works, and the

doctrine of original sin.”62 In the sixteenth century, long after Aquinas’ death, the Catholic

Church, faced with the rise of Protestantism across Europe, used Aquinas’ work in drafting the

decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-1563).63

The Reformers

While Augustine and Aquinas both believed in the Pauline doctrines of justification by

faith and the freedom of grace, the late Renaissance Roman Catholic Church had slipped into the

belief that justification was a cooperative effort between grace and works that the Church

expressed as “the merit of the saints,” against which an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther

dissented in 1517.

Martin Luther

As Martin Luther prepared a series of lectures on Paul’s epistle to the Romans, he

grasped for the first time what he called “the righteousness by which through grace and sheer

61 Elwell and Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Logos eBook. 62 J. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino. 2d ed. Catholic University of America Press, 1983, quoted in

Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier and N. T. Wright (London; Grand Rapids, MI: SPCK; Baker Academic, 2005), 800.

63 Kevin A. Miller, ed., Christian History Magazine-Issue 28: The 100 Most Important Events in Church History (Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, 1990). Logos eBook.

14

mercy God justified us through faith.”64 This realization that God’s grace was unmerited and

separate from any works of the Law launched the Protestant Reformation in Europe. Contrary to

the view espoused by the Roman Catholic Church at the time, Luther held that the Law and the

Gospel were antithetical, which is how he interpreted Paul.65

Luther believed that Judaism during Paul’s life was a merit-based religion66 and

interpreted Paul’s struggle with salvation through works under Jewish Law in the same light as

his own struggle with Roman Catholicism.67 This distinction between the Law and the Gospel is

foundational to Lutheran theology.68 Luther and his colleague Melanchthon identified three

ways that God used the Law, which distinguished it from the Gospel. First, the Law guides

society, thus promoting “civil righteousness.” Second, the Law convicts sinners, producing

repentance and driving them to Christ. Third, the Law helps the believer recognize and confront

any sin remaining in him.69

John Calvin

John Calvin followed Luther in the early development of the Reformation. He too

believed that the purpose of the Law was “not to secure worshippers for itself, but to conduct

them unto Christ.”70 Unlike Luther, Calvin did not believe that the Law and the Gospel stood

opposed to one another; rather, he believed that the two worked together in producing the

64 Briscoe, Romans, locations 210441-210446. Kindle eBook. 65 Dennis Ngien, “Theology of Preaching in Martin Luther,” Themelios 28, no. 2 (Spring 2003), 34. 66 John D. Barry and Lazarus Wentz, eds., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible

Software, 2012). Logos eBook. 67 Ibid. 68 Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 2000), 379. 69 Ibid. 70 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997).

15

Christian life.71 Calvin taught that the abolition of the Law referred to freeing of the conscience

and to “discontinuing the ancient Jewish ceremonies,” which meant that while part of the Law

had ended, the Ten Commandments were still binding on the Church.72 Calvin’s Reformed

theology drew a clear Law-Gospel distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant

of grace.73

New Perspectives

While not entirely unchallenged, the Reformers’ view of Paul and the Law was dominant

for over 500 years. In the late 19th century, Jewish scholar C. G. Montefiore disputed the

interpretation that Paul’s view of the role of the Law in Rabbinic Judaism. According to

Montefiore, “Pauline opposition of works and faith, and of merit and grace, is inapplicable to the

Rabbinic religion.”74 Montefiore’s view went virtually unnoticed for seventy years, when the

publication of Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E. P. Sanders attacked “the distorted view of

Judaism which Lutheran scholarship, and those under its influence, had produced.”75

E. P. Sanders

The 1977 publication by Sanders changed the course of Pauline scholarship. In it

Sanders espoused the view that first century Palestinian Judaism was not legalistic, in many

ways echoing Montefiore’s assessment.76 On the contrary, according to Sanders, Judaism’s

teaching was what Sanders called “covenantal nomism,” which he described as “the view that

one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that covenant requires

71 Fahlbusch and Bromiley, vol. 3, The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 218. 72 Charles C. Ryrie, “The End of the Law,” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July 1967): 245. 73 Ferguson and Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, 379. 74 C. G. Montefiore, “Judaism and the Epistles of Paul,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 13, no. 2 (January

1901): 183. 75 Hawthorne, Martin, and Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 531. 76 Ibid., 673.

