Tom Wright & James Dunn The New Perspective on Paul
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Complete videos are available on the St John's Timeline, which was relaunched in Autumn 2021. It comprises of over 200 full videos with improved subtitles from leading philosophers and theologians. You can subscribe for £22 (£15 concessions) per year. Institutional subscriptions are also available. stjohnstimelin...
On a serious note, I get his perspective 100%
on a less serious note, *Who else got sent here from something school related?*
Literally my research paper is on this very topic. Lol
It is just funny to me that people against the New Perspective say "you can't earn salvation!" When Wright and Dunn are pretty much saying "duh." It's almost like they never read or listened to a single thing they've been saying.
Most hear what others say about it and not from their own lips
A new perspective to whom?
This interpretation of the role of the law is exaclty right; we keep the law because that is what God wants us to do, not to earn salvation.
And if you don't keep the law what does God do?
Will you deserve salvation then?
No one is entitled to salvation grace and mercy are required for that, but the Jews failed to keep the law of righteousness which we must now do, not by ceremonial works as they but righteous works.
Chris Malan Simon Skinner so the question is to both of you, how do you define “the law”? What are it parameters?
@@GatheringJacob A good question. Apparently, there are 613 laws depending on how one counts them. We can immediately split the law into two groups: the laws spoken by God to the Israelites and written by him on stone tablets and kept inside the ark. Then the laws written down by Moses and kept next to the ark. This last group contains laws like the law about leprosy of houses (sounds to me like mould on the walls) and many agricultural laws not relevant to us. So, I'd say the Ten Commandments, definitely. The others, I don't know. About keeping the Passover, Exodus 12 says Gentiles are not allowed to keep it.
Chris Malan ok, I understand your position a little better. One correction - it says gentiles can not keep the Passover without being circumcised! If they were circumcised they could keep the Passover. Many gentiles kept the Passover! Scripture makes it clear that a mixed multitude came out of Egypt.
@@GatheringJacob True. 43 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: "No foreigner is to eat of it. 44 Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him,
That would leave out the vast majority of Christians. It's strictly symbolic of the leaving of Egypt as per Exodus 12. The Bible does not say one should attach any other meaning to it and keep it for any other reason. Once you start with deductions and symbolism you end up with more than 30,000 Christian denominations.
i was part of reformed view on justification , and i have to say that with that reformed view , i never understand the romans letter, now with this help from n.t wright and npp i can read it more clear and more joy
I'm reading Professor Dunn's books and they are BIG books indeed.
Anytime you hear "new" relating to doctrine you should be suspicious. Its an attempt to historicize and uncover the truth, while implying that everyone else missed it. This is Hegelian, and there's no hope in this because we can never know when we've certainly contextualized it.
@@ngyuhng8324 No it's new, Wright turns sin into a secondary issue. If you don't believe Jesus died for your sins, how are you saved? Wright believes Jesus died for racial reconciliation, not our sins. If he did, it's a secondary issue. Are you prepared to say that is not new?
Please please tell me if I’m wrong but:
so the disagreement isn’t on the Christian view of works and justification (we agree on that)?
it’s actually a dispute about the characterization of Judaism (as legalistic or merit righteousness)?
Seems so
Very good point.But can I ask you how you think about Matthew's views on The Torah ? Matt.5:17-18 sure looks to me as if the author of the gospel is making Jesus claim the Torah MUST be observed by Jews (hence Jesus is made to say,''pray that it does not happen on the Sabbath'' when we read Matthew's version of Mark 13).I've read evangelicals try to spin it, but even when I was an evangelical I found their reading of Matt.5:17-18 slightly unconvincing. Would ''Matthew'' and Paul have agreed ?
there are two very interesting passages in the new testament that i think strongly support my point: a) 2.peter 3,14-18 and b) acts chapter 21; in 2.peter the author argues that the letters of paul are easy to be misread claiming that there are no ethical norms anymore for the holy people/christians. the reason for that i.m.o. is the named paradox structure of pauls teachings: law/torah no, ethical norms yes. in acts 21 the author tells us that converted jews themselves attack paul...
I would disagree. James is warning us that dead faith, faith without works, is not faith rather simple belief. This is obvious because of the statement that even the demons believe and shudder. (vs 19) Paul tells us the same thing in Galatians 5 where he contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the spirit and that is true faith produces works and because of James' Jewish audience vs. Paul's gentile audience, it makes since that they differ in terminology.
the odd thing is that, the new perspectives on Paul as NT Wright explains, is not new but are similar to the belief of the early Christians but then it isnt really different from the protestant view on good works and of the christocentricity of corporate election
very good point.Would someone who said that observe the Torah laws ? I kinda doubt it, don't you ?
