What do you think?
Rate this book
New Studies in Biblical Theology #31
Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God (Volume 31)
Preaching 's Preacher's Guide to the Best Bible Reference "For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God" (1 Cor 7:19). The apostle Paul's relationship to the Law of Moses is notoriously complex and much studied. Difficulties begin with questions of definition (of the extent of Paul's corpus and the meanings of "the law") and are exacerbated by numerous problems of interpretation of the key texts. Major positions are entrenched, yet none of them seems to know what to do with all the pieces of the puzzle. Inextricably linked to Paul's view of the law is his teaching concerning salvation history, Israel, the church, anthropology, ethics and eschatology. Understanding "Paul and the law" is critical to the study of the New Testament, because it touches on the perennial question of the relationship between the grace of God in the gift of salvation and the demand of God in the call for holy living. Misunderstanding can lead to distortions of one or both. This New Studies in Biblical Theology volume is something of a breakthrough, bringing neglected evidence to the discussion and asking different questions of the material, while also building on the work of others. Brian Rosner argues that Paul undertakes a polemical re-evaluation of the Law of Moses, which involves not only its repudiation as law-covenant and its replacement by other things, but also its wholehearted re-appropriation as prophecy (with reference to the gospel) and as wisdom (for Christian living). Addressing key issues in biblical theology, the works comprising New Studies in Biblical Theology are creative attempts to help Christians better understand their Bibles. The NSBT series is edited by D. A. Carson, aiming to simultaneously instruct and to edify, to interact with current scholarship and to point the way ahead.
249 pages, Paperback
First published June 21, 2013
32 people are currently reading
327 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
December 16, 2018
Brian Rosner is the Principal of Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. In this book, Rosner tackles the complicated question of “Paul’s view of the Mosaic Law.” It is standard practice in this much-traversed scholarly pathway, to start out by noticing that Paul has both negative and positive things to say about the Law, and then to try to come up with an explanation for both. Some say Paul was just not logically consistent. Others say his views changed over time or depending on the context. Others take the negative statements as Paul’s real view, and reinterpret the positive statements in light of the negative ones. Others do the opposite and reinterpret the negative statements to harmonize with an ultimately positive view of the Law. And still others try to divide the Law pie up into various pieces (moral, civil, and ceremonial) and say that Paul’s negative statements apply to the civil and ceremonial, while his positive statements indicating ongoing validity apply to the moral slice of the Law pie, which has been traditionally identified with the Ten Commandments.
Rosner rejects all of these approaches. Against the last approach (of dividing the Law into moral, civil, and ceremonial laws), he argues that the Law is a unity. His approach is basically correct: he accepts all of the statements but harmonizes them by arguing that Paul is speaking of the Law in different respects or perspectives, or what Rosner calls “the Law as” statements. The negative statements are about “the Law as a legal code or covenant.” When viewed as a legal code or covenant that God gave to Israel as his chosen people, New Testament believers are not bound to the Mosaic Law. The positive statements are in reference to “the Law as prophecy or as wisdom.” When viewed as prophecy pointing ahead to Christ, or as wisdom that provides guidance for living in a way that pleases God, then New Testament believers are indeed to regard the Law as something good, edifying, and useful for Christian living, though no longer as a binding legal code. Rosner calls this a hermeneutical solution.
The heart of the book is Rosner’s thesis that Paul engages in three hermeneutical moves when dealing with the Law: repudiation, replacement, and reappropriation. First, Paul repudiates the Law as a legal code or covenant. This is where Rosner would place all of the negative statements about the Law. Paul repeatedly says that believers are not under the Law. Second, Paul engages in the next hermeneutical move, which Rosner calls replacement, that is, he sees Christ as now filling the role that the Law played. Instead of being bound to the Law, believers are bound to Christ, or are to draw their strongest moral imperatives from the gospel. Third, Paul engages in reappropriation. Having repudiated the Law as a legal code or covenant, and having replaced the Law with Christ and the gospel, he then moves back to the Law, not as a legally binding code, but as divine revelation that is still valid in the form either of prophetic witness to Christ or of wisdom for godly living.
Here are some good quotes to give you a taste:
“The striking theme about Paul’s use of the walking theme is that he never once says that believers should walk according to the law” (p. 87).
“Rather than linking knowledge of what pleases God to the law, Paul ties it to the gospel and an appropriate response of total dedication to God” (p. 92).
“Paul’s positive appropriation of the law for moral teaching is evidence neither of inconsistency (contradicting his insistence that believers are not under the law), nor an indication that his abrogation of the law is only partial (civil and ceremonial, but not the moral law). The key to understanding Paul’s use of the law for ethics is hermeneutical. If the law as law-covenant has been abolished, the law is still of value for Christian conduct as Scripture and as wisdom” (p. 160).
“Part of the answer to the objection that not being under law will lead to license and moral decline is that being under the law is overrated in terms of its moral value” (p. 167).
I agree with the substance of Rosner’s thesis, and it is nice to see the position articulated by a well-regarded Pauline scholar.
I do, however, have a few areas where I would want to formulate things more clearly.
First, I felt that Rosner’s explanation of Paul’s first hermeneutical move (repudiation) was a little oversimplified. Rosner focused on the fact that for Paul the Law was given to the Jews; therefore, it is not applicable to the Gentiles simply because they are not Jews and not the recipients of the Law. There is a measure of truth in this explanation, and Paul sometimes does speak that way. However, I believe there is also a deeper aspect of Paul’s thought. This comes to light in the passages where Paul speaks of believers as having died to the Law in union with Christ (Rom 7:1-6), which implies that we were in some sense under it. I think that the reason he can say that is because the Mosaic Law is a republication of the Adamic covenant of works, and therefore even Gentiles need to die to the Law in some sense in order to be freed from the law as a covenant of works in order to serve God in the new way of the Spirit.
Second, I think it would have been helpful if Rosner had spent more time showing that the Law does contain moral aspects, and that these moral aspects are carried over into “the law of Christ.” It is not that Rosner denies this. In fact he has a section devoted to the issue of “The moral order of creation, law and wisdom” (pp. 177-81). He affirms that “there is a moral aspect to the Mosaic law that is based on the creation’s moral order” (p. 179). He also appeals to Calvin’s view that “at the heart of the law’s demands is the call to live in accordance with the image of God” (p. 180). But I somehow felt that these affirmations in this section did not really comport with the rest of his reappropriation thesis, the focus of which was on using the Law as “wisdom” and as a source of “moral guidance” (p. 41).
Are there aspects of the Mosaic Law which, because they are rooted in the creation order and are moral in nature, are morally binding in all ages and on all people? I am sure Rosner would say that there are. Yet, commenting on 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Rosner writes: “Paul uses four terms to explain the usefulness of Scripture: ‘teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness’ (NIV). This posture is not one of seeing Scripture, including the law, as a binding norm to be obeyed, but as a valuable and necessary source for ethics to be read with profit” (p. 105). This is a fine statement if we are talking about Paul’s use of the Old Testament to provide guidance for running the church (e.g., Paul’s use of the Law in 1 Cor 9:9; 2 Cor 8:15; 13:1), but not if we are talking about the moral will of God. Surely the moral will of God is “a binding norm to be obeyed.”
But aside from those two concerns where I think his thesis could be sharpened and refined, I heartily recommend this book.
Rosner rejects all of these approaches. Against the last approach (of dividing the Law into moral, civil, and ceremonial laws), he argues that the Law is a unity. His approach is basically correct: he accepts all of the statements but harmonizes them by arguing that Paul is speaking of the Law in different respects or perspectives, or what Rosner calls “the Law as” statements. The negative statements are about “the Law as a legal code or covenant.” When viewed as a legal code or covenant that God gave to Israel as his chosen people, New Testament believers are not bound to the Mosaic Law. The positive statements are in reference to “the Law as prophecy or as wisdom.” When viewed as prophecy pointing ahead to Christ, or as wisdom that provides guidance for living in a way that pleases God, then New Testament believers are indeed to regard the Law as something good, edifying, and useful for Christian living, though no longer as a binding legal code. Rosner calls this a hermeneutical solution.
The heart of the book is Rosner’s thesis that Paul engages in three hermeneutical moves when dealing with the Law: repudiation, replacement, and reappropriation. First, Paul repudiates the Law as a legal code or covenant. This is where Rosner would place all of the negative statements about the Law. Paul repeatedly says that believers are not under the Law. Second, Paul engages in the next hermeneutical move, which Rosner calls replacement, that is, he sees Christ as now filling the role that the Law played. Instead of being bound to the Law, believers are bound to Christ, or are to draw their strongest moral imperatives from the gospel. Third, Paul engages in reappropriation. Having repudiated the Law as a legal code or covenant, and having replaced the Law with Christ and the gospel, he then moves back to the Law, not as a legally binding code, but as divine revelation that is still valid in the form either of prophetic witness to Christ or of wisdom for godly living.
Here are some good quotes to give you a taste:
“The striking theme about Paul’s use of the walking theme is that he never once says that believers should walk according to the law” (p. 87).
“Rather than linking knowledge of what pleases God to the law, Paul ties it to the gospel and an appropriate response of total dedication to God” (p. 92).
“Paul’s positive appropriation of the law for moral teaching is evidence neither of inconsistency (contradicting his insistence that believers are not under the law), nor an indication that his abrogation of the law is only partial (civil and ceremonial, but not the moral law). The key to understanding Paul’s use of the law for ethics is hermeneutical. If the law as law-covenant has been abolished, the law is still of value for Christian conduct as Scripture and as wisdom” (p. 160).
“Part of the answer to the objection that not being under law will lead to license and moral decline is that being under the law is overrated in terms of its moral value” (p. 167).
I agree with the substance of Rosner’s thesis, and it is nice to see the position articulated by a well-regarded Pauline scholar.
I do, however, have a few areas where I would want to formulate things more clearly.
