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.

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.

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.

One of the most significant topics in Pauline studies since the 1940s has been Paul's relationship with the Jewish world of his time. In the aftermath of World War II, biblical scholars sought to define the ways in which Paul differed from his Jewish predecessors and whether he perceived Christianity as an evolution of Judaism or something distinct. In recent times, the contentious issue of "supercessionism" (whether Christianity replaces Judaism or not) has been a focal point, and numerous monographs, since E.P. Sanders and James D.G. Dunn in the 1970s, have addressed this matter. Among these, Matthew Thiessen enters the discussion with his book, A Jewish Paul: The Messiah's Herald to the Gentiles.

Thiessen argues that Paul's connection to his Jewish brethren is stronger than commonly believed, and he takes a historical approach to explore this relationship. He delves into questions such as whether Paul abandoned Judaism entirely, viewed it as something different, and how Jews and Christians should interact in light of Paul's association with Judaism. To achieve these goals, Thiessen relies on the New Testament canon to reconstruct Paul's worldview, despite the challenge of lacking an autobiography. He also draws from the rest of the New Testament, including Acts.

This historical methodology is the book's primary strength, which many readers will appreciate. Additionally, Thiessen's reliance on the New Testament canon as the basis for his historical reconstruction sets his work apart. While some scholars may not be fully persuaded by Thiessen's conclusions, his well-written and informative arguments, based on the canon, are noteworthy. In the field of Pauline studies, it has become increasingly common to use secondary literature, such as works by N.T. Wright and texts on Second Temple Judaism to study Paul's views. However, Thiessen's emphasis on the New Testament provides a more accessible entry point into the debate, especially for those less familiar with these secondary sources. This aspect and the book's historical and foundational approach elevate A Jewish Paul to a "must-read" status for anyone interested in Pauline studies.

Starting with the premise that Paul is more strongly continuous with his Jewish background, Thiessen proceeds to explore Paul's relationship with contemporary Judaism and the Gentiles. The book is structured clearly and coherently. Initially, Thiessen delves into Paul's identity and the world he inhabited while also examining the diverse history of Judaism. The book's second half explores the relationship between Paul and Judaism concerning the Gentiles and how they interacted. Throughout these discussions, Thiessen delves into how Paul's views relate to Jewish eschatology and missiology and how Gentiles would interact with Jewish Scriptures, practices, and the Messiah. This well-structured approach makes the book easy to follow, allowing readers to follow the argument based on solid organization and concise summaries at the end of each chapter.

It is important to note that A Jewish Paul is an introductory book and, as such, cannot cover all the major details of the debate. With just over two-hundred pages, it inevitably has limitations in scope and depth. While the discussion is not shallow, some readers may desire more in-depth analysis at certain points in the study. However, this book serves as a solid foundation for readers seeking a deeper exploration, and it can lead them to further study with other authors.

In conclusion, A Jewish Paul provides a good introductory exploration of how Paul's life related to Judaism and his understanding of the revelation of the Jewish Messiah. Although it does not delve into the level of an academic volume, it presents various topics with surprising depth and clarity. Even if readers are not entirely persuaded by the central thesis, Thiessen's arguments and introduction to a more Jewish-aligned view of Paul are compelling and warrant engagement.

As I've begun following various rabbis and other Jews on social media, I've become increasingly aware of the (sometimes unconscious) antisemitism that is too frequently found in our churches, in the way we pit the New Testament against the Hebrew Bible, and definitely in the way we speak about Paul, the Pharisees, and the Jewish establishment in Jerusalem in the 1st century CE. As such, I very much appreciated this brief primer from Thiessen that pushes back against the far-too-frequently anti-Jewish interpretations that seem to dominate. I found his reasoning sound and his arguments appear to be well-supported. I hope to read more from Thiessen on the subject.

One 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.