Incorrect Item Delivered: A Review of Paul’s “Works of the Law” in the Perspective of Second-Century Reception by Matthew J. Thomas

by Nathanael Milne on September 15, 2022

When I was a student at Westminster Seminary California, I once ordered a used volume of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series online. When the package arrived, I was surprised to discover that in its place I had been shipped a commentary on Matthew. It may be a fine commentary on Matthew, even one of the best ever written. No matter how good of a commentary it was, though, it wasn’t what I ordered. The Amazon seller had delivered something different from what was initially promised.

Since 1977, a debate has arisen on the interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification. This debate pits the Old Perspective on Paul (hereafter OPP) against the New Perspective(s) on Paul (hereafter NPP). According to the NPP, Paul wrote in opposition to the use of the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament as group identity markers, not in opposition to the use of the law to attain or maintain individual salvation. In Paul’s “Works of the Law” in the Perspective of Second-Century Reception,1 Matthew J. Thomas aims to contribute to this debate by examining how Paul’s earliest readers interpreted the phrase “works of the law” (ἔργα νόμου) found in Romans 3:20, 28, Galatians 2:16, 3:2, 5, & 10.2 Like the Amazon seller, however, what Thomas delivers in his book is something different from what was initially promised. The evidence presented from second-century Christians supports points of agreement between the OPP and the NPP, not the specific point of disagreement that Thomas hoped to address. In this review, I will first note some positive aspects of his work before moving on to a description of how his methodology caused him to miss his target and an examination of his most salient points.

Positive Aspects

In several important respects this book is commendable. The writing is for the most part clear and organized well. It has footnotes, not endnotes. An English translation is provided for any quotations in a language other than Greek. There are no noticeable typographical, spelling, or grammatical errors. The goal of studying the earliest interpreters of a disputed author is a worthwhile one. Thomas takes care to accurately describe the historical setting of the second-century works examined as much as is reasonably possible without undue speculation. For example, the introduction to the historical setting of the Epistle to Diognetus includes a persuasive argument that it likely should be identified with the “lost” Apology of Quadratus (137–49). The bibliography is thorough and would be a valuable resource for anybody studying second-century Christianity.

The organization of the material is sensible and consistent throughout. In between the introduction (Chapter 1) and the conclusion (Chapter 12), Thomas examines representative writers of the OPP (Chapter 2) and the NPP (Chapter 3) before examining a number of second-century writings one at a time (Chapters 3–11). For the OPP, he covers Martin Luther, John Calvin, Rudolph Bultmann, and Douglas Moo. For the NPP, he covers E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. For the second-century writings, he covers the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas,3 Ignatius of Antioch’s Epistle to the Magnesians and Epistle to the Philadelphians, the Epistle to Diognetus, the Apology of Aristides, Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, Melito of Sardis’ Peri Pascha, and Irenaeus of Lyon’s Against Heresies and Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. He also includes brief examinations of three fragments, the Preaching of Peter, the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus, and the Acts of Paul, and three unorthodox parties, the Ebionites, Marcion, and Ptolemy. For each author covered, Thomas asks three questions about the “works of the law”: 1) “What works of what law?” 2) “What does the practice of these works signify?” 3) “Why are these works not necessary for the Christian?”

Methodology

Thomas’ methodology (14–19) starts with the problem of determining what in the extant second-century writings can be used to show what they thought Paul meant when he used the phrase “works of the law.” We have no second-century commentaries on Paul’s epistles or expositions of the doctrine of justification, so we have to look at other kinds of writings. Thomas’ solution to this problem is to examine “material that shows evidence of conflict with Jewish parties regarding the law and works, whether specific practices or works in general,” those being “discussions that are similar to Paul’s own in Romans and Galatians” (15).

