What do you think?
Rate this book
Jewish Paul
What was the apostle Paul's relationship to Judaism? How did he view the Jewish law? How did he understand the gospel of Jesus's messiahship relative to both ethnic Jews and gentiles? These remain perennial questions both to New Testament scholars and to all serious Bible readers.
Respected New Testament scholar Matthew Thiessen offers an important contribution to this discussion. A Jewish Paul is an accessible introduction that situates Paul clearly within first-century Judaism, not opposed to it. Thiessen argues for a more historically plausible reading of Paul. Paul did not reject Judaism or the Jewish law but believed he was living in the last days, when Israel's Messiah would deliver the nations from sin and death. Paul saw himself as an envoy to the nations, desiring to introduce them to the Messiah and his life-giving, life-transforming Spirit.
This new contribution to Pauline studies will benefit professors, students, and scholars of the New Testament as well as pastors and lay readers.
Respected New Testament scholar Matthew Thiessen offers an important contribution to this discussion. A Jewish Paul is an accessible introduction that situates Paul clearly within first-century Judaism, not opposed to it. Thiessen argues for a more historically plausible reading of Paul. Paul did not reject Judaism or the Jewish law but believed he was living in the last days, when Israel's Messiah would deliver the nations from sin and death. Paul saw himself as an envoy to the nations, desiring to introduce them to the Messiah and his life-giving, life-transforming Spirit.
This new contribution to Pauline studies will benefit professors, students, and scholars of the New Testament as well as pastors and lay readers.
208 pages, Paperback
Published August 22, 2023
28 people are currently reading
244 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
October 22, 2023
Thiessen is, as usual, clear and stimulating.
He provides a helpful summary of the state of Pauline scholarship in the first chapter. His primary aim throughout the book is to help us see Paul as the Jew that he was. Thiessen laments the often supercessionist and anti-semitic readings of Paul that the biblical text does not support. He suggests that Paul was law-observant and that he expected other Jews to be law-observant as well.
He returns to Paul with attention to the way key terms in Paul's writings were understood in the first century. His chapters on the nature of the resurrection body (the pneumatic body) were especially thought-provoking. Could it be that "spiritual" does not mean non-material, but rather than the pneuma was the best kind of matter because it was indestructible?
So much to think about!
He provides a helpful summary of the state of Pauline scholarship in the first chapter. His primary aim throughout the book is to help us see Paul as the Jew that he was. Thiessen laments the often supercessionist and anti-semitic readings of Paul that the biblical text does not support. He suggests that Paul was law-observant and that he expected other Jews to be law-observant as well.
He returns to Paul with attention to the way key terms in Paul's writings were understood in the first century. His chapters on the nature of the resurrection body (the pneumatic body) were especially thought-provoking. Could it be that "spiritual" does not mean non-material, but rather than the pneuma was the best kind of matter because it was indestructible?
So much to think about!
November 15, 2023
I find Paul to be terribly confusing a lot of the time, and this book helpfully navigated significant themes of the Pauline corpus to make Paul only slightly less-confusing. An easy, approachable, and accessible read that helpfully draws readers into this new (new) perspective.
June 29, 2023
This is one of those rare books on Paul that is accessible, up-to-date in research, and robust in its arguments. Would make for a great supplemental text for courses on Paul.
Read
July 26, 2023One need not hear that many Christian sermons before encountering the notion that the Bible can be summarized something like this:
God created Adam and Eve but they rebelled. After a lot of rebellion, he chose Abraham and his descendants to be the people he would rescue from their rebellion. All they had to do was follow the Law given on Sinai and they would continue to stay in his good graces. But this salvation-by-works was basically an exercise in futility, and nobody could do it throughout the generations of Israel. So then eventually God decided to call it and send Jesus to save people apart from works, and this time salvation would be based on grace instead. That's why the majority of Paul's letters in the New Testament are contrasting law and grace, explaining why people don't need to be circumcised, and why it's dangerous to rely on works of the law. It's why he gets legitimately angry at people who suggest that Gentiles can be saved in Jesus as long as they keep the Law.
The general impression you walk away with here is that the Old Testament scheme was self-evidently bad and that the message of the New Testament is mostly just, "Stop trying to earn your salvation by being a good person," and is thus quite obviously an easier, better, more palatable message than that musty old idea of obeying the Law.
It doesn't take that many years of reading the Bible, though, to realize that this narrative is kind of a fiction and doesn't really make sense of the big picture of Scripture. It's not that it's really altogether wrong as much as it's like a funhouse mirror distortion of reality. There have been very many scholars who have written against this general narrative, and probably the most recent and notable of which is NT Wright. Wright's argument, infamously, is that the problem with the Old Testament is "race, not grace," his point being that the New Testament is an answer to the ethnocentrism of ancient Israel rather than any perceived or real problems with Law-keeping.
Wright's perspective is a helpful corrective insofar as it recognizes that God's grace was always foundational to his salvation of his people, that Gentiles were always welcome at his table, that his people had always been called to participate in his outward mission, and that the New Testament doesn't subvert any of that. Jesus explicitly says of his ministry, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets" (Mt 5:27).
Ironically, this approach still lands in a fairly antisemitic place. If we go with Wright we might not think that the problem with ancient Israel was their Law-keeping, but we do still see Israel as problematic. It's just that the problem has shifted from legalism to ethnocentrism.
Into this fraught territory wades Matthew Thiessen with his new work, A Jewish Paul: The Messiah's Herald to the Gentiles. As he says in his conclusion, his hope is to provide a way of reading Paul "that seeks to defuse Christian anti-Judaism and supersessionism." How? Thiessen suggests that "the key to unlocking Paul's writings is to embed him within the larger Jewish world of his day." In other words, he notes that debates about circumcision, the Law, and how Gentiles should relate to Yahweh were pre-existing debates to which Paul was merely adding his perspective in light of his belief that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah. This was a debate that was happening before Jesus was born, and it was a debate that continued into Paul's day.
The move that some authors make at this point is to suggest that Judaism and Christianity are therefore equally valid ways to Yahweh, but this is not the direction Thiessen goes. Instead, he turns to Romans 11:28-32 to argue that while Israel is still God's people, there has been a partial, temporary hardening of their hearts induced by God himself so as to provide a window of time for Gentiles to be grafted into that people after which the partial hardening will be removed.
What is that partial hardening? It's not some kind of works righteousness, and neither is it ethnocentrism. It's simply a failure to believe that Jesus is their Messiah. The Law and the Prophets should have pointed them directly toward Jesus and yet somehow in their zeal to keep God's word, they missed the crucial piece. Thiessen offers this analogy: "This situation is like the person who is so engrossed in discerning the details of a map that they fail to make the final turn to get to their destination."
This all raises many questions, then, about how to read this or that passage in Paul, and that's what the majority of Thiessen's book endeavors to answer (though not in an exhaustive way). Indeed, the book is astonishingly short compared to most works on this specific topic. His expressed goal is simply to introduce people to reading Paul this way rather than to provide a thoroughgoing dissertation on every last objection someone might have. Whether you find his proposal compelling or not is up to you, but at minimum I do recommend reading through this short book and chewing on his argument. I still am!
DISCLAIMER: I received a copy of this book from the publisher for the purpose of a fair, unbiased review.
December 5, 2024
This is a fantastic resource for modern readers of Paul! Paul’s theology is not as intuitive as we think. Often, to understand Paul well, one needs a good understanding of the common philosophical thought of his day, which many of us are unfamiliar with. Thiessen does a fantastic job of explaining ancient greek philosophy in an accessible way. Pauline scholarship is also vast and disputed. This is one man’s opinion on Paul, and I don’t think he gets everything fully correct. However, what Thiessen offers is a great starting point for lay readers and especially for pastors as he confronts our common misconceptions about Paul!
#makePaulweirdagain
#makePaulweirdagain
February 12, 2024
This clear, persuasive little volume introduces readers to an interpretation of St. Paul's letters in which the apostle is not critical of Jews or Judaism. While many interpreters have seen Paul's words as a Christian, outside of the Jewish faith, who was critiquing Judaism for either being a religion in which one has to earn one's salvation by good works, or a religion which places one nation (the Jewish one) above all others in importance, Matthew Thiessen instead sees Paul as squarely and comfortably within the diverse milieu of ancient Judaism, a Jew who followed the law and saw himself as an inheritor of God's covenant with the Jewish people.
Thiessen encourages readers to see Paul as weird. He de-familiarizes much of the language of Paul's letters, and shows how Paul's thought uses the scientific and philosophical concepts of his era to talk about Jesus, resurrection, and other key topics in ways that later readers have missed. This makes for engaging and, as I said, persuasive reading. I think knowledgeable lay readers and interested academics alike would benefit from absorbing these arguments.
Thiessen encourages readers to see Paul as weird. He de-familiarizes much of the language of Paul's letters, and shows how Paul's thought uses the scientific and philosophical concepts of his era to talk about Jesus, resurrection, and other key topics in ways that later readers have missed. This makes for engaging and, as I said, persuasive reading. I think knowledgeable lay readers and interested academics alike would benefit from absorbing these arguments.
September 21, 2023
Studies on the Apostle Paul and his theology are and have been legion. The discipline of Pauline studies is often disorienting. Many different perspectives abound.
Matthew Thiessen seeks to provide an introduction to Paul in A Jewish Paul: The Messiah’s Herald to the Gentiles (galley received as part of an early review program).
I went into reading this book with high hopes. I follow Thiessen on Twitter and appreciate his presence and voice there. I just finished N.T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God and, as reviewed below, his Paul: A Biography. I know of criticism of Wright in terms of his understanding of Second Temple Judaism and knew Thiessen was going to make some arguments against him. I was ready to hear it all.
Thiessen begins with an overview of Pauline studies, the main schools of thought, and helpful warnings about being overly influenced by our own context and its questions when trying to understand someone who lived in a very different time and maintained very different perspectives. He identifies himself within the “Paul within Judaism” reading, recognizing the great diversity of thought within Second Temple Judaism and attempting to understand Paul within and not against the Jewish world of his time.
There are many aspects of A Jewish Paul which are beneficial and insightful. I appreciated how Thiessen maintained a perspective of Paul within Judaism without going as far as many these days have gone in suggesting Paul did not presume Jewish people needed to believe in Jesus as the Messiah. His exegesis of the matter of circumcision, in which the issue is less about Jewish people maintaining circumcision and more how as an “add-on” it cannot help a Gentile and in fact works against the salvation of Gentiles in Christ, is useful. Many of his attempts to situate Paul as a Jewish man thinking in Jewish terms and understanding Jesus and the faith in those terms are helpful.
Unfortunately, however, I overall walked away from this book disappointed.
The specific targeting of N.T. Wright seemed a bit much, especially if we grant Theissen’s original comments about the variety of perspectives on Paul. Perhaps Wright has made more “ethnocentric” comments in other works, but at least in PFG, I don’t see the basis for Theissen’s characterizations.
There are a few false binaries in this work. Are there really only two options when it comes to Paul and the Law, as completely faithfully observant in all times and circumstances, or he is a liar? Or is it possible how Paul saw in Jesus a fulfillment of the aims and purposes of Torah and understood how he could still maintain honor for many of the Mosaic traditions but not all, and in every context worked to not cause offense and worked with people where they were? Paul recognized all foods as clean in Romans 14:13-15, consistent with Mark’s portrayal of Jesus in Mark 7; the tension this would create with a perspective of continual observance of the Law is never addressed by Thiessen. The way in which Paul handled matters in 1 Corinthians 8-10 is also at variance with such an either/or proposition.
Thiessen is very much committed to the principle that Paul insisted on Jewish people maintaining their observance of Jewish customs (and, ostensibly, the Law). I would be interested in how he makes sense of Romans 7:1-4 in light of this commitment.
The major challenge, however, comes with the perspective on pneuma and resurrection. Theissen “has been convinced by scholars” regarding the use of Stoic definitions and understanding of pneuma, and this leads him to interpret understandings of the resurrection in like terms.
This is certainly a perspective, yet it seems to be quite ironic, for A Jewish Paul at this point seems to now argue for A Stoic Paul. It becomes almost unimaginable when Theissen begins to cast aspersions about how concretely the hope of 2 Maccabees and restoration of flesh would have been maintained. Thiessen is very convinced humans cannot live in the heavenly realm, and he denies the continued human existence of Jesus.
Let’s grant the variety inherent in Second Temple Judaism and recognize there might well have been many Jewish people who felt as Theissen described. Yet would not there be many other Second Temple Jewish people who would read Genesis 5 about Enoch and 1 Kings 2 about Elijah and accept such statements for what they say: Enoch and Elijah never died, and were taken up? The author of 2 Maccabees, and those who took hope in the text, understood what anastasis meant; a truly Jewish Paul and Jewish people like him would have maintained hope in a bodily resurrection. Thiessen would deny 1 Timothy 2:5 as being Pauline but would have to admit it is from someone in Pauline circles, and that affirms the present human existence of Jesus ca. 63. Nothing is said or made of Philippians 3:21 in which Paul (by common confession) expects the body of humiliation to be glorified to become like Jesus’ body. By denying Jesus’ continued humanity in the ascension, Thiessen undermines Paul’s claims to being a witness to the resurrected Jesus: a glorified, de-humanized Jesus according to Thiessen, not at all the same Jesus which Peter and the others saw for forty days.
Should we conclude, as Thiessen is willing to conclude, that since the Stoics have known definitions of pneuma, and we don’t have any many other such constructs, therefore, Paul and everyone else use the Stoic framework? All of this seems flagrantly against Colossians 2:8 in which Paul - or someone close to Paul as Thiessen would argue - is very concerned about Christians falling prey to philosophies making much of the stoichieia - the very emphasis on earth, air, water, and fire which Thiessen has allowed himself to be convinced are what are really at work here.
I fear Thiessen has fallen prey to the same temptation as Tertullian. Tertullian, he of the “what hath Athens to do with Jerusalem” fame, yet in his treatise de Anima speaks of the soul almost entirely in the prism and framework of Greek philosophical contstructs. Tertullian himself may never have been aware of the irony or the contradiction. Perhaps neither is Thiessen.
I readily admit that I am not a first century Second Temple Jewish person; it is inarguable that Second Temple Judaism was forever changed after its engagement with Hellenism, and many Hellenistic concepts and frameworks were accepted and were grappled with throughout this period. It might well be that everyone just prima facie understood pneuma, etc. as the Stoics did.
But that is not the only option. It is quite possible - in fact, I would say quite likely - that plenty of Second Temple Jewish people very much did not agree with Stoic conceptions of the pneuma and did not makintain their framework. We don’t know what we don’t know.
I understand the frustration: I have done word studies of psyche and pneuma and have walked away convinced we cannot make systematically clear delineations between the two. I walk away convinced there is no coherent framework, and things are being revealed to us in glimpses which neither they nor we can fully comprehend. I understand the temptation of seeing a contemporary holistic framework and saying, “aha! here it is!”. But there’s too much held at variance between what the New Testament authors are saying about pneuma and the Stoic framework of it. It’s also hard to understand what the Stoics might find objectionable about Paul speaking about anastasis and the pneuma if he is using Stoic definitions throughout.
And for good reason small-o orthodox Christianity has always maintained confidence in Jesus’ bodily resurrection and the continued maintenance of that body to this day, for Jesus to remain fully God and fully human even in His ascension and lordship. The whole “Son of Man” bit depends on it.
Ultimately A Jewish Paul ends up looking like A Jewish Paul According to the Views of Late Twentieth Century and the Early Twenty First Century and Inescapably Influenced by the Stoics. Thiessen is well in his rights to believe in such a person; such a one could still exist in a Second Temple Jewish framework. But he’s not the Paul we meet in the New Testament; Thiessen’s scholarly commitments make sure of that. So take this for what you will.
Matthew Thiessen seeks to provide an introduction to Paul in A Jewish Paul: The Messiah’s Herald to the Gentiles (galley received as part of an early review program).
I went into reading this book with high hopes. I follow Thiessen on Twitter and appreciate his presence and voice there. I just finished N.T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God and, as reviewed below, his Paul: A Biography. I know of criticism of Wright in terms of his understanding of Second Temple Judaism and knew Thiessen was going to make some arguments against him. I was ready to hear it all.
Thiessen begins with an overview of Pauline studies, the main schools of thought, and helpful warnings about being overly influenced by our own context and its questions when trying to understand someone who lived in a very different time and maintained very different perspectives. He identifies himself within the “Paul within Judaism” reading, recognizing the great diversity of thought within Second Temple Judaism and attempting to understand Paul within and not against the Jewish world of his time.
There are many aspects of A Jewish Paul which are beneficial and insightful. I appreciated how Thiessen maintained a perspective of Paul within Judaism without going as far as many these days have gone in suggesting Paul did not presume Jewish people needed to believe in Jesus as the Messiah. His exegesis of the matter of circumcision, in which the issue is less about Jewish people maintaining circumcision and more how as an “add-on” it cannot help a Gentile and in fact works against the salvation of Gentiles in Christ, is useful. Many of his attempts to situate Paul as a Jewish man thinking in Jewish terms and understanding Jesus and the faith in those terms are helpful.
Unfortunately, however, I overall walked away from this book disappointed.
The specific targeting of N.T. Wright seemed a bit much, especially if we grant Theissen’s original comments about the variety of perspectives on Paul. Perhaps Wright has made more “ethnocentric” comments in other works, but at least in PFG, I don’t see the basis for Theissen’s characterizations.
There are a few false binaries in this work. Are there really only two options when it comes to Paul and the Law, as completely faithfully observant in all times and circumstances, or he is a liar? Or is it possible how Paul saw in Jesus a fulfillment of the aims and purposes of Torah and understood how he could still maintain honor for many of the Mosaic traditions but not all, and in every context worked to not cause offense and worked with people where they were? Paul recognized all foods as clean in Romans 14:13-15, consistent with Mark’s portrayal of Jesus in Mark 7; the tension this would create with a perspective of continual observance of the Law is never addressed by Thiessen. The way in which Paul handled matters in 1 Corinthians 8-10 is also at variance with such an either/or proposition.
Thiessen is very much committed to the principle that Paul insisted on Jewish people maintaining their observance of Jewish customs (and, ostensibly, the Law). I would be interested in how he makes sense of Romans 7:1-4 in light of this commitment.
The major challenge, however, comes with the perspective on pneuma and resurrection. Theissen “has been convinced by scholars” regarding the use of Stoic definitions and understanding of pneuma, and this leads him to interpret understandings of the resurrection in like terms.
This is certainly a perspective, yet it seems to be quite ironic, for A Jewish Paul at this point seems to now argue for A Stoic Paul. It becomes almost unimaginable when Theissen begins to cast aspersions about how concretely the hope of 2 Maccabees and restoration of flesh would have been maintained. Thiessen is very convinced humans cannot live in the heavenly realm, and he denies the continued human existence of Jesus.
Let’s grant the variety inherent in Second Temple Judaism and recognize there might well have been many Jewish people who felt as Theissen described. Yet would not there be many other Second Temple Jewish people who would read Genesis 5 about Enoch and 1 Kings 2 about Elijah and accept such statements for what they say: Enoch and Elijah never died, and were taken up? The author of 2 Maccabees, and those who took hope in the text, understood what anastasis meant; a truly Jewish Paul and Jewish people like him would have maintained hope in a bodily resurrection. Thiessen would deny 1 Timothy 2:5 as being Pauline but would have to admit it is from someone in Pauline circles, and that affirms the present human existence of Jesus ca. 63. Nothing is said or made of Philippians 3:21 in which Paul (by common confession) expects the body of humiliation to be glorified to become like Jesus’ body. By denying Jesus’ continued humanity in the ascension, Thiessen undermines Paul’s claims to being a witness to the resurrected Jesus: a glorified, de-humanized Jesus according to Thiessen, not at all the same Jesus which Peter and the others saw for forty days.
Should we conclude, as Thiessen is willing to conclude, that since the Stoics have known definitions of pneuma, and we don’t have any many other such constructs, therefore, Paul and everyone else use the Stoic framework? All of this seems flagrantly against Colossians 2:8 in which Paul - or someone close to Paul as Thiessen would argue - is very concerned about Christians falling prey to philosophies making much of the stoichieia - the very emphasis on earth, air, water, and fire which Thiessen has allowed himself to be convinced are what are really at work here.
I fear Thiessen has fallen prey to the same temptation as Tertullian. Tertullian, he of the “what hath Athens to do with Jerusalem” fame, yet in his treatise de Anima speaks of the soul almost entirely in the prism and framework of Greek philosophical contstructs. Tertullian himself may never have been aware of the irony or the contradiction. Perhaps neither is Thiessen.
I readily admit that I am not a first century Second Temple Jewish person; it is inarguable that Second Temple Judaism was forever changed after its engagement with Hellenism, and many Hellenistic concepts and frameworks were accepted and were grappled with throughout this period. It might well be that everyone just prima facie understood pneuma, etc. as the Stoics did.
But that is not the only option. It is quite possible - in fact, I would say quite likely - that plenty of Second Temple Jewish people very much did not agree with Stoic conceptions of the pneuma and did not makintain their framework. We don’t know what we don’t know.
I understand the frustration: I have done word studies of psyche and pneuma and have walked away convinced we cannot make systematically clear delineations between the two. I walk away convinced there is no coherent framework, and things are being revealed to us in glimpses which neither they nor we can fully comprehend. I understand the temptation of seeing a contemporary holistic framework and saying, “aha! here it is!”. But there’s too much held at variance between what the New Testament authors are saying about pneuma and the Stoic framework of it. It’s also hard to understand what the Stoics might find objectionable about Paul speaking about anastasis and the pneuma if he is using Stoic definitions throughout.
And for good reason small-o orthodox Christianity has always maintained confidence in Jesus’ bodily resurrection and the continued maintenance of that body to this day, for Jesus to remain fully God and fully human even in His ascension and lordship. The whole “Son of Man” bit depends on it.
Ultimately A Jewish Paul ends up looking like A Jewish Paul According to the Views of Late Twentieth Century and the Early Twenty First Century and Inescapably Influenced by the Stoics. Thiessen is well in his rights to believe in such a person; such a one could still exist in a Second Temple Jewish framework. But he’s not the Paul we meet in the New Testament; Thiessen’s scholarly commitments make sure of that. So take this for what you will.
July 1, 2024
In terms of making biblical scholarship extremely clear, this book is phenomenal. Thiessen writes simply and lucidly in a way that every scholar should try to emulate in their less erudite works.
This is not a rigorous work of scholarship but an introduction to the "Paul within Judaism" school of thought. As such, one should not expect rigorous arguments. He provides a helpful overview of the perspective that Paul is indeed still a Jew and that being a Christian means becoming truly Jewish. Gentiles are invited into the family of Abraham through the transforming infusion of Holy Pneuma.
This is not a rigorous work of scholarship but an introduction to the "Paul within Judaism" school of thought. As such, one should not expect rigorous arguments. He provides a helpful overview of the perspective that Paul is indeed still a Jew and that being a Christian means becoming truly Jewish. Gentiles are invited into the family of Abraham through the transforming infusion of Holy Pneuma.
December 31, 2023
Finished one last book before 2024! 😅 I really love Thiessen's scholarship and his sensitivity to antisemitism in evangelical theology and thought. It was refreshing to hear his take on Paul. This definitely gets into the weeds tho so beware (I had a rough time following one or two of his arguments, and that's just cuz he's way smarter than me). If you are a Christian who still views Judaism as merely a religion of "works-based salvation," I would challenge you to read this book.
December 1, 2023
Just because the book is published by Baker Academic shouldn't mean you should assume that this book is inaccessible. In fact, this book provides a great introduction to Paul's thought and theology, giving the reader a look at a much needed adjustment in Pauline scholarship: Paul within Judaism. I think the text would make a good text for the classroom or for someone who wants to understand Paul's letters a little better.
August 25, 2023
Having written nearly 1/3rd of the Christian New Testament, it is difficult to ignore the significant contribute by St Paul to Western Christianity. Unfortunately, the 13 or so letters attributed to Paul can be difficult to interpret (Thiessen even notes that the Book of Acts says that many were confused by his teachings). The problem is exacerbated by the fact this we no longer have the same context as his original audience so a straightforward reading may often leads us astray. According to Thiessen, this is particularly true with Paul’s apparent rejection of Judaism that has frequently been used to support the concept of supersessionism, and by extension antisemitism. Placing Paul firmly within an early Jewish milieu under the influence of Greek [Stoic] philosophy can actually provide us with a better understanding of what Paul was trying to do as the Apostle to the Nations (Gentiles).
This is not a new concept for me. Paul is a self described Uber Jew, so after his Road to Damascus “conversion” and apparent rejection of Jewish tradition (for Gentile Jesus followers) has generally been seen as a hard break with the “Judaizers” of his past … except such a believe just doesn’t add up considering his deference to St Peter and the Church in Jerusalem. I have always been uncomfortable with many of the modern interpretations of Paul and have actively sought after an exegesis more in line with how I read the Gospels … this included a number of articles and discussions that attempted to incorporate St Paul’s view of how Gentiles fit within the larger salvific plan of the God of Israel. Thiessen does an excellent job of presented his [academic] argument in language that is clear and accessible to a casual reader with solid support for his positions. Even so, much of the evidence provided is circumstantial, so his conclusions are generally based on a “best fit” paradigm and largely subjective where some readers may not be persuaded of his point of view. This book is a welcome addition to my growing library from which a gain a better understanding of my own faith.
The chapters and sections in this work are:
Introduction
1 - Making Paul Weird Again
2 - Radically New or Long-Lost Reading of Paul?
3 - Judaism Doesn’t Believe Anything
4 - Paul, an End-Time Jew
5 - The Gentile Problem
6 - Jesus the Messiah
7 - The Gentile Problem and Cosmetic Surgery
8 - Pneumatic Gene Therapy
9 - The Bodies of the Messiah
10 - Living the Resurrected Life
11 - Resurrection as the Culmination of the Messiah’s Coming
12 - The Messiah and the Jews
Conclusion
Some of the other points that really got my attention are:
I was given this free advance reader copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.
#AJewishPaul #NetGalley
This is not a new concept for me. Paul is a self described Uber Jew, so after his Road to Damascus “conversion” and apparent rejection of Jewish tradition (for Gentile Jesus followers) has generally been seen as a hard break with the “Judaizers” of his past … except such a believe just doesn’t add up considering his deference to St Peter and the Church in Jerusalem. I have always been uncomfortable with many of the modern interpretations of Paul and have actively sought after an exegesis more in line with how I read the Gospels … this included a number of articles and discussions that attempted to incorporate St Paul’s view of how Gentiles fit within the larger salvific plan of the God of Israel. Thiessen does an excellent job of presented his [academic] argument in language that is clear and accessible to a casual reader with solid support for his positions. Even so, much of the evidence provided is circumstantial, so his conclusions are generally based on a “best fit” paradigm and largely subjective where some readers may not be persuaded of his point of view. This book is a welcome addition to my growing library from which a gain a better understanding of my own faith.
The chapters and sections in this work are:
Introduction
1 - Making Paul Weird Again
2 - Radically New or Long-Lost Reading of Paul?
3 - Judaism Doesn’t Believe Anything
4 - Paul, an End-Time Jew
5 - The Gentile Problem
6 - Jesus the Messiah
7 - The Gentile Problem and Cosmetic Surgery
8 - Pneumatic Gene Therapy
9 - The Bodies of the Messiah
10 - Living the Resurrected Life
11 - Resurrection as the Culmination of the Messiah’s Coming
12 - The Messiah and the Jews
Conclusion
Some of the other points that really got my attention are:
I was given this free advance reader copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.
#AJewishPaul #NetGalley
April 17, 2024
Not as revelatory as Jesus and the Forces of Death, but still is useful for its emphasis on a critical point. Paul, like the writers of basically the entire New Testament, was a Second Temple Jew and never saw himself as otherwise or as breaking from that. Thiessen makes much about how succeeding Christian tradition lost sight of that, saying that it often tried to find a fault with Judaism that it saw Jesus as changing.
From what I understand (this is not in this book) this was a byproduct of the slow splitting of ways between Jesus Follower Sect that came to be called Christians and increasingly converted non-Jews, and the Judaisms that did not follow Jesus who retained that name. Relevant too is the early Marcionite heresy, the proto-gnostic teaching that the God of the Old Testament was an evil creator-deity of a filthy world, and that Jesus was here to rescue us from him. Marcion created the first recorded "canon," collection of the New Testament writings. All these groups defined themselves polemically against each other. The "Jews" anathematizing the Two Powers in Heaven doctrine some Second Temple Jews long held for how easily it turned into Trinitarianism. The "Christians" denying Monarchianism/Arianism in support of the Trinity, and against Marcionism it affirmed the canonical status of the Old Testament scriptures, that this was their heritage.
I wonder how much the statement that 2000 succeeding of Christian doctrine always positioned Judaism as it was found in the first and second temple period as flawed and in need of correction, is incorrect or an overstatement. There's plenty of patristic and even Reformation writing on such subjects that doesn't strike me as saying anything of the like. I don't deny that a lot of Christian tradition has struggled with antisemitism as various points. Lord knows it's an often ugly history, and it breaks my heart reading early Luther's comments on Judaism vs what he turns to.
In the wake of WWII both Vatican II and general Evangelical Christianity defined itself against aspects of its antisemitic past. Within that reaction is where I've been brought up, in an evangelical environment that has always bordered more on Jewish supremacism than anything else, often calling them "God's chosen people" who still have a special role to play in God's plan. That kind of philosemitism can read as a sort of unformed Orientalism, despite it being just way closer to being wholly correct that many alternatives. Some incorrect things it inspires people to say, like "support Israel no matter what" have been devastating though. The cognitive dissonance between those sets of beliefs and the current genocide in Gaza has I think led to a creeping up of antisemitic strains. People struggle to keep multiple ideas distinct, including a distinction between modern "Judaism" and "Israel," and between evil actions and some sort of othering of a people.
I say all this because the spector of antisemitism does animate a number of points of emphasis in this book. But thankfully the text is not antisemitic (this is not to say they are exactly ecumenical in a modern context), and he does not have to read a respect of second temple Jews into the text. Paul is one! Many times the points the author makes, and says is distinct from a lot of tradition is just plainly what I've been taught, and at other times it's just a bit of clarification of language. In many many cases I don't understand how he sees the point he makes as irreconcilable with tradition.
There is much worthwhile in here, whatever my quibbling on how he perceives his implications. The book shows how it's good to think about how the New Testament is structured, how we first meet Paul not through his letters, but through the Luke-Acts author, who introduces him, has him directly deal with people accusing him of abandoning the Law of Moses, and showing himself a faithful Jew who teaches Jesus as Messiah and the culmination of that law. The structure of the NT anticipates that possible misreading of Paul. Other valuable things are reiterating Barclay's scholarship that Judaism in all its forms has always been a religion of grace (not legalistic), just as Christianity is. It points out how Paul teaches believes as themselves becoming sacred space, which becomes a more awe inspiring and terrifying idea considering Thiessen's previous work.
Paul is Jesus's herald to the Gentiles, and Thiessen shows how much of his letters are concerned with how Gentiles can participate in the Abrahamic covenant (the law is about remaining in the covenant) when they are not the ethnic nor ritual children of that covenant. Spoiler, it's Jesus, instead of circumcision which would just modify the flesh and not the Pneuma. Paul's own letters reiterate over and over his continued Jewishness, and the distinctly Gentile moral state without Jesus (none of this is to say non Jesus following Jews don't need Jesus).
A fascinating part later on is where an interpretation of Paul's physics is discussed, which draws on Aristotelian and Stoic understanding of Aether (the 5th divine element), Pneuma (for aristotle, how the aether interacts with the elements in the earthly realm. Not quite for paul), and Krasis (true mixture of two materials for the Stoics, indwelling and surrounding). Pneuma is "material" but invisible, "perfect matter." The Body of Christ, just as "your body is a temple," is literal. Christ's Pneuma (Spirit) dwells in all believers Sarx (flesh), and so we are his earthly body. This relies on ancient understanding of soul matter body etc, and a way of speaking where a biological group participating in the same "Spirit" was in a real way one Body.
Overall I'm sympathetic to a lot of my perceived perception of the Paul Within Judaism / Radical New Perspective on Paul, with some healthy suspicion of academic scholarship rewarding provocative and new ideas over good ones. In that regard some of my appreciation stems from not understanding what's radical about much of it. It seems like just reading the text, and in many cases just how I learned it. In any case I fail to see a number of points of discontinuity it claims, which I would say is a good thing.
Random notes:
— uncommonness of ancient Judaism proselytize
— "former life in Judaism" is actually former life Judaizing, reinforced by Gal 5 11.
— pre islamic yet abrahamic/ishmaelite folk beliefs in Arabia are so fascinating, I should read more about it.
— really wish translations preserved pre Christian philosophically loaded words like "Logos," "Pneuma," "Telos," etc.
— Rom 3 Thiessen sees the sperma/spermata distinction as not a strong argument
— 1 Thes 2 15 bad translation Gillard "the problem of the antisemitic comma"
— that Pistis connotates obedience and may be better translated as faithfulness
— Pythagoras taught aniconism and Plutarch taught Rome turned to idolatry 200 years after its founding
— weird interpretation of the rock reference 1 Cor 10 4
— Tertullian cited Pneuma materiality
— resurrection body likened to your flesh being the seed of the new body
— Hoi hagioi the Holy ones, often used for lower divinities.
— dirt bodies infused with Pneuma, "we have this treasure in clay jars"
— the root of Jesse shall come, the one who arises (ho anistamenos, which Paul uses a lot)
— the God who calls into being the things that are not (Gen, Abram/Sarah being old/childless)
— whereas Aristotle has the celestial realm made of Aether (for paul this is doxa, glory), for Plato it's made of fire
— glad he thinks Sonderweg is nonsense
From what I understand (this is not in this book) this was a byproduct of the slow splitting of ways between Jesus Follower Sect that came to be called Christians and increasingly converted non-Jews, and the Judaisms that did not follow Jesus who retained that name. Relevant too is the early Marcionite heresy, the proto-gnostic teaching that the God of the Old Testament was an evil creator-deity of a filthy world, and that Jesus was here to rescue us from him. Marcion created the first recorded "canon," collection of the New Testament writings. All these groups defined themselves polemically against each other. The "Jews" anathematizing the Two Powers in Heaven doctrine some Second Temple Jews long held for how easily it turned into Trinitarianism. The "Christians" denying Monarchianism/Arianism in support of the Trinity, and against Marcionism it affirmed the canonical status of the Old Testament scriptures, that this was their heritage.
I wonder how much the statement that 2000 succeeding of Christian doctrine always positioned Judaism as it was found in the first and second temple period as flawed and in need of correction, is incorrect or an overstatement. There's plenty of patristic and even Reformation writing on such subjects that doesn't strike me as saying anything of the like. I don't deny that a lot of Christian tradition has struggled with antisemitism as various points. Lord knows it's an often ugly history, and it breaks my heart reading early Luther's comments on Judaism vs what he turns to.
In the wake of WWII both Vatican II and general Evangelical Christianity defined itself against aspects of its antisemitic past. Within that reaction is where I've been brought up, in an evangelical environment that has always bordered more on Jewish supremacism than anything else, often calling them "God's chosen people" who still have a special role to play in God's plan. That kind of philosemitism can read as a sort of unformed Orientalism, despite it being just way closer to being wholly correct that many alternatives. Some incorrect things it inspires people to say, like "support Israel no matter what" have been devastating though. The cognitive dissonance between those sets of beliefs and the current genocide in Gaza has I think led to a creeping up of antisemitic strains. People struggle to keep multiple ideas distinct, including a distinction between modern "Judaism" and "Israel," and between evil actions and some sort of othering of a people.
I say all this because the spector of antisemitism does animate a number of points of emphasis in this book. But thankfully the text is not antisemitic (this is not to say they are exactly ecumenical in a modern context), and he does not have to read a respect of second temple Jews into the text. Paul is one! Many times the points the author makes, and says is distinct from a lot of tradition is just plainly what I've been taught, and at other times it's just a bit of clarification of language. In many many cases I don't understand how he sees the point he makes as irreconcilable with tradition.
There is much worthwhile in here, whatever my quibbling on how he perceives his implications. The book shows how it's good to think about how the New Testament is structured, how we first meet Paul not through his letters, but through the Luke-Acts author, who introduces him, has him directly deal with people accusing him of abandoning the Law of Moses, and showing himself a faithful Jew who teaches Jesus as Messiah and the culmination of that law. The structure of the NT anticipates that possible misreading of Paul. Other valuable things are reiterating Barclay's scholarship that Judaism in all its forms has always been a religion of grace (not legalistic), just as Christianity is. It points out how Paul teaches believes as themselves becoming sacred space, which becomes a more awe inspiring and terrifying idea considering Thiessen's previous work.
Paul is Jesus's herald to the Gentiles, and Thiessen shows how much of his letters are concerned with how Gentiles can participate in the Abrahamic covenant (the law is about remaining in the covenant) when they are not the ethnic nor ritual children of that covenant. Spoiler, it's Jesus, instead of circumcision which would just modify the flesh and not the Pneuma. Paul's own letters reiterate over and over his continued Jewishness, and the distinctly Gentile moral state without Jesus (none of this is to say non Jesus following Jews don't need Jesus).
A fascinating part later on is where an interpretation of Paul's physics is discussed, which draws on Aristotelian and Stoic understanding of Aether (the 5th divine element), Pneuma (for aristotle, how the aether interacts with the elements in the earthly realm. Not quite for paul), and Krasis (true mixture of two materials for the Stoics, indwelling and surrounding). Pneuma is "material" but invisible, "perfect matter." The Body of Christ, just as "your body is a temple," is literal. Christ's Pneuma (Spirit) dwells in all believers Sarx (flesh), and so we are his earthly body. This relies on ancient understanding of soul matter body etc, and a way of speaking where a biological group participating in the same "Spirit" was in a real way one Body.
Overall I'm sympathetic to a lot of my perceived perception of the Paul Within Judaism / Radical New Perspective on Paul, with some healthy suspicion of academic scholarship rewarding provocative and new ideas over good ones. In that regard some of my appreciation stems from not understanding what's radical about much of it. It seems like just reading the text, and in many cases just how I learned it. In any case I fail to see a number of points of discontinuity it claims, which I would say is a good thing.
Random notes:
— uncommonness of ancient Judaism proselytize
— "former life in Judaism" is actually former life Judaizing, reinforced by Gal 5 11.
— pre islamic yet abrahamic/ishmaelite folk beliefs in Arabia are so fascinating, I should read more about it.
— really wish translations preserved pre Christian philosophically loaded words like "Logos," "Pneuma," "Telos," etc.
— Rom 3 Thiessen sees the sperma/spermata distinction as not a strong argument
— 1 Thes 2 15 bad translation Gillard "the problem of the antisemitic comma"
— that Pistis connotates obedience and may be better translated as faithfulness
— Pythagoras taught aniconism and Plutarch taught Rome turned to idolatry 200 years after its founding
— weird interpretation of the rock reference 1 Cor 10 4
— Tertullian cited Pneuma materiality
— resurrection body likened to your flesh being the seed of the new body
— Hoi hagioi the Holy ones, often used for lower divinities.
— dirt bodies infused with Pneuma, "we have this treasure in clay jars"
— the root of Jesse shall come, the one who arises (ho anistamenos, which Paul uses a lot)
— the God who calls into being the things that are not (Gen, Abram/Sarah being old/childless)
— whereas Aristotle has the celestial realm made of Aether (for paul this is doxa, glory), for Plato it's made of fire
— glad he thinks Sonderweg is nonsense
October 28, 2023
2.5*
This book was underwhelming for me. I loved the focus on Paul as a Jew and seeing his healthy relationship to the Hebrew Bible and to the Jews. However, there were many contradictions in this book and weak arguments that just didn’t persuade me his reading of Paul was correct (e.g., the “disputed letters” are undermined/doubted except when they contain information to support the author’s point of view). He accuses others of making sweeping and broad generalizations about Jews and the biblical world in general, but then he does the same thing in several places. His interaction with NT Wright was helpful and needed, but in the end his approach is equally disappointing in my view.
This book was underwhelming for me. I loved the focus on Paul as a Jew and seeing his healthy relationship to the Hebrew Bible and to the Jews. However, there were many contradictions in this book and weak arguments that just didn’t persuade me his reading of Paul was correct (e.g., the “disputed letters” are undermined/doubted except when they contain information to support the author’s point of view). He accuses others of making sweeping and broad generalizations about Jews and the biblical world in general, but then he does the same thing in several places. His interaction with NT Wright was helpful and needed, but in the end his approach is equally disappointing in my view.
May 16, 2025
Matthew Thiessen presents himself as a scholar within a fourth school of Pauline interpretation. While embracing aspects of the traditional approach, the new perspective, and the apocalyptic Paul, Thiessen wants to take an approach that he credits to Luke, the author of Luke and Acts (9–10). The key for his view is to refuse constructing Judaism as legalistic or ethnocentric, and instead consider Paul within Judaism as “convinced that in the Messiah’s incarnation, death, and resurrection gentiles were being incorporated into God’s eschatological deliverance (160). Rather than directly entering into debates with the other three “schools,” this view tries to take the best of each and change the conversation. In one sense, Thiessen wants to change the conversation away from Judaism and Paul completely, instead seeing Paul as focused on Gentile incorporation into the family of God by faith in the Messiah and infusion of his pneuma into their own body.
For new insights, the strength of this work comes, in my opinion, through individual textual exegesis. Thiessen does good work in analyzing Luke’s view of Paul, and in particular, the connection of Acts to Romans 5 brings Paul’s view of the Messiah and the Messiah’s kingdom to the forefront (75). I don’t often think of Paul as a “kingdom of God” proclaimer, and Thiessen draws that out well. The idea of pneuma as “a material gift from God—it is the presence of God and God’s Messiah—that enters human hearts” was also, though esoteric, quite helpful (108–111). Through faith, Gentiles (and, I would add, Jews) actually receive the Messiah’s essence, making them true heirs of Abraham. While I think he discounts Paul’s view of the incarnation (in particular, Gal 4:4–6), I think his work on the resurrected life was also quite insightful, especially how our reception of the pneuma actually empowers a new moral life.
As a whole, however, and in line with the New Perspective and the Apocalyptic Paul, I mostly just find Thiessen arrogant when engaging with the traditional view. He writes, “I suggest that Paul’s own letters point in this direction, when properly read,” even as he says that traditional accounts of Paul disagree with Luke (29). Some self-awareness that you might not be the first century to get Paul “right” seems fitting. Aside from that, I additionally find the emphasis on Paul’s focus on the Gentiles quite overstated. For example, even if Thiessen is correct about Paul describing “the Gentile problem” in Romans 1:18–32, Thiessen does not even address Jewish self-righteousness in Romans 2:1–5 (62–63). The flow of the chapter as a whole indicts all humanity culminating in the declarations of Romans 3:10–12 and 3:23. Additionally, to infer that Paul’s only comments on the state of the Jews come in Romans 9–11, with the conclusion that his accusation “has nothing to do with some abstract theory of works righteousness or legalism or ethnocentrism”—instead just being about their rejection of the Messiah—completely disregards huge swaths of Paul’s letters (Gal 3:10–14; Eph 2:1–22), regardless of interpretive stream (NPP vs. Traditional). While helped by some of the individual contributions, I find this explanation of Paul largely uncompelling.
For new insights, the strength of this work comes, in my opinion, through individual textual exegesis. Thiessen does good work in analyzing Luke’s view of Paul, and in particular, the connection of Acts to Romans 5 brings Paul’s view of the Messiah and the Messiah’s kingdom to the forefront (75). I don’t often think of Paul as a “kingdom of God” proclaimer, and Thiessen draws that out well. The idea of pneuma as “a material gift from God—it is the presence of God and God’s Messiah—that enters human hearts” was also, though esoteric, quite helpful (108–111). Through faith, Gentiles (and, I would add, Jews) actually receive the Messiah’s essence, making them true heirs of Abraham. While I think he discounts Paul’s view of the incarnation (in particular, Gal 4:4–6), I think his work on the resurrected life was also quite insightful, especially how our reception of the pneuma actually empowers a new moral life.
As a whole, however, and in line with the New Perspective and the Apocalyptic Paul, I mostly just find Thiessen arrogant when engaging with the traditional view. He writes, “I suggest that Paul’s own letters point in this direction, when properly read,” even as he says that traditional accounts of Paul disagree with Luke (29). Some self-awareness that you might not be the first century to get Paul “right” seems fitting. Aside from that, I additionally find the emphasis on Paul’s focus on the Gentiles quite overstated. For example, even if Thiessen is correct about Paul describing “the Gentile problem” in Romans 1:18–32, Thiessen does not even address Jewish self-righteousness in Romans 2:1–5 (62–63). The flow of the chapter as a whole indicts all humanity culminating in the declarations of Romans 3:10–12 and 3:23. Additionally, to infer that Paul’s only comments on the state of the Jews come in Romans 9–11, with the conclusion that his accusation “has nothing to do with some abstract theory of works righteousness or legalism or ethnocentrism”—instead just being about their rejection of the Messiah—completely disregards huge swaths of Paul’s letters (Gal 3:10–14; Eph 2:1–22), regardless of interpretive stream (NPP vs. Traditional). While helped by some of the individual contributions, I find this explanation of Paul largely uncompelling.
December 20, 2025
i decided to read The Messiah’s Herald to the Gentiles because I was weary of the version of Paul I had been handed for years. The Paul who supposedly walked away from Torah. The Paul who replaced Israel. The Paul who made faith feel detached from obedience. Matthew Thiessen gently but firmly clears that fog. He places Paul back where he belongs, inside Israel’s story, inside Jewish hope, inside the promises given by God long before Rome or church councils ever existed.
What I appreciated most is how carefully Thiessen shows that Paul never stopped being Jewish. Paul did not reject the Law. He did not abandon the covenant. He believed he was living in the days the prophets spoke of, when the Messiah would come and the nations would be gathered to the God of Israel. Reading Paul this way changes everything. His words about Gentiles, circumcision, and the Spirit stop sounding like rejection and start sounding like fulfillment. You can feel the faithfulness of God woven through Paul’s mission, not erased by it.
This book does require slow reading. It asks you to set aside inherited assumptions and listen carefully. At times, the academic tone pulled me out of the devotional weight of the subject, and I found myself wishing for more direct engagement with lived Torah practice today. Still, the core message stands strong. Paul was not dismantling God’s instructions. He was proclaiming Messiah to the nations while standing firmly within Israel’s hope. If you love Scripture and want Paul to make sense without tearing Torah apart, this book offers a steady, reverent path back to clarity.
What I appreciated most is how carefully Thiessen shows that Paul never stopped being Jewish. Paul did not reject the Law. He did not abandon the covenant. He believed he was living in the days the prophets spoke of, when the Messiah would come and the nations would be gathered to the God of Israel. Reading Paul this way changes everything. His words about Gentiles, circumcision, and the Spirit stop sounding like rejection and start sounding like fulfillment. You can feel the faithfulness of God woven through Paul’s mission, not erased by it.
This book does require slow reading. It asks you to set aside inherited assumptions and listen carefully. At times, the academic tone pulled me out of the devotional weight of the subject, and I found myself wishing for more direct engagement with lived Torah practice today. Still, the core message stands strong. Paul was not dismantling God’s instructions. He was proclaiming Messiah to the nations while standing firmly within Israel’s hope. If you love Scripture and want Paul to make sense without tearing Torah apart, this book offers a steady, reverent path back to clarity.
January 25, 2025
A MUST-READ for Everyone Seeking to Understand Paul
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading through the details of Matthew Thiessen’s explanations of Paul’s difficult to understand words. One theme of this book is the simple truth that the majority of us have understood Paul based on bad assumptions and historically inaccurate and unfair portrayals of Judaism. This has lent itself to centuries of undeniable bad attitudes, antagonism, and even hatred (with devastating and lethal consequences) toward the Jews and Judaism. It has born bad fruit and it’s time to reexamine how we understand Paul’s words!
When reading a text that is 2,000 years old and written by a Jewish Pharisee steeped in 2nd Temple Judaism in the Mediterranean world, it’s only honest and right to attempt to place ourselves in that world at that time and only then to read those words with humility and understanding for them in their proper context. This book is the result of loads of work in that direction. The result of reading Paul within Judaism is that Jews and Judaism aren’t demonized, Christianity doesn’t have to insult or antagonize in order to properly define itself, and Paul doesn’t contradict Jesus (or the rest of scripture for that matter). Paul finally makes sense! I am also thankful that a non-scholar ( a normal person ) can read this book and understand instead of sifting through long, wordy, complicated scholarly material. Thank you Matthew Thiessen!
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading through the details of Matthew Thiessen’s explanations of Paul’s difficult to understand words. One theme of this book is the simple truth that the majority of us have understood Paul based on bad assumptions and historically inaccurate and unfair portrayals of Judaism. This has lent itself to centuries of undeniable bad attitudes, antagonism, and even hatred (with devastating and lethal consequences) toward the Jews and Judaism. It has born bad fruit and it’s time to reexamine how we understand Paul’s words!
When reading a text that is 2,000 years old and written by a Jewish Pharisee steeped in 2nd Temple Judaism in the Mediterranean world, it’s only honest and right to attempt to place ourselves in that world at that time and only then to read those words with humility and understanding for them in their proper context. This book is the result of loads of work in that direction. The result of reading Paul within Judaism is that Jews and Judaism aren’t demonized, Christianity doesn’t have to insult or antagonize in order to properly define itself, and Paul doesn’t contradict Jesus (or the rest of scripture for that matter). Paul finally makes sense! I am also thankful that a non-scholar ( a normal person ) can read this book and understand instead of sifting through long, wordy, complicated scholarly material. Thank you Matthew Thiessen!
December 2, 2023
I was reading this book while our small group was studying Romans. I think the group got a little fatigued from me quoting the ideas and thoughts from this brilliant book.
I found this book so valuable for understanding the background and context to Paul’s writings and world view. Particularly useful was how Matthew Thiessen explained how Paul saw the world as being divided into two major groups - Jews and non-Jews. The author also helped me understand that Judaism was not one set of unmoveable beliefs but had variation.
The phrase ‘let’s keep Paul weird!’ was also surprisingly helpful in my efforts to understand the place Paul writes from.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to develop a deeper understanding of Paul and his writings. It is well written, thought-provoking and nuanced.
I found this book so valuable for understanding the background and context to Paul’s writings and world view. Particularly useful was how Matthew Thiessen explained how Paul saw the world as being divided into two major groups - Jews and non-Jews. The author also helped me understand that Judaism was not one set of unmoveable beliefs but had variation.
The phrase ‘let’s keep Paul weird!’ was also surprisingly helpful in my efforts to understand the place Paul writes from.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to develop a deeper understanding of Paul and his writings. It is well written, thought-provoking and nuanced.
November 12, 2025
MAN I have some complicated thoughts about this book. On the one hand, his sections on Paul’s overall context, circumcision and Abraham’s seed in Galatians are excellent. Necessary reading.
I am far less enthusiastic about his reading of pneuma. The chapter on the general resurrection felt speculative rather than solidly argued. In his schema, I’m seeing the pneuma as a substance and not a person, and that worries me. Not as someone trying to impose 4th century theology onto the Bible, but as someone who does not feel the full range of Biblical data on Paul’s “pneumatology” was represented accurately.
I enjoyed reading this book and appreciate its simultaneous accessibility and depth, even if I have serious misgivings about some of Thiessen’s conclusions.
I am far less enthusiastic about his reading of pneuma. The chapter on the general resurrection felt speculative rather than solidly argued. In his schema, I’m seeing the pneuma as a substance and not a person, and that worries me. Not as someone trying to impose 4th century theology onto the Bible, but as someone who does not feel the full range of Biblical data on Paul’s “pneumatology” was represented accurately.
I enjoyed reading this book and appreciate its simultaneous accessibility and depth, even if I have serious misgivings about some of Thiessen’s conclusions.
December 28, 2024
Very thought provoking book. Well worth the read. Problematic though to the degree that Thiessen's project is a kind of bicovenantalism that would hold to two plans of salvation, one for the Jews who follow the Torah and recognize the Messiah, and another for Christians, who are baptized into the covenant and and do not follow the Torah. Nonetheless, the Jewishness of Paul is an aspect of Pauline studies that needs to be better emphasized and Thiessen does that. Furthermore, Thiessen, whether intentionally or not, makes a strong case against the necessity of multicultural Christianity in defending the ethnocentrism of the Jews, which is compelling.
October 14, 2023
A great introduction to the "Paul within Judaism school" of NT scholarship. Thiessen, along with Paula Fredriksen, Matthew Novenson, and others thinks Paul never left Judaism, but rather saw Jesus as the Messiah, which meant that (according to Paul's reading of the prophets) gentiles were now allowed to come into the family of Israel's God - WITHOUT becoming Jews, hence Paul's polemics against gentile circumcision in Galatians and Romans. You can read this little book in a day!
August 7, 2023
Thiessen's A Jewish Paul manages to be both academic and still accessible to people who do not have a background in Pauline studies. He clearly explains what he's talking about with simple introductory language while delving into current debates and giving his own unique contributions. It's an interesting and helpful read that is very much worth looking into.
September 25, 2023
Thiessen provides a helpful and cohesive framework for reading Paul, despite the "whataboutisms" that crop up against any view that attempts to put Paul into a nice box. Would recommend as an intro to PwJ, clear and accessible writing and would benefit any seminarian or lay person (or others interested in the PwJ camp!)
November 3, 2023
Matt Thiessen's book is a wonderful inrtoduction to a view of Paul that contrasts with the Luthern View and the New Perspective. I highly recommend it to pastors, in particular.
May 24, 2024
This is an accessible introduction to the question of how to read Paul as a realistic, first-century Jew without falling into modern, anti-Jewish tropes.
May 26, 2024
Great book, different point of view about justification and the works of the law.
January 11, 2025
This could have been covered in a couple of blog posts. Becomes awfully repetitive.
March 14, 2025
In preparation for Greece
January 11, 2025
This might be one of the more important books I have read. So much to think about after this reading. His chapter on “Pneumatic Gene Therapy” was quite good! Probably a book I could easily gift and recommend to anyone interested in or compelled by Paul within Judaism. Maybe just the best intro to Paul book.
December 5, 2023
Some of this book reinforced things I already knew, but there are also some ideas that are new to me. I thought the chapter "Judaism Doesn't Believe Anything" was good and reinforced the point I keep making that the Judaism of the first century was diverse, so you have to identify which Jews you are speaking of. I appreciated the discussion of the different views of Gentiles held by first-century Jews (p. 46). Chapter 8, "Pneumatic Gene Therapy," forces me to think differently about how Paul understood the inclusion of Gentiles. I found the Stoic view of pneuma helpful.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews