New Perspective on Paul.

Chaplain David

CF Chaplain
Nov 26, 2007
15,968
2,353
USA
✟284,152.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

Isn't what we know about God, Jesus Christ, Paul, in fact God's written word entirely from Scripture?
 
Upvote 0

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,876
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Isn't what we know about God, Jesus Christ, Paul, in fact God's written word entirely from Scripture?
Not entirely. To attempt to understand any written work, it must rightly be understood from the context of the time, culture and individual biases, both of the author and the gentle reader.

The point of this work is to explore what happens when we first examine what our own biases and preconceived notions. Next we must try to determine the author's perspective. Approaching a written work with an open mind is not enough. We must identify what our biases are beforehand. We must also try to identify the cultural, social, political, etc., environment and the personal perspective of the author within that framework too.

So whether scripture or no, to interpret the intentions of an author from a completely different cultural perspective, philosophy and time generally yields at least some profound misunderstandings. In some cases, the result can be completely antithetical.
 
Upvote 0

Chaplain David

CF Chaplain
Nov 26, 2007
15,968
2,353
USA
✟284,152.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not entirely. To attempt to understand any written work, it must rightly be understood from the context of the time, culture and individual biases, both of the author and the gentle reader.

The point of this work is to explore what happens when we first examine what our own biases and preconceived notions. Next we must try to determine the author's perspective. Approaching a written work with an open mind is not enough. We must identify what our biases are beforehand. We must also try to identify the cultural, social, political, etc., environment and the personal perspective of the author within that framework too.

So whether scripture or no, to interpret the intentions of an author from a completely different cultural perspective, philosophy and time generally yields at least some profound misunderstandings. In some cases, the result can be completely antithetical.
Wasn't the intention of every Biblical author to write what God inspired (told) him to write?
 
Upvote 0

Messianic Jewboy

Senior Veteran
Dec 17, 2006
3,889
165
56
Philadelphia, PA
Visit site
✟12,170.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Not entirely. To attempt to understand any written work, it must rightly be understood from the context of the time, culture and individual biases, both of the author and the gentle reader.

The point of this work is to explore what happens when we first examine what our own biases and preconceived notions. Next we must try to determine the author's perspective. Approaching a written work with an open mind is not enough. We must identify what our biases are beforehand. We must also try to identify the cultural, social, political, etc., environment and the personal perspective of the author within that framework too.

So whether scripture or no, to interpret the intentions of an author from a completely different cultural perspective, philosophy and time generally yields at least some profound misunderstandings. In some cases, the result can be completely antithetical.

Whether you agree with the NPP, for the most part they try to get the context and try hard.
 
Upvote 0

Messianic Jewboy

Senior Veteran
Dec 17, 2006
3,889
165
56
Philadelphia, PA
Visit site
✟12,170.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Wasn't the intention of every Biblical author to write what God inspired (told) him to write?

Yes Paul got his writing from scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit. Let's take Acts 15 as an example. They didn't get what they decreed out of thin air.
 
Upvote 0

mishkan

There's room for YOU in the Mishkan!
Supporter
Dec 28, 2011
1,560
276
Germantown, MD
Visit site
✟40,950.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wasn't the intention of every Biblical author to write what God inspired (told) him to write?
I don't know that one could prove that assumption, "from the Bible, alone". Where does any author in the histories claim to be writing the words of God? Where does Paul assert that he is doing any more than giving rabbinic advice to communities he founded?

The evidence is sparse, at best. What you have stated here is a post-Reformation assumption Luther phrased as the doctrine of "sola scriptura".
 
Upvote 0

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,876
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wasn't the intention of every Biblical author to write what God inspired (told) him to write?
Yes. Of course there are places where Paul wrote that he was speaking from his own understanding. But that's not the point.

Here is an extreme example purely for the sake of illustration. Let's say that somewhere in scripture (this is just an example) that it is written, 'Get down on the floor', in the context of fall on your face and worship. Then a couple of thousand years later those words are read by an adherent to Detroit funk and Disco roller-skating. His conclusion might be that the author was advocating Roller Disco. See what I mean? It's not about what was written. It is about who wrote it and in what context. It is also about the preconceived notions that the reader brings to the page.
 
Upvote 0

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,876
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Whether you agree with the NPP, for the most part they try to get the context and try hard.
I believe that is what I was saying. Perhaps I am not being very clear. Sorry.
 
Upvote 0

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,876
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In this article, there is the following:
For Sanders the language of justification is “transfer terminology.” To be justified is to enter into the covenant people. The distinction between “getting in” and “staying in” is important in this regard. The debate between “faith” and “law,” he writes, is a debate about entry requirements, not about life subsequent to conversion. The law is excluded as an entry requirement into the body of those who will be saved; entrance must be by faith apart from the law. Once Gentiles are “in,” however, they must behave appropriately and fulfill the law in order to retain their status. Elements of the law which create social distinctions between Jews and Gentiles — circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, food laws — also have to be discarded, even though Paul never sought a rational explanation for such a selective use of the law.

I find it difficult to understand how the author could come to the understanding that Paul advocated that Gentiles, once entered in, would selectively disregard Torah requirements such as Sabbath and Kashrut. I know that circumcision is bound up in controversy, but I have not found any evidence of the sort for the latter two mentioned. Can someone help me out here?
 
Upvote 0

Messianic Jewboy

Senior Veteran
Dec 17, 2006
3,889
165
56
Philadelphia, PA
Visit site
✟12,170.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
In this article, there is the following:
For Sanders the language of justification is “transfer terminology.” To be justified is to enter into the covenant people. The distinction between “getting in” and “staying in” is important in this regard. The debate between “faith” and “law,” he writes, is a debate about entry requirements, not about life subsequent to conversion. The law is excluded as an entry requirement into the body of those who will be saved; entrance must be by faith apart from the law. Once Gentiles are “in,” however, they must behave appropriately and fulfill the law in order to retain their status. Elements of the law which create social distinctions between Jews and Gentiles — circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, food laws — also have to be discarded, even though Paul never sought a rational explanation for such a selective use of the law.

I find it difficult to understand how the author could come to the understanding that Paul advocated that Gentiles, once entered in, would selectively disregard Torah requirements such as Sabbath and Kashrut. I know that circumcision is bound up in controversy, but I have not found any evidence of the sort for the latter two mentioned. Can someone help me out here?

Sanders position is old. while Jews did believe that their covenant obligation was to live by Torah (nomos in Greek), they did not believe that their efforts earned them salvation. Salvation came only through God’s grace. On this essential point -- one may not become righteous in God’s eyes through works -- Paul and his Jewish contemporaries agreed.

This is where you are addressing; Sanders calls it covenantal nomism. Membership in the Jewish covenant isn't sufficient for salvation. Both Jews and gentiles stood in need of the salvation that came only through Christ. This pertains to Gentiles. I think this is Sanders stance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mishkan
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Henaynei

Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai Echud! Al pi Adonai...
Sep 6, 2003
21,304
1,805
North Carolina - my heart is with Israel ---
✟43,691.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Constitution
Hmm... Re: Shabbat, Rav Sha'ul said to the Gentile believers, "Moses is taught in the Synagogue." This a clear reference to Shabbat.

Re: kosher, when "Moses" was taught that would include kashrut, and additionally the entry level of observance for the Gentile believers, as said by the Counsel in Jerusalem, included a kosher restriction among the four prohibitions.

b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}
 
  • Like
Reactions: mishkan
Upvote 0

mishkan

There's room for YOU in the Mishkan!
Supporter
Dec 28, 2011
1,560
276
Germantown, MD
Visit site
✟40,950.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hmm... Re: Shabbat, Rav Sha'ul said to the Gentile believers, "Moses is taught in the Synagogue." This a clear reference to Shabbat.

Re: kosher, when "Moses" was taught that would include kashrut, and additionally the entry level of observance for the Gentile believers, as said by the Counsel in Jerusalem, included a kosher restriction among the four prohibitions.

b'Shalom

Absolutely!
 
Upvote 0

Messianic Jewboy

Senior Veteran
Dec 17, 2006
3,889
165
56
Philadelphia, PA
Visit site
✟12,170.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Hmm... Re: Shabbat, Rav Sha'ul said to the Gentile believers, "Moses is taught in the Synagogue." This a clear reference to Shabbat.

Re: kosher, when "Moses" was taught that would include kashrut, and additionally the entry level of observance for the Gentile believers, as said by the Counsel in Jerusalem, included a kosher restriction among the four prohibitions.

b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}

Well yeah the NPP doesn't support that. As I said in another post the NPP at least is swinging towards the middle in relation to the aspect of Paul still being a Torah observant Jew and that the exegesis of 'to the Jews I became like a Jew and to the Gentiles I became like a Gentile'.

The above is what I'm interested in.

If you're are one that believes that all believers are to keep the Law then that aspect of the NPP you wouldn't agree with.

I usually take the good stuff and leave the bad. The likes of Nanos are not silent on the addressing of non Jewish believers in Christ. Wright is somewhat silent because of probably a different aspect.

I think the aspect of the NPP like Nanos is come to be called Extreme NPP. Where exergesis are made in addition to the likes of Wright on that Paul taught the Torah on how it applied to non Jews in Christ and that not all the commands of the Torah applied to non Jews as they do for Jews in Christ.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the what is called the hyper NPP. I'm more interested in Paul not leaving Judaism.
 
Upvote 0

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,876
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sanders position is old. while Jews did believe that their covenant obligation was to live by Torah (nomos in Greek), they did not believe that their efforts earned them salvation. Salvation came only through God’s grace. On this essential point -- one may not become righteous in God’s eyes through works -- Paul and his Jewish contemporaries agreed.

This is where you are addressing; Sanders calls it covenantal nomism. Membership in the Jewish covenant isn't sufficient for salvation. Both Jews and gentiles stood in need of the salvation that came only through Christ. This pertains to Gentiles. I think this is Sanders stance.
Thanks for that. But I wonder just how pervasive that understanding was. If you read the story of Nicodemus, he seemed fully convinced that salvation was a result of his being a Jew. Since he was of the Sanhedrin and was called a teacher of Israel by Y'shua, perhaps it was more pervasive than you might think.

As Y'shua posited otherwise, He indicating the process of being mikvahed in both water and the Spirit as being further requirements of salvation. Care to comment?
 
Upvote 0

Yahudim

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic
Supporter
Sep 30, 2004
3,876
541
Deep in the Heart of Texas
✟129,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Oh, I almost forgot. While Sanders' position was the topic of the paragraph, it was the conclusions of Mark M. Mattison, the author, that I was really addressing. It was his conclusions about Paul's selective observance for Gentiles I questioned, because my take on Paul's instructions were a little different. Frankly I don't see the inconsistencies that Brother Mattison evidently does.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jerushabelle

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
3,244
584
✟6,072.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
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! :D

Of course, I regard all of Paul's words as God's teaching to us through him.
I tend to doubt that Yeshua would go to all the trouble to pick him out for His purposes and then abandon him to fend for himself, don't you? Hence, Paul's resource could very well have been the Lord Himself, the author of all Scripture. Paul was God's tool; His emissary to the Gentiles, a small insight into the justice and wisdom that God employs as Paul was a member of the Prushim. Oh well, anyway, after I printed and read the article before making my first comment, I saw that Scripture was consulted. IMO, however, far too much was read into the black and white of it.
 
Upvote 0

Jerushabelle

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
3,244
584
✟6,072.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Isn't what we know about God, Jesus Christ, Paul, in fact God's written word entirely from Scripture?

I believe so, Chaplain, but I also believe from Scripture's lesson that God and Yeshua can choose to work/communicate through us individually via Ruach HaKodesh or, in Paul's case, directly. And since Ruach HaKodesh, who leads us into all understanding of Scripture, is in all time and place and culture just as God and Yeshua are, His leading is applicable to God's people in whatever time they exist.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
I guess I'll preface this with: I know I'm being ignored for the most part but can any here deny I have logical questions?

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?
Marc what 'time' period are you referring to, the first century or now? Wouldn't that mean like bringing everyone to the same page, but if Paul taught Gentiles didn't need to do as the Jews did, how would that bring Tikkun olam?


Isn't what we know about God, Jesus Christ, Paul, in fact God's written word entirely from Scripture?
No, if you are referring 'Scripture' as the 66 books. There are many other writings, such as the DSS. There are also other historical documents including writings like the War of the Jews

Wasn't the intention of every Biblical author to write what God inspired (told) him to write?
I don't see how that can be applied to every book. For instance Luke's books, both the gospel and the acts were written for Theopolus. Much of which was information gathered by Luke's investigative skills. I think the only book we have that was directly written down besides the Torah books is the book of Revelation.

The book is prefaced with this:

This is the revelation which God gave to Yeshua the Messiah, so that he could show his servants what must happen very soon. He communicated it by sending his angel to his servant Yochanan, 2 who bore witness to the Word of God and to the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah, as much as he saw.
John tells us:

I came to be, in the Spirit, on the Day of the Lord; and I heard behind me a loud voice, like a trumpet, 11 saying, "Write down what you see on a scroll, and send it to the seven Messianic communities - Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea!"
Yes Paul got his writing from scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit. Let's take Acts 15 as an example. They didn't get what they decreed out of thin air.
Acts 15 was not written by Paul, nor was the decree made by him. ;)

Hmm... Re: Shabbat, Rav Sha'ul said to the Gentile believers, "Moses is taught in the Synagogue." This a clear reference to Shabbat.

Re: kosher, when "Moses" was taught that would include kashrut, and additionally the entry level of observance for the Gentile believers, as said by the Counsel in Jerusalem, included a kosher restriction among the four prohibitions.

b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}
I agree that Moses being taught refers to the commandments, however Paul did not teach that. James is the one who made that statement and it was because it was common understanding of the Jewish believers that they should be taken to the synagogues on Shabbat to learn more. :)
 
Upvote 0

Jerushabelle

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
3,244
584
✟6,072.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
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.

Yes, I'm happy to explain my thoughts on this. The relationship of God to His Son, God to His people or Yeshua to His people, can hardly be deemed "alien". We are Yeshua's bride. He is the lover of our souls. I was trying to be open minded as I read the article, despite that which the author read into Scripture, always allowing that Ruach HaKodesh is the One who opens our eyes when we read it, but as soon as I got to this particular statement, (the one I have bolded) my mind and heart became closed to the author's viewpoint. I guess that's the long and the short of it. Except that by reducing the special relationship God, Son and Ruach HaKodesh has with Paul and us, the author is stating IMO, that we or Paul are non-Jewish and non-Christian. I hope that clarifies the thoughts behind my statements.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
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.


Some questions for you belle,

How can you be a Christian and Messianic? I am asking so I can better understand your posts.

There are many other writings that mention Paul, in fact I think I read somewhere that Paul is mentioned more in secular literature than Jesus. Some believe he is also mentioned in the DSS.

I'm having some trouble understanding this part of your post:

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.

You say the four witnesses to Paul being an Apostle of Yeshua are
Ananias, Peter and Barnabas and Yeshua. Three were Christians, what was the forth?

Also can you give passage reference where these four say he was chosen by Yeshua?
 
Upvote 0