Paul, the Law, and the Covenant [Paperback]

A. Andrew Das (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: June 1, 2001

The now familiar “new perspective” asserts that the “covenantal nomism” characteristic of second-temple Judaism softened the Mosaic law’s requirement of perfect obedience. Because of God’s gracious covenant with Israel, manifested in election and the provision of atoning sacrifices, one could be righteous under the law despite occasional failures to obey the law perfectly. This view concludes that Paul, as a first-century Jew, could not have been troubled by the law’s stringent demands, because it was generally understood that the gracious framework of the covenant provided a way of dealing with occasional lapses. Consequently, it is claimed, Paul’s problem with the law must have to do with its misuse as a means of enforcing ethnic boundaries and excluding Gentile believers.

However, as Das demonstrates in this book, whenever the gracious framework of covenantal nomism is called into question, the law’s demands take on central importance. Das traces this development in a number of second-temple Jewish works and especially in the writings of Paul. “Covenantal nomism” is probably an apt characterization of Paul’s opponents, and indeed of Paul’s past life; thus he can assert that formerly he was “blameless” under the law. But now Paul sees God’s grace as active only in Christ. He emphatically denies that God will show special grace in his judgment of Jews; to do so would be favoritism. Similarly, Paul sees no atoning benefit to the sacrificial system. In effect, Paul is no longer a “covenantal nomist.” Since the gracious framework of the covenant has collapsed, all that remains for Paul is the law, with its oppressive requirement of perfect obedience and ethnic exclusivism. Contra the "new perspective," the "works of the law" should not be construed so narrowly as only the law's ethnic exclusivity. Christ is "the end" of the law in general, both in the sense that he is the goal to which the law always pointed, and in that he is the sole agent of God's grace apart from which the law's demands would be impossible.

Editorial Reviews

Review

This is a significant contribution to the ongoing discussion of the place of the Jewish law in the theology of the Apostle Paul. Aware of the new look in Pauline studies, and of the view of works-righteousness to which it is opposed, Dr. Das offers observations on a third way to view the law from the Pauline perspective. The argument is presented in a measured and judicious manner, and will repay careful reading.
Paul J. Achtemeier, Union Theological Seminary

This book is an important exploration of the current debate about Paul s understanding of the Jewish Law in the light of the reevaluation of the issue connected especially with the scholarship of E. P. Sanders. Andrew Das reexamines the Jewish and Pauline texts and explores the nooks and crannies of the recent debates with a sharp eye for dubious arguments. He makes a good case that it is time to move beyond the covenantal nomism theory and combine Sanders s new perspective with a realization that Paul, after all, was concerned about self-righteousness.
David M. Hay, Coe College

Andrew Das has written an ambitious and wide-ranging study that offers a serious sustained critique of the new perspective on Paul s teaching about the Law. He joins Schreiner and Westerholm in challenging the currently popular view of Dunn, Wright, and others that Paul s critique of Law is aimed primarily at Jewish particularistic nationalism. Das has done an impressive job of sifting through the voluminous secondary literature on Paul and the Law, forming intelligent critical judgments, and maintaining a consistent position of his own while engaging most of the key passages in Paul s letters. This book is a solid and professional piece of work that needs to be heeded in contemporary debates about Paul and the Law. I have certainly learned in reading it to be more nuanced in some of my own formulations.
Richard B. Hays, Duke University --Review

About the Author

A. Andrew Das earned his Ph.D. from Union Theological Seminary in Virginia. He is Assistant Professor of Theology and Religion at Elmhurst College in Illinois.

Product Details

• Paperback: 368 pages
• Publisher: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. (June 1, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1565634632
• ISBN-13: 978-1565634633
• Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.7 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,252,337 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

11 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A needed book..., April 19, 2005

By 

theologicalresearcher "theologicalresearcher" (Canada) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Paperback)

For those who have been caught up and influenced by the New Perspective should definitely read this book. Das' book is very scholarly and indepth. He challenges the growing idea in Biblical scholarly circles that Second Temple Judaism was primarily a gracious religion rather than a works-righteousness one. Though Das doesn't totally agree with the traditional Protestant understanding of the Law and Gospel (he agrees, to a certain extent, with the New Perspective that Paul's criticisms against the Law were also against ethnic boundary-markers), he still maintains his course on the straight and narrow by positing that the fundamental disagreement of Paul with Second Temple Judaism was final justification by law-keeping. In chapters 1 and 2, Das does an excellent job showing us that early Judaism did advocate final justification by strict law-keeping mixed with a supposed grace (he refers to statements in the Jubilees, Philo's writings, the Tannaim sect, 4 Ezra, 2 and 3 Baruch, 2 Enoch, and the Testament of Abraham). The rest of the eight chapters (3-10) is a discussion of Paul's view on the relationship between the Law, the covenant, and justification. In chapters 3-5, Das does a good job showing that Paul would have disapproved of the OT covenantal nomistic system by examining various passages (Gal 3:10, 15-17; 4:21-31; 2 Cor 3:1-8; Romans 1-4, 7, 9-11; Phil 3:2-9). Chapters 6-10 are discussions on various key Pauline passages that deal with the Law. One of the key highlights of the book is Das' discussion of Galatians 3:10 (chapter six). He effectively critiques James Dunn's view that "works of the Law" refer to "ethnic boundary markers" (pp. 155-160) and Daniel Fuller's view that it refers to "legalistic misuse of the Law" (pp. 161-3), and convincingly argues that the verse is about the requirement of perfect obedience to the law (a view held by noted evangelical scholars like F. F. Bruce, Colin Kruse, George Ladd, Douglas Moo, and Stephen Westerholm). Thus, according to Gal 3:10, Paul opposes the Law because it couldn't/cannot bring salvation to those who obey it (or try to obey it). Chapters 7-10 deal with various passages in Romans. Though challenging some of the traditional Protestant assumptions of Second Temple Judaism, Das still maintains that Luther and Calvin essentially got it right when they interpreted Paul as combating the Second Temple Jewish idea that people were justified by keeping the Law. Overall, Das does a good job demonstrating that Paul's opposition to the Law was due to the fact that it was antithetical to justification by faith in Christ. It is apparent that there is a clear contradiction between justification by law-keeping (whether meritorious or Spirit-driven) and justification by faith alone. Unfortunately, some evangelical scholars and laymen cannot see that clear truth--the cause of so much confusion regarding on how one is justified before God these days. Das clears up the air on this issue. Historic Protestants have always been right: one cannot mix Law and Gospel together and one cannot claim to hold to sola fide and still maintain that the Law must be fulfilled in order to be justified at the eschaton. It is contradictory and illogical to hold to such a view to say the least.