New Perspective on Paul

[a-seeker]

I am not sure whether this is a doctrinal topic, but this seemed the most suitable domain for it.

 

I also apologize to any who are utterly unfamiliar with what has been dubbed the "New Perspective".  I simply cannot give a full description of it here; but hopeful a discussion will fill in the blanks.

 

The New Perspective challenges the Old Perspective on Paul.  The Old Perspective (traced primarily back to Luther) saw the decisive difference between Christianity and Judaism as that between Grace and Works (or faith and Law).  Judaism was a "works-righteous" religion, in which one had to accrue sufficient merit to obtain admission to heaven; Christianity declared that no amount of merit was sufficient, and yet, via Jesus, we can obtain admission all the same.

 

The New Perspective looks at Jewish texts of the period "on their own terms".  It finds that ancient Judaism knew all about Grace and faith.  The "laws" which needed to follow were a result of salvation (in their case the Exodus---God saved them first from Egypt, and only then gave them the laws).  There are numerous prayers not only from the New Testament but from non-canonical texts demonstrating that Grace was no foreign concept to Jews before Christ....

 

...the question arises, if the problem with Judaism was not its "works-righteous" bent, then what was the problem with Judaism? And what are we to make of those passages which seem to condemn Judaism as a "works-righteousness" religion?

 

Some theories have been put forward by scholars:

1) there was no problem; Paul didn't understand his own religion.

2) the problem was that Judaism was exclusive; it didn't include Gentiles

3) the problem was that the Law could not produce righteousness.

 

Of course, this topic is very broad: it can lead to an outright rejection of the New Perspective; it can lead to an examination of contrary passages hoping to justify the NP.  It can lead to almost anywhere BUT a discussion of how old the earth is (which I have gotten tired of elsewhere).

 

clb

[Butch5]

I am not sure whether this is a doctrinal topic, but this seemed the most suitable domain for it.

 

I also apologize to any who are utterly unfamiliar with what has been dubbed the "New Perspective".  I simply cannot give a full description of it here; but hopeful a discussion will fill in the blanks.

 

The New Perspective challenges the Old Perspective on Paul.  The Old Perspective (traced primarily back to Luther) saw the decisive difference between Christianity and Judaism as that between Grace and Works (or faith and Law).  Judaism was a "works-righteous" religion, in which one had to accrue sufficient merit to obtain admission to heaven; Christianity declared that no amount of merit was sufficient, and yet, via Jesus, we can obtain admission all the same.

 

The New Perspective looks at Jewish texts of the period "on their own terms".  It finds that ancient Judaism knew all about Grace and faith.  The "laws" which needed to follow were a result of salvation (in their case the Exodus---God saved them first from Egypt, and only then gave them the laws).  There are numerous prayers not only from the New Testament but from non-canonical texts demonstrating that Grace was no foreign concept to Jews before Christ....

 

...the question arises, if the problem with Judaism was not its "works-righteous" bent, then what was the problem with Judaism? And what are we to make of those passages which seem to condemn Judaism as a "works-righteousness" religion?

 

Some theories have been put forward by scholars:

1) there was no problem; Paul didn't understand his own religion.

2) the problem was that Judaism was exclusive; it didn't include Gentiles

3) the problem was that the Law could not produce righteousness.

 

Of course, this topic is very broad: it can lead to an outright rejection of the New Perspective; it can lead to an examination of contrary passages hoping to justify the NP.  It can lead to almost anywhere BUT a discussion of how old the earth is (which I have gotten tired of elsewhere).

 

clb

Hi clb,

 

The New Perspective is actually an old reality. Luther's arguments on works are way off base. I don't know if he didn't understand or deliberately went to far, after all he was trying to oppose the Catholic Church. Many times when one sees a wrong they go to far the other way in trying to correct it. However, Luther's "Faith Alone" cry was way off base.

[2404]

 

I am not sure whether this is a doctrinal topic, but this seemed the most suitable domain for it.

 

I also apologize to any who are utterly unfamiliar with what has been dubbed the "New Perspective".  I simply cannot give a full description of it here; but hopeful a discussion will fill in the blanks.

 

The New Perspective challenges the Old Perspective on Paul.  The Old Perspective (traced primarily back to Luther) saw the decisive difference between Christianity and Judaism as that between Grace and Works (or faith and Law).  Judaism was a "works-righteous" religion, in which one had to accrue sufficient merit to obtain admission to heaven; Christianity declared that no amount of merit was sufficient, and yet, via Jesus, we can obtain admission all the same.

 

The New Perspective looks at Jewish texts of the period "on their own terms".  It finds that ancient Judaism knew all about Grace and faith.  The "laws" which needed to follow were a result of salvation (in their case the Exodus---God saved them first from Egypt, and only then gave them the laws).  There are numerous prayers not only from the New Testament but from non-canonical texts demonstrating that Grace was no foreign concept to Jews before Christ....

 

...the question arises, if the problem with Judaism was not its "works-righteous" bent, then what was the problem with Judaism? And what are we to make of those passages which seem to condemn Judaism as a "works-righteousness" religion?

 

Some theories have been put forward by scholars:

1) there was no problem; Paul didn't understand his own religion.

2) the problem was that Judaism was exclusive; it didn't include Gentiles

3) the problem was that the Law could not produce righteousness.

 

Of course, this topic is very broad: it can lead to an outright rejection of the New Perspective; it can lead to an examination of contrary passages hoping to justify the NP.  It can lead to almost anywhere BUT a discussion of how old the earth is (which I have gotten tired of elsewhere).

 

clb

Hi clb,

 

The New Perspective is actually an old reality. Luther's arguments on works are way off base. I don't know if he didn't understand or deliberately went to far, after all he was trying to oppose the Catholic Church. Many times when one sees a wrong they go to far the other way in trying to correct it. However, Luther's "Faith Alone" cry was way off base.

 

We may look at that era and see scriptural short falls but it was a large step in its time.

Aside from what man did with it to justify their own agendas.

Do you not feel that it was a moving of God's Spirit?

[Butch5]

 

 

I am not sure whether this is a doctrinal topic, but this seemed the most suitable domain for it.

 

I also apologize to any who are utterly unfamiliar with what has been dubbed the "New Perspective".  I simply cannot give a full description of it here; but hopeful a discussion will fill in the blanks.

 

The New Perspective challenges the Old Perspective on Paul.  The Old Perspective (traced primarily back to Luther) saw the decisive difference between Christianity and Judaism as that between Grace and Works (or faith and Law).  Judaism was a "works-righteous" religion, in which one had to accrue sufficient merit to obtain admission to heaven; Christianity declared that no amount of merit was sufficient, and yet, via Jesus, we can obtain admission all the same.

 

The New Perspective looks at Jewish texts of the period "on their own terms".  It finds that ancient Judaism knew all about Grace and faith.  The "laws" which needed to follow were a result of salvation (in their case the Exodus---God saved them first from Egypt, and only then gave them the laws).  There are numerous prayers not only from the New Testament but from non-canonical texts demonstrating that Grace was no foreign concept to Jews before Christ....

 

...the question arises, if the problem with Judaism was not its "works-righteous" bent, then what was the problem with Judaism? And what are we to make of those passages which seem to condemn Judaism as a "works-righteousness" religion?

 

Some theories have been put forward by scholars:

1) there was no problem; Paul didn't understand his own religion.

2) the problem was that Judaism was exclusive; it didn't include Gentiles

3) the problem was that the Law could not produce righteousness.

 

Of course, this topic is very broad: it can lead to an outright rejection of the New Perspective; it can lead to an examination of contrary passages hoping to justify the NP.  It can lead to almost anywhere BUT a discussion of how old the earth is (which I have gotten tired of elsewhere).

 

clb

Hi clb,

 

The New Perspective is actually an old reality. Luther's arguments on works are way off base. I don't know if he didn't understand or deliberately went to far, after all he was trying to oppose the Catholic Church. Many times when one sees a wrong they go to far the other way in trying to correct it. However, Luther's "Faith Alone" cry was way off base.

 

We may look at that era and see scriptural short falls but it was a large step in its time.

Aside from what man did with it to justify their own agendas.

Do you not feel that it was a moving of God's Spirit?

 

With what I know of Luther and Calvin I find it hard to believe that it was of the Lord.

[2404]

 

 

 

I am not sure whether this is a doctrinal topic, but this seemed the most suitable domain for it.

 

I also apologize to any who are utterly unfamiliar with what has been dubbed the "New Perspective".  I simply cannot give a full description of it here; but hopeful a discussion will fill in the blanks.

 

The New Perspective challenges the Old Perspective on Paul.  The Old Perspective (traced primarily back to Luther) saw the decisive difference between Christianity and Judaism as that between Grace and Works (or faith and Law).  Judaism was a "works-righteous" religion, in which one had to accrue sufficient merit to obtain admission to heaven; Christianity declared that no amount of merit was sufficient, and yet, via Jesus, we can obtain admission all the same.

 

The New Perspective looks at Jewish texts of the period "on their own terms".  It finds that ancient Judaism knew all about Grace and faith.  The "laws" which needed to follow were a result of salvation (in their case the Exodus---God saved them first from Egypt, and only then gave them the laws).  There are numerous prayers not only from the New Testament but from non-canonical texts demonstrating that Grace was no foreign concept to Jews before Christ....

 

...the question arises, if the problem with Judaism was not its "works-righteous" bent, then what was the problem with Judaism? And what are we to make of those passages which seem to condemn Judaism as a "works-righteousness" religion?

 

Some theories have been put forward by scholars:

1) there was no problem; Paul didn't understand his own religion.

2) the problem was that Judaism was exclusive; it didn't include Gentiles

3) the problem was that the Law could not produce righteousness.

 

Of course, this topic is very broad: it can lead to an outright rejection of the New Perspective; it can lead to an examination of contrary passages hoping to justify the NP.  It can lead to almost anywhere BUT a discussion of how old the earth is (which I have gotten tired of elsewhere).

 

clb

Hi clb,

 

The New Perspective is actually an old reality. Luther's arguments on works are way off base. I don't know if he didn't understand or deliberately went to far, after all he was trying to oppose the Catholic Church. Many times when one sees a wrong they go to far the other way in trying to correct it. However, Luther's "Faith Alone" cry was way off base.

 

We may look at that era and see scriptural short falls but it was a large step in its time.

Aside from what man did with it to justify their own agendas.

Do you not feel that it was a moving of God's Spirit?

 

With what I know of Luther and Calvin I find it hard to believe that it was of the Lord.

 

Do you think we are where we should be?

I'm thinking when we are ready we're out of here.

[ayin jade]

 

 

3) the problem was that the Law could not produce righteousness.

 

 

The Law does not produce righteousness. It is faith that saved them according to Hebrews 11. The folks in the old testament looked forward to the Messiah to save them. The pharisees looked to themselves for righteousness, which fell woefully short.

[Butch5]

 

 

 

 

I am not sure whether this is a doctrinal topic, but this seemed the most suitable domain for it.

 

I also apologize to any who are utterly unfamiliar with what has been dubbed the "New Perspective".  I simply cannot give a full description of it here; but hopeful a discussion will fill in the blanks.

 

The New Perspective challenges the Old Perspective on Paul.  The Old Perspective (traced primarily back to Luther) saw the decisive difference between Christianity and Judaism as that between Grace and Works (or faith and Law).  Judaism was a "works-righteous" religion, in which one had to accrue sufficient merit to obtain admission to heaven; Christianity declared that no amount of merit was sufficient, and yet, via Jesus, we can obtain admission all the same.

 

The New Perspective looks at Jewish texts of the period "on their own terms".  It finds that ancient Judaism knew all about Grace and faith.  The "laws" which needed to follow were a result of salvation (in their case the Exodus---God saved them first from Egypt, and only then gave them the laws).  There are numerous prayers not only from the New Testament but from non-canonical texts demonstrating that Grace was no foreign concept to Jews before Christ....

 

...the question arises, if the problem with Judaism was not its "works-righteous" bent, then what was the problem with Judaism? And what are we to make of those passages which seem to condemn Judaism as a "works-righteousness" religion?

 

Some theories have been put forward by scholars:

1) there was no problem; Paul didn't understand his own religion.

2) the problem was that Judaism was exclusive; it didn't include Gentiles

3) the problem was that the Law could not produce righteousness.

 

Of course, this topic is very broad: it can lead to an outright rejection of the New Perspective; it can lead to an examination of contrary passages hoping to justify the NP.  It can lead to almost anywhere BUT a discussion of how old the earth is (which I have gotten tired of elsewhere).

 

clb

Hi clb,

 

The New Perspective is actually an old reality. Luther's arguments on works are way off base. I don't know if he didn't understand or deliberately went to far, after all he was trying to oppose the Catholic Church. Many times when one sees a wrong they go to far the other way in trying to correct it. However, Luther's "Faith Alone" cry was way off base.

 

We may look at that era and see scriptural short falls but it was a large step in its time.

Aside from what man did with it to justify their own agendas.

Do you not feel that it was a moving of God's Spirit?

 

With what I know of Luther and Calvin I find it hard to believe that it was of the Lord.

 

Do you think we are where we should be?

I'm thinking when we are ready we're out of here.

 

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Qnts2]

Judaism is a religion of faith, grace and works. Perhaps the standard Christian perspective of Judaism is works and Christianity is grace, is incorrect in that it has a lower view of Judaism then is reality. However, Judaism does miss Jesus, so there is no eternal salvation in Judaism.

 

God gave the Mosaic law to the Jewish people, so dismiss the law as bad would be dismissing what God gave as bad. The NT never calls the law bad, but says that people fall short of God and therefore fall short of Gods laws. The fault is not with the law, but with the people.  

 

Paul understood Judaism.

 

Judaism was supposed to be exclusive (although Gentiles could convert to become a part of the Jewish people, in light of Jesus, it was not needed).

 

Finally, the keeping the law did produce a form of righteousness, but it was mans righteousness which is insufficient compared to the righteousness of God. Throughout the OT, those who loved God and therefore were obedient to the law, were said to be righteous. And keeping the law was said to be righteous. There was no promise of eternal salvation in the Mosaic covenant. There was a temporal salvation promised by keeping the law, not eternal salvation.       

[Guest shiloh357]

One striking difference between the Bible's teachings on salvation and Judaism's teaching on salvation is that in Judaism salvation is corporate not personal.  This is due in part to the fact that Judaism dosesn't teach that men are sinners, necessarily.  And they certainly don't teach that Adam's disobedience in the Garden led to man inheriting a sin nature from Adam.  Those notions are foreign to Judaism.

 

Judaism does possess the concept of grace, but not in the way it is revealed in the New Testament. 

[saved34]

Judaism would be considered an earthly religion, or a step backwards now that Christ has come. The Law is Holy, just, and good, but it is not even the requirements of righteousness for one to be saved. It's an entirely different economy or a different type of righteousness. The Just shall live by faith on Christ. That is the only righteousness or justification that God will accept. Surely an Israelite would not part from his customs so easily, but to enforce the customs of the Law is not necessary for salvation. We are those who are joined directly to Christ and bear fruit of good works because of that union. The Law, the devil, or angels, fellow believers, unbelievers, or no other thing can bring a condemning accusation against a saint of God. The very God who would judge him or her has said they are Justified, and Christ paid the price in full to the Law (by dying unjustly by hanging on a tree even though he was not guilty) and for sin. The just one for me and you the sinners. Judaism or any other "religion" cannot grasp such an incredible concept of grace and mercy. What Christ did allowed God the Father to meet his Holy justice and still declare us defiled sinners as justified (or righteous).