Isn't that the point of Romans 10? The Covenant that came through Moses was stipulated on Leviticus 18:5 (living by the works of the Law) and the Covenant in Jesus is received through faith. I haven't read any of Wright's books, so how does he understand chapters like Romans 10?
''Works'' could mean one of 2 things.It could mean ''obeying Torah rules'', or it could mean ''good deeds.'' I'm fairly sure Paul means the former.Could James mean the latter ? But what does the author of Ephesians mean by ''works'' in Ephesians 2:9 ? Since Gentiles are being addressed it could mean ''good deeds.'' How does that fit with Matthew's emphasis on good deeds ?
Can someone please edit this video so James Dunn part is separately posted.Leave this video here but can James Dunn speak by himself
The so called New Perspective on Paul was held up to ridicule in Acts 15.
Every Catholic and Eastern Orthodox who likes this New Perspective should read Acts 15:7-11.
If time permits they should read Acts 13:48, Romans 11:6, Gal.2:21, Titus 3:5-7, Hebrews 10:38.
He says that what marks out God's people in the present is the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah and our faith in Jesus the Messiah right?? Then why are MacArthur and all of those buch against him?? Can someone halp me understand??
I believe it’s that they’re stuck inside a traditional line of thinking stemming from Reformational Protestantism that Judaism has less emphasis, that Judaism was all simply legalism, therefore should not be payed attention too, within the historical-narrative structure and eschatology of Christianity than it actually does. Israel and its purpose within God’s greater scheme of salvation for the world should have more emphasis than it does. As Wright put it in his work Justification, we have to return to thinking in terms of the original context and it’s historicity rather than constantly referring back to 16th century thinking as a basis for exegesis and theology.
I think it’s the principle that we have to think more crucially in a historical sense than we do. I’m not sure if that helps at all or if that is quite correct but that’s what I’ve seemed to get so far.
@@mdl13 Thank you so so much!!!
...that paul might exhibit a partially wrong picture of first century judaism does say what exactly about his antinomist tendencies??? nothing, sir. but thanks a lot. it was his opinion (an opinion of a historical person that might well be wrong) so either you follow him, or you don't. however, paul's understanding of justification by faith isn't at all affected. do you get this? just to make things sure: i don't follow paul. but this bold thesis has to fall!!!
Luther got it wrong.
He was driven to misunderstand Romans 3-4 because of his insecurity. Being justified with God allows sanctification by the Holy Spirit, but justification by Jesus Christ is for our own righteousness, he alone is our judge as John 5:22.
...that you should follow. this fact makes me think that paul's thought has a paradox notion. this notion may have caused that ongoing interpretationl confusion that some people refer to as "the new perspective on paul", while in fact most of its main points have been agrued for by german liberal scholars about a hundered years before.
Yeah. For all the issues liberal theology creates. It has its benefits.
saying "this is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place." i ask you, did these contemporaries of paul read luther or augustinus before? if not, how did they come to a very similar diagnosis?
The link no longer works
Finally a sane understanding of justification!!!
P.S. at 4:38, where is he pointing?
Has any of these two men read Pelagius on his commentary on the Romans
JAMES BERTRAM no they needed to be enlightened by scholars such as thou. Can I get a signed copy of your imaginary major New Testament commentary and other supplementary works. It will surely help with my thesis work in seminary.
im.pretty sure they'll both have rrad Britains very sensible Pegasus. Why?
ha, you are touching a sensitive issue of christiane tradition. there are scholars that say matthew would have considered paul an heretic. i think - if we imagine they would meet - it would depend on their mood and the inner-christian "political" circumstances if they would have agree with each others positions or start a substantial fight (compare gal 2,1-10; and 2,11-20). looking at their writings they surely do not consort with each other.
Great video to introduce someone to correct understanding of Paul
paul's understanding of "being in christ" is a mystical world view. in his opinion - if you are in christ - you do not need to have a law no more, since you automatically act like a holy person. ok, i admit we as people living some hundered years later do have a hard time to grasp this conception. but this is how paul thought. instead of reading the same passages in galatians and romans over and over again, just have a look into 1. korinthians and you will understand.
Quite interesting.
