New Perspective on Paul.

[mishkan]

"The New Perspective starts with Ephesians."

My man! I knew there was a reason I liked Wright.

"...it’s in Ephesians that you get this close correlation between “by grace you are saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works” and therefore, “you Gentiles are part of the same family with the Jews.” That’s Ephesians chapter 2. I didn’t invent that. I merely sort of observed."

When I was in Bible college, I took a class called "Principles of Biblical Interpretation". We spent an entire semester reading and re-reading Ephesians. We outlined every chapter at least 3 or 4 times. We would discuss a verse to death, then come back two days later and discuss it some more!

Maybe that's why the letter eventually sank so deep into my being. Now, I see it as the key to almost all theological questions. It talks about the integration of Jews and Gentiles into one body, the Gospel message, the spiritual gifts, family relationships... almost everything important is in that short letter.

See the relationship with the Gospel and what he said about Ephesians? Interesting you don't hear this today.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

My man! I knew there was a reason I liked Wright.


When I was in Bible college, I took a class called "Principles of Biblical Interpretation". We spent an entire semester reading and re-reading Ephesians. We outlined every chapter at least 3 or 4 times. We would discuss a verse to death, then come back two days later and discuss it some more!

Maybe that's why the letter eventually sank so deep into my being. Now, I see it as the key to almost all theological questions. It talks about the integration of Jews and Gentiles into one body, the Gospel message, the spiritual gifts, family relationships... almost everything important is in that short letter.


I couldn't agree more.

Nanos says the same thing but bases it on the Shema. Wright is much more 'elaborate'.

You can read the interview. Wright is pretty radical in that he's as close to Jewish theology on justification that I've seen in modern times.

http://saidatsouthern.com/nt-wright-interview-mp3/

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2007/11/18/justification-present-and-future/

He talks about justification also in a future sense meaning rewards.

 

[Lulav]

Paul was comfortable asserting...


He is implying that those before him had missed out on a HUGE truth, and yet he constantly quotes the prophets to validate his claims.

We often take his meaning in this text to be, "Nobody ever heard this from God before, but I'm telling you he just told me about it last night." I think that is a wrong understanding. Paul's constant appeals to Scripture indicate to me that his view was, "God told us all this long ago... but we missed it!"

I believe we have the same issue today... only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Sure he talks unendingly about mysteries revealed only to him. Yeshua had 40 days with the 12, why weren't any of these 'mysteries' revealed to them?

I see this as Paul's drash on bits and pieces of the Tenakh, and it does make his own religion just as was stated in that quote I posted. It's not just that you can say Jews saw Paul this way because they didn't want to believe in Messiah, but there is also the other side of the coin that was interpreting his writings the same way.

I have checked many of his references to the Tenakh to support his assertions. The thing is, most times he is speaking to Gentiles who would not know if what he said was true or not, and many times they are not quoted properly. The biggest of these is the one about Abraham which all else that he teaches about the Gentiles is based on.

Either way, you can change the 'perspective' on him any way you want but it still doesn't undo the millions that have died because of his words.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Wright was asked a short definition of the Gospel which you don't here;

" I could try taking a Pauline angle. When Paul talks about “the gospel,” he means “the good news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and therefore the Lord of the world.” Now, that’s about as brief as you can do it."

what's interesting is this and I'll underline the emphasis; the crucified and risen Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and therefore the Lord of the world. Since Jesus is Israel's Messiah He's Lord of the world.

Wright on "The Gospel" – Trevin Wax

Then later on in this interview Wright says;

"The New Perspective starts with Ephesians. I actually think Ephesians was written between Romans and Galatians, but whenever you think it’s written, it’s in Ephesians that you get this close correlation between “by grace you are saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works” and therefore, “you Gentiles are part of the same family with the Jews.” That’s Ephesians chapter 2. I didn’t invent that. I merely sort of observed."

Wright and Enlightenment Arrogance – Trevin Wax



See the relationship with the Gospel and what he said about Ephesians? Interesting you don't here this today.

Nice.

Just be careful with your use of "here" (in this place) and "hear" (perceive with the ears). Twice you wrote "here" when you meant "hear." Not trying to judge, but it just helps readers with correct comprehension.

 

[yonah_mishael]

But the non-Christian Jews of today do not view Him as their Messiah and also, not all of Israel are Jews, tho all Jews are of Israel

Young) Matthew 27:11 And Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor did question him, saying, `Art thou the king of the Jews!' And Jesus said to him, `Thou sayest.'
29 and having plaited him a crown out of thorns they put [it] on his head, and a reed in his right hand, and having kneeled before him, they were mocking him, saying, `Hail, the king of the Jews.'

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

While the significance of this seemingly pointless detail has been neglected by scholars throughout the centuries, you can be certain that it did not escape the notice of the Pharisees and scribes to which Yeshua was speaking. They thoroughly knew their history and were extremely proud of their heritage.
Yeshua wanted those self-righteous Pharisees to know exactly who he was referring to with this parable. This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the House of Judah, the Jews!

Have no idea what you're talking about. Your link doesn't work.

 

[mishkan]

Army or Chair Force?

Army.

I was stationed at the Army Air Base (Erbenheim) near Wiesbaden.

Ah, yes. I made a couple of trips out there.

Also visited a couple of Air Force kasernes (Schierstein?) near the river in Wiesbaden proper, not far from the Amelia Earhart Hotel.

I drove by that hotel once.

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

Here is a paragraph that stuck out in this article;


http://www.jcrelations.net/Paul_s_Contradictions___-_Can_They_Be_Resolved.2189.0.html

"I am prepared to take the next step: Whenever any statement supposedly explicating Paul's thought begins with words like "How could a Jew like Paul say X, Y, Z about the Law," the statement must be regarded as misguided. In all likelihood, Paul is not speaking about the Law and Israel, but rather about the Law and gentile members of the Jesus movement.

One of the major figures in the creation of what I call the "new Paul" is Lloyd Gaston, who puts it this way:

Paul writes to Gentile Christians, dealing with Gentile-Christian problems, foremost among which was the right for Gentiles qua Gentiles, without adopting the Torah of Israel, to full citizenship in the people of God. It is remarkable that in the endless discussion of Paul's understanding of the law, few have asked what a first-century Jew would have thought of the law as it relates to Gentiles.12"

Interesting.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Good thread so far.

 

[Yahudim]

Any comments on this? New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

Any comments on this? New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is different 'perspectives'. The core is tyr Wikipedia that you posted. However the likes of Nanos emphasize Paul being a Torah observant believer and being an Apostle to the Gentiles applying the Torah to the specific audience.

The article I just last posted tries to put Paul in his proper context. Especially trying to bring together Paul being supposively contradictory in being Pro Israel/Pro Torah versus Anti Israel/ Anti Torah.

Here's an interesting interview with Wright, you can either listen it it or read it;

http://saidatsouthern.com/nt-wright-interview-mp3/

 

[mishkan]

Here is a paragraph that stuck out in this article;


Paul's Contradictions  - Can They Be Resolved?

"I am prepared to take the next step: Whenever any statement supposedly explicating Paul's thought begins with words like "How could a Jew like Paul say X, Y, Z about the Law," the statement must be regarded as misguided. In all likelihood, Paul is not speaking about the Law and Israel, but rather about the Law and gentile members of the Jesus movement.

One of the major figures in the creation of what I call the "new Paul" is Lloyd Gaston, who puts it this way:

Paul writes to Gentile Christians, dealing with Gentile-Christian problems, foremost among which was the right for Gentiles qua Gentiles, without adopting the Torah of Israel, to full citizenship in the people of God. It is remarkable that in the endless discussion of Paul's understanding of the law, few have asked what a first-century Jew would have thought of the law as it relates to Gentiles.12"

Interesting.

If Paul were merely a marketer, selling his product through any means of compromise necessary, I might be tempted to agree with this perspective. However, the author of this statement fails to take into account that what Paul taught was a fixed message, outside of himself. A message that was given to him by the Israeli prophets of old, speaking to Israeli audiences, on behalf of the Israeli God, who had chosen Israel uniquely from among the nations.

Micah says it most clearly,

But in the acharit-hayamim it will come about that the mountain of Adonai's house will be established as the most important mountain. It will be regarded more highly than the other hills, and peoples will stream there.

Many Gentiles will go and say, "Come, let's go up to the mountain of Adonai, to the house of the God of Ya`akov! He will teach us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths."

For out of Tziyon will go forth Torah, the word of Adonai from Yerushalayim. He will judge between many peoples and arbitrate for many nations far away. Then they will hammer their swords into plow-blades and their spears into pruning-knives; nations will not raise swords at each other, and they will no longer learn war.

This must be our core message--the ancient call of the prophets tells us that our mission is to restore the planet to the worship of the One True God, where all nations learn the ways of the God of Israel, and pledge allegiance to the Israeli King... the Messiah. A message that divorces Mashiach from his throne in Zion is only half a message.

It is compromise to promote a message of a universal, "cosmic Christ", that brings one message to the Goyim, and a different message to the people of Israel. By creating this dichotomy, we promote the very rift Yeshua intended to heal. We encourage the very divisiveness that lies at the heart of human selfishness and ego. Either there is one king, fulfilling one mission for all the people of the earth... or there is no king at all.

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

If Paul were merely a marketer, selling his product through any means of compromise necessary, I might be tempted to agree with this perspective. However, the author of this statement fails to take into account that what Paul taught was a fixed message, outside of himself. A message that was given to him by the Israeli prophets of old, speaking to Israeli audiences, on behalf of the Israeli God, who had chosen Israel uniquely from among the nations.

Micah says it most clearly,



This must be our core message--the ancient call of the prophets tells us that our mission is to restore the planet to the worship of the One True God, where all nations learn the ways of the God of Israel, and pledge allegiance to the Israeli King... the Messiah. A message that divorces Mashiach from his throne in Zion is only half a message.

It is compromise to promote a message of a universal, "cosmic Christ", that brings one message to the Goyim, and a different message to the people of Israel. By creating this dichotomy, we promote the very rift Yeshua intended to heal. We encourage the very divisiveness that lies at the heart of human selfishness and ego. Either there is one king, fulfilling one mission for all the people of the earth... or there is no king at all.

Right what I posted is an element of the NPP in which alot of Nanos addresses. The likes of Wright don't address Paul a as being a Torah observant believing Jew being Apostle to the Gentiles and the specifics.This aspect of the NPP does a good job in my opinion that Paul was a Torah observant Jew promoting how a Torah observant Apostle to the Gentiles applied scripture to his specific audience in 'their standing' in the Good News with specifics somewhat. At least this element is moving towards the middle compared to the 'old' which says Paul was 'to the I became a Jew....' concept.

 

[mishkan]

Right what I posted is an element of the NPP in which alot of Nanos addresses. The likes of Wright don't address Paul a as being a Torah observant believing Jew being Apostle to the Gentiles and the specifics.This aspect of the NPP does a good job in my opinion that Paul was a Torah observant Jew promoting how a Torah observant Apostle to the Gentiles applied scripture to his specific audience in 'their standing' in the Good News with specifics somewhat. At least this element is moving towards the middle compared to the 'old' which says Paul was 'to the I became a Jew....' concept.

"To the..."?

I assume you meant to say that the traditional message is that "Paul left Judaism in order to be a Christian, but to the Jews he acted like a Jew--changed his spots to win leopards."

Yes?

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

"To the..."?

I assume you meant to say that the traditional message is that "Paul left Judaism in order to be a Christian, but to the Jews he acted like a Jew--changed his spots to win leopards."

Yes?

Yes that's what I'm saying. This aspect of the NPP does a good job as disproving "Paul left Judaism in order to be a Christian, but to the Jews he acted like a Jew--changed his spots to win leopards."

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The likes of Wright don't address Paul a as being a Torah observant believing Jew being Apostle to the Gentiles and the specifics. This aspect of the NPP does a good job in my opinion that Paul was a Torah observant Jew promoting how a Torah observant Apostle to the Gentiles applied scripture to his specific audience in 'their standing' in the Good News with specifics somewhat. At least this element is moving towards the middle compared to the 'old' which says Paul was 'to the I became a Jew....' concept.

 

[Yahudim]

While I am no authority on the Pauline letters, there are a number of elements in this article with which I thoroughly agree. The apocalyptic atmosphere of the soon coming Messianic Kingdom and the accompanying dark days of judgement, in which they were penned, the absence of a New Testament 'lens' through which to interpret these writings at the time of their writing, the impression of Paul as a Torah observant Jew, etc., were all views that I brought to the first reading of this article.

However, my conclusions are another matter entirely. The main doctrinal conflict that Paul had to deal with in his day, was the false assertion that a gentile believer needed to be circumcised and subjugated to the governmental body that held sway over Judea, even though they did not live in the land nor had any claim thereto. Paul's assertions were that the inheritance of the gentile believer, just like the Jewish believer, was both of a physical and spiritual nature in the present and a physical and spiritual inheritance in the future, though different. In my opinion, there was a need for a separation of the Gentiles from the parts of the covenant that directly tied them to the land, because of the curses that had befallen the Jews for the lands sake, the land being a full partner in the covenant. Note the length and cause of the Babylonian diaspora for instance.

I realize that this is a unique perspective. However, I have yet to hear an opposing viewpoint that has swayed me to surrender this one.

I am also in full agreement with Mishkan's perspective that the Torah must be obeyed, each part in full, as it applies to the individual. For me that means He has brought me out of Egypt. One day He will bring me into the land. Until that day I will keep covenant as well as I am able and repent, turn back, when I lose my way. I will join myself to Him and to His children. And one day, there will be only one Elohim, one King, one land and one people - His.

Blessings,

 

[Jerushabelle]

Good day one and all!

While many would call these perspectives new, I tend to believe that the practice of attempting to view Paul in a light other than Scriptural is very old.

The sum total of all we know of Paul is found in Scripture and, as a Christian and Messianic, that is where I feel most comfortable going for my facts regarding Paul as they relate to the faith. From Scripture we know that Paul was an Apostle of Yeshua confirmed by 4 witnesses, one of whom was Yeshua Himself. The other three witnesses were Ananias, Peter and Barnabas. All 4 witnesses were Jewish. Three of the 4 witnesses were Christian believers.

In regard to the "Summary of the New Perspective of Paul", IMO this statement, "These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account." paints Paul out to not only be non-Christian but also non-Jewish. Any written work that portrays the relationship of God to His people as alien is alien to the faith as a whole.

 

[Yahudim]

Good day one and all!

While many would call these perspectives new, I tend to believe that the practice of attempting to view Paul in a light other than Scriptural is very old.

The sum total of all we know of Paul is found in Scripture and, as a Christian and Messianic, that is where I feel most comfortable going for my facts regarding Paul as they relate to the faith. From Scripture we know that Paul was an Apostle of Yeshua confirmed by 4 witnesses, one of whom was Yeshua Himself. The other three witnesses were Ananias, Peter and Barnabas. All 4 witnesses were Jewish. Three of the 4 witnesses were Christian believers.

In regard to the "Summary of the New Perspective of Paul", IMO this statement, "These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account." paints Paul out to not only be non-Christian but also non-Jewish. Any written work that portrays the relationship of God to His people as alien is alien to the faith as a whole.

Shalom Sis,

I think that you may have mistaken the intent of the author. Rather than view Paul from an unscriptural perspective, the intent is to view Paul from the basis of his writings, which if I'm not mistaken, you already regard as scripture.

It is well established the approximate time of most of his letters. Likewise is the dating of the gospels pretty sound. So to assume that Paul's only scriptural resource to be Tanakh is widely accepted in Christian, Jewish and scholastic circles. There are other criteria that is likewise both scriptural and widely agreed upon. The assumptions and conclusions of Christian commentators are what are being discussed here.

Take your shoes off Sis. Sit a spell. That's what I'm doing. It's good practice to look at things from different perspective and engage in a little critical thought. I was just going over this and another article while trying to formulate the 'good question'. We don't have to agree to critically analyze!

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

Good day one and all!

While many would call these perspectives new, I tend to believe that the practice of attempting to view Paul in a light other than Scriptural is very old.

The sum total of all we know of Paul is found in Scripture and, as a Christian and Messianic, that is where I feel most comfortable going for my facts regarding Paul as they relate to the faith. From Scripture we know that Paul was an Apostle of Yeshua confirmed by 4 witnesses, one of whom was Yeshua Himself. The other three witnesses were Ananias, Peter and Barnabas. All 4 witnesses were Jewish. Three of the 4 witnesses were Christian believers.

In regard to the "Summary of the New Perspective of Paul", IMO this statement, "These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account." paints Paul out to not only be non-Christian but also non-Jewish. Any written work that portrays the relationship of God to His people as alien is alien to the faith as a whole.

Actually an aspect about the NPP that interests me is how salvation is not necessarily individualistic, individualistic for this time UNTO salvation as Nanos puts it in regards to restoration, the final redemption which Paul has in mind. Saving souls for the sake of final restoration. In Jewish thought in other words there's really no such thing as individualistic salvation but emphasis on the World to Come. Make sense?

 

[Yahudim]

Sister Jerushabelle,

I have combed the following for anything that would cast Paul in the light of being neither Christian nor Jew and have come up empty. Could you help me understand you perspective a little more clearly?

Krister Stendahl: Paul’s “Robust Conscience”

The more we consider Paul’s writing in this context the less we see the acute psychological dilemma characteristic of the Augustinian-Lutheran interpretation as a whole. Krister Stendahl masterfully explores this in his ground-breaking essay “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.” Paul was certainly aware of his own shortcomings, but, Stendahl asks, “does he ever intimate that he is aware of any sins of his own which would trouble his conscience? It is actually easier to find statements to the contrary. The tone in Acts 23:1, ‘Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day’ (cf. 24:16), prevails also throughout his letters.”8Far from being “simultaneously a sinner and a saint” (simul iustus et peccator), Paul testifies of his clear conscience: “Indeed, this is our boast, the testimony of our conscience: we have behaved in the world with frankness and godly sincerity” (2 Cor. 1:12a). He was aware that he had not yet “arrived” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). He looked forward to a day when “all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he anticipated a favorable verdict (v. 11). He acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.