Paul Among Jews and Gentiles by Krister Stendahl

Bishop Krister Stendahl is a hero of mine.  (I've noticed that I'm calling a lot of people heroes.  I guess they're not really heroes but people that I respect.)  I first heard about him in regards to the building of the Swedish Temple.  Apparently there was the invariable protest against the building of the temple until Bishop Stendahl called a press conference and presented his "Three rules of religious understanding."  Which are.

When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
Don't compare your best to their worst.
Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.

After presenting these rules and saying that he had "holy envy" for what the Mormons did in their temples the protests stopped.

Secondly, I heard a story that Prof. Madsen had asked Bishop Stendahl to write the article on baptism for the dead in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  Bishop Stendahl said that he didn't have enough time at first so Prof. Madsen asked him to proof read his article.  When Prof. Madsen sent his first attempt Bishop Stendahl said that he hadn't presented a strong enough case for the Mormon point of view.  After a couple of iterations Bishop Stendahl finally wrote the article himself.

I was reading about the good bishop and learned that he was one of the first theologians to write on the NPP.  When I heard that I wanted to read the book, but I couldn't find a copy.  When Chantel registered at UNM I asked her to get a copy.  She checked and someone  had it out so Chantel put in a request and it took a couple of months for her to get it.  I guess a professor had it checked out.

I enjoyed this book quite a bit.  I'd always been amazed at the faith that Paul had.  On the Road to Damascus the Lord tells Paul that he's to be an apostle to the Gentiles.  Paul just accepts that and does what the Lord tells him.  I'd always thought that it sounded more like a redirection of purpose.  Paul still did everything that he used to.  He taught from the same scriptures etc.  Bis. Stendahl points out that we should probably refer to this as a calling than a conversion.  Paul never stops reading and teaching from the same material he'd been trained to use as a Pharisee.  The only thing that he has any regrets for the way that he acted was when he persecuted the young Church.  Certainly the term "called" has a certain ring to it for an LDS Christian.

Bishop Stendahl points out that Paul says that he only prayed 3 times for the thorn in his flesh to be removed.  To him that certainly doesn't seem like very many time to overcome a sin, or some illness.  Bis. Stendahl then points out that when Paul talks about weakness he isn't referring to sin, but probably to the fact that he was unattractive, sickly and not a very good speaker.  These were the weaknesses that he talked about and possibly the thorn in the flesh that Paul talked about.

I've always understood weakness to be sin.  However, I went to Ether in the Book of Mormon where Moroni talks about weakness and that the Lord gives us weaknesses to make us strong.  The proximate weakness that causes Moroni to talk about this is the "weakness" that his writing is not powerful like the Brother of Jarad's was and that because of it the gentiles were going to mock his writing.  Now it would seem stupid to think that was a sin.  Something to be overcome certainly but not a sin.

Bis. Stendahl said that Paul did not show in his writings any of the introspection that is common among citizens of the western world, especially Christians.  He says that this starts with Augustine and that Augustine in many respects is the first modern man.  Augustine was so taken with his introspection that be felt that everyone would be interested as well and started a new literary genre the autobiography.  He called his Confessions.  He said that this introspection reached it's spiritual heights with Luther and it's secular height with Freud.  I just thought that it was funny the way he said this, but it brings out a good point that the west is totally fascinated with introspection of the inner self and it begins with Augustine and is foreign with Paul.

Bis. Stendhal says that Christians read Paul as "I want to do good but I do bad, oh wo is me.". But Paul says
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. (Rom 7)

Paul, in these scriptures is saying exactly the opposite.  He does that which he hates because the law is good.  Why would he do that which he didn't want to do unless the law is good?  He knows that his body wants to do other things, than the things that his mind wants to do (vs 23).  The reason for this is that the Law is good.  It’s hard to keep but that doesn’t mean that it’s not good.  Reading these scriptures in this way is a very different experience.

The NPP really helps me to see the scriptures in a different way.

The New Paul Perspective

I've going to spend some time talking about this topic so I thought that I'd repost this that I wrote a while ago on another Blog that no longer exists.  I suppose that writing the blogs on a place where I can get to them is a good idea.

New Paul Perspective
The New Paul Perspective (NPP) is a "New" way of reading Paul.  So when I first heard about the NPP in the footnotes of a book it said that Paul was read as applying to the religious situation that existed in the 1500.  The protestants read Paul as if Paul were them and the Judaizers, and the Jews were the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and Pal was protesting against the Jews as they were protesting against the RCC.  That sounded very interesting so I went and read some more writers that were talking about this and I must say that I like it even more now. 

First I read a book by E.P. Sanders called Paul and Palistinian Judaism.  OK I didn't finish that book because it was a very hard read and it was more of a technical book for theologian types.  First he pointed out that the Jews themselvs have always said that they never believed that "works" saved them.  They always believed that they were saved by "grace".  What they believed was that they were the chosen race because of Gods grace, and that they kept the laws because they were thankful to God, and it was what was expected of them.  So E.P. Sanders went to a ton of sources to show that the Jews of that time believed that they were saved because of the grace of God and not because of anything that they did themselves.  Not keeping the laws was turning away from God.

N.T. Wright is an Anglican Bishop who also writes about the NPP.  He points out that Paul was talking to the Jews and that he was pointing out to them that they had become enamored with the thought that they were the chosen race and that none other could or would be saved, however, when God spoke to Abraham he said that through Abraham the entire world, or all the families of the Earth were to be blessed, and not just the Jews.  Pauls message was to show how Jesus fulfilled that promise and how the gentiles were to become part of the "righteousness" of God and be saved with the Jews.

Anyway as I've been reading the NT, especially Paul, through the filter of the NPP and I've had some real insights.  First I realized that Paul always thought of himself as a Jew.  In Acts 21 Paul arrives in Jersalem and reports to James.  James realizes the touchy situation that they're in and tells Paul to purify himself and go to the temple with 4 others who have taken a vow.  Why would Paul do this if he didn't think that he was still a Jew?  I'd always thought of Paul as rebelling against being a Jew and no longer thought of himself as one.  I don't think that that's true now.

Second Paul's message to the gentiles is how they are to be included as part of the chosen people.  This is the "mystery" that Paul repeatedly mentions, how through Christ the whole world can be saved, Jews and Gentiles.

There is one other thing that is interesting aout this.  When I first heard about N.T.Wright as being a major writer about NPP I did some research on on him.  It turns out that he is not very popular among many Evangelical Christians, but he used to be.  He first made his reputation among the Evangelicals when he was part of the Third Wave of the Historical Jesus.  The first wave was the original conception of Jesus as being devine as described in the Bible.  The second wave was when people tried to discover the real Jesus by treating him as any historical figure.  Of course to do this most people who did the wrting discounted all the miracles that Jesus did as acreations to explain why people accepted Jesus as being divine.  These are the same people who try to explain Jesus and the Christian movement as something that happened almost by accident.  They show how each Gospel slowly shows Jesus doing more and more and becoming more divine.  Of course to do that they have to say that Mark was the first gospel written, while historically Matthew has always been considered the first gospel written.  You know by people from the first century and stuff, but what would they know?  That is why Matthew is first in the new testamenst because it was considered the oldest.  So N.T. Wright took it upon himself to show how Jesus was a historical figure and how that historical figure could have been and was accepted by the Jews as being divine.  I thought what he said was very interesting.  Anyway anyone that makes evangelicals as upset as Dr. Wright does is someone that I like to read just to find out what is making them so upset.

Gospel Scholar?

For some reason people say that they think that I'm a gospel scholar.  I guess to some that might seem true, but I don't think that I am.  I think that I love reading and, thankfully, one of my favorite topics to read about is religion.  It would be like giving me credit for being 6-2.

I remember the first time someone intimated that I might be knowledgeable about the gospel.  I was a teenager and was talking with a young girl who was my age and I greatly respected her as a young woman who lived the gospel.  And was a seminary graduate.  I remember that somehow the conversation got around to me wondering about how Joseph must have felt when he translated the prophecy that he would be bringing forth the Book of Mormon.  She didn’t know what I was talking about and I told her that I was sure that it was there and that she should look it up.  She did and wrote me a nice note telling me where it was found and then saying that she thought that I knew more about the gospel than she did and she thought I was a good person.  I can’t remember exactly how I reacted to this, but it must have been positive because it is something that I remember to this day.

The second time I remember something like this happening was on my mission when my zone leaders came to me and said that they had a question that they wanted to ask me since I was a gospel scholar.  I was a shocked that they thought that I was a gospel scholar but I said I'd do my best to answer their question. They wanted to know why Jesus had to be crucified. The only thing I could think of is that it was prophesied that he would be crucified, and it is one of the worst ways to die, if not the worst way.  That of course isn’t really an answer and they weren’t  satisfied either.

That question stayed with me from that time on.  Why did Jesus have to be crucified?  A few years ago I got the question answered for me.  On one of the religious forums that I used to participate on some of the participants decided that we would read a book together.  See that’s one of the good things about being LDS we can read other religious writers and be enlightened by them.

The book that we decided to read was The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.  Apparently this is a very popular book.  I didn’t like it that much, except for one part.  The author talked about how not only was it a miracle that Jesus was resurrected but it would have been a miracle for him to have been simply healed and active three days later.  The Romans, and the Jews, did their very worst to Jesus and yet he came back back after three days.  If you can’t kill someone what else can you do to them?  That hit me powerfully and because of it I was glad to have read the book.

I don’t consider myself a gospel scholar, I just love reading and finding these nuggets that resonate with me, and when I get a chance I love to share the nuggets.  Hopefully this will be a place to share those nuggets.

A Place for My Religious Thoughts

This is a place where I plan to share my thoughts on the Gospel of Christ.  Of course since I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, that means that my thoughts will primarily be on what most people call Mormonism.  That's all right I own up to the fact that Mormonism is an important part of my life, perhaps the most important because is subsumes all other parts.

I've been a Mormon my whole life, a fact for which I'm very thankful.  I've always been interested in religion and I've always loved to read.  When you combine that interest and love it turns out that I love to read about religion.  I'm pretty much willing to read almost anything, within my time constraints, but I have to admit that I mostly read about things concerning the LDS Church.  However, I was lucky to be blessed with a wise mother who taught me that it was always alright to learn about other churches and cultures.  My mother was a convert so I'm sure that that effected her outlook on life.  I'm sure that it's my mothers influence that causes me to be willing to look at the teachings of other religions.

Of course the LDS Church has always taught that it's member should always look for truth wherever they can find it.  That is something that I've always appreciated.  The real thing that I like about this outlook is that it means that I can find answers to my questions in all the thoughts of Christianity.  That's very cool and something that I very much love.

I hope to use this as a place to share my thoughts about topics that mean a lot to me.