16

as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of

atonement for transgression.”77 According to his interpretation, Sanders sees Paul’s critique of

Judaism not as an attack against legalism, but as a denouncing of his former religion.78 He

denies Paul’s argument in Galatians and Romans is against righteousness by works of the Law,

claiming instead that Paul is simply saying that one cannot achieve “the right kind of

righteousness” in this way.79

Despite its adopted name, “New Perspective on Paul,” Sander’s argument has more to do

with Luther’s interpretation of Paul, than it does with Paul’s misunderstanding of Rabbinic

Judaism.80 The impact of Sanders’ work was not because of its originality but because of its

comprehensive and systematic coverage of the topic of first century Judaism.81 Additionally,

Sanders’ work has reinvigorated the study of Jewish beliefs and practices in Palestine.82

James D. G. Dunn

One of Sanders’ most ardent supporters has been James D. G. Dunn, who augments

Sanders’ definition of “covenantal nomism” as a ““covenant relationship…regulated by the law,

not as a way of entering the covenant, or of gaining merit, but as the way of living within the

covenant; and that included the provision of sacrifice and atonement for those who confessed

their sins and thus repented.”83 Dunn coined the phrase “New Perspective on Paul” in 1983 later

77 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1977), 75. 78 Preston M. Sprinkle, “The Old Perspective on the New Perspective: A Review of Some ‘Pre-Sanders’

Thinkers,” Themelios 30, no. 2 (Spring 2005), 31. 79 Veronica Koperski, What Are They Saying About (WATSA) Paul and the Law? (New York: Paulist Press,

2001), 22. 80 Ibid., 518. 81 Hawthorne, Martin, and Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 673. 82 Koperski, What Are They Saying About (WATSA) Paul and the Law? 2. 83 Dunn, Romans 1-8, lxv.

17

publishing a book with that title.84 Additionally, Dunn understands Paul’s polemic against

Palestinian Judaism as being against its use of the Law as an “identity marker” and “boundary,”

such as circumcision, which kept Jewish Christians separate from Gentile Christians.85

N. T. Wright

The most conservative supporter of Sanders has been N. T. Wright who brought the

debate to a wider, more evangelical audience. Like Dunn, Wright believes Paul’s doctrine of

justification by faith as in direct opposition to Judaism’s manifestation of national primacy and

individuality,86 which Wright calls “national righteousness.”87 Wright adds his belief that first

century Palestinian Jews were still in exile since they continued to be in subjugation and

defilement by Gentile invaders.88 Wright contends that the traditional Reformed teaching on

justification is wrong, insisting that justification is a covenant term that means to be recognized

as a member of the covenant.89

Recent Responses

The New Perspective on Paul has not been accepted universally by Pauline scholars. On

the contrary, while numerous scholars have embraced this view, many others have challenged it

as being unsound. Some scholars still support the traditional Lutheran interpretation of Paul,

while others acknowledge the faults with both the Lutheran view and the New Perspective.90

84 Barry and Wentz, eds., The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Logos eBook. 85 Dunn, Romans 1-8, lxix. 86 Tim Chester, “The Northern Training Institute Papers No 12: March 2008: Justification, Ecclesiology

and the New Perspective” in Themelios 30, no. 2 (Spring 2005), 5. 87 Dunn, Romans 1-8, lxxi. 88 Ibid. 89 Jeffery Smith,“An Overview and Critique of the New Perspective of Paul’s Doctrine of Justification (Part

One: The New Perspective Identified,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 3, no. 1 (Spring 2006), 89. 90 Le Donne, “Paul,” Logos eBook.

18

Thomas R. Schreiner

Among the recent responses to the New Perspective, Thomas Schreiner argues for the

traditional view and the consistency of Paul’s view of the Law throughout his writings.91

Schreiner criticizes Sanders’ “covenantal nomism” as being too simplistic and failing to

adequately explain Pauline theology.92 He disagrees with Dunn’s assessment of Luther,

contending that Luther was “substantially correct regarding both the meaning of ‘works of the

law’ and the presence of legalism in Judaism.”93 He opposes Sanders, affirming Paul’s

consistent teaching not only that “justification cannot be obtained via law because no one can

keep the law perfectly,” but also that redemption could only be obtained through belief in Jesus

Christ.94

Douglas Moo

In his recent commentary on Romans, Douglas Moo advocates a modified Lutheran

view,95 observing a consistent understanding of the Law across the Pauline corpus regarding

“justification as a strictly forensic term that points to a legal reality.”96 Just as Luther did, Moo

also sees the Pauline law/gospel antithesis, discerning that Sanders’ approach raises serious

questions concerning its validity.97 Moo defines three ways for believers to understand the Law:

91 Koperski, What Are They Saying About (WATSA) Paul and the Law? 55. 92 Thomas Schreiner, “An Old Perspective on the New Perspective.” Concordia Journal 35, no. 2 (Spring

2009): 151. 93 Thomas Schreiner, “Was Luther Right?” Paper. Fifth Annual Theological Symposium from Concordia

Seminary, St. Louis, MO, May 3, 1995, 10. 94 Thomas Schreiner, “Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E. P.

