... we [tend to] misunderstand New Testament refutations of the Pharisaical distortions of the law of Moses. They are commonly assaulted with their own (heretical) terminological distortions (i.e., with words like "law"). But the contrast in the New Testament is not between Old and New; the contrast is between Old distorted and Old fulfilled.
(Wilson, Douglas, Federal Husband (Moscow, Canon Press, 1999), p.14)
Posts
1 comment:
Yip.
Cranfield's essay on the law in Romans (vol 2 of his Romans commentary, pp. 845-70), although predating NPP, and so in need of some nuancing, is generally really helpful. He makes a similar point, noting that the Gk of Paul's day had no words for 'legalism', 'legalistic' and 'legalist'. Thus, Paul had no readily available terminology for making law/legalism distinctions.
Post a Comment