First, I felt that Rosner’s explanation of Paul’s first hermeneutical move (repudiation) was a little oversimplified. Rosner focused on the fact that for Paul the Law was given to the Jews; therefore, it is not applicable to the Gentiles simply because they are not Jews and not the recipients of the Law. There is a measure of truth in this explanation, and Paul sometimes does speak that way. However, I believe there is also a deeper aspect of Paul’s thought. This comes to light in the passages where Paul speaks of believers as having died to the Law in union with Christ (Rom 7:1-6), which implies that we were in some sense under it. I think that the reason he can say that is because the Mosaic Law is a republication of the Adamic covenant of works, and therefore even Gentiles need to die to the Law in some sense in order to be freed from the law as a covenant of works in order to serve God in the new way of the Spirit.
Second, I think it would have been helpful if Rosner had spent more time showing that the Law does contain moral aspects, and that these moral aspects are carried over into “the law of Christ.” It is not that Rosner denies this. In fact he has a section devoted to the issue of “The moral order of creation, law and wisdom” (pp. 177-81). He affirms that “there is a moral aspect to the Mosaic law that is based on the creation’s moral order” (p. 179). He also appeals to Calvin’s view that “at the heart of the law’s demands is the call to live in accordance with the image of God” (p. 180). But I somehow felt that these affirmations in this section did not really comport with the rest of his reappropriation thesis, the focus of which was on using the Law as “wisdom” and as a source of “moral guidance” (p. 41).
Are there aspects of the Mosaic Law which, because they are rooted in the creation order and are moral in nature, are morally binding in all ages and on all people? I am sure Rosner would say that there are. Yet, commenting on 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Rosner writes: “Paul uses four terms to explain the usefulness of Scripture: ‘teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness’ (NIV). This posture is not one of seeing Scripture, including the law, as a binding norm to be obeyed, but as a valuable and necessary source for ethics to be read with profit” (p. 105). This is a fine statement if we are talking about Paul’s use of the Old Testament to provide guidance for running the church (e.g., Paul’s use of the Law in 1 Cor 9:9; 2 Cor 8:15; 13:1), but not if we are talking about the moral will of God. Surely the moral will of God is “a binding norm to be obeyed.”
But aside from those two concerns where I think his thesis could be sharpened and refined, I heartily recommend this book.
July 19, 2025
“The solution to the puzzle of Paul and the law is hermeneutical. Rather than asking which bits of the law Paul retains and which he rejects, a hermeneutical approach starts by acknowledging the unity of the law and asks instead, when Paul speaks positively or negatively about the law, in which capacity the law is functioning.”
The consistent moves we see in Paul’s presentation of the law: Repudiation, Replacement, and Reappropriation as Prophecy and Wisdom.
The consistent moves we see in Paul’s presentation of the law: Repudiation, Replacement, and Reappropriation as Prophecy and Wisdom.
March 25, 2020
A good book, and a helpful way of approaching the problem. Not fully persuaded at every point. For example, Rosner contradicts himself within the span of two pages: “Believers in Christ… are not instructed by the law, but by the gospel” (221) and “The law was written for our instruction” (222). Which is it?
I'm also not sure that parts of the thesis hold up when you consider Christian appropriation of the Psalms, and indeed of "the scriptures" as a whole (including the OT and the law 2 Tim 3:16–17). I think this BT of the law could be strengthened and even adjusted in light of a more robust Christo-centric BT of the Psalms for Christians.
Rosner posits a disjunction here: “there are patent differences between the use of the all in Paul and in the Psalms (fn: The most obvious difference is the psalmist’s devotion to the law, which Paul does not echo)” (165). But when Paul admonished Christians to "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God (Colossians 3:16)" did he not intend them to sing Psalm 119:97 "Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day"? If this disjunction doesn't hold quite so firmly, how should the picture be altered?
But again, overall, a helpful and illuminating book.
I'm also not sure that parts of the thesis hold up when you consider Christian appropriation of the Psalms, and indeed of "the scriptures" as a whole (including the OT and the law 2 Tim 3:16–17). I think this BT of the law could be strengthened and even adjusted in light of a more robust Christo-centric BT of the Psalms for Christians.
Rosner posits a disjunction here: “there are patent differences between the use of the all in Paul and in the Psalms (fn: The most obvious difference is the psalmist’s devotion to the law, which Paul does not echo)” (165). But when Paul admonished Christians to "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God (Colossians 3:16)" did he not intend them to sing Psalm 119:97 "Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day"? If this disjunction doesn't hold quite so firmly, how should the picture be altered?
But again, overall, a helpful and illuminating book.
June 24, 2019
In today's world, it seems that the idea of the law is highly debated. Different denominations take different stances - some even polar opposites to each other.
In this book, Rosner questions what the ongoing application of the Mosaic law is for believers according to Paul. He argues from a Biblical Theology stand point, taking the progressive nature of the Bible narrative and showing how it applies to us today.
In short, Rosner argues that the law is not applicable to us in the same way it was to the nation of Israel - but instead should be reapplied as prophecy and wisdom literature. He uses examples from Paul's writings, and other places (his section on the Psalms is particularly interesting), to prove this point.
It is a very interesting book to read, and although most of what he says would be classed as 'common sense' it is good to see a Biblical scholar explaining the points in detail, and with Scripture proof.
In this book, Rosner questions what the ongoing application of the Mosaic law is for believers according to Paul. He argues from a Biblical Theology stand point, taking the progressive nature of the Bible narrative and showing how it applies to us today.
In short, Rosner argues that the law is not applicable to us in the same way it was to the nation of Israel - but instead should be reapplied as prophecy and wisdom literature. He uses examples from Paul's writings, and other places (his section on the Psalms is particularly interesting), to prove this point.
It is a very interesting book to read, and although most of what he says would be classed as 'common sense' it is good to see a Biblical scholar explaining the points in detail, and with Scripture proof.
August 7, 2014
Clear thesis, Solid arguments, to the point. Rosner's Paul and the Law is a worthy addition to the excellent New Studies in Biblical Theology series. Understanding Paul's view of the Law is a difficult endeavor and the subject of extensive debate. Rosner's book brings some much needed clarity.
Rosner offers a hermeneutical solution to Paul's complicated view of the Law that is grounded in Paul's understanding of salvation history. In short, Rosner believes that Paul repudiates the law as a law-covenant, replaces the law with the law of Christ and apostolic instruction, and then reappropriates the law as both prophesy and wisdom for living. For Rosner, the question is not "which bits of the law are still useful" since the law is a unity and is never broken up into different categories, but rather "in what sense is the law valuable for Christians."
In my opinion, Rosner's deals seriously with the genuine tension within Paul's view of the law. Rosner's view illuminates Paul's varied interactions with the law and makes his moral commands more compelling. Rosner's book is littered with Scripture. He doesn't simply prooftext to prove his view. Rather, he shows how passages fit within the context of Scripture's redemptive historical story. Furthermore, coming in at 222 pages it is extremely readable, even for busy pastors.
I look forward to reading reviews of the book as well as future commentaries that interact with Rosner's view as they seek to understand and explain Scripture. I believe Rosner's view will stand up against scrutiny. However, that doesn't mean there is not room for more nuance and clarity and explanation as more people interact with Rosner's view.
I highly recommend this book!
Rosner offers a hermeneutical solution to Paul's complicated view of the Law that is grounded in Paul's understanding of salvation history. In short, Rosner believes that Paul repudiates the law as a law-covenant, replaces the law with the law of Christ and apostolic instruction, and then reappropriates the law as both prophesy and wisdom for living. For Rosner, the question is not "which bits of the law are still useful" since the law is a unity and is never broken up into different categories, but rather "in what sense is the law valuable for Christians."
In my opinion, Rosner's deals seriously with the genuine tension within Paul's view of the law. Rosner's view illuminates Paul's varied interactions with the law and makes his moral commands more compelling. Rosner's book is littered with Scripture. He doesn't simply prooftext to prove his view. Rather, he shows how passages fit within the context of Scripture's redemptive historical story. Furthermore, coming in at 222 pages it is extremely readable, even for busy pastors.
I look forward to reading reviews of the book as well as future commentaries that interact with Rosner's view as they seek to understand and explain Scripture. I believe Rosner's view will stand up against scrutiny. However, that doesn't mean there is not room for more nuance and clarity and explanation as more people interact with Rosner's view.
I highly recommend this book!
March 25, 2016
The law. Few words arguably create more of a firestorm of opinions than these two words. Add to that the seemingly perennial question of whether the Apostle Paul gave the green light for believers to jettison the various laws noted in the front of Scripture and you have even more fuel for the fires of argumentation and debate. We seem to be told throughout Scripture to be obedient to what God says yet the question remains for many as to what exactly God said we are supposed to be obedient and faithful to in our walk with Him. Are we to maintain a connection to what is termed the Law of Moses or did Jesus really come to set us free from that construct and to implement something completely different from what he observed and what His Father set forth as the norm. Furthermore, is the Apostle Paul setting for different laws and commandments for different people (i.e. Jews and Gentiles)? These are all questions that have been long debated and rightfully so with a plethora of answers being provided through the centuries.
Brian Rosner in his book Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God, attempts to submit his thoughts on this often thorny and confusing subject. Dr. Rosner is no stranger to the topic of Pauline studies having written books on Paul such as Paul, Scripture, and Ethics as well as being the co-author of the Pillar New Testament Commentary Series volume on 1 Corinthians among other contributions to Pauline studies.
The difficulty and variety of thought on the issue of Paul and the Law is aptly noted by Rosner in the introductory chapter of this book. There is no shortage of positions on the matter, but three are chosen by Rosner as representative in his opinion of the major approaches, namely the Lutheranism, Reformed, and New Perspective on Paul views. I do think there is at least one other major viewpoint that could have been included and that is what is often termed as the Torah observant position, a construct largely found in the Messianic Jewish movement. It would have been helpful at various junctures in this book for that position to have been included in the mix.
It is clear Rosner takes the position in his biblical theological understanding of Paul’s perspective on the Law that the law as a covenantal construct changed to such a degree that much of its relevance for the church today resides in being a source of wisdom and a prelude to the gospel in a prophetic sense. Ultimately, the focus of discussion is on how the Mosaic Law has been repudiated by Paul and reappropriated to serve a different function in the life of the NT era, post-cross believer. Things such as observing the Feast Days of the Lord, the Sabbath, and dietary laws are presented by Rosner as specifically being officially off the observation table for the Christian.
I did appreciate Rosner noting the textual and exegetical difficulties in presenting the Mosaic Law as having three distinct elements, namely that of being able to be divided into moral, ceremonial, and civil law. This is an approach taken by many who attempt, as Rosner does in this book, to deal with the place of the law in the life of the follower of Christ. This threefold division is often seen as a means by which to continue to embrace laws such as the 10 Commandments while setting aside other laws that we are not quite sure what to do with in our day or if they remain valid. There is inherent difficulty with such an approach and Rosner provides some salient insight from scholars in this regard.
What I found difficult to embrace throughout this book is the perspective that Paul fully repudiates the entirety of the law (or Mosaic Law as it is described throughout) and reappropriates it as a source of prophecy (meaning a declaration of the need for the gospel) and a source of wisdom. While I certainly do believe and fully embrace that the keeping of the law does not gain one justification before God, a point Paul and all the biblical authors for that matter reiterate, to present the law as reappropriated as only being a prelude to the gospel and a source of wisdom overlooks the continued commands by Jesus, Paul, and other NT authors that if we love God, we will keep His commands. Thus, can it be said that Paul is truly providing a different set of commands? Is the law of Christ noted by Jesus and Paul different from the law of God? Can it be said there is really a new set of commands being given or furthermore, a set of commands for Jews to obey and a completely different standard of behavior for non-Jews (i.e. Gentiles)?
Rosner definitely attempts to answer those questions and I think he does an admirable job of presenting some points to consider within the Pauline text and on a number of occasions, how the Pauline text relates to the rest of Scripture. The issue I had is the rejection of the law as a continued covenant between God and His people. Perhaps this is rooted in the understanding that the law was just for the Jews and that for Christians, given Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and most believers are Gentiles, the law as covenant is not binding in its entirety for those classified as Gentiles. If the law is wisdom (which it is), then it should be viewed as relevant in our lives and prescriptive for behavior and as a defining element of what holy living looks like in action. Rosner aptly notes the law as a source of moral education. It is indeed paideia (instruction) but it is that because these commands are given by God not as a means by which to obtain salvation, but to live in a manner that is pleasing to God and that is set apart from the pagan ideals of the world around us. God’s commands are the light and lamp to the feet and path of the righteous in a world drowning in darkness.
I see quite often the declaration that we are not under the law but under the law of Christ meaning we are bound by the two commands of loving God and others. Rosner follows this approach, noting in the concluding chapter, “We do not keep the law, but fulfill the law in Christ and through love. We do not seek to walk according to the law, but according to the truth of the gospel, in Christ, in newness of resurrection life, by faith, in the light and in step with the Spirit.” There are all great declarations but what is at the heart of the gospel message and what is meant by this newness of life?
The gospel is a declaration of no longer being under the penalty of the law which is death. Because of our sinful nature, we are unable on our own to fully obey God’s law, thus the need for Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. Does God’s commands for righteous living somehow go away once we respond to the gospel message? I submit they do not and Paul in his epistles and certainly the rest of Scripture does not declare such an idea. The law of Christ (loving God and others) is noted by Jesus as rooted in what is stated in the law and prophets. In fact, Jesus stated that upon those two commands (loving God and others) hinge the entire front of the Bible. Is this a repudiation of those commands and reappropriation of them as a great source of wisdom that we recognize but are not to keep or is something different being stated by Jesus, Paul, the NT authors, and Scripture as a whole? That is a question I think Rosner does not fully answer given his thesis is rooted in the law being wisdom but not something we should strive to keep. There definitely needs to be a balance that notes the reality of grace and the response to grace which is obedience to God’s commands for holy living. This balance was somewhat struck at times by Rosner, but ultimately, the balance teetered a bit too much for me on finding ways to suggest there is the law of God/Moses and an entirely new set of laws with the two never meeting.
There is much to like about this book and I do believe Rosner makes a number of valuable points throughout and food for thought. In my humble opinion, the thesis of the law being repudiated in its entirety and reappropriated does not fully answer the repeated Scriptures that call the believer, both Jew and Gentile, to love God and to show that love by obeying His commands or better yet, God’s marriage covenant with His people. If we are to be faithful, the question of what our faithfulness should be rooted in must be answered and if indeed God’s commands are a marriage covenant with His people, I have difficulty believing there are two vastly different marriage vows taken by God’s people which seems to be the perspective of Rosner if the law-covenant is no longer a covenant under which the NT believer abides. I give this book 3. 5 stars out of five as it addresses an important topic yet falls a bit short for me regarding the aforementioned issues.
I received this book for free from IVP Academic and the opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Brian Rosner in his book Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God, attempts to submit his thoughts on this often thorny and confusing subject. Dr. Rosner is no stranger to the topic of Pauline studies having written books on Paul such as Paul, Scripture, and Ethics as well as being the co-author of the Pillar New Testament Commentary Series volume on 1 Corinthians among other contributions to Pauline studies.
The difficulty and variety of thought on the issue of Paul and the Law is aptly noted by Rosner in the introductory chapter of this book. There is no shortage of positions on the matter, but three are chosen by Rosner as representative in his opinion of the major approaches, namely the Lutheranism, Reformed, and New Perspective on Paul views. I do think there is at least one other major viewpoint that could have been included and that is what is often termed as the Torah observant position, a construct largely found in the Messianic Jewish movement. It would have been helpful at various junctures in this book for that position to have been included in the mix.
It is clear Rosner takes the position in his biblical theological understanding of Paul’s perspective on the Law that the law as a covenantal construct changed to such a degree that much of its relevance for the church today resides in being a source of wisdom and a prelude to the gospel in a prophetic sense. Ultimately, the focus of discussion is on how the Mosaic Law has been repudiated by Paul and reappropriated to serve a different function in the life of the NT era, post-cross believer. Things such as observing the Feast Days of the Lord, the Sabbath, and dietary laws are presented by Rosner as specifically being officially off the observation table for the Christian.
I did appreciate Rosner noting the textual and exegetical difficulties in presenting the Mosaic Law as having three distinct elements, namely that of being able to be divided into moral, ceremonial, and civil law. This is an approach taken by many who attempt, as Rosner does in this book, to deal with the place of the law in the life of the follower of Christ. This threefold division is often seen as a means by which to continue to embrace laws such as the 10 Commandments while setting aside other laws that we are not quite sure what to do with in our day or if they remain valid. There is inherent difficulty with such an approach and Rosner provides some salient insight from scholars in this regard.
What I found difficult to embrace throughout this book is the perspective that Paul fully repudiates the entirety of the law (or Mosaic Law as it is described throughout) and reappropriates it as a source of prophecy (meaning a declaration of the need for the gospel) and a source of wisdom. While I certainly do believe and fully embrace that the keeping of the law does not gain one justification before God, a point Paul and all the biblical authors for that matter reiterate, to present the law as reappropriated as only being a prelude to the gospel and a source of wisdom overlooks the continued commands by Jesus, Paul, and other NT authors that if we love God, we will keep His commands. Thus, can it be said that Paul is truly providing a different set of commands? Is the law of Christ noted by Jesus and Paul different from the law of God? Can it be said there is really a new set of commands being given or furthermore, a set of commands for Jews to obey and a completely different standard of behavior for non-Jews (i.e. Gentiles)?
Rosner definitely attempts to answer those questions and I think he does an admirable job of presenting some points to consider within the Pauline text and on a number of occasions, how the Pauline text relates to the rest of Scripture. The issue I had is the rejection of the law as a continued covenant between God and His people. Perhaps this is rooted in the understanding that the law was just for the Jews and that for Christians, given Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and most believers are Gentiles, the law as covenant is not binding in its entirety for those classified as Gentiles. If the law is wisdom (which it is), then it should be viewed as relevant in our lives and prescriptive for behavior and as a defining element of what holy living looks like in action. Rosner aptly notes the law as a source of moral education. It is indeed paideia (instruction) but it is that because these commands are given by God not as a means by which to obtain salvation, but to live in a manner that is pleasing to God and that is set apart from the pagan ideals of the world around us. God’s commands are the light and lamp to the feet and path of the righteous in a world drowning in darkness.
I see quite often the declaration that we are not under the law but under the law of Christ meaning we are bound by the two commands of loving God and others. Rosner follows this approach, noting in the concluding chapter, “We do not keep the law, but fulfill the law in Christ and through love. We do not seek to walk according to the law, but according to the truth of the gospel, in Christ, in newness of resurrection life, by faith, in the light and in step with the Spirit.” There are all great declarations but what is at the heart of the gospel message and what is meant by this newness of life?
The gospel is a declaration of no longer being under the penalty of the law which is death. Because of our sinful nature, we are unable on our own to fully obey God’s law, thus the need for Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. Does God’s commands for righteous living somehow go away once we respond to the gospel message? I submit they do not and Paul in his epistles and certainly the rest of Scripture does not declare such an idea. The law of Christ (loving God and others) is noted by Jesus as rooted in what is stated in the law and prophets. In fact, Jesus stated that upon those two commands (loving God and others) hinge the entire front of the Bible. Is this a repudiation of those commands and reappropriation of them as a great source of wisdom that we recognize but are not to keep or is something different being stated by Jesus, Paul, the NT authors, and Scripture as a whole? That is a question I think Rosner does not fully answer given his thesis is rooted in the law being wisdom but not something we should strive to keep. There definitely needs to be a balance that notes the reality of grace and the response to grace which is obedience to God’s commands for holy living. This balance was somewhat struck at times by Rosner, but ultimately, the balance teetered a bit too much for me on finding ways to suggest there is the law of God/Moses and an entirely new set of laws with the two never meeting.