Sanders,” Westminster Theological Journal 47, no. 2 (Fall 1985), 278. 95 Stanley N. Gundry, ed., Five Views on Law and Gospel, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996). Kindle

eBook. 96 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 28-29. 97 Douglas Moo, “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,” Westminster Theological Journal.

45. (1983): 100.

19

the Law is no longer binding on the Christian; the Law continues to “fill out” and explain basic

concepts within old and new covenant law; and the Law should be read as a witness to God’s

plan fulfilled in Jesus Christ.98

D. A. Carson, et al.

Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volumes 1 and 2, a collection of essays edited by

D. A. Carson, Peter O’Brien, and Mark Seifrid, represents a comprehensive examination of the

Jewish literature readily extant in first century Palestine in order to test Sanders’ claim about

Judaism in Israel at that time.99 As implied by the title, Carson, et al., contend that first century

Judaism was not itself unified in its view of the Law; rather, it was divided into various parties or

sects, each holding a different view of the Law.100 Carson, et al., observe this one significant

problem with Sanders’ “covenantal nomism,” which is its tendency to over generalize these

varied sects in Palestinian Judaism and minimize their differences.101

Frank Thielman

Frank Thielman agrees with the New Perspective’s idea of approaching Paul’s view of

the Law from the standpoint of first century Palestinian Judaism, which he affirms is simply

sound hermeneutical practice.102 However, he disagrees with Sanders’ contention that Paul

argued about the Law from solution to plight, but rather from plight to solution, thus maintaining

Paul’s continuity with first century Judaism.103 He notes while there is an undeniable element of

98 Gundry, Five Views on Law and Gospel, Kindle eBook. 99 John M G. Barclay, "Justification and variegated nomism. Volume 1, The complexities of Second

Temple Judaism." Biblical Interpretation 13, no. 1 (January 1, 2005): 91-93. 100 Barry and Wentz, eds., The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Logos eBook. 101 Charles A. Gieschen, "Justification and variegated nomism. Volume 1, The complexities of Second

Temple Judaism." Concordia Theological Quarterly 72, no. 1 (January 1, 2008): 96-318. 102 Frank Thielman, Philippians, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 181. 103 Koperski, What Are They Saying About (WATSA) Paul and the Law? 41.

20

discontinuity in Paul’s view of the Law, it has been overstressed by Sanders.104 Thielman

concludes that Paul held a consistent and well-reasoned view of the Law throughout his epistles,

which “bears the marks of a complex and carefully considered position, worthy of the most

painstaking study and of the deepest theological reflection.”105

CONCLUSION

As has been demonstrated, there is a multiplicity of interpretations of Paul’s view of the

Law, and there has been since early in Church history. Many theologians and scholars have

endeavored to deduce and understand the intricacies of Paul’s carefully worked out theology,

however, most often obscuring rather than clarifying Paul’s intended meaning. Certainly the

debate will continue, but the superior weight of evidence points to Paul’s belief that justification

came by faith in Jesus Christ, which the Law of the Jews was powerless to accomplish.

104 Hawthorne, Martin, and Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 542. 105 Ibid.

21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achtemeier, Paul J. Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1st ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.

Alexander, T. Desmond and Brian S. Rosner, eds. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001. Logos eBook.

Anders, Max. Galatians-Colossians. Vol. 8, Holman New Testament Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999.

Barclay, John M G. "Justification and variegated nomism. Volume 1, The complexities of Second Temple Judaism." Biblical Interpretation 13, no. 1 (January 1, 2005): 91-93.

Barry, John D. and Lazarus Wentz, eds. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2012. Logos eBook.

Beckwith, Roger. "Intertestamental Judaism, Its Literature and Its Significance." In, Themelios 15, no. 3 (April 1990): 77-81.

Boa, Kenneth and William Kruidenier. Romans. Vol. 6, Holman New Testament Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000.

Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England et al., eds. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville: Holman, 2003.

Briscoe, D. Stuart. Romans. The Preacher's Commentary Series. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982. Kindle eBook.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W., ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997. Logos eBook.

Chester, Tim. “The Northern Training Institute Papers No 12: March 2008: Justification, Ecclesiology and the New Perspective.” In Themelios 30, no. 2 (Spring 2005): 1-14.

