I find it interesting that proponents of the New Perspective on Paul act as though their interpretation of “works of the law” is altogether new or different from anyone in history prior to Krister Stendahl or perhaps George Howard, when in reality, men like Jonathan Edwards, 250 years prior, anticipated the argument that Paul is doing something other than combating Jewish legalism when he uses the phrase “works of the law” in contrast with “faith in Christ.” Supporters of NPP have not sufficiently come to terms with the fact that Roman Catholic theologians of the Medieval church and during the days of the Reformers and Puritans raised the same interpretations so as to secure their “faith plus works” teaching on justification. Edwards wrote:
The apostle doesn’t only say that we aren’t justified by works of the law, but that we are not justified by works, using a general term; as in our text it is said, “unto him that worketh not, but believeth on Him who justifieth,” etc. and in the sixth verse, “God imputeth righteousness without works.” And in ch. 11, v. 6,” And if by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace: but if it is of works, then it is no more of grace; otherwise work is no more work.” So Eph. 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith,…not of works.” By which, there is no reason in the world to understand the apostle [to mean] any other than works in general, as correlates of a reward, or good works, or works of virtue and righteousness. When the Apostle says we are justified or saved not by works, without any such term annexed as “the law,” or any other addition to limit the expression, what warrant have any to confine it to works of a particular law, or institution, excluding others? Are not observances of other Divine laws works, as well as of that?…To say the Apostle means one thing when he says we haven’t been justified by works, another when he says we haven’t been justified by works of the law, when we find the expressions mixed, and used in the same discourse, and when the Apostle is evidently upon the same argument, is very unreasonable; it is to dodge, and fly from Scripture, rather than to open and yield ourselves to its teachings.1
You can also find Sinclair Ferguson making the same observation in regard to Abraham not being justified by works (not ‘works of the law’) in Romans 4. You can listen to that talk here.
[1] Jonathan Edwards The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001) vol. 19 p. 170-171.
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve. (Romans 16:17-18)