My book Paul and the Vocation of Israel has been aligned with the “Paul within Judaism” perspective. Does it fit in this perspective?
Currently browsing category
A review of my Paul and the Vocation of Israel has been published at the Review of Biblical Literature site (review by Mike Bird)
Galatians 1:13-14 is not making a direct statement about Paul’s rejection of “Second Temple Judaism”. Rather, Galatians 1:13-14 is simply saying that Paul had rejected one particular Jewish idea – Ἰουδαϊσμός.
This book is a critique of a missiological principle that the church today must “prioritize evangelizing Jews over Gentiles”.
In my book, I argue that in Romans 11:1, Paul is claiming Israel’s future is guaranteed because Israel’s divine vocation is in fact being fulfilled by an Israelite (i.e. himself).
I used to think that Romans 10:14-18 was about the (mostly failed) Christian mission to Jews. I was wrong. After closely reading this text, I now think it’s about Paul’s mission to Gentiles.
In my book, I argue that the mention of the “mouth” alongside the “heart” is a key to Paul’s argument about the nature of salvation.
In my book, I argue that the phrase “Christ is the end (τέλος) of the Law” in Romans 10:4 is illuminated by Romans 3:21, which states that the purpose of the Law is to testify to the gospel.
Pate argues that the “center” or hermeneutical key to Paul’s letters is found in an apocalyptic inaugurated eschatology.
In my book, I argue that the concept of human speech is a vitally important–though very frequently neglected–component of Paul’s argument in Romans chapter 10.
In my book, I argue that Paul in Romans 9:3 is acting as a representative for Israel, not offering himself as a substitute.
In my book, I argue that Paul’s apostolic mission plays a decisive role in his argument about Israel in Romans 9-11.
In my book, I argue that the idea of receiving “praise” from human beings in Romans 2:29 is a reference to an ideal synagogue law-teacher.
In my book, I argue that Romans 2:28-29 should be understood as the conclusion of a coherent argument, set in the mainstream Jewish synagogue, which seeks to make a definite statement about Jewish (rather than simply Christian) identity.
In my book, I argue that the uncircumcised Law-keeper in Romans 2:26-27 should be understood as a Gentile synagogue adherent.
In my book, I argue that the term commonly translated as “robbing temples” is not referring to the robbery of pagan temples, but to the misappropriation of funds intended for the Jerusalem temple.
In my book, I argue that Paul in Romans 2:17-29 is addressing a Jewish synagogue teacher
In my book, I argue that “Are we [Jews] worse off?” is a plausible translation of the question προεχόμεθα; in Romans 3:9, given the context in which it appears.
In my book, I argue that Romans 2:17-20 is a compact description of the close relationship between Jewish identity and the synagogue-based communal engagement with the Law of Moses.
In my book, I argue that the Romans 2:17-29 consists of three sections. This cuts across the traditional division of the passage into two sections.
In my book, I argue that Paul’s interlocutor in Romans 2:17-29 is a paradigmatic mainstream Jew.
In my book, I argue that Romans 2:17-29 is set in the Jewish synagogue.
In my book, I argue at length that Romans 2:17-29 is not primarily an argument about salvation, but rather an argument about Jewish identity and vocation.
In my book, I argue that Paul’s phrase “the obedience of faith” in Romans 1:5 can be better understood when read in the context of prophetic (Isaianic) motifs.
In my book, I argue that the apostle Paul’s mission should not be described as “proselytism”.