Cole, R. Alan. Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 2, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973.

Cox, Steven L. and Kendell H. Easley. Holman Christian Standard Bible: Harmony of the Gospels. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007.

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 1, International Critical Commentary. New York; London: T&T Clark, 1975.

22

Dockery, David S. Trent C. Butler, Christopher L. Church, et al. Holman Bible Handbook. Nashville: Holman, 1992.

Drane, John William. Introducing the New Testament. Oxford: Lion, 2000.

Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8, vol. 38A, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1998.

Dunnam, Maxie. Galatians/Ephesians/Philippians/Colossians/Philemon. The Preacher’s Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982. Kindle eBook.

Edwards, James R. Romans. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.

Elwell, Walter A and Walter A. Elwell. Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Logos eBook.

Fahlbusch, Erwin and Geoffrey William Bromiley. The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Grand Rapids; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003.

Ferguson, Sinclair B. and J.I. Packer. New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Logos eBook.

Geisler, Norman L. and Ralph E. MacKenzie. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. Grand Rapids, Baker, 1995.

Gieschen, Charles A. "Justification and variegated nomism. Volume 1, The complexities of Second Temple Judaism." Concordia Theological Quarterly 72, no. 1 (January 1, 2008): 96-318.

Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Gundry, Stanley N., ed. Five Views on Law and Gospel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Kindle eBook.

Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Hendriksen, William and Simon J. Kistemaker. Exposition of Galatians. Vol. 8, New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968.

________. Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 12, New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.

Koperski, Veronica. What Are They Saying About (WATSA) Paul and the Law? New York: Paulist Press, 2001.

Lange, John Peter, Philip Schaff, F. R. Fay et al. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Romans. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.

23

Longenecker, Richard N. vol. 41, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998.

Lull, David J. “‘The Law was our Pedagogue’: A Study in Galatians 3:19-25.” Journal of Biblical Literature. 105, no. 3. (1986): 481-498.

MacArthur, John. Romans: Grace, Truth, and Redemption. MacArthur Bible Studies. Nashville: W Publishing, 2000.

Manser, Martin H. Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies. London: Martin Manser, 1999.

Martin, Ralph P. and Peter H. Davids. Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Logos eBook.

Miller, Kevin A. ed. Christian History Magazine-Issue 28: The 100 Most Important Events in Church History. Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, 1990. Logos eBook.

Montefiore, C. G. “Judaism and the Epistles of Paul.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 13, no. 2 (January 1901): 161-217.

Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

________. “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul.” Westminster Theological Journal. 45. (1983): 73-100.

Morris, Leon. Romans. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. D. A. Carson, ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans. The New American Commentary, Vol. 27. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Ngien, Dennis. “Theology of Preaching in Martin Luther.” Themelios 28, No. 2 (Spring 2003): 28-49.

Porter, Stanley E. and Craig A. Evans. Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Logos eBook.

Ryrie, Charles C., “The End of the Law.” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July 1967): 239-247.

Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.

Schreiner, Thomas R. “The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 35 (1989): 47-74.

24

________. “Interpreting the Pauline Epistles.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 3 (1991): 4-21.

________. “Law of Christ.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, eds. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

________. “An Old Perspective on the New Perspective.” Concordia Journal 35, no. 2 (Spring 2009): 140-155.

________. “Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E. P. Sanders.” Westminster Theological Journal 47, no. 2 (Fall 1985): 245-278.

________. “Paul’s View of the Law in Romans 10: 4-5.” Westminster Journal of Theology 55 (1993): 113-135.

________. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

________. “Was Luther Right?” Paper. Fifth Annual Theological Symposium from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO, May 3, 1995.

Smith, Jeffery. “An Overview and Critique of the New Perspective of Paul’s Doctrine of Justification (Part One: The New Perspective Identified.” Reformed Baptist Theological Review. Vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring 2006): 77-108.

Sprinkle, Preston M. “The Old Perspective on the New Perspective: A Review of Some ‘Pre-Sanders’ Thinkers.” Themelios 30, no. 2 (Spring 2005): 29-32.

Thielman, Frank. Philippians. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, and N. T. Wright, eds. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. London; Grand Rapids, MI: SPCK; Baker Academic, 2005.

Weisheipl, J. Friar Thomas d’Aquino. 2d ed. Catholic University of America Press, 1983, quoted in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier and N. T. Wright (London; Grand Rapids, MI: SPCK; Baker Academic, 2005), 800.

Wood, D. R. W. and I. Howard Marshall. New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Youngblood, Ronald F., F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison, eds. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995.