Here is how that methodology strays from the topic of disagreement between the OPP and the NPP. In brief, the OPP takes the phrase “works of the law” to refer to both the moral law and the ceremonial law, while the NPP takes the phrase to refer to the ceremonial law.4 The disagreement, then, is whether our obedience to the moral law plays any role in our justification. Both agree that the ceremonial law plays no role in our justification, and both agree that Christians are not obligated to follow the ceremonial law. By examining all these second-century disputes between Christians and Jews regarding whether or not observance of the ceremonial law is necessary, Thomas has failed to address the actual point of disagreement and has instead addressed points of agreement. The bulk of the work is a very thorough and well researched argument that Christian writers of the second century (excepting the unorthodox Ebionites) taught that Christians are not obligated to follow the ceremonial law. In several places it points out that they also taught that adherence to the ceremonial law plays no role in justification. These points, however, are not in dispute.5

The problem with this methodology shows itself two other ways throughout the book. The third question that Thomas asks for every author under consideration is “Why are these works not necessary for the Christian?” For the NPP and second-century authors, he is referring to the ceremonial law, so that question can be answered. For the OPP authors, however, who hold that “works of the law” refer to both the moral and the ceremonial law, that question implies (though it is never stated explicitly) that the OPP authors are antinomian. He does not ask “Why are these works not necessary for justification?” or “Are these works necessary for the Christian?”—questions which would take into account the distinction the OPP makes between the moral law playing no part in our justification and our ongoing obligation to obey it.

In a similar manner, Thomas uses phrases such as “Paul’s rejection of the works of the law” (36) in an ambiguous manner. In the chapters on the NPP and the second-century writings, it appears to refer to Paul’s rejection of the observance of the works of the law. In the other chapters, however, it is not clear whether it refers to that or to Paul’s rejection of the works of the law in justification. Thomas’ ambiguous usage of this phrase is particularly evident in the section on Martin Luther (29–36). Even when the phrase showed up in the concluding pages (286), I was left wondering whether he was referring there to his initial stated goal of addressing Paul’s rejection of the works of the law in justification or the topic he addressed instead, Paul’s rejection of the observance of the ceremonial law.

If Thomas intended to identify the works that Paul rejected for justification with the works that Paul rejected for observance, the reasoning was never given. It would be begging the question to assume beforehand that they both refer to the ceremonial law, when the specific point under dispute is whether the former refers to both the moral law and the ceremonial law or to the ceremonial law alone. Justin Martyr argued that the ceremonial law was given to Israel by God for them to obey for a time but was never given to them for their justification (Dial. 19–23).6 This shows that Justin distinguished between “what was given to be obeyed” and “what was given for justification,” a point that Thomas covers (219–21). It is not clear why then he would identify the two or fail to clearly take into account the OPP’s distinction between them.

Two Specific Points

The strongest argument in Thomas’ work that relates back to his stated goal is found in his section on Justin Martyr: “As Rokéah notes, Justin exclusively uses the word νόμος to identify these disputed works in the Dialogue. Further, Justin consistently avoids using νόμος to refer to other parts of the law, such as its moral precepts or the Pentateuch’s narrative sections (for which he uses γραφή or γραφαί)” (209). If that were so, one could be led to conclude that Justin likewise interpreted the phrase “works of the law” in Paul’s writings to refer exclusively to the disputed works (i.e., the ceremonial law) as well.

Justin’s use of νόμος in the Dialogue, however, reflects the varied usage of the same word in the New Testament. He used it numerous times to refer to the ceremonial law, since that was a point of debate between Justin and Trypho. He also used it to refer to the new covenant (Dial. 11, 12, 24, 34, 110, 122). He and Trypho both referred to crucifixion as a “curse of the law” in a few different ways (Dial. 32, 89, 90, 94-96, 111). Justin used the phrase “the Law and the Prophets” to refer to the Old Testament (Dial. 51). In another place he referred to a law that all men and angels should be judged by Christ (Dial. 141). He wrote that in the Law of Moses there are “not only precepts which were occasioned by the hardness of your people’s hearts, but also those which in themselves are good, holy, and just” (Dial. 45). Justin even argued that “the whole human race” is “under a curse” because “Cursed be he that abideth not in the words of the book of the Law, and fulfilleth them not in work” (Dial. 95). His following words make it even more clear that he’s referring to the Gentiles’ failure to keep the moral precepts of the law, not the disputed works, because he says that the Gentiles are cursed “since they commit idolatry, seduce youths, and perform other wicked deeds” (Dial. 95). Some of these other uses appear elsewhere in Thomas’ chapter on Justin Martyr (Chapter 9), so one would not expect him to claim in the same chapter that Justin exclusively uses the word νόμος for the ceremonial law.

