By: Vance

Vance — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:57:27 +0000

Andrew, you greatly overstated the importance of distinguishing between Israel and the Jews, or Judah. While the greater portion of the deported peoples of the northern kingdom (Israel) never returned to the promised land, a significant remnant representing all the tribes did. And while it is true that “Jew” originally pertained to the House of Judah (the southern kingdom), by the time of Christ, the “the Jews” were (1) Judeans and/or (2) adherents of Judaism. By this time, “Israelite” and “Jew” were used interchangeably. So when Paul spoke of the “gentiles,” or nations, in contrast to “the Jews,” he was not speaking of the Israelites (descendants of the northern 10 tribes) scattered among the nations; he was speaking primarily of the peoples whose ancestors had not received the law at Sinai.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:15:33 +0000

Although there may be merit to this viewpoint, all of the above proponents of the New perspective make one fatal error that really undermines their argument; that common error is the that scholar each don’t actually seem to know OT history or the context of Israel during the time of Paul.

They all seem to fail to note one tiny, but rather significant detail, that influences Paul’s concerns about Israel. The House of Judah (Jews), and the House of Israel cannot be treated synonymously. In my Bible there is not a single point where the expression “Jew” is synonymous with Israel. In fact from the first time onward it is used the “Jews” were actually at war with Israel (starting at 2 Kings 16:6) or separate from. So what?

The consequence are that, E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright et. al. all fail to see the context of concerns Jews (House of Judah) had for the House of Israel. For example look at how the Hebrew idiom “מְלֹֽא־הַגֹּויִֽם” found in [Gen 4:19] meaning “multitude of nations” appears in Greek in [Romans 11:25] as the expression “πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν”.

Energetically, both [Gen 4:19] and [Rom 11:25] are the same Hebrew idiom but the Romans one was written in Greek. Yet proponents of the so called “New Perspective” would leave ἐθνῶν as ‘gentile’ rather than nations and have us believe that this part of the argument of Romans is about Israelite vs, non-Israelite when in reality it is about the House of Judah vs the House of Israel (see Acts 1:6 for example).

If we were to hear a theological argument from someone who was loose in their Biblical facts, say they argued there were 17 apostles and John the Baptist did not loose his head, we would not give them much credit, even if such faulty assertions were not instrumental to their argument.

This is no different. Israel was united under only 4 kings (Saul, Ish-Bosheth (briefly), David and Solomon) and for these scholars to ignore the historical context of the House of Judah’s concern for the House of Israel, or Paul’s concern; and treat all Israelites as Jews or as all Jews as Israelites, or worse to equivocate between Hebrews and Jews, undermines any theological argument they might make because it shows a lack of attention to Biblical detail and a lack of familiarity with what was a reality at the time of Paul.

If they take liberties with OT history, and thus OT theology, why should their theological construction of Paul be any different?

Comments on: What Is the New Perspective on Paul?

By: Vance

By: Andrew