<\/p>
Veronica Koperski has a useful (if overly detailed) overview of current debates on Paul and the Law in her 2001 Paulist Press volume, What Are They Saying About Paul and the Law? <\/i> . Refreshingly, Koperski does not simply review the same old cast of characters, but includes fairly extensive treatments of Reformed NT scholars like Thielman and Silva. She focuses on interpretations of Philippians 3, which also breaks out of the normal routine of concentrating almost exclusive attention on Romans and Galatians. A few summary points: <\/p>\n
1) Describing the \u201cLutheran\u201d view that the NPP writers are writing against, Koperski concentrates not on Luther but on Bultmann. For Bultmann and his followers, the opposition of two kinds of righteousness is \u201can opposition between an attitude of (prideful) human effort and humble acceptance of a gift from God.\u201d Bultmann views the Law and Judaism as a system that encourages boasting in one\u2019s merits, in contrast, Koperski says, to Luther, \u201cwho distinguished between the Jews and Paul\u2019s opponents on the one hand, and the \u2018heretics\u2019 of his own day on the other. Luther could at least find undserstandable the ancient Jewish devotion to the Law because it was given by God.\u201d (Unfortunately, she offers no citations from Luther to back this up.) <\/p>\n
2) She summarizes the options for understanding Paul and the law under three headings, each of which is designed to explain why Paul criticized the law. Bultmann\u2019s is the first of these; the problem with the law is that it\u2019s a system of human effort and encourages pride; Paul\u2019s opposition to the law is an opposition of \u201cHuman Effort vs. Gift of God.\u201d For Sanders and others, the contrast is \u201cThrough Christ vs. not Through Christ\u201d; there is nothing wrong with the law per se, but now that Christ has come trying to achieve righteousness through law is wrong. For Dunn and others, the key problem is the restrictiveness of the Law and especially of first-century interpretations of the law, a restrictiveness that prevents Gentiles from sharing in the blessings of God; thus, the opposition is \u201cParticular vs. Universal.\u201d She also recognizes and discussions scholars who combine these positions in various ways, identifying Westerholm and Byrne as writers who in various ways maintain a basically Bultmannian view of Paul\u2019s critique of the law while accepting that Sanders scored some points by offering a more accurate portrayal of Judaism. <\/p>\n
3) Koperski gives a lot of air time to Moises Silva\u2019s work on Galatians. Silva is critical of Sanders and the NPP because it \u201cresults in (1) an underrating of \u2018legalistic\u2019 elements that are not only present in early Judaism but endemic to the human condition, and (2) the creation of false dichotomies.\u201d (I remember reading or hearing Silva express his astonishment that Sanders was considered revolutionary for spending so much time in the Jewish sources; Silva\u2019s comment was something like, \u201cI thought that was basic equipment for a NT specialist.\u201d) Yet, Silva also recognizes that Paul has multiple targets \u2013 sometimes attacking individual legalism and self-righteousness, at other times attacking Jewish exclusiveness and national pride, and \u201che concedes that exegetes who shift attention . . . to the Jew-Gentiel question undeniably have a point.\u201d Galatians 3 is in fact about the question of who the sons of Abraham are, and not merely about Abraham\u2019s personal justification by faith; Protestant exegesis historically has failed to recognized the prominence of this issue. Silva sees Paul\u2019s gospel as essentially eschatological, and notes that this is the gravamen of his opposition to Judaizers: \u201cPaul has characterized message of the Judaizers as belonging to an earlier stage of salvation history. He thus effectively argues that a manner of existence founded on works of the Law is obsolete from an eschatological perspective. According to Silva, the Law is \u201cflawed\u201d only in the sense that it \u201ccannot impart life\u201d and because \u201crighteousness is not by Law.\u201d Silva argues that righteousness and life are two aspects of the same reality for Paul, both gifts rooted in the resurrection of Jesus. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Veronica Koperski has a useful (if overly detailed) overview of current debates on Paul and the Law in her 2001 Paulist Press volume, What Are They Saying About Paul and the Law? . Refreshingly, Koperski does not simply review the same old cast of characters, but includes fairly extensive treatments of Reformed NT scholars like […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[41],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bible-nt-paul"],"yoast_head":"\n