What do you think?
Rate this book
Paul & the Law: A Contextual Approach
No issue in contemporary Pauline studies is more contested than Paul's view of the law. Headline proponents of the "new perspective" on Paul, such as E.P. Sanders and J.D.G. Dunn, have maintained that the Reformational readings of Paul have led to distorted understandings of first-century Judaism, of Paul and particularly of Paul's diagnosis of the Jewish situation under the law.
Others have responded by arguing that while our understanding of Paul needs to be tuned to the clearer sounds now emanating from Jewish texts of the apostle's day, the basic Reformational insight into Paul's analysis of the human plight remains true to the apostle. Paul was opposing works righteousness.
Paul & The Law is a careful attempt to assault this crucial interpretive problem with a new strategy. Rather than taking a systematic, topical approach, Frank Thielman examines Paul's view of the law in context: the context of each letter's language and argument. While many studies have focused on Paul's explicit statements about the law, Thielman goes further in investigating those contexts where Paul's language is allusive and his view implied.
The result is an illuminating and significant contribution to Pauline studies. Paul & the Law clarifies our understanding of Paul's perspective on the law in the light of his gospel of Jesus Christ, and it reaffirms the coherence and integrity of Pauline theology as it relates to this pivotal axis of his thought.
Others have responded by arguing that while our understanding of Paul needs to be tuned to the clearer sounds now emanating from Jewish texts of the apostle's day, the basic Reformational insight into Paul's analysis of the human plight remains true to the apostle. Paul was opposing works righteousness.
Paul & The Law is a careful attempt to assault this crucial interpretive problem with a new strategy. Rather than taking a systematic, topical approach, Frank Thielman examines Paul's view of the law in context: the context of each letter's language and argument. While many studies have focused on Paul's explicit statements about the law, Thielman goes further in investigating those contexts where Paul's language is allusive and his view implied.
The result is an illuminating and significant contribution to Pauline studies. Paul & the Law clarifies our understanding of Paul's perspective on the law in the light of his gospel of Jesus Christ, and it reaffirms the coherence and integrity of Pauline theology as it relates to this pivotal axis of his thought.
336 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1994
3 people are currently reading
56 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 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 20, 2012
Threads the needle, showing why grace is not lawlessness, but also why law keeping is not the answer:
I would recommend this work as a fascinating study of the role that Paul's concept of holiness plays in relationship to the surpassed Mosaic Law. We find in contemporary theology that there is a disagreement on the nature of sexual purity in regards to the idea of justification by grace alone. The contemporary argument is that anything goes because God does not judge and grace is the better way vs. legalism.
Thielman argues against the Reformed view that Paul's Jewish opponents were legalists that saw the Law as a means of justification through works. Instead, he holds that the common Jewish understanding was that the Law would show the path of obedience, but that since all sinned, the sacrificial system was necessary because God saved not by merit, but by grace.
The reason that Paul fought with the Judaizers was that they still held that the Mosaic Law was necessary for a Christian in order to be saved, and so they had not recognized Christ as the fulfillment of the Law - and over him (Jesus) they had stumbled in the race towards the goal of salvation. For a Christian to add the Mosaic Law back into the requirements of salvation was to fail to see that that Law only pointed to Christ's coming. Christ, the end (telos) of the Law, was the goal at the finish line. Once he had come, the purpose of the Mosaic Law had been accomplished and was no longer necessary. Instead, the promise of a new, eschatological community (prophesied by Ezekiel and Jeremiah) had come. This new community would be characterized by a new covenant written upon the heart. Because the OT prophets knew that Israel had failed and would fail to fulfill the Law, they foresaw a better covenant written upon the heart. To Paul, the Church was this new eschatological community. The new covenant was ratified with blood just as the OT Law, the Mosaic Covenant, was ratified with blood. Now the Law of Christ has replaced the inadequate Law of Moses. This Law, written on the heart, is the Law of Love, or the Summary of the Law that Jesus quoted: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.
Now, however, Paul insists that this new covenant community is called to holiness, and a holy lifestyle, that is exemplified in the holiness of separation from sinful practices, chief among them being idolatry and sexual impurity. These patterns of eschatological sanctification are essential to understanding the nature of God's call for his people to be "holy" and different from the nations of the earth. As this moral law represents the divine nature and character, it cannot be escaped nor surpassed as the Mosaic Law has been. Paul sees the holiness of the people as necessary to fulfill their role as the new Temple of God’s Spirit. As the dwelling place of God, the people of God have become the fulfillment of the Ezekiel's prophecy, which links the prophecy of a new covenant on the heart with the new dwelling place of God (Ez. 37:27, Lev. 26:11-12 & 2 Cor. 6:16). So for Paul, the idea of holiness and the new covenant become so intertwined that they cannot be separated.
What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God - 2 Corinthians 6:16-7:1
This holiness is now accomplished by the agency of the Spirit who is able to do in us what we could not do for ourselves:
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do...so that the JUST REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit - Romans 8:1-5, NRSV
Thus the Holy Spirit enables us to be a holy people, and Paul cannot separate the demand of God for holiness in us from the saving and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. It is not human works of the law that produce holiness in us, but the Spirit. The reason that sexual impurity and idolatry are forbidden and excluded from the NT community is that they violate the norms of love; and love is the character of holiness... So the Law of Christ is the Law of Love, but it is not a law that is empty of content. The "just requirements" of the Law now fulfilled in us by the Spirit - in Paul's mind - necessarily include sexual purity, no thievery, no idolatry, no homosexuality, etc. (I Cor. 6:9). And so there is no contradiction between the idea of being saved by faith through grace, not by works of the flesh, and the new Law of Love, which reflects the character of God in sanctified conduct. We are to be holy because He is holy. Any other lifestyle is incompatible with the character of holiness that now lives in us because a Holy God lives within us, and such conduct defiles his dwelling place.
I would recommend this work as a fascinating study of the role that Paul's concept of holiness plays in relationship to the surpassed Mosaic Law. We find in contemporary theology that there is a disagreement on the nature of sexual purity in regards to the idea of justification by grace alone. The contemporary argument is that anything goes because God does not judge and grace is the better way vs. legalism.
Thielman argues against the Reformed view that Paul's Jewish opponents were legalists that saw the Law as a means of justification through works. Instead, he holds that the common Jewish understanding was that the Law would show the path of obedience, but that since all sinned, the sacrificial system was necessary because God saved not by merit, but by grace.
The reason that Paul fought with the Judaizers was that they still held that the Mosaic Law was necessary for a Christian in order to be saved, and so they had not recognized Christ as the fulfillment of the Law - and over him (Jesus) they had stumbled in the race towards the goal of salvation. For a Christian to add the Mosaic Law back into the requirements of salvation was to fail to see that that Law only pointed to Christ's coming. Christ, the end (telos) of the Law, was the goal at the finish line. Once he had come, the purpose of the Mosaic Law had been accomplished and was no longer necessary. Instead, the promise of a new, eschatological community (prophesied by Ezekiel and Jeremiah) had come. This new community would be characterized by a new covenant written upon the heart. Because the OT prophets knew that Israel had failed and would fail to fulfill the Law, they foresaw a better covenant written upon the heart. To Paul, the Church was this new eschatological community. The new covenant was ratified with blood just as the OT Law, the Mosaic Covenant, was ratified with blood. Now the Law of Christ has replaced the inadequate Law of Moses. This Law, written on the heart, is the Law of Love, or the Summary of the Law that Jesus quoted: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.
Now, however, Paul insists that this new covenant community is called to holiness, and a holy lifestyle, that is exemplified in the holiness of separation from sinful practices, chief among them being idolatry and sexual impurity. These patterns of eschatological sanctification are essential to understanding the nature of God's call for his people to be "holy" and different from the nations of the earth. As this moral law represents the divine nature and character, it cannot be escaped nor surpassed as the Mosaic Law has been. Paul sees the holiness of the people as necessary to fulfill their role as the new Temple of God’s Spirit. As the dwelling place of God, the people of God have become the fulfillment of the Ezekiel's prophecy, which links the prophecy of a new covenant on the heart with the new dwelling place of God (Ez. 37:27, Lev. 26:11-12 & 2 Cor. 6:16). So for Paul, the idea of holiness and the new covenant become so intertwined that they cannot be separated.
What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God - 2 Corinthians 6:16-7:1
This holiness is now accomplished by the agency of the Spirit who is able to do in us what we could not do for ourselves:
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do...so that the JUST REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit - Romans 8:1-5, NRSV
Thus the Holy Spirit enables us to be a holy people, and Paul cannot separate the demand of God for holiness in us from the saving and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. It is not human works of the law that produce holiness in us, but the Spirit. The reason that sexual impurity and idolatry are forbidden and excluded from the NT community is that they violate the norms of love; and love is the character of holiness... So the Law of Christ is the Law of Love, but it is not a law that is empty of content. The "just requirements" of the Law now fulfilled in us by the Spirit - in Paul's mind - necessarily include sexual purity, no thievery, no idolatry, no homosexuality, etc. (I Cor. 6:9). And so there is no contradiction between the idea of being saved by faith through grace, not by works of the flesh, and the new Law of Love, which reflects the character of God in sanctified conduct. We are to be holy because He is holy. Any other lifestyle is incompatible with the character of holiness that now lives in us because a Holy God lives within us, and such conduct defiles his dwelling place.
June 2, 2025
A STUDY OF PAUL’S LETTERS, OLD TESTAMENT LAW, AND THEIR RELATION
Frank Thielman is an ordained Presbyterian (PCA) minister, and professor of New Testament at Beeson Divinity School.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1994 book, “New Testament theology as a credible discipline has fallen on hard times… Paul, once considered the New Testament theologian par excellence, has not surprisingly been a central figure of contention in the debate…
“At the center of this negative evaluation … lies the recent cross-examination of Paul’s view of the Jewish law… what did Paul mean by his famous statement that salvation comes by faith and not by works of the Jewish law?... The following pages argue that this … question CAN receive a positive answer if we follow three methodological procedures. First, we should examine Paul’s view of the law not only topically … but also within the context of each letter… Paul’s letters … are not systematic treatises but real letters, written to address a variety of practical problems within churches for which Paul felt some pastoral responsibility… Second we should give as much attention to those letters in which the law is not a bone of contention as to those in which it is… Third, we should pay careful attention both to our own theological context and to wider cultural context in which Paul’s understanding of the law took shape.” (Pg. 10-11)
He observes, “we discover that although [in 1st Thess] he was writing to a group composed almost entirely of converts from pagan religions, Paul chose to emphasize the continuity between believers in Jesus Christ, whatever their previous background, and the people of God as they are defined in the Mosaic law.” (Pg. 72)
In the letters to the Corinthians, “Paul implies that the Corinthian community, although composed primarily of uncircumcised Gentiles, is the eschatologically restored people of God described by the biblical prophets… [and] will, Paul assumes, resemble the portrait of God’s people painted in the Mosaic law. Like the people described in the Mosaic law… the Corinthian church should be ‘holy’ or separate from those outside the church. Paul has not simply transferred the Jewish law to the church, however, for in his mind the boundaries that mark out the holiness of the restored people of God are not identical to the boundaries laid out in the Mosaic law.” (Pg. 86-87) He adds, “the newly constituted people of God is not, therefore, ‘Israel’ in an unqualified sense. It stands in continuity with ancient Irael and can be described in terms formerly applied to Israel, but is itself a new entity.” (Pg. 88-89)
He observes, “the measure of continuity between Paul and the Mosaic law is balanced by a puzzling amount of discontinuity. First, Ezekiel envisioned a physically restored temple, not a spiritually restored community that could be metaphorically described as God’s temple… Second… Ezekiel banished uncircumcised foreigners from it… Paul, on the other hand, viewed circumcision … and national affiliation … as irrelevant to the boundaries of God’s metaphorical Temple of believers… Paul’s significant departures from the Mosaic law demonstrate that he did not envision a renewal of the Mosaic covenant in the period of restoration.” (Pg. 98-99)
He notes, “many Jews of Paul’s period believed that they labored under the punishment of the law’s curse as a result of their disobedience… to the law… Their primary point of disagreement with Paul would … have been… on his claim that the new covenant had been inaugurated by the blood shed of Jesus…and that the ‘new covenant’ spelled the end of the Mosaic covenant… Since the new covenant is not a reestablishment of the old, however, many differences exist between the two communities defined by the two covenants… the Corinthian believers are not Gentiles, neither are they Jews, but ‘the church of God.’” (Pg. 117-118)
He explains, “For Paul… ‘the law’ continues to exist… The eschatologically provided Spirit … enables the people of God to fulfill the law. To this extent the pattern of Paul’s stance .. reflects what we would expect from a devout Jew who believed that he lived in the era of Israel’s restoration. The differences between Paul and such a Jew, however, are as striking as the similarities… the covenant that God made with Moses … is considered obsolete, and in its place Paul has substituted ‘the law of Christ.’” (Pg. 142)
He adds, “‘The law of faith.’ moreover, marks out a new people of God, whose distinguishing feature is not circumcision but faith in Jesus Christ, and which can therefore include Gentiles as well as Jews. As a result, God’s promise to make Abraham the father of many nations has been fulfilled, for Abraham serves as the father not only of Jewish believers but also of Gentile believers who, like Abraham prior to his circumcision, believe in God and are justified.” (Pg. 188)
He points out, "Because Paul believes that this eschatological era has dawned with the coming of the gospel… and in this form Deuteronomy 30:11-14 has become a reality for believers in a way that it never was for Israel. For Paul, the Mosaic law was disobeyed in Israel’s history, had accomplished its purpose and had come to its divinely appointed end with the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. Because the new order of faith retained some continuity with the Mosaic covenant, however, it could occasionally speak the language of the covenant… the new order of righteousness by faith could speak the language of the Mosaic law.” (Pg. 210)
He summarizes, “The era of the Mosaic law, then, has come to an end. With its end has come the end of sin’s domination over the believer’s life. Gone too are circumcision, sabbath observance, and dietary regulations as boundary markers for the people of the covenant. This … has been replaced with the ‘law of faith’ and a sanctity defined by ‘the pattern of teaching’ handed down to believers in the gospel… the Sinaitic covenant as the sign of the election of God’s people… has come to an end.” (Pg. 213)
He concludes, “Paul’s gospel… follows the pattern of religion revealed in the Mosaic law in critical ways. Like the Mosaic law, the gospel places God’s gracious act of redemption prior to the demand for obedience. It sanctifies the people of God to separate them from others as God’s chosen people and to make them a fit dwelling place for God’s presence. And it supplies specific ethical direction for Paul’s churches…. If this represents a correct understanding of the religion of the Old Testament, and if most Jews of Paul’s time understood these principles and kept them in balance, then what advantage did the gospel have over the Mosaic law from Paul’s perspective, and why would any Jew believe the gospel?... The principle that justification could not come through works of the law therefore was not only an acknowledgement that grace is antecedent to obedience but also a sober reminder that the law had not been kept and Israel had suffered God’s wrath as a result.” (Pg. 241-242)
He continues, “the present study proposes that Paul, along with many Jews of his time, adopted the understanding of the relationship between grace and obedience which emerges from a careful reading of the Old Testament. In that relationship, God’s grace and human effort did not cooperate to produce blessing and life… The difference between Paul and common Judaism … [was] in the position of each within salvation history. The Old Testament looked forward to the restoration of Israel and the establishment of a new covenant… and Paul proclaimed that it had been fulfilled.” (Pg. 245)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying Paul, the Jewish law, and related topics.
Frank Thielman is an ordained Presbyterian (PCA) minister, and professor of New Testament at Beeson Divinity School.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1994 book, “New Testament theology as a credible discipline has fallen on hard times… Paul, once considered the New Testament theologian par excellence, has not surprisingly been a central figure of contention in the debate…
“At the center of this negative evaluation … lies the recent cross-examination of Paul’s view of the Jewish law… what did Paul mean by his famous statement that salvation comes by faith and not by works of the Jewish law?... The following pages argue that this … question CAN receive a positive answer if we follow three methodological procedures. First, we should examine Paul’s view of the law not only topically … but also within the context of each letter… Paul’s letters … are not systematic treatises but real letters, written to address a variety of practical problems within churches for which Paul felt some pastoral responsibility… Second we should give as much attention to those letters in which the law is not a bone of contention as to those in which it is… Third, we should pay careful attention both to our own theological context and to wider cultural context in which Paul’s understanding of the law took shape.” (Pg. 10-11)
He observes, “we discover that although [in 1st Thess] he was writing to a group composed almost entirely of converts from pagan religions, Paul chose to emphasize the continuity between believers in Jesus Christ, whatever their previous background, and the people of God as they are defined in the Mosaic law.” (Pg. 72)
In the letters to the Corinthians, “Paul implies that the Corinthian community, although composed primarily of uncircumcised Gentiles, is the eschatologically restored people of God described by the biblical prophets… [and] will, Paul assumes, resemble the portrait of God’s people painted in the Mosaic law. Like the people described in the Mosaic law… the Corinthian church should be ‘holy’ or separate from those outside the church. Paul has not simply transferred the Jewish law to the church, however, for in his mind the boundaries that mark out the holiness of the restored people of God are not identical to the boundaries laid out in the Mosaic law.” (Pg. 86-87) He adds, “the newly constituted people of God is not, therefore, ‘Israel’ in an unqualified sense. It stands in continuity with ancient Irael and can be described in terms formerly applied to Israel, but is itself a new entity.” (Pg. 88-89)
He observes, “the measure of continuity between Paul and the Mosaic law is balanced by a puzzling amount of discontinuity. First, Ezekiel envisioned a physically restored temple, not a spiritually restored community that could be metaphorically described as God’s temple… Second… Ezekiel banished uncircumcised foreigners from it… Paul, on the other hand, viewed circumcision … and national affiliation … as irrelevant to the boundaries of God’s metaphorical Temple of believers… Paul’s significant departures from the Mosaic law demonstrate that he did not envision a renewal of the Mosaic covenant in the period of restoration.” (Pg. 98-99)
He notes, “many Jews of Paul’s period believed that they labored under the punishment of the law’s curse as a result of their disobedience… to the law… Their primary point of disagreement with Paul would … have been… on his claim that the new covenant had been inaugurated by the blood shed of Jesus…and that the ‘new covenant’ spelled the end of the Mosaic covenant… Since the new covenant is not a reestablishment of the old, however, many differences exist between the two communities defined by the two covenants… the Corinthian believers are not Gentiles, neither are they Jews, but ‘the church of God.’” (Pg. 117-118)
He explains, “For Paul… ‘the law’ continues to exist… The eschatologically provided Spirit … enables the people of God to fulfill the law. To this extent the pattern of Paul’s stance .. reflects what we would expect from a devout Jew who believed that he lived in the era of Israel’s restoration. The differences between Paul and such a Jew, however, are as striking as the similarities… the covenant that God made with Moses … is considered obsolete, and in its place Paul has substituted ‘the law of Christ.’” (Pg. 142)
He adds, “‘The law of faith.’ moreover, marks out a new people of God, whose distinguishing feature is not circumcision but faith in Jesus Christ, and which can therefore include Gentiles as well as Jews. As a result, God’s promise to make Abraham the father of many nations has been fulfilled, for Abraham serves as the father not only of Jewish believers but also of Gentile believers who, like Abraham prior to his circumcision, believe in God and are justified.” (Pg. 188)
He points out, "Because Paul believes that this eschatological era has dawned with the coming of the gospel… and in this form Deuteronomy 30:11-14 has become a reality for believers in a way that it never was for Israel. For Paul, the Mosaic law was disobeyed in Israel’s history, had accomplished its purpose and had come to its divinely appointed end with the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. Because the new order of faith retained some continuity with the Mosaic covenant, however, it could occasionally speak the language of the covenant… the new order of righteousness by faith could speak the language of the Mosaic law.” (Pg. 210)
He summarizes, “The era of the Mosaic law, then, has come to an end. With its end has come the end of sin’s domination over the believer’s life. Gone too are circumcision, sabbath observance, and dietary regulations as boundary markers for the people of the covenant. This … has been replaced with the ‘law of faith’ and a sanctity defined by ‘the pattern of teaching’ handed down to believers in the gospel… the Sinaitic covenant as the sign of the election of God’s people… has come to an end.” (Pg. 213)
He concludes, “Paul’s gospel… follows the pattern of religion revealed in the Mosaic law in critical ways. Like the Mosaic law, the gospel places God’s gracious act of redemption prior to the demand for obedience. It sanctifies the people of God to separate them from others as God’s chosen people and to make them a fit dwelling place for God’s presence. And it supplies specific ethical direction for Paul’s churches…. If this represents a correct understanding of the religion of the Old Testament, and if most Jews of Paul’s time understood these principles and kept them in balance, then what advantage did the gospel have over the Mosaic law from Paul’s perspective, and why would any Jew believe the gospel?... The principle that justification could not come through works of the law therefore was not only an acknowledgement that grace is antecedent to obedience but also a sober reminder that the law had not been kept and Israel had suffered God’s wrath as a result.” (Pg. 241-242)
He continues, “the present study proposes that Paul, along with many Jews of his time, adopted the understanding of the relationship between grace and obedience which emerges from a careful reading of the Old Testament. In that relationship, God’s grace and human effort did not cooperate to produce blessing and life… The difference between Paul and common Judaism … [was] in the position of each within salvation history. The Old Testament looked forward to the restoration of Israel and the establishment of a new covenant… and Paul proclaimed that it had been fulfilled.” (Pg. 245)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying Paul, the Jewish law, and related topics.
July 6, 2012
Still challenges me after all these years.
March 26, 2018
Looking at the complex relationship that exists between Paul and the Law, Thielman traces the relationship through each of Paul’s letters (disputed and undisputed). What arises is a thoughtful articulation of what the Law was to Paul, and how it influenced what he wrote to the different churches.
February 28, 2016
I'd rate it lower for style and fun, but higher in the edifying Systematic Theology category. Essentially he hews quite close to Westerholm, which is the best contribution to the Paul debates in recent years, only he is a bit more favorable to the OT and shows a lot of the parallels and "revised NT readings" (which I liked best in the whole book). He also is quite charitable to ancient Judaism, probably more so than I would be.
June 14, 2012
I believe this is the best work on Paul's understanding of the law in light of the Gospel. Outstanding work by one of the finest NT scholars today
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews