The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law

This book was very well done. Whether or not you agree with Dr. Schreiner or not, you will definitely get an exegetical explanation of the understanding of Pauline Theology and Law. Mostly, this book was a polemic against Sanders and others that try and show that Pauline theology when looking to law is not only controversial, but contradictory to his own writings and others.

Although this book was written in 1993 and deals primarily with older works by Sanders and no new works by N.T. Wright, Schreiner gives great explanation of why Pauline writings were indeed writing and preaching against a legalistic Judaism. Sanders, and now N.T. Wright, both try and point to the fact that Second Temple Judaism was not legalistic, but saw its works as an outworking of loving the grace of God. Schreiner shows exegetically why this cannot be true through looking at key texts within the writings of Paul. Schreiner, like most, do agree that it was God's plan for this to take place, but the Jews, by the showing of Paul's writing were not following the plans of God in the outworking of the grace shown to them. Because of this you will see explained what works and grace meant to Paul and what justification, grace and works of the law meant to Paul and the bottom line that is answered masterfully is: Why does the Law exist?

Schreiner meticulously goes through much in this book to try and show the real purpose of the writings of Paul and his view of Law. Even though there have been many writings after Schreiner's to this point, Schreiner's work will stand pretty firm because it went from more an exegitical argument instead of a mere argument from the writings of others.

Anytime you get into the writings of Paul or the commentaries in respect to them, you will find it to be a very difficult read. I believe though that Schreiner's work was done in a way for the reader to understand easier than other works that I have encountered. This work is a great read for anyone desiring a better understanding of some of the arguments against the New Perspective of Paul and why the historic reading of the law and Paul still stand. Highly Recommended. Link to Buy.

Chapter Titles:

1. The Meaning of the Term Law in Paul
2. Why the Works of the Law Cannot Save
3. The Purpose of the Law
4. Is Paul Opposing Jewish Legalism?
5. The Temporary Nature of the Mosaic Covenant
6. The Fulfillment of the Law by Christians
7. Did Paul Teach Justification by Works?
8. Soundings from the Rest of the New Testament

The Future of Justification

This book is a tough one. The reason I say this is because I totally agree with John Piper's view, and the Reformation's view of the Pauline theology of justification by faith. I agree with Piper's and the Reformation's view of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. I also disagree with N.T. Wright's, which ultimately started with Schweitzer, Wrede and Sanders, view of Pauline theology and the link they believe it has with second century temple Judaism. Although I do like their premise of trying to understand Old Testament Judaism. I believe though that they get confused in what God intended with the Law and how the Jews misused it.

So, now that I have stated all that, you would expect me to really like Piper's book on the topic. The problem is that I think it is a little too early to try and refute what Wright is coming out and saying. The reason for this is because no one really has a clear understanding of what Wright believes (at least those who I have talked to). Piper even praises Wright for many of his views of Scripture, and also the high view that Wright places on Scripture. But, there are many places in here that Piper says that he "thinks" Wright means this, or that Wright "might" believe that. I would think that it would be better to go ahead and wait this out until we find what Wright is really saying before we try and refute him outright.

With all this said, I also understand why Piper desired to come out with a refutation. I just believe it was too soon. I believe he would have been better to come out with a short intro to some disturbing beliefs of Wright and then wright a polemic on the justification of God and the imputation of Christ. I know that Piper has a couple of books that do this, so maybe an update to those books with this intro would have served better.

The book, because of the confusion of Wright's beliefs, is very hard to follow. There are even parts in the book where I would probably either agree with what Wright is saying, confused on what the problem is, or just am completely confused on what Wright really believes. The book really makes you feel like Piper is as confused as you are with what Wright is trying to say.

I honestly wouuld not recommend this book to anyone trying to get a grasp on what Wright believes, it was very confusing. Because of this, Piper's refutations come out very confusing as well. The best part of the book was the end, when Piper gives a small defense of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

I believe that this book will be something that will be forgotten and will need to be thrown away once we understand more on what Wright is trying to get across in his views of Justification and Pauline theology. Once a better understanding is seen, I would ask Piper to try again. Not Recommended. Link to Buy.