Paul’s ‘Works of the Law’ in the Perspective of Second Century Reception

Abstract

Over the last four decades, debates over “new” and “old” perspectives on Paul, and the meaning of “Law” and “works of the Law,” have focused on Paul’s texts in Romans and Galatians, at least, the character of first-century Judaism(s), and the theological implications of what all of this entails. Now comes Matthew Thomas’s investigation into the manner in which Paul’s expressions were received by second century interpreters, with two aims: first, he “attempts to identify how the phenomena of works of the law were understood in early patristic sources up to the time of Irenaeus in the late second century” (p. 4). Second, he evaluates “how these second century perspectives relate to the conceptions put forward by the old and new perspectives in New Testament debates” (p. 4).Methodologically, Thomas analyzes second-century writings in which matters of law and works are under discussion and that are similar to Paul’s statements in Romans and Galatians (p. 11). Further, he organizes the evidence under three categories. Under “direct evidence,” he analyzes discussions similar to Paul’s that “demonstrate usage of Romans and/or Galatians” (p. 11). “Supporting evidence” includes discussions that are similar to Paul’s but do not explicitly make reference to “works of the Law” or refer directly to Paul’s texts (p. 12). And “circumstantial evidence” are discussions that are similar to Paul’s but only minimally indicate allusion to Paul’s influence (p. 12).Part 2 of Thomas’s work contains two chapters summarizing the old and new perspectives. He surveys Luther, Calvin, Bultmann, and Moo to demonstrate that they view, with some differences, Paul’s negative statements regarding “works of the Law,” while having the torah immediately in view, as a rejection of works in general. That is, Paul’s target is “human efforts or works in general, with the Mosaic law’s practices representing a subset of a broader category of good works, and the law in question being God’s requirements more generally” (p. 38). Surveying the contributions of Sanders, Dunn, and Wright, Thomas concludes that new-perspective interpreters read Paul as having in view the Jewish torah specifically when writing about “works of the Law,” especially “circumcision, laws regarding food, and the observance of Sabbath,” rather than good works in general (pp. 59–60).In part 3, Thomas analyzes a range of early Christian writers in chronological order and organizes them according to the aforementioned schema. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus are the two figures that draw upon Paul’s discussions explicitly, while other sources make less-direct use of Pauline texts and expressions. Thomas finds that these sources consistently have in mind the Jewish torah, the Jewish way of life, and the Mosaic legislation when they argue with reference to the significance of works and law (pp. 215–16).His conclusion is striking. Thomas imagines alternative contemporary discussions among both “old” and “new” perspective interpreters regarding “works” and “works of the Law.” The former discussion stresses the attempt to secure salvation through the pursuit of good works, while the latter refers specifically to Jewish works that indicate identity as a Jew, such as circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath observance. If patristic figures were to overhear each discussion, Thomas claims that they would be mystified by “old” perspective proponents—“perplexed, as if the participants were standing on their heads” (p. 219). What we now call the “new perspective” would be a discussion recognizable to them, while the “viewpoint called the ‘old perspective’ would correspond with an idea that none of them had ever heard of” (p. 220). Because of this, Thomas claims that the “new perspective” is actually quite old, while the “old perspective” “represents a genuine theological novum in relation to early Christian tradition” (p. 226).Thomas’s work on second-century interpreters is a significant contribution to reception or effective-history in general and certainly will have a transformative effect on the character of contemporary interpretation of Paul’s texts.