Comments on: Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle

By: Dan1el

Dan1el — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:46:58 +0000

“Simply put, Eisenbaum argues that for Paul, Israel’s justification was already secured by means of the covenant, leaving Gentiles in need of justification through the atonement of Christ since history was fast coming to a close and Gentiles (the nations) stood in dire need of reconciliation (spelled out in some detail in chapter thirteen, “Justification Through Jesus Christ”).

She goes on to provide a helpful historical analogy to illustrate why “Torah for Jews, Jesus for Gentiles” need not imply two paths to salvation:”

Paul NEVER said Israel was justified through the Covenant; actually, he said the very opposite! He said (sadly) that many of the “natural branches” of the “Israeli Olive Tree” were ripped off and men of other nations were grafted in, because of disbelief in Messiah on the part of some Jews and belief in Messiah on the part of many men from other nations.

By: Anthony Buzzard

Anthony Buzzard — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:09:07 +0000

In practical terms what is the point of the discussion? Did Paul require sabbath-keeping of his converts?
What about food laws in Lev 11? I would say that Paul wanted strong Christians to move beyond sabbath-keeping and food laws. Gen 17. demands circumcsion for Gentiles wanting to be part of the covenant. But Paul does not follow that requirement. The key issue is, Did Paul deviate from the unitary monotheism of the Shema, in defining God? Jesus had affirmed the unitary monotheistic creed Israel. Did Paul disregard the teaching of Jesus in this respect. Not according to I Cor. 8:4-6. The Father is still the only one who is true God. Jesus is the Lord Messiah, not God, for Paul.

By: Richard Alan Eccleston

Richard Alan Eccleston — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:47:59 +0000

To Mr. Mattison — Thanks for having posted your brief, thorough summary of Ms. Eisenbaum’s well-integrated reading of Paul. In your closing remark you mentioned an issue regarding whether or not St Paul was addressing a Gentile-only audience. I (just an amateur) would have guessed that since he is apostle to the Gentiles, the certain local-level churches for which he was the mother hen would be intended for attendance by Gentiles. While there likely is only fragmentary knowledge of the various activities which comprised his actual role (dubbed here as “mother hen”), that role no doubt would include writing the letters (which the extant undisputed epistles closely reflect) to those specific churches.

By: Is the New Covenant for Israel only? - Page 5 - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums

Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:01:37 +0000

[...] course, here's where this came from and where it's going (don't say i didn't tell ya…again): Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle November 2, 2009, 9:07 pm by markmattison Book Review Pamela Eisenbaum, HarperSanFrancisco, 2009, [...]

By: markmattison

markmattison — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:41:41 +0000

Steven, if you're asking about the origin of the new perspective on Paul, you may want to consider checking out this "Summary of the New Perspective on Paul."

By: Steven Perch

Steven Perch — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:51:51 +0000

This was a very informative post and a great review but I’d really like to know if you can pin down what exactly the origin of this “new interpretation” or as some commenters have noted the not-so-new interpretation is? Is it a translational thing or a purely interpretation? If you could cover that in a future post I’m sure a lot of people would appreciate it (like me)!

God bless

By: The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction | The Paul Page

The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction | The Paul Page — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 02:52:35 +0000

[...] Gager and Lloyd Gaston and a “two covenant” approach; some mention of Jewish scholars, such as Pamela Eisenbaum and Mark Nanos, would have been appropriate. Neither is there any mention in this chapter of the [...]

By: Amanda

Amanda — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 04:56:15 +0000

This whole “new perspective” on Paul…isn’t new at all. It’s what the Catholic Church has been adamently declaring for 2000 years. When pride and egoism rise up and one feels all one needs is the bible and one’s own interpretation of scripture, one splits off the path of truth and causes schisms…or 30,000 of them since the reformation. Still, good to see some are being intellectually honest with themselves and realizing how absurd it is to say that good works (faith working in love) don’t factor into our salvation. We will all be judged according to what? Our deeds.

By: Michael Peterson

Michael Peterson — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:48:47 +0000

Great review. I’m very new to the New Perspective but I have been studying Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible very closely for the last 5 years. On my own, I came to the view that the Judaism(s) of Jesus’ day were not legalistic and so when I ran across the New Perspective writings I was blown away.

As I read your review, I had to wonder why to be “ethnocentric” is inherently bad. Can’t one be proud of one’s ethnicity and use the lens of one’s culture to gain insight?

Finally, reflecting on David J. Bolten’s comment, I would extend his remarks by noting David Klinghoffer’s book (an observant, orthodox Jew) “Why the Jews Rejected Jesus”.

Peace,

By: John Ford

John Ford — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:06:37 +0000

Mark – a well written and comprehensive review. I have trouble with understanding Paul, and I guess I’m not alone, and Eisenbaum’s appraisal will help in unravelling that understanding.

John Ford