Paul was not given the authority, given to the 11 disciples of Jesus if you compare Mathew 28:20 and Acts 26:18. For example Paul was not given the authority to give baptism. His authority was limited to preaching and deliver the sheeps of Jesus from the power of Satan.
Well yes, it looks like they would not see 'eye to eye', as we say in England. They would not have agreed, it seems.
This whole debate is absolutely ridiculous. If we really want to know what Paul meant why don't we just read the Church Fathers. People seem to misread the Catholic doctrine of justification. My understanding of it is the fact that you can't assure your salvation on earth. Only in heaven.
Nate Nobile 1. I think anyone trying to understand Paul without understanding his Hebrew heritage is going to end up with ridiculous notions.
2. If you really want to know what Paul meant, why don't you just read what HE wrote and what he was expanding on! Namely the Bible!
3. Do you accept the Bible as fact? Then the fact is that you CAN have assurance of salvation, right here, right now, on earth.
1 John 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God Q)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-30635Q" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">HAS the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has R)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-30635R" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. 11 And the testimony is this, that God HAS given us S)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-30636S" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">eternal life, and T)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-30636T" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">this life is in His Son.12 U)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-30637U" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">He who HAS the Son HAS the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.13 V)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-30638V" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">These things I have written to you who BELIEVE in the name of the Son of God, so that you may KNOW that you have X)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-30638X" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">eternal life.
John 10:27 [Jesus Himself speaking,] My sheep AK)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-26509AK" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">hear My voice, and AL)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-26509AL" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give AM)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-26510AM" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and AN)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-26510AN" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 d]" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">[d]My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 AO)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-26512AO" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">I and the Father are e]" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">[e]one.”
Paul: Ephesians 1:13 In b]" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">[b]Him, you also, after listening to B)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29220B" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also c]" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">[c]BELIEVED, you were C)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29220C" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">SEALED ind]" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">[d]Him with D)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29220D" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is e]" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">[e]E)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29221E" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">given as a pledge of F)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29221F" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">our inheritance, with a view to the G)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29221G" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">redemption of H)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29221H" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">God’s own possession, I)" data-cr="#cen-NASB-29221I" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">to the praise of His glory.
If you believe Jesus is the Son of God and have accepted His gift of salvation, then you don't have to wait til you die to see if you got it! That's not God's character to play a guessing game. :) Take heart, my friend!
The Bible wouldn't exist without The Church. Sola Scriptura is both a heresy and historically implausible. The Bible is useless without the Fathers and vice versa.
Nate Nobile, you shut your mouth. You Italian papist, with your crazy superstitions.
@@theologicarex1137 That's an idolatrous view to lift man up so high
That’s part of the problem though, people don’t read the Church Fathers.
_now we have Postcolonial Pauline studies_
N.T. Wright just might become the new John Henry Newman.
the issue of torah-observation in the letters of paul is not the centre of my studies, however, from time to time i am concerned with it. my position is that paul is radically against the ongoing observation of the torah for means of salvation. if you do so, you will not get in nor will you stay in a state of salvation. you may stay with parts of the torah out of traditional/cultural reason but NOT out of religious reasons. nevertheless, paul does re-introduce ethical norms...
I understand their view on Galatians but if I'm not mistaken they affirm salvation by grace without works. Titus 3:1-9 is clearly explaining as well as other passages, eph 1:7, 2. also i find Galatians applicable to confront Roman Catholicism even if the issue was becoming judaists because it resambles the progressive salvation od RC. They cannot be sure of salvation, cannot say "I have eternal life". I don't see any problems with Reformation view of Galatians.
mattew on the other hand thinks the torah is not just obsolete after jesus' resurrection. in his eyes the torah has to remain, BUT in a transformed version. jesus himself - as the absolute mediator between god and mankind - has transformed the torah in an authoritative act (as the son of god). now christians (former jews or pagans) have to fulfill the torah in order to stay in grace.
"Mark" teaches the same thing.
Matthew's Jesus wasn't kidding when he said the way is narrow. Mark's Jesus wasn't kidding when he said "many false Christs shall come in my name, saying, I am."
The genuine Jesus is the I Am, (Mat14:27, Mrk6:50) but he doesn't go round telling everybody. It's done in a veiled way.
Romans was to a mixed group of Gentiles and Hebrews. To the Gentiles, Paul stresses the saving grace and the including of us into Christ's kingdom. Paul often seems to contradict himself when saying sometimes that the law is useless but than says that the law is extremely important. To the Jews he would say that the Law is important because of who they are and to the Gentiles he would stress that the Law, for them, is condemning. James' audience was wholly Jewish. BTW Paul didn't write James
paul explicitly says for converted pagans there is are no ethical obligations related to the torah that are necessary to obey. he considers faith and "automatically" following good deeds as sufficient, but that is why his argument in romans 9-11 runs into an aporia. actually god - because the torah is nothing and still no-converted jews hold the torah over the faith in jesus - would have to abandon israel, but since he would contradict his promise to abraham, isaak and jacob (israel) he won't.
it's generally frightening for me how anti-lutheran (anti-german?) biased, or simply self-obsessed scholars (that also might make "good" money with a bold thesis) can have so many followers. ...and i am not even a believer. i just look at it with a historical interest.
by the way a look into the bible would show that (if they all got paul so terribly wrong) not only luther and augustin, but also jews from jerusalem themselves must have "completely misunderstood" paul. (acts 21,21-22.28)
this issue rises the question, if the christian tradition is one tradition or a polyphony or even sometimes even a cacophony. it is a matter of personal faith to answer this important question. every believer/theologist has to and everybody. most of the time more implicitly than explicitly. most of the great theologians in history were paulinians and "joahnneians" - still matthew was the gospel of the church and the people... this discourse i.m.o. will never end since it is part of the bible.
All the NT is ultimately for all people. The oresenters have missed the point really. Protestantism criticises the choices the jews not their faith specifically
justification in the future..hhmmm?
"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but DUNG, that I may win Christ. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the LAW, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." (phil 3,8-9)
paul says EXPILCITLY that his jewish past is DUNG. how do these "smart" scholars explain these words away???
It's not any surprise from him, but Wright is not being fair. Does it not really say what Luther got out of it, that we are saved by faith and not by works?!!!!! Saved Luther's life, saved, mine, saved alot of people. Valid reading from a different time.
And what are you going on about Pelagianism. Paul never said our eternal fate or what we do from one minute to the next is preordained by God! This is typical N.T. Wright name calling. The names don't even make sense.
I actually question how much this criticism of Paul’s knowledge or expressed beliefs about Judaism has to do with what Paul wrote. Are these people arguing that Judaizing Christians weren’t really insisting that to become Christians pagans had to be cirumcized and keep Jewish dietary laws? This was a debate within Christianity, not Judaism. It seems unlikely that Paul didn’t correctly characterize the people or the point of view that he was arguing with. It appears that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem came from a particular perspective within Judaism. It seems unlikely Paul, a Jew, wasn’t aware of the variety of his own faith, though as a member of the rabbinic movement he may have dismissed it. Luther is following Paul, so if people want to call someone a bigot, to my mind they should attack Paul.
I think NT Wright is probably pretty typical of the people making this attack. Not that liberals can't be extreme and ridiculous in who they criticize and on what basis, but, NT Wright is no liberal, and, most of the people I see way too gleefully attacking Luther as getting it wrong, aren't coming from a liberal perspective. NT Wright is a high Anglican bishop who firmly believes that people who don't belong to the Church of England House of Bishops need to stop randomely substituting ideas into sentences, specifically about whether homosexuality, or anything at all, is right or wrong, and listen to their elders and betters. And while we are at it, gay clergy legally married in England must tell their bishops they are not sleeping together. You see where Wright is coming from? NT Wright's issue with Luther is that he encouraged people to even have a conscience. Luther was "wrong" from his mother's womb. Wright wants the entire Protestant Reformation soundly put to bed. He knows he has a better chance against someone of Luther's stature, of getting good, devout Christians to turn against him for mis-characterizing Jews. Did you catch the part where issues of lying and truthfulness don't themselves keep high Anglican bishops awake at night.
What Wright doesn't grasp is he is why I left the Episcopal Church and became a Lutheran. His corruption is destroying his society and his church. The western sense of right and wrong, and the "western introspective conscience" are not going to go away; in fact, they won long ago. He and his ilk are on the losing end of that, and they are too corrupt to know it.
And did anyone catch that if this was a discussion between two people, one of them did 95% of the talking. NT Wright always does that.
But thanks to James Dunn, his answer is just absolutely brilliant. And he suitably answered how both Luther's and the new perspective's interpretation are correct. I did find it hard to see how it could be true that entire groups can trust God to save them but individuals would not be able to; especially since large parts of Paul's discussion in Romans is specifically about individual faith and the individual religious experience, and, some of his criticism of the Judaizing Christian perspective has to do with how it functions in the individual mind. From Westerholm's presentation of Dunn's thought on the matter, individual faith in Christ was in fact central to the intense mystical experience that is how Paul conceived of as salvation through Christ. I have two of Dunn's books on order. I suspect Dunn just didn't get too many words in edgewise on this particular conversation.
this is a more or less tradtional jewish view on the relation between faith and "works". nevertheless, matthew teaches (he probably was the catechist of his community) a radically transformed version of the tora (mainly: mt 5-7) and he teaches total faith. many of his points seem to go back to jesus himself. in some of them he agrees with paul's idea of "automatically" works of faith, but of course the theological setting is very different.
Luther didn’t “get it wrong”? BUT he “missed this dimension”. I didn’t know James Dunn was a politician. Isn’t it saying if “Luther missed this dimension” it is the same to say, “Luther got it wrong”? If Dunn doesn’t want to say it - I will -
LUTHER GOT IT WRONG, DEAD WRONG, AND IT IS OUR DUTY TO UNFOLD THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE NO MATTER WHO WE OFFEND!
And if Luther got it wrong in this basic area, we BETTER find out what else Luther got wrong and “study to show ourselves approved to God” - NOT approved by men! The doctrines of men must be off loaded and thrown in the dung heap, until only the unadulterated truth of the Almighty YHWH remains!
He wasn’t dead wrong, you’re going overboard. He did a great deal of help towards the reformation of the Church from the power hungry perversion of Catholicism. And he was an Augustinian monk coming out of that Catholic foundation, so with the resources he had he did a great deal of help towards the freedom we have now and brought it back to a call of faith and grace over works. He just missed the collective dimension of the work of Christ, not knowing that doesn’t skew the entirety of our relationship with Christ.
in my eyes both paul and matthew are well trained torah-exegetes. i am quite sure matthew was a converted syrian (antiochian) hellenist sofer. thus matthew's and paul's education in jewish scriptures probably was compareably good.
however, matthew and paul differ on the exact degree the jewish tradition matters for the holy people/christians. the question behind is: how much traditional continuity is necessery in order not to break the relation with god himself.
@AnglicanApologist72 Well this simple mind has indeed spent time in the scholarly tower and has a BA in Theology and a Masters to boot ! it was Luther who argued and quite rightly that the Church stands of falls on the doctrine of Justification. I think Piper has said some unhelpful things yet the main trust of the Gospel is the Just making the Unjust Just. the same argument can be found in the 39 articles of the Anglican faith. Or don't you believe that either ? mmmh!
I can't quite understand why it is that one of the biggest points that Paul talks about and the Lord Jesus is the gift of the Spirit who seals us as members of the household of God. He is received by faith in Jesus as promised who is the guarantor of our inheritance. Those who have faith in Jesus have received the Spirit and enter into the rest of God.
"Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?"
Galatians 3:2 ESV
Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, "As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest,'" although his works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Hebrews 4:1-3 ESV
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"- so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Galatians 3:13-14 ESV
while its good to look at the contect yet this is just over complicating the isssu ! those of us who are not jews need to hear that we are saved by faith in christ and we make the scirptures relevant to those who we share it with. So we don't need to go into complex arguments about the law and morality but we show that we are not saved by our works because were not good enough. Scholars spend to much time in thier towers and not with the ordinary peolple !
🥱🥱🥱😴😴😴😴
"circumcision wasn't moralism" - except for the fact that an adult male convert going through the excruciating pain of having a part of their penis cut off (with no anesthesia) was indeed an incredibly powerful source of boasting about one has achieved, suffered, etc, for God
No God-fearer was required to be circumcised unless you wanted to be a Jew. Being a Jew was never a requirement to worship Yahweh or "be saved". Please.
Heresy
Wright is given a lot of publicity. His theory is wrong, all he has essentially done is mix up the covenants, placing all under a kind of covenantal monism.
He is given publicity for good reason - as one of the most spot on theologians of our time. E.P. Sanders is the one who coined that term - Covenantal NOMism. I think if you were to re-watch this video, you would see that Wright gives an extremely clear presentation of this new perspective - "Paul is saying that the things that marks out God’s people in the present is not the works of Torah it is faith in Jesus as Messiah - the people who will be vindicated in the future." - the Jewish people weren't being told by Paul that the works they were doing were bad - He was simply telling them that those works didn't determine their salvation. It is Salvation through faith and as long as that was understood, the works they did could still be honouring and worship to God.
Jesus Christ and St. Paul were Jewish-Christian mystics.