The book opens with three authors arguing for basic continuity between Law and Gospel : Willem A. VanGemeren starts with a Reformed perspective which emphasizes that the Law is the ‘perfection of righteousness in Jesus Christ’.  He precedes Greg L. Bahnsen who advocates the minority-held Theonomic view i.e. OT civil laws (especially the penal sanctions) are timeless and absolute and therefore should be enforced by the government.  Walter C. Kaiser Jr., undoubtedly the biggest fish in the pond, then teaches that it is the ‘weightier’ moral matters of the Law which the post-OT Christian must obey (a’la Matthew 23:23).

The final two essays uphold that the relation between Law and Gospel is generally one of discontinuity and antithesis:  Wayne G. Strickland (who is also the editor) presents a Dispensational view i.e. the OT Law was meant as a rule of life for Israel and is no longer binding on the church saint.  Douglas J. Moo wraps up with a modified Lutheran approach which states that given the salvation-historical framework the Mosaic Law, being tied to the Sinaitic covenant, has been completely abrogated in Christ.

Taking a cue from Kaiser’s very systematic responses, here’s a listing of the issues over which the battle ensued:

• Does the Mosaic Law put forth a hypothetical offer of salvation?
• Is the Mosaic Law a unified whole which disallows any distinction between its ceremonial, legal  moral/ethical aspects?  Can the moral elements remain without the ceremonial ones?
• Is Christ the ‘end’ or the ‘goal’ of the Mosaic Law?  What about the Law & Prophets did Jesus say He came to fulfil, and which commandments did He warn everyone against breaking the least of (Matthew 5:17-20)?
• Was Paul’s charge against the Jews for their continued allegiance to the Law or for their misuse of it (i.e. their legalistic righteousness)?  Does the ‘law of righteousness’ in Rom 9:31 refer to the Mosaic Law or not?

A far more interesting book (especially given the present theological climate), IMO, should contain dialogues with the works of Dunn, Wright, Stendahl, Nanos (but his contribution only appeared in '97, a few years after this book came out), Raisanen, Schreiner, Westerholm, Thielman and, of course, Sanders.

To be fair, Kaiser et al take into account the entirety of Scripture and their efforts are aimed at producing big 'systematic theology' pictures on how Law relates to Gospel, whereas the 'Paul & the Law' authors work almost exclusively with the Pauline epistles and Acts.

Nevertheless, although this book should still be a worthwhile read, that there was no mention of Sanders at all makes the authors, IMO, a bit less credible than they could be.
 

Alwyn Lau