This article explores the extent to which Pauline literature and the extant nonreligious legal philosophies were accommodative and complementary of each other on the subject of natural law, how they were all better for it, and how contemporary society too--confronted as it is by challenges posed by pluralism and globalization--could benefit from similar accommodation. The article first establishes that Paul understood legal philosophy and used it appropriately to solve societal problems. Secondly, it appraises and then critiques a plethora of modem and contemporary philosophies of law to indicate why a complementary approach is imperative. Lastly, it evaluates select legal theories in light of what can be described ··as Paul's preferred legal theory-natural law.
Joseph M. Isanga, Response to Blosser, in St. Paul, the Natural Law, and Contemporary Legal Theory 131, 143 (Jane Adolphe, Robert Fastiggi, Michael Vacca, eds. 2012).