Did the Reformers Misread Paul? A Historical-Theological Critique of the New Perspective

Bibliographic information:

O’Kelley, Aaron. Did the Reformers Misread Paul? A Historical-Theological Critique of the New Perspective. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2014.



This monograph argues that the new perspective on Paul rests on a faulty hermeneutical presupposition, namely, that covenantal nomism (as advocated by E. P. Sanders as a proper conception of Second Temple Judaism) could not have served as a foil for Paul in the development of a doctrine of justification that resembles that of the Reformation. The basis for this claim is that Sanders’ portrayal of Judaism as grace-based has no bearing on the categories that defined the shape of the doctrine of justification during the Reformation period and beyond. The study neither accepts nor rejects Sanders’ portrayal of Judaism. Instead, it accepts Sanders’ claim for the sake of argument and then demonstrates, through analysis of works of late medieval, Reformation, and post-Reformation theology, that his claim does not warrant a radical revision of the Reformation approach to the Pauline writings. Instead, the author contends that the primary issues that gave shape to the Reformation doctrine of justification are the divine demand for perfect obedience, bicovenantalism, and alien righteousness, not a simplistic antithesis between grace and works.


Paternoster (website: http://www.authenticmedia.co.uk/search/product/scht-did-the-reformers-misread-paul-aaron-o/9781842277942.jhtml)

Leave a Comment