There is much to like about this book and I do believe Rosner makes a number of valuable points throughout and food for thought. In my humble opinion, the thesis of the law being repudiated in its entirety and reappropriated does not fully answer the repeated Scriptures that call the believer, both Jew and Gentile, to love God and to show that love by obeying His commands or better yet, God’s marriage covenant with His people. If we are to be faithful, the question of what our faithfulness should be rooted in must be answered and if indeed God’s commands are a marriage covenant with His people, I have difficulty believing there are two vastly different marriage vows taken by God’s people which seems to be the perspective of Rosner if the law-covenant is no longer a covenant under which the NT believer abides. I give this book 3. 5 stars out of five as it addresses an important topic yet falls a bit short for me regarding the aforementioned issues.
I received this book for free from IVP Academic and the opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
June 26, 2024
The law in Paul is both exegetically and theologically complicated. Paul can seem to both say that the law is good but also that Christians aren't 'under the law' nor are they to keep the law. Rosner argues that the best way to make sense of Paul's understanding of the law is to understand Paul as 1) Repudiating the law qua law-covenant, 2) Replacing the law (with Christ or "the law of Christ" which is often the apostolic teaching), and 3) Reappropriating the law, not as legal commands for Christians but as prophecy (towards Christ and the New Covenant) and wisdom (for wise living and training in godliness). Incredible book and highly compelling as a whole.
At times, I found that some of his exegetical arguments were found lacking or stretching a bit. However, his overall cumulative case convinced me. Exegetically very dense. Read it!
At times, I found that some of his exegetical arguments were found lacking or stretching a bit. However, his overall cumulative case convinced me. Exegetically very dense. Read it!
November 26, 2021
Rosner articulates his thesis clearly and supports it substantially. This is a helpful contribution to the ongoing discussion over the role of the Old Testament law in the life of believers today. My main quibble is that I would have liked to have seen Rosner flesh out his understanding of the law as wisdom in relation to Christ a bit more (he offers only a brief, one-page treatment of this discussion in his concluding chapter).
March 18, 2022
Rosner provides a sufficient account for views on Paul and the Law, then quickly lays out his view and the order in which the he sees Paul handle the Law.
This book will help many have a grasp on Paul’s positive/negative statements of the Law as they look to better understand God’s Word. Highly recommend for any leader within the church, as it is very understandable and short for such an academic endeavor.
This book will help many have a grasp on Paul’s positive/negative statements of the Law as they look to better understand God’s Word. Highly recommend for any leader within the church, as it is very understandable and short for such an academic endeavor.
August 27, 2020
So so helpful. Was recommended it in a college lecture on Galatians, and found it an enormous help. Especially good in working through the traditional Reformed view on justification and the New Perspective on Paul. Wise, clear and highly edifying
October 3, 2020
2020 reads: 38/52
Rating: 5 stars.
This is a bold proposal. I loved it.
Context: having been raised under dispensational/progressive dispensational teaching and then embracing what I think is best described as 'progressive covenantalism' (PC) (see Stephen Wellum & Peter Gentry), I have wrestled with the role of the law. Though never sitting down to figure it out, I have not been convinced of the traditional Reformed view of the Law, neither do I maintain the dispensational view. What Rosner has here provided is something that seems to articulate so many of thoughts and convictions in my reading of Paul since embracing PC.
In short, Rosner's argument goes thus: Paul does three things with the Law (considered as whole and not divided three ways): 1) repudiation of the law as 'covenant/legal code'; 2) replacement by 'faith', 'law of Christ', 'Spirit' and 'gospel'; and 3) re-appropriating: as a) prophetic; and b) moral instruction.
This contribution is definitely worth your time and Rosner makes every effort to work through practically every instance of the law in Paul as well as concepts beyond plain lexical constructs.
Rating: 5 stars.
This is a bold proposal. I loved it.
Context: having been raised under dispensational/progressive dispensational teaching and then embracing what I think is best described as 'progressive covenantalism' (PC) (see Stephen Wellum & Peter Gentry), I have wrestled with the role of the law. Though never sitting down to figure it out, I have not been convinced of the traditional Reformed view of the Law, neither do I maintain the dispensational view. What Rosner has here provided is something that seems to articulate so many of thoughts and convictions in my reading of Paul since embracing PC.
In short, Rosner's argument goes thus: Paul does three things with the Law (considered as whole and not divided three ways): 1) repudiation of the law as 'covenant/legal code'; 2) replacement by 'faith', 'law of Christ', 'Spirit' and 'gospel'; and 3) re-appropriating: as a) prophetic; and b) moral instruction.
This contribution is definitely worth your time and Rosner makes every effort to work through practically every instance of the law in Paul as well as concepts beyond plain lexical constructs.
January 28, 2019
This book is the best book on Paul and the Law. Even if you disagree with the details, his provision of a framework is immensely helpful. His interaction with intertedtamental, and 2nd Temple work is not overbearing but helpful. He also interacts well with other scholars. In seeking to write a readable work he does well to be thorough but not overwhelming or long-winded. This framework will help me read Paul for the rest of my life.
November 23, 2025
I changed my review from a five to a four—although I appreciated this work, I do think it falls short in a few regards. I can’t help but think Rosner wants to refute the strict law-gospel dichotomy but can’t quite bring himself to do it, so he must talk about the law being instruction but also the gospel being instruction and not the law! I walk away from the book appreciative that Rosner deals with the three categories of Paul’s use of the law—which I find very helpful—but also feeling that the final stake has yet to be driven.
November 28, 2013
This is an excerpt from the conclusion of my review. You can read the full review here: http://mydigitalseminary.com/paul-and...
Paul and the Law offers a helpful and humble step forward and is a surprisingly concise treatment of a very complex issue. A pastor or student of the Word should seriously consider this book as a clear and helpful guide. Of course, being a part of the consistently great New Studies in Biblical Theology series virtually guarantees that while it is no walk in the park it is worth the effort! Normally after reading a book on a core issue like this, I like to ponder the main points for weeks/months/years before deciding if I am fully convinced. With Paul and the Law, however, I felt thoroughly convinced of Rosner's main thesis by the time I reached the end of the book. As I continue to study and consider this topic I may change my mind a little, but any other position would need to thoroughly address the formidable arguments here. Paul and the Law aids one in reading and understanding the Bible, particularly Paul's teaching on the law. When a book helps one in Bible reading, it is always a success.
[This is an excerpt of my full review at my blog. Many thanks to Penny at IVP UK for providing a review copy of this book. I was not required to provide a positive review, all thoughts are my own].
Paul and the Law offers a helpful and humble step forward and is a surprisingly concise treatment of a very complex issue. A pastor or student of the Word should seriously consider this book as a clear and helpful guide. Of course, being a part of the consistently great New Studies in Biblical Theology series virtually guarantees that while it is no walk in the park it is worth the effort! Normally after reading a book on a core issue like this, I like to ponder the main points for weeks/months/years before deciding if I am fully convinced. With Paul and the Law, however, I felt thoroughly convinced of Rosner's main thesis by the time I reached the end of the book. As I continue to study and consider this topic I may change my mind a little, but any other position would need to thoroughly address the formidable arguments here. Paul and the Law aids one in reading and understanding the Bible, particularly Paul's teaching on the law. When a book helps one in Bible reading, it is always a success.
[This is an excerpt of my full review at my blog. Many thanks to Penny at IVP UK for providing a review copy of this book. I was not required to provide a positive review, all thoughts are my own].
January 3, 2015
The issue of the Christian's relation to the law of God is one of the most complicated issues in theology. Some New Testament passages seem to teach that the Christian is not under the law while others seem to demand obedience to the law. Rosner addresses this seeming contradiction by noting four ways in which the Christian relates to the law. First, the Christian is not under the Mosaic Law as his covenant. Second, the Christian is under the Law of Christ (or the law of faith or the law of the Spirit of life) instead of the Law of Moses. The Christian does not walk according to the law; he walks in the Spirit. Third, the Law is prophetic and the Christian uses the law as such. Fourth, the Christian should use the law as wisdom. Even the commands that are not repeated in the New Testament have a bearing for how the Christian lives his life.
Rosner's approach accounts for the New Testament's negative and positive statements about the law in a coherent manner. Other scholars, such as Frank Theilman, Douglas Moo, and Thomas Schreiner have written with similar perspectives. But Rosner's book is longer than Moo's brief article in the Four Views book on the law. It is less comprehensive than Theilman or Schreiner's books. Rosner's selectivity leads to clarity. This may now be the best book for the interested layperson on the topic of the Christian and the Law.
Rosner's approach accounts for the New Testament's negative and positive statements about the law in a coherent manner. Other scholars, such as Frank Theilman, Douglas Moo, and Thomas Schreiner have written with similar perspectives. But Rosner's book is longer than Moo's brief article in the Four Views book on the law. It is less comprehensive than Theilman or Schreiner's books. Rosner's selectivity leads to clarity. This may now be the best book for the interested layperson on the topic of the Christian and the Law.
July 25, 2016
The best book I've read on the Law. Rosner deals honestly with the negative and positive tensions of the Law in Pauline theology. He convincingly concludes that the Law as Law-Covenant has ended but the Law as Scripture and revelation as well as prophecy continues.
October 4, 2018
Better Every Time
September 20, 2017
This is probably one of the hardest books I've read to give a rating to - there's just so much good and so much bad about it, it's hard to say how much I really liked it. First of all, let me say that this book has many virtues and probably deserves to be one of the most-read books on Paul and the Law. Most of the time it is fairly clear (except for something very important I’ll get to below), and the prose is very easy to follow and tell what is going on at each point. This is one of the most readable and (dare I say it) exciting tomes on Paul and the Law I have read (and I've read quite a few). It covers a wider range of Scriptures and issues than is the norm (possibly too much in the short space?), with a definite, clearly structured argument and explicitly stated theses. This book is definitely much better put together than the vast majority of such books. This makes the nature of the arguments extremely clear. Fortunately or unfortunately, that makes the flaws of the argumentation stand out that much more clearly than the average book as well.
