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

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

Thielman's contextual analysis of Paul on the law and his thematic presentation reflect the author's own systematic proclivity-that is, his contextual approach to Paul, though helpful, does not stand as a corrective to alternative approaches. (And this is the reason why Thielman's work and Schreiner's complement one another so well.) What is distinctive in Thielman's analysis is his employment of the concept of paradox to describe Paul's teaching on the law.

What appears to be old and ready to pass away at the dawning of the new, eschatological age of the Spirit, Thielman argues, may not actually be so. Although the Mosaic covenant had indeed been abolished upon the establishment of the covenant in Christ Jesus, "certain commandments within the law are still valid."32 And although the new covenant signals the breakdown of the ethnic barrier between Jew and Gentile, nevertheless the restored people, the Church, resembles Israel of old. "It stands in continuity with ancient Israel and can be described in terms formerly applied to Israel, but it is itself a new entity."33 The most puzzling feature of the relationship between the OT and the NT, Thielman admits, is the discontinuity. The solution, he suggests, is to be found in the NT reinterpretation of the Mosaic law. "The law of Moses still contains for believers the word of God, but it is interpreted in light of the eschatologically significant events that brought the new people of God into existence."34 What has changed is "the outward boundary markers . . . [not] the general pattern of God's dealings with his people."35 Thielman further observes that the letter/Spirit contrast is neither a contrast between two ways of interpreting the OT and NT, nor between Jewish misuse and proper use of the law, nor between two ways of ethical service. It is a contrast between two distinctive eras, "the first dominated by the law and its condemnation and the second dominated by the Spirit and righteousness."36 In my judgment the same criticisms leveled against Schreiner's interpretation above are equally applicable to Thielman's. Thielman and Schreiner go so far in their argument but no farther. It is like baking a cake and leaving out the leaven. It falls flat.