Another time when Thomas returns to his initial stated goal is found in the conclusion, where he implies that the second-century Christians’ understanding of the “works of the law” corresponds to their doctrine of justification: “Though itself the subject for another study, the common soteriological pattern of the early patristic sources is that initial justification is completely by grace apart from works of any sort, and that final judgment (or final justification) is based on the outworking of this grace in one’s subsequent life” (279).7 Rather than the subject for another study, that should have been the subject of this study. That would have contributed to the debate between the OPP and the NPP, showing how Paul’s earliest readers interpreted his phrase “works of the law” in Romans and Galatians.

I would be interested in examining an argument that second-century Christians held to a two-stage doctrine of justification. At present I am not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence in many of their writings to establish what doctrine of justification they held. Even so, if one grants for the sake of argument that Thomas’ description of their view on justification is correct, it does not require a particular interpretation of the “works of the law.” If they thought that “justified apart from works of the law” meant “justified apart from works of the ceremonial law but not apart from works of the moral law,” where did they get the idea that initial justification is apart from works of any sort? Or to approach it from a different direction, if they held to that view of initial justification, why wouldn’t they understand “justified apart from works of the law” to be referring to that initial justification? And is there anything in their historical setting, in their interactions with Rome, Jews, and Gnostics, that would contribute to that understanding of justification? Thomas does not address any of these questions.

Conclusion

Matthew J. Thomas intended in Paul’s “Works of the Law” in the Perspective of Second-Century Reception to contribute to the debate between the Old Perspective on Paul and the New Perspective(s) on Paul by examining how Paul’s earliest readers interpreted the phrase “works of the law” in Romans and Galatians. Instead, the methodology he used did not match his stated intention, resulting in a book that presents extensive evidence that Paul’s earliest readers taught that Christians are not obligated to follow the ceremonial law, which plays no role in justification. These two points, however, are not an area of disagreement between the OPP and the NPP. What Thomas delivers in his book is different from what he initially promised. There is a claim about Justin Martyr’s use of the word νόμος that appears to be relevant, but it does not stand up to closer examination. There is also a sentence in the conclusion that could become relevant if it were expanded upon with further study.

Thomas is correct to attempt to use historical theology to give further clarity to modern disputes on justification. As he suggests, an examination of the doctrine of justification in the second-century could be a worthwhile study. On the phrase “works of the law” specifically, further research could be done on Origen, Augustine, and the circumstances by which Origen’s view became the dominant one until the time of Martin Luther. Those works could deliver what this work did not.

Endnotes

1. Matthew J. Thomas, Paul’s “Works of the Law” in the Perspective of Second-Century Reception (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2020). I will refer to specific parts of this book with in-text parenthetical chapter or page references.

2. This is the list of verses given by Thomas in footnote 37 on page 15.

3. As Thomas notes, the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas are both dated to the late first century by some scholars.

4. Thomas does not use the terms moral law and ceremonial law in his work, instead referring to moral precepts and to “the works of circumcision, Sabbath, regulations regarding food, sacrifices, observance of Jewish feasts and fasts, and a focus on the temple and Jerusalem” (25) as those laws that distinguished Jews from Gentiles. The distinction is essentially the same as that made in Westminster Confession of Faith 19.3, if one takes the negative references to the Sabbath in the second century as specifically referring to the Jewish observance of the seventh day, not the Christian observance of the first day.

5. Thomas’ description of the setting of Romans especially as a conflict with Jewish parties regarding the law and works rather than an argument for unity in a church composed of both Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ is likely another factor in his methodology going astray.

6. English translations of Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho can be found in Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church Vol. 6, and online (https://ccel.org/ccel/justin_martyr/dialog_with_trypho/anf01). The original Greek text can also be found online (https://scaife.perseus.org/library/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0645.tlg003/).

7. At this point Thomas refers in a footnote to 1 Clement and Polycarp of Smyrna’s Epistle to the Philippians, two early Christian writings which are not examined in the body of his book.

©Nathanael Milne. All Rights Reserved.

Resources

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!