Too often the argumentative structure in this book goes something like this: First, dismiss verses that seem to conflict with your views as merely polemical (or do so by reinterpreting them with minimal argument). For other verses, interpret them according to your view by collecting supporting passages (only the ones not already dismissed, of course) and then assuming without argument that these supporting passages are read in a way that supports your interpretation of the verses in question and then find that these passages suddenly support your view. If needed, for instance, when one wants to argue that a passage says that A causes B, find other verses where A and B are connected, assume without argument that A causes B in these other verses, and suddenly all these verses support this reading of the passage. Then use only the remaining verses and look! they all support your view. Oh, and for good measure, repeat misunderstandings of important opponents’ positions as if they were their positions and consider them refuted. Ignore the fact that an opponent could perform this same set of procedures to “prove” their own view.
Now, I'm not saying whether this pattern is really better or worse than the arguments in other books in this genre (some of the best books on the topic have some real winners), but it's simply that much more obvious here. The relative weakness or lack of argumentation, however, is but one fault. Rivaling this is the lack of clarity about the basic thesis of the entire book, making it hard to know whether one agrees with it or not - or which scholars in the field would ultimately actually agree with it or not. Rosner's main thesis is that the law as law/commandment/covenant is repudiated/abolished/etc. but is re-appropriated as prophecy and wisdom. So far so good - but what does that mean? What does "law as law" mean? What do any of these 'law as X' expressions mean? Unfortunately, they're generally not defined. Law as law/commandment/etc. is especially in need of definition since the whole burden of the first 3 or 4 chapters is to establish that this is abrogated or past - but we’re not really told exactly what this is that is past!
In particular, an explanation of the difference between law as commandment and law as wisdom is something that is needed, since they might seem otherwise to come to the same thing. Law as wisdom does appear to be finally explained, seemingly at the end (!) of the chapter on law as wisdom (pg. 204). Is law as law simply NOT doing whatever this is? Or is law as law really just the law as executioner/condemner/curser? But who thinks that Paul wouldn't object to such roles for the law? (Okay, maybe a few scholars would, but New Perspective or Old, most wouldn’t). This makes it hard to know who Rosner is really disagreeing with here. Rosner, though, seems to be thinking that his thesis (that the law as law has been gotten rid of) is something contentious and thus he actively argues against others - others, however, who as far as we can tell, may be in fact agreeing with him. In that case, however, maybe Rosner is just talking past them, just using his words in a way they wouldn’t - maybe he uses expressions like “the law as covenant is obsolete” differently but they don’t really disagree after all. Whatever’s going on, it’s really not sufficiently clear.
Ultimately, however, despite the above reservations, I agree that what’s going on in Paul with regard to the law has to do with seeing the law under different aspects/functions/roles/interpretations/whatever. It’s just not clear that he’s done the cutting in quite the right way.
Too often the argumentative structure in this book goes something like this: First, dismiss verses that seem to conflict with your views as merely polemical (or do so by reinterpreting them with minimal argument). For other verses, interpret them according to your view by collecting supporting passages (only the ones not already dismissed, of course) and then assuming without argument that these supporting passages are read in a way that supports your interpretation of the verses in question and then find that these passages suddenly support your view. If needed, for instance, when one wants to argue that a passage says that A causes B, find other verses where A and B are connected, assume without argument that A causes B in these other verses, and suddenly all these verses support this reading of the passage. Then use only the remaining verses and look! they all support your view. Oh, and for good measure, repeat misunderstandings of important opponents’ positions as if they were their positions and consider them refuted. Ignore the fact that an opponent could perform this same set of procedures to “prove” their own view.
Now, I'm not saying whether this pattern is really better or worse than the arguments in other books in this genre (some of the best books on the topic have some real winners), but it's simply that much more obvious here. The relative weakness or lack of argumentation, however, is but one fault. Rivaling this is the lack of clarity about the basic thesis of the entire book, making it hard to know whether one agrees with it or not - or which scholars in the field would ultimately actually agree with it or not. Rosner's main thesis is that the law as law/commandment/covenant is repudiated/abolished/etc. but is re-appropriated as prophecy and wisdom. So far so good - but what does that mean? What does "law as law" mean? What do any of these 'law as X' expressions mean? Unfortunately, they're generally not defined. Law as law/commandment/etc. is especially in need of definition since the whole burden of the first 3 or 4 chapters is to establish that this is abrogated or past - but we’re not really told exactly what this is that is past!
In particular, an explanation of the difference between law as commandment and law as wisdom is something that is needed, since they might seem otherwise to come to the same thing. Law as wisdom does appear to be finally explained, seemingly at the end (!) of the chapter on law as wisdom (pg. 204). Is law as law simply NOT doing whatever this is? Or is law as law really just the law as executioner/condemner/curser? But who thinks that Paul wouldn't object to such roles for the law? (Okay, maybe a few scholars would, but New Perspective or Old, most wouldn’t). This makes it hard to know who Rosner is really disagreeing with here. Rosner, though, seems to be thinking that his thesis (that the law as law has been gotten rid of) is something contentious and thus he actively argues against others - others, however, who as far as we can tell, may be in fact agreeing with him. In that case, however, maybe Rosner is just talking past them, just using his words in a way they wouldn’t - maybe he uses expressions like “the law as covenant is obsolete” differently but they don’t really disagree after all. Whatever’s going on, it’s really not sufficiently clear.
Ultimately, however, despite the above reservations, I agree that what’s going on in Paul with regard to the law has to do with seeing the law under different aspects/functions/roles/interpretations/whatever. It’s just not clear that he’s done the cutting in quite the right way.
May 8, 2024
3 Stars - I liked it. This may jump up as I continue to think about the book as I read Scripture.
In Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God, New Testament scholar Brian S. Rosner examines a question that has long been discussed: How does the apostle Paul use Old Testament law in his epistles, with what application for Christians? This is a crucial question for believers to answer, as it affects our views of grace and works in daily life. Rosner argues that rather than fragmenting the law into different parts, Paul instead uses the law as a whole in three different ways: he rejects the law as law-covenant for believers, replaces it with the law of Christ and teaching of the apostles, and also reappropriates it as prophecy or wisdom. Thus, the question for us is not what parts of the law still apply to us today, but how they do so.
The standard breakdown of the law into ceremonial, civic, and moral laws that then do or do not apply to Christians has never been satisfactory to me; it has always felt that though not wrong, something is lacking. So, Rosner’s proposal is very attractive and convincing. I do not think this obliterates the three-fold distinction and still find it helpful in working through reappropriating the law as wisdom, but only after a more robust understanding of how Paul uses the law.
Rosner is very thorough. He cites Scripture profusely, both giving references and quoting extensively in the text. Along with his tables, this makes it easy to follow his argument and see it in Scripture. As he mentions in his conclusion, his proposal does match a “common-sense” reading of Paul. While his book expanded my understanding of Paul and the law, it was not revolutionary, but felt more like a final puzzle piece falling into place.
While I had a few minor disagreements with Rosner, there was nothing concerning about his major argument and I agree with his conclusions. The critique I have regards terms. Rosner helpfully defines what he means by “law” and “believers” early on, things get muddled in the reappropriation section. He shifts from using “law” primarily as law code and covenant to it meaning the Torah more generally. This is within his previous definition, but up to that point he had used it almost entirely as law-code, so the shift was confusing. It also made it seem a little inconsistent with his thesis, to say that Paul uses the law in different ways, and then to spend the repudiation and replacement sections doing those with the law-code, and then focusing on the Torah as a whole when coming to reappropriation. He did eventually come back to specific aspects of the law-code when discussing Christian ethics, but it took a while to get there, and I had to stop and go back and forth throughout the book a couple of times before I understood what he was doing.
Likewise, when he comes to prophecy and wisdom, he doesn’t define either term. Regarding prophecy, he uses multiple alternate terms (promise, narrative prefiguration), which helps, but I would have liked something more concrete. The same is true for wisdom, especially as “wisdom” often carries with it connotations of a “good idea” rather than something that has moral weight, while Rosner uses it for moral instruction as well. This highlights a difference in biblical wisdom and our contemporary use of the term.
To be honest, Paul and the law is not something I have had extensive questions on myself. I have had solid teaching on it and as mentioned above, find Rosner’s argument to be fairly common sense, so at times have been baffled by arguments about it. So, I mostly picked this book to try to better understand why people argue about it! Thus, while Rosner’s argument was not earth-shattering to me, it still deepened my understanding of both Paul and contemporary scholarship, as well as giving me a lot to pay attention to as I continue to read the NT. And, it also gave me a greater sense of how earth-shattering Paul’s writings would have been to Jews and Gentiles in his own day.
In Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God, New Testament scholar Brian S. Rosner examines a question that has long been discussed: How does the apostle Paul use Old Testament law in his epistles, with what application for Christians? This is a crucial question for believers to answer, as it affects our views of grace and works in daily life. Rosner argues that rather than fragmenting the law into different parts, Paul instead uses the law as a whole in three different ways: he rejects the law as law-covenant for believers, replaces it with the law of Christ and teaching of the apostles, and also reappropriates it as prophecy or wisdom. Thus, the question for us is not what parts of the law still apply to us today, but how they do so.
The standard breakdown of the law into ceremonial, civic, and moral laws that then do or do not apply to Christians has never been satisfactory to me; it has always felt that though not wrong, something is lacking. So, Rosner’s proposal is very attractive and convincing. I do not think this obliterates the three-fold distinction and still find it helpful in working through reappropriating the law as wisdom, but only after a more robust understanding of how Paul uses the law.
Rosner is very thorough. He cites Scripture profusely, both giving references and quoting extensively in the text. Along with his tables, this makes it easy to follow his argument and see it in Scripture. As he mentions in his conclusion, his proposal does match a “common-sense” reading of Paul. While his book expanded my understanding of Paul and the law, it was not revolutionary, but felt more like a final puzzle piece falling into place.
While I had a few minor disagreements with Rosner, there was nothing concerning about his major argument and I agree with his conclusions. The critique I have regards terms. Rosner helpfully defines what he means by “law” and “believers” early on, things get muddled in the reappropriation section. He shifts from using “law” primarily as law code and covenant to it meaning the Torah more generally. This is within his previous definition, but up to that point he had used it almost entirely as law-code, so the shift was confusing. It also made it seem a little inconsistent with his thesis, to say that Paul uses the law in different ways, and then to spend the repudiation and replacement sections doing those with the law-code, and then focusing on the Torah as a whole when coming to reappropriation. He did eventually come back to specific aspects of the law-code when discussing Christian ethics, but it took a while to get there, and I had to stop and go back and forth throughout the book a couple of times before I understood what he was doing.
Likewise, when he comes to prophecy and wisdom, he doesn’t define either term. Regarding prophecy, he uses multiple alternate terms (promise, narrative prefiguration), which helps, but I would have liked something more concrete. The same is true for wisdom, especially as “wisdom” often carries with it connotations of a “good idea” rather than something that has moral weight, while Rosner uses it for moral instruction as well. This highlights a difference in biblical wisdom and our contemporary use of the term.
To be honest, Paul and the law is not something I have had extensive questions on myself. I have had solid teaching on it and as mentioned above, find Rosner’s argument to be fairly common sense, so at times have been baffled by arguments about it. So, I mostly picked this book to try to better understand why people argue about it! Thus, while Rosner’s argument was not earth-shattering to me, it still deepened my understanding of both Paul and contemporary scholarship, as well as giving me a lot to pay attention to as I continue to read the NT. And, it also gave me a greater sense of how earth-shattering Paul’s writings would have been to Jews and Gentiles in his own day.
April 24, 2020
Five stars for Rosner. This is an important contribution to Pauline studies, especially for Protestants whose theological framework tends to be, wittingly or not, based on an understanding of the terms "law" and "gospel" (especially in Paul's letter to the Romans) that is deeply influenced by a 16th-century context.
The strength in Rosner's work is what he calls his "hermeneutical solution," which he describes thus: "Rather than asking which bits of the law Paul retains and which he rejects, a hermeneutical approach starts by acknowledging the unity of the law and asks instead, when Paul speaks positively or negatively about the law, in which capacity the law is functioning" (208). Within this approach, Rosner identifies three "signature moves" Paul makes with the law: repudiation, replacement, and reappropriation. As Rosner notes, whether one agrees with every exegetical detail or not, these three signature moves have a pervasive presence across the entire Pauline corpus, and are historically plausible in his 1st-century Jewish/Christian context (208-209).
While Rosner is himself an evangelical and concludes that "our standing with God is not based on our 'doing,'" he does challenge Protestants, perhaps particularly Lutherans, to reconsider assumptions about the terms "law and gospel" and the role of the law in the Christian life from within the Pauline epistles themselves. The "law" for Paul does not (generally) refer specifically to "legal material" or even the Sinai covenant particularly (i.e. "commands" as opposed to "promises,"), but to the Torah as a whole (27).
Likewise, Rosner forces us very simply to deal with what Paul actually says, and does not say, about the law/Torah (within the broad categories of repudiation, replacement, and reappropriation). Some of the results may be surprising. Paul repudiates the law as "law-covenant" for Christians. Unlike Jews, Paul never says that Christians are "under," "in," or "from" the law, nor do they know God's will through the law, "observe" or "keep" the law, or even "walk according to" or "transgress" the law. All these things, and more, are said of Jews, but not Christians (221). For Christians, where one would expect Paul to appeal to the law in those capacities, he replaces the law with something else, including "Christ," "apostolic instruction," "wisdom," "the gospel," "the law of faith," "the law of the Spirit," and more. Rather than "keeping" the law, as if it ruled over them, Christians "fulfill" the law. Christians "do not seek to walk according to the law, but according to the truth of the gospel, in Christ, in newness of resurrection life, by faith, in the light and in step with the Spirit" (221-222). Yet, despite these "negative" functions of the law, Paul reappropriates the law for Christians in two main ways: 1) as prophecy of the gospel of Christ, and 2) as wisdom for Christian living (222). Rosner helpfully shows that the significant overlap in outward ethical instruction between the law and Paul's gospel is rooted, not in arbitrary commands of the law, but more deeply in the life-giving, creative will of God, which is love (178-181).
The only drawback of this book is that the listing of citations can sometimes become laborious and unnecessary. Many times, Rosner could simply make his point about the role of the law in Jewish literature, for example, and leave the references in footnotes, rather than spelling them all out in bullet points. Thus, at times, it can read very much like a systematic listing of proof passages rather than a work of biblical theology. Nonetheless, the data he finds through such analysis does lead to worthwhile conclusions (as seen in the above paragraph), and some of the charts offer helpful summaries.
The strength in Rosner's work is what he calls his "hermeneutical solution," which he describes thus: "Rather than asking which bits of the law Paul retains and which he rejects, a hermeneutical approach starts by acknowledging the unity of the law and asks instead, when Paul speaks positively or negatively about the law, in which capacity the law is functioning" (208). Within this approach, Rosner identifies three "signature moves" Paul makes with the law: repudiation, replacement, and reappropriation. As Rosner notes, whether one agrees with every exegetical detail or not, these three signature moves have a pervasive presence across the entire Pauline corpus, and are historically plausible in his 1st-century Jewish/Christian context (208-209).
While Rosner is himself an evangelical and concludes that "our standing with God is not based on our 'doing,'" he does challenge Protestants, perhaps particularly Lutherans, to reconsider assumptions about the terms "law and gospel" and the role of the law in the Christian life from within the Pauline epistles themselves. The "law" for Paul does not (generally) refer specifically to "legal material" or even the Sinai covenant particularly (i.e. "commands" as opposed to "promises,"), but to the Torah as a whole (27).
Likewise, Rosner forces us very simply to deal with what Paul actually says, and does not say, about the law/Torah (within the broad categories of repudiation, replacement, and reappropriation). Some of the results may be surprising. Paul repudiates the law as "law-covenant" for Christians. Unlike Jews, Paul never says that Christians are "under," "in," or "from" the law, nor do they know God's will through the law, "observe" or "keep" the law, or even "walk according to" or "transgress" the law. All these things, and more, are said of Jews, but not Christians (221). For Christians, where one would expect Paul to appeal to the law in those capacities, he replaces the law with something else, including "Christ," "apostolic instruction," "wisdom," "the gospel," "the law of faith," "the law of the Spirit," and more. Rather than "keeping" the law, as if it ruled over them, Christians "fulfill" the law. Christians "do not seek to walk according to the law, but according to the truth of the gospel, in Christ, in newness of resurrection life, by faith, in the light and in step with the Spirit" (221-222). Yet, despite these "negative" functions of the law, Paul reappropriates the law for Christians in two main ways: 1) as prophecy of the gospel of Christ, and 2) as wisdom for Christian living (222). Rosner helpfully shows that the significant overlap in outward ethical instruction between the law and Paul's gospel is rooted, not in arbitrary commands of the law, but more deeply in the life-giving, creative will of God, which is love (178-181).
The only drawback of this book is that the listing of citations can sometimes become laborious and unnecessary. Many times, Rosner could simply make his point about the role of the law in Jewish literature, for example, and leave the references in footnotes, rather than spelling them all out in bullet points. Thus, at times, it can read very much like a systematic listing of proof passages rather than a work of biblical theology. Nonetheless, the data he finds through such analysis does lead to worthwhile conclusions (as seen in the above paragraph), and some of the charts offer helpful summaries.
May 18, 2022
Although not a super long book, Rosner’s “Paul and the Law” is a key starting place to work through Paul’s seemingly convoluted texts on the Law. In five points, Rosen suggest a way of embracing the wholistic reading of Paul.
First that to be “under the Law” means to be under the Old Covenant. Instead of viewing the works of the Law as either moral instructions (Classical Reform position) or the ceremonial boundaries (New Perspective on Paul position), Rosner understands the works of the Law to be the moral obligations of the whole Old Covenant (just as Paul uses Law in 1 Cor. 14.21 to include the Prophets). In this regard, the “strong” and “weak” controversy deals with how Christians understand the impact of the New Covenant. Based on the usage of circumcision in 1 Corinthians, Rosner offers a four-fold step for Paul being Repudiation (1 Cor. 7.19), Replacement (1 Cor. 9.20-21), Prophetic use (8.5-6), and then Wisdom use (1 Cor. 10.11). A further textual evident is 1 Timothy 1.8-10 that speaks about the lawful way of keeping the Law. That is, the Law is not laid down for the just (or the vindicated) but the lawless. In other words, those under the New Covenant do not need to go back to the Old. I do believer their is merit to this perspective.
Rosner applies this a key text being Lev. 18.5 especially in the recent debates around justification. This is tied to Gal. 3.10 about how the Law brings about a curse or results in judgment. Again, NPP following James D. G. Dunn believe Lev. 18.5 to be speaking about the lengthening of days within Israel not about eternal life. As long as they keep the covenant, they will remain in the Land. But as Rosner points out, Jews believed the promise to be an eschatological fulfillment or about eternal life (even Jesus hints at this in Luke 10.25). One potential solution that Rosner does not explore is a typological argument. Although Lev. 18.5 in context is about the Land Covenant, it may very well be that the New Testament expands this in an eschatological sense (thus agreeing with Christopher Wright’s proposal). This also would offer a way that Paul in Romans 2/James do not contradict Paul’s later text on faith alone justifying. This position is further shown in Paul’s arguments in Romans 2. In comparing the Jews to the Gentiles, the only difference is where both came from. No longer is the Old Covenant the basis of boasting, but instead that Christ fulfilled the Law. It’s this union with Christ as the basis of our boasting. Because of this, Christians at times obey and can instructions from the Law as Christ did but are not Covenantal bound to the Law. Through the Gospel, Apostolic instructions, and wisdom application the believer learns to live in accordance with God. The Law of Faith is that fulfillment or that eschatological awareness of what the Law prophecies. Christians join the New Creation not the Old.
