search for an evangelical consensus on Paul and the law, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 1997 by Karlberg, Mark W

It is gratifying to read that after extended theological and exegetical study Schreiner remains convinced that "the Reformers understood Paul better than those who are espousing new approaches."24 The central message is this, explains Schreiner: "No one can be justified by the works of the law, for no one keeps perfectly the law's demands."25 This is the (unfulfilled) legal requirement of the covenant between God and humankind, the duty of the creature to the Creator. It is one aspect of the natural (i.e. covenantal) bond between the Father and the son. It distinguishes the first relationship established in creation from subsequent reconciliation between the Redeemer and the redeemed, those formerly estranged from God. Happily, Schreiner is not a blind disciple of Daniel Fuller. He takes exception to Fuller's understanding of the Pauline expression "the works of the law." Schreiner rightly insists that a contrast, not a continuum, between the law and the gospel is contemplated by the apostle. This insight of Schreiner, however, needs to be applied even more consistently than he presently allows.

On the one hand, writes Schreiner, "Paul contrasts faith and works fundamentally, not just as two periods of salvation history."26 The Mosaic covenant is to be regarded as an "interim covenant" spanning the epoch wherein "the law functioned apart from the Spirit."27 Schreiner adds: "The statement that Christ is `the end of the law' in Romans 10:4 seems to harmonize with the idea that the Mosaic covenant was not intended to be in force forever."28 Unfortunately Schreiner does not free himself from the dispensational error of denying the essential role of the Holy Spirit in regenerating, sanctifying and justifying OT believers. Some lingering dispensational distinctives militate against proper understanding of the essential (or substantive) continuity between the OT and the NT.

A pivotal element in Schreiner's argument is his contention that corporate Israel stands condemned under the law of Moses because she has not kept the law perfectly. To say this, however, Schreiner must acknowledge that ancient Israel was in some sense under a covenant of works. But this he is unwilling to do. He favors Moises Silva's exegesis of Gal 3:12. This proposal is nothing other than a variation on the misinterpretation view of the law, the view that Schreiner himself aims to refute in his work.29 The Schreiner-Silva reading still obscures the covenantal contrast drawn by Paul between the principle of faith and the principle of works, between the Abrahamic promise and the Mosaic law. In the words of Timothy George: "It is either law or promise, works or faith, grace or merit."30 That contrast must refer to the covenants themselves. Schreiner readily admits that Paul entertains the proper use of the law, not its misuse. The law was designed to work death and condemnation for those under its dominion. Summarily, Schreiner's failure is twofold: (1) his refusal to grant the operation of the principle of works within the restricted symbolico-typological sphere of the Mosaic economy, and (2) his failure to discern the fundamental disparity between the views of Fuller and Murray on Paul and the law (whatever other similarities there are).31