On the basis of this, Rosner submits that the Law is primarily a prophetic tool for the believer. Or the Old Covenant reveals how to read and thus indirectly how to follow Jesus. Abraham’s example of faith is the model to follow, since he left in faith based on the promises of God. I would go as far as to say that the Abrahamic Covenant promised an eschatological life that the Mosaic Law only pointed towards. Therefore, one participates in that obedience through faith. The Law is not irrelevant to believers but instead is didactic and points towards Christ. Although Rosner’s view of “Works of the Law” does echo the NPP view, he does so without dividing the Law. Sometimes I think Rosner’s reaction to the NPP stops him from seeing certain perspectives that can be taken. But this book is an excellent start to a discussion of Paul and the Law.
First that to be “under the Law” means to be under the Old Covenant. Instead of viewing the works of the Law as either moral instructions (Classical Reform position) or the ceremonial boundaries (New Perspective on Paul position), Rosner understands the works of the Law to be the moral obligations of the whole Old Covenant (just as Paul uses Law in 1 Cor. 14.21 to include the Prophets). In this regard, the “strong” and “weak” controversy deals with how Christians understand the impact of the New Covenant. Based on the usage of circumcision in 1 Corinthians, Rosner offers a four-fold step for Paul being Repudiation (1 Cor. 7.19), Replacement (1 Cor. 9.20-21), Prophetic use (8.5-6), and then Wisdom use (1 Cor. 10.11). A further textual evident is 1 Timothy 1.8-10 that speaks about the lawful way of keeping the Law. That is, the Law is not laid down for the just (or the vindicated) but the lawless. In other words, those under the New Covenant do not need to go back to the Old. I do believer their is merit to this perspective.
Rosner applies this a key text being Lev. 18.5 especially in the recent debates around justification. This is tied to Gal. 3.10 about how the Law brings about a curse or results in judgment. Again, NPP following James D. G. Dunn believe Lev. 18.5 to be speaking about the lengthening of days within Israel not about eternal life. As long as they keep the covenant, they will remain in the Land. But as Rosner points out, Jews believed the promise to be an eschatological fulfillment or about eternal life (even Jesus hints at this in Luke 10.25). One potential solution that Rosner does not explore is a typological argument. Although Lev. 18.5 in context is about the Land Covenant, it may very well be that the New Testament expands this in an eschatological sense (thus agreeing with Christopher Wright’s proposal). This also would offer a way that Paul in Romans 2/James do not contradict Paul’s later text on faith alone justifying. This position is further shown in Paul’s arguments in Romans 2. In comparing the Jews to the Gentiles, the only difference is where both came from. No longer is the Old Covenant the basis of boasting, but instead that Christ fulfilled the Law. It’s this union with Christ as the basis of our boasting. Because of this, Christians at times obey and can instructions from the Law as Christ did but are not Covenantal bound to the Law. Through the Gospel, Apostolic instructions, and wisdom application the believer learns to live in accordance with God. The Law of Faith is that fulfillment or that eschatological awareness of what the Law prophecies. Christians join the New Creation not the Old.
On the basis of this, Rosner submits that the Law is primarily a prophetic tool for the believer. Or the Old Covenant reveals how to read and thus indirectly how to follow Jesus. Abraham’s example of faith is the model to follow, since he left in faith based on the promises of God. I would go as far as to say that the Abrahamic Covenant promised an eschatological life that the Mosaic Law only pointed towards. Therefore, one participates in that obedience through faith. The Law is not irrelevant to believers but instead is didactic and points towards Christ. Although Rosner’s view of “Works of the Law” does echo the NPP view, he does so without dividing the Law. Sometimes I think Rosner’s reaction to the NPP stops him from seeing certain perspectives that can be taken. But this book is an excellent start to a discussion of Paul and the Law.
June 5, 2025
A very good introduction and approach to understanding Paul and the Law.
Rosner recognizes the “puzzle of Paul and the law” in scholarship, and his hermeneutical solution is that Paul “repudiates the law as law-covenant, replaces it and reappropriates it as prophecy and as wisdom” (208). As far as repudiation, Rosner argues from explicit treatment of the law in Paul that “Paul does not believe that believers in Christ read the law with the force of law, or if you like, as law” (75). Implicitly, Paul also repudiates the law as law-covenant, for he “conceives of the law as a letter that kills, as a book that brings a curse, as decrees that stand against us, and as commandments to be obeyed” (109). If repudiated, what does Paul put in the law’s place? Rosner points to all three of the law of Christ, the law of faith, and the law of the Spirit (115). Being replaced, however, Rosner argues that the law still has ongoing value and importance for the Christian. Specifically, Paul reappropriates the law as prophecy—“Reading the Law of Moses in tandem with the prophets as testifying to Christ” (138)—and as wisdom—“he has internalized the law, makes reflective and expansive applications, and takes careful notice of its basis in the order of creation and the character of God” (204).
While I found much of this book illuminating and helpful, a few things jump to the forefront. First, he effectively utilized the argument from silence by omission and reversal (84). Paul could have said X, but he did not. In fact, he said Y. I find myself often discounting or avoiding the argument from silence, but Rosner demonstrates how effective it truly can prove when handled rightly. I found his treatment of the law in totality compelling and correspondent to Paul’s usage, complicating the tripartite construction of the law as anything beyond heuristic in value (121–122). I also think the strongest portion of the book came in how well he demonstrated Paul’s reappropriation of each commandment (minus Sabbath), as well as in his looking at Paul’s treatment of sexual ethics. These reaffirmed the value of the law as wisdom while also demonstrating the creation foundations underneath God’s OT and NT prohibitions.
While I do not have many critiques of Rosner’s work, his “law of Christ” comparison lacks force without turning to Matthew, John, or the Johannine epistles. Rosner argues that for Paul, the “law of Christ” amounts to Christ’s example and Christ’s authority (117). This is how he ends up concluding in 1 Cor 7:19 that the “call to keep God’s commandments” amounts to obeying the apostolic instructions” (40). While I’m not expecting a full biblical theology on this point (he can certainly write on Paul if he’d like to!), Jesus’s “new commandment” of love clearly sits underneath Paul’s explication in Rom 13:8. I think that rounding out the entire Bible’s emphasis on this point would illustrate how the law of faith (Rom 3:27–28) and the law of the Spirit (Rom 8:1–2) are actually subordinate to the law of Christ. A lingering question that I do not have a fully formed opinion on yet relates to how Paul reappropriates wisdom in view of Christ. If he sees Law as wisdom, does that flatten how he views OT wisdom, or has that also been reappropriated in some way?
Rosner recognizes the “puzzle of Paul and the law” in scholarship, and his hermeneutical solution is that Paul “repudiates the law as law-covenant, replaces it and reappropriates it as prophecy and as wisdom” (208). As far as repudiation, Rosner argues from explicit treatment of the law in Paul that “Paul does not believe that believers in Christ read the law with the force of law, or if you like, as law” (75). Implicitly, Paul also repudiates the law as law-covenant, for he “conceives of the law as a letter that kills, as a book that brings a curse, as decrees that stand against us, and as commandments to be obeyed” (109). If repudiated, what does Paul put in the law’s place? Rosner points to all three of the law of Christ, the law of faith, and the law of the Spirit (115). Being replaced, however, Rosner argues that the law still has ongoing value and importance for the Christian. Specifically, Paul reappropriates the law as prophecy—“Reading the Law of Moses in tandem with the prophets as testifying to Christ” (138)—and as wisdom—“he has internalized the law, makes reflective and expansive applications, and takes careful notice of its basis in the order of creation and the character of God” (204).
While I found much of this book illuminating and helpful, a few things jump to the forefront. First, he effectively utilized the argument from silence by omission and reversal (84). Paul could have said X, but he did not. In fact, he said Y. I find myself often discounting or avoiding the argument from silence, but Rosner demonstrates how effective it truly can prove when handled rightly. I found his treatment of the law in totality compelling and correspondent to Paul’s usage, complicating the tripartite construction of the law as anything beyond heuristic in value (121–122). I also think the strongest portion of the book came in how well he demonstrated Paul’s reappropriation of each commandment (minus Sabbath), as well as in his looking at Paul’s treatment of sexual ethics. These reaffirmed the value of the law as wisdom while also demonstrating the creation foundations underneath God’s OT and NT prohibitions.
While I do not have many critiques of Rosner’s work, his “law of Christ” comparison lacks force without turning to Matthew, John, or the Johannine epistles. Rosner argues that for Paul, the “law of Christ” amounts to Christ’s example and Christ’s authority (117). This is how he ends up concluding in 1 Cor 7:19 that the “call to keep God’s commandments” amounts to obeying the apostolic instructions” (40). While I’m not expecting a full biblical theology on this point (he can certainly write on Paul if he’d like to!), Jesus’s “new commandment” of love clearly sits underneath Paul’s explication in Rom 13:8. I think that rounding out the entire Bible’s emphasis on this point would illustrate how the law of faith (Rom 3:27–28) and the law of the Spirit (Rom 8:1–2) are actually subordinate to the law of Christ. A lingering question that I do not have a fully formed opinion on yet relates to how Paul reappropriates wisdom in view of Christ. If he sees Law as wisdom, does that flatten how he views OT wisdom, or has that also been reappropriated in some way?
October 2, 2024
"Paul makes the point that not being under the law does not lead to license; the obligation to love brings the law to completion. Paul's point is that loving one's neighbor is the goal of keeping the law. But keeping the laws (even those of the Decalogue, such as laws against adultery, murder, stealing and coveting) does not mean that one will love one's neighbor. But if one loves one's neighbor, one will do more than just keep the law, fulfilling what Paul takes to be its real intent." - Brian Rosner (pg. 193, commenting on Rom. 13:8-10)
Wow. One of the most helpful theology books I've ever read. How Paul interacts with the Mosaic Law will always be a controversial issue in Biblical studies, but I think you'll have a hard time finding a better guide than this book by Brian Rosner. This book caught my attention in part because of the positive reviews by Biblical scholars from a wide range of theological backgrounds. If guys like Michael Vlach, Guy Waters, Ben Witherington, and Donald Hagner all highly recommend a book, especially one on a topic like this, it's probably worth your time.
I cannot go into every passage, but I think Rosner's thesis or main point accurately captures the thrust of the book: "The question to ask in these cases is not which bits of the law are still useful, but in what sense is the law valuable for Christians. In short, Christians are instructed by the law, but not as Jewish law" (pg. 40-41). I knew I was hooked by the first chapter where he unpacks Paul's seemingly contradicting statement in 1 Cor. 7:19 (helpfully explained by the parallel texts of Gal. 5:6 & 6:15). From there to places like 1 Cor. 9:20-21, Rom. 6:14, 1 Tim. 1:8, Rom. 7, etc., Rosner's explanations are incredibly helpful. Christians are not under the law. The law used as law is for the lawless. Paul never says that believers rely on the law, boast in the law, or even have light, knowledge, or truth by the law. On the contrary, Christians boast in God through Christ and rely on Him. We do not find God's will through the law, but through apostolic teaching, wisdom, and the gospel. We are under the law of Christ, the law of faith, and the law of the Spirit. We walk according to the truth of the gospel. The law and the prophets testify to the gospel of righteousness. All of the law is still useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness. If you want to understand what I mean by all of that, read this book!
This will be my first reference in coming to Paul's interaction with the law when coming to those passages. You may not agree with all of Rosner's conclusions, but I guarantee you will think better about the Biblical text. Highly recommended. Heed Carson's advice to read slowly and appreciatively.
Wow. One of the most helpful theology books I've ever read. How Paul interacts with the Mosaic Law will always be a controversial issue in Biblical studies, but I think you'll have a hard time finding a better guide than this book by Brian Rosner. This book caught my attention in part because of the positive reviews by Biblical scholars from a wide range of theological backgrounds. If guys like Michael Vlach, Guy Waters, Ben Witherington, and Donald Hagner all highly recommend a book, especially one on a topic like this, it's probably worth your time.
I cannot go into every passage, but I think Rosner's thesis or main point accurately captures the thrust of the book: "The question to ask in these cases is not which bits of the law are still useful, but in what sense is the law valuable for Christians. In short, Christians are instructed by the law, but not as Jewish law" (pg. 40-41). I knew I was hooked by the first chapter where he unpacks Paul's seemingly contradicting statement in 1 Cor. 7:19 (helpfully explained by the parallel texts of Gal. 5:6 & 6:15). From there to places like 1 Cor. 9:20-21, Rom. 6:14, 1 Tim. 1:8, Rom. 7, etc., Rosner's explanations are incredibly helpful. Christians are not under the law. The law used as law is for the lawless. Paul never says that believers rely on the law, boast in the law, or even have light, knowledge, or truth by the law. On the contrary, Christians boast in God through Christ and rely on Him. We do not find God's will through the law, but through apostolic teaching, wisdom, and the gospel. We are under the law of Christ, the law of faith, and the law of the Spirit. We walk according to the truth of the gospel. The law and the prophets testify to the gospel of righteousness. All of the law is still useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness. If you want to understand what I mean by all of that, read this book!
This will be my first reference in coming to Paul's interaction with the law when coming to those passages. You may not agree with all of Rosner's conclusions, but I guarantee you will think better about the Biblical text. Highly recommended. Heed Carson's advice to read slowly and appreciatively.
November 14, 2024
This is a solid four and a half stars really, and I may revise it up later. A very readable explanation of how to make sense of Paul’s supposed inconsistency surrounding the Jewish law. The author’s eventual conclusion is, as he notes, equivalent to Christian common sense.
Basically, the law is impotent for the purpose of law, but of great worth as prophecy and wisdom. Examples are given throughout, but the summary tables at the end are most helpful.
It isn’t a radical conclusion; rather it is one that is satisfying both to the theologian, who has delved through the evidence in depth, and the ordinary Christian, who can infer it from their regular, casual Bible reading.
Grateful for the man who wrote it, blessing us in two ways. As a half Jew, perhaps he just brings a helpful perspective to the table by nature. And as an Australian, he ensures the text is readable and practical for the intelligent layperson. It isn’t cursed by an overly theoretical, turgid, academic style, as some theology books are.
Very much recommended.
Basically, the law is impotent for the purpose of law, but of great worth as prophecy and wisdom. Examples are given throughout, but the summary tables at the end are most helpful.
It isn’t a radical conclusion; rather it is one that is satisfying both to the theologian, who has delved through the evidence in depth, and the ordinary Christian, who can infer it from their regular, casual Bible reading.
Grateful for the man who wrote it, blessing us in two ways. As a half Jew, perhaps he just brings a helpful perspective to the table by nature. And as an Australian, he ensures the text is readable and practical for the intelligent layperson. It isn’t cursed by an overly theoretical, turgid, academic style, as some theology books are.
Very much recommended.
March 2, 2023
How should we understand Paul's teaching on the Law of Moses, which superficially appears contradictory? Is the law abolished (Ephesians 2:15), or do we uphold it (Romans 3:31)?
Rosner takes a hermeneutical approach to this question, contending that the key to understanding Paul's use of the law is to discern different functions of the law. Rather than suggesting that Paul retains and rejects different parts of the law (moral, ceremonial, civil), Rosner argues that Paul handles the law as a unity in three different ways:
1) Polemical repudiation – treating the law as legal code;
2) Radical replacement – treating the law as a theological motif;
3) Whole-hearted reappropriation – treating the law as a source for expounding the gospel (prophecy) and for doing ethics (wisdom)
His thesis is clearly and carefully argued, addressing a wide range of texts. This is an important book to engage with for anyone preaching through Paul's letters.
Rosner takes a hermeneutical approach to this question, contending that the key to understanding Paul's use of the law is to discern different functions of the law. Rather than suggesting that Paul retains and rejects different parts of the law (moral, ceremonial, civil), Rosner argues that Paul handles the law as a unity in three different ways:
1) Polemical repudiation – treating the law as legal code;
2) Radical replacement – treating the law as a theological motif;
3) Whole-hearted reappropriation – treating the law as a source for expounding the gospel (prophecy) and for doing ethics (wisdom)
His thesis is clearly and carefully argued, addressing a wide range of texts. This is an important book to engage with for anyone preaching through Paul's letters.
December 27, 2020
I really enjoyed this book. I found the exegesis compelling and sharp. It’s challenged many of my preconceived understandings in regards to aspects of the mosaic law, while still driving me to love Christ and pursuer holiness.
If this is a doctrine you are studying, as well as a couple of other books on the subject from various view points, this is a must read.
I give it five stars, but to be honest I would of given it 4 1/2 if I could purely due to chapter 6. It’s wonderful chapter but it is far far too long. It felt like I was slogging through it and it definitely slowed me down as I was I lost much excitement for the book. But I marched on haha and it was well worth it. But if a second edition does come out I beg the editors to halve chapter 6 and just make it two chapters, that can easily easily be done (and should of).
If this is a doctrine you are studying, as well as a couple of other books on the subject from various view points, this is a must read.
I give it five stars, but to be honest I would of given it 4 1/2 if I could purely due to chapter 6. It’s wonderful chapter but it is far far too long. It felt like I was slogging through it and it definitely slowed me down as I was I lost much excitement for the book. But I marched on haha and it was well worth it. But if a second edition does come out I beg the editors to halve chapter 6 and just make it two chapters, that can easily easily be done (and should of).
March 24, 2024
Haven't read many books on the law, but this approach seems very balanced and tries to synthesize all that Paul says about the law, by focussing on what Paul actually does with the law. Paul has three signature moves:
1. Repudiation of the law as law-covenant
2. Replacement of the law with the law of Christ [+law of faith, law of the Spirit]
3. Reappropriation of the law as prophecy, and as wisdom
Or, if Paul is a restaurant proprietor, he fires a waitress, replaces her, and hires the fired waitress again as hostess and manager of the wine service!
A lot of this sounded very obvious, but it was clarifying to have Paul's teaching on the law synthesized into those 3 logical stages. Lots of helpful bits on law-passages. Would've been even better if there were examples about how to teach and apply an OT law passage, particularly how to do step 3 well, as non-apostles....
1. Repudiation of the law as law-covenant
2. Replacement of the law with the law of Christ [+law of faith, law of the Spirit]
3. Reappropriation of the law as prophecy, and as wisdom
Or, if Paul is a restaurant proprietor, he fires a waitress, replaces her, and hires the fired waitress again as hostess and manager of the wine service!
A lot of this sounded very obvious, but it was clarifying to have Paul's teaching on the law synthesized into those 3 logical stages. Lots of helpful bits on law-passages. Would've been even better if there were examples about how to teach and apply an OT law passage, particularly how to do step 3 well, as non-apostles....
May 31, 2023
This was the best dealing with the “puzzle of Paul and the law” that I have come across. Rosner provides a hermeneutical solution to this puzzle to help readers of the New Testament understand Paul’s twin emphases on the free gift of God’s grace in salvation by faith in Christ and also the call to holy living and obedience (209). His solution is three-fold: that Paul repudiates the law as law-covenant and as a legal code; replaces the law with the things of the new covenant age (ie, faith, the Spirit, and lordship of/union with Christ); and reappropriate the law as prophecy and as wisdom. The book is definitely scholarly but should be readable for everyone at the college-reading level.
July 24, 2021
Loved this book. Lots of different questions and confusions I've had over the years are clarified by Rosner's approach to Paul and the Law, and it also provides a clear way of studying additional texts that he did not go into detail about. While I have not read other books on this exact topic, after reading this one I think it's spot on and would strongly recommend it for anyone interested in thinking through this topic.
October 7, 2017
Първа книга на непознат за мен автор. Останах с много добри впечатления. Роснар пише ясно и разбираемо и използва много добра литература.
Книгата приема сериозно разнопосочните изказвания на Павел за Закона и не залита в наивни хармонизации. Без да претендирам, че съм способен да взема достатъчно компетентно отношение тезата на Роснар ми се струва добре аргументирана.
Книгата приема сериозно разнопосочните изказвания на Павел за Закона и не залита в наивни хармонизации. Без да претендирам, че съм способен да взема достатъчно компетентно отношение тезата на Роснар ми се струва добре аргументирана.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews