Did Paul Really Teach Two Roads to Salvation? | Josh Ip Cho-suen

Some scholars within the Paul within Judaism school (PWJ) argue that Paul taught two distinct paths to salvation—one for Jews through the Law and another for Gentiles through Christ. But is that really what Paul says?

In this episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, Daniel Mikkelsen is joined by Josh Ip Cho-suen (pastor and biblical scholar) to examine how Paul actually speaks about salvation for Jews and Gentiles. We trace the development of the PWJ view (including influences from E. P. Sanders and covenantal nomism) and test it against key texts like Galatians 2 and Romans 3.

They also talk about how Greek helps us understand the Great Commission (Matt 28) and grace in Romans 5.

Through close attention to Greek grammar, historical context, and theological reasoning, Daniel and Josh explore whether Paul envisioned two ways of salvation—or one gospel for all who believe—and why this still matters for the church today.

Don’t miss the next episode:
Creation in Genesis with Jens Bruun Kofoed—exploring how the original audience would have understood the opening chapters of the Bible.

📘 Free Guide — Why Struggle with Greek?
Avoid the four most common pitfalls and start making real progress:
 🔗 https://ntgreektutoring.com/why-struggle-with-greek

Chapters

00:00 – Coming Up…
 01:01 – Meeting Josh Ip Cho-suen: Pastor, Scholar, and Theologian
 04:37 – Why Learning Biblical Languages Still Matters
 06:21 – Greek Grammar Shows What’s Most Important in the Great Commission
 09:51 – The Meaning of Grace in Romans 5
 18:06 – Who Are the “Paul within Judaism” Scholars?
 27:15 – Why the Paul within Judaism Scholars Argue This Way
 30:53 – Was Paul Writing Only to Gentiles? Inside the Debate
 41:59 – How Paul Describes Salvation for Jews and Gentiles
 49:52 – Galatians 2 and the Question of Two Roads to Salvation
 01:01:14 – Testing the Paul within Judaism Interpretation
 01:09:51 – What Paul Really Thought about Sin and Humanity
 01:15:08 – Paul’s Theology of Salvation Explained
 01:24:59 – Why This Still Matters for Christians Today

Music Credits:
Music from #Uppbeat
🔗 https://uppbeat.io/t/all-good-folks/aspire

If you enjoyed this episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, please consider becoming an Explorer! Your support helps keep the podcast ad-free, allows us to bring in more guests, and enhances the content we create. By joining our Explorer community, you’ll receive exclusive benefits, including Q&As, priority for Greek tutoring applications, and discounts on tutoring. Explore more and join the Explorer programme here: Become an Explorer. 

Podcast Keywords:
biblical languages, New Testament, Old Testament, Christ, bible study,  Relationship with God, learn biblical languages, Biblical Theology, Christianity, Covenants, New covenant, old covenant, language acquisition, Biblical Greek, Biblical Hebrew.

Transcript

0:00

The founder of this school, Lloyd Gaxton, wrote a book on Paul's thoughts and then he argued that law, tarah, for Jews, Christ for Gentiles. Once they believed that Paul is writing his letters only to Gentiles, Paul is dealing with Gentiles' problem and then once they adopt the covenantal nominism from E.P. Sanders, P.W.J. scholars think that Paul is dealing with the issue of I think it's important to try to present people accurately before you critique them. But I think my try was like saying, so that reading of Galatians 2, is it even fair? Matthew 28 verses 19 to 20. I always heard that the main point of this passage is to go. However, when I read in Greek text, actually there's only one main verb. does Paul's letters and how does Paul actually talk about the salvation of Jews and non-Jews? In general, just as I mentioned, Welcome back to another episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, brought to you by NT Greek Tutoring, the place for personalized Greek learning in your spare time. I'm your host, Daniel Mikkelsen, the founder of NT Greek Tutoring and a PhD candidate, New Testament at the University of Edinburgh. And this podcast exists to make gyms and biblical studies accessible to everyday Christian and show how the biblical languages opens up scripture. Our aim is to increase your love for God and His word so that you become more joyful witnesses for His mission. And today I'm delighted name honored to be joined by by Josh Ip Cho-suen I hope I pronounced your name correctly, who is an assistant professor of biblical studies at Alliance Bible Seminary in Hong Kong. Before Josh joined the seminary, he did his PhD in New Testament and Christian origins at the University of Edinburgh. He also holds an M.Th. from Edinburgh. and an M.Th. and MDiv from Alliance Bible Seminary. His PhD research focused on the soteriology of Jews and non-Jews in Paul's thought, or in other words, how Jews and non-Jews are saved in Paul's thinking, which we'll be talking much more about later on in this episode, which I'm excited about as it is very hot topic in scholarship these days. So if you want to know a little bit more about what that is about and how to deal with it, then stick around for that. I also had the privilege of overlapping with Josh at Edinburgh for about two years, where we got to know each other through our mutual friend Alex Muir, who actually also been on the podcast. And I do remember one of Josh's papers when he was presenting on Paul's explicit audience in Romans in 2022. And I actually think that that was where we met the first time. So it's a great honor to have you on the podcast, Josh. Welcome here. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you for having me. Yeah, absolutely. It's a great honor. Anything else you want to add before we jump into some questions? No, yeah, so happy to see you again because I still remember those days when we were in Edinburgh. so enjoy the academic atmosphere there. Yeah, so happy to see you again. Yeah. So how did you get into the study of biblical languages? Okay, yeah, actually, wow, it was a long story. So let me put it short. Okay, so since I was 20 something, okay, I pursued to serve as a full-time minister when I was very young. After graduating from my bachelor degree, I worked as an electronic engineer for period of time. But I still remember when I was in the lab, my duty was to repair a machine. So I asked myself, view I do it for the rest of my time or for the rest of my life? The answer is clearly no. So after that, I moved to serve in Hong Kong Campus Crusade for Christ for several years. And then... During that period of time, it stimulates me to think that I may need more training in the Bible in order to be a full-time minister for church. And then I went to study a full-time Master of Divinity in Alliance Bible Seminary at M.Th and start to learn Greek, Hebrew and a bit of Aramaic in that training. So that was how I got into studying the biblical languages. Yeah, that's fascinating. One of the things I like asking this question is because most of the stories that are here is quite unique. It's like, how did it happen? What led people who have been on the podcast to actually study some very like, I wanted this from a very young age, some like I taught myself and others that like, I really struggled with it, but I still managed to do it. Hmm. Yeah, so it's really fascinating and thanks for sharing. So how have you experienced how the biblical languages that open up scripture for you? Yes, actually I enjoyed so much on finding the meaning of biblical authors by reading original languages. Sometimes the specific nuance can only be seen through the syntax or the context, from the context of original language. I still remember through original languages, it often deepens my understanding on what the biblical authors wants to convey or express in that specific situation. So, and sometimes it really helps me on how to communicate, especially for me as a minister in the church and also an assistant professor in the seminary, it really helped me to how to communicate the word of God in Sunday service. my experience on knowing the biblical languages, For me, I think it's really, really good. Yeah, wonderful. Do you have some examples, like specific examples, where you have seen something in the original that you did not see in translation? yes. Okay, I had two examples. The first one is about maybe if you are growing up with the church background, you may heard a passage on Matthew chapter 28, verses 19 to 20 uh is about great commission. so as a Christian, growing up in Hong Kong church context, I was taught how important is to preach the gospel to non-believers. Especially, I'm growing up in Hong Kong in Asian culture. always focus on trying to put the words of God in action. So in other words, it's more pragmatic. So therefore the main point on my understanding on this passage, Matthew 28 verses 19 to 20. when I was young, I always heard that the main point of this passage is to go. to go and then go to evangelize, go to preach the gospel, etc. However, when I read in Greek text the word go, teaching and baptizing actually are participants in this passage. Actually, there's only one main verb in the Great Commission, which in Greek is called μαθητεύσατε (mathēteusate) It is second person plural, aorist tense, imperative. so at that time, Okay, when I dig into the Greek text, then I know, okay, the whole passage, okay, there's only one main verb and with three participants, okay. Also at that time I know, okay, the goal and the purpose of the Great Commission is on disciples making, μαθητεύσατε okay. And then go baptising and teachings are the means for this goal, pointing to this goal. So in other words, okay, in this example, when I dig into the Greek text, it really helps me to know, okay, the main point of the Great Commission is on disciple making rather than go, rather than teaching, you rather than baptising. Yes, they are important, but they are not the goals, they are the means. pointing to the goal, disciples making. So that's the first example. oh it's discipleship, it's being disciples, follower of Christ. That's the point. Basically, that's what I hear me saying is that because the verb is the center, it's not about whatever you say or whether you go or whether you're baptized, but it's about disciple making. of course, those things are important for that. So you need to do those things too. Yep. So, but it is, yeah, I think that that's very helpful way of like looking at it because otherwise what people view think or it is first to go, but to make disciples you need to go, but it is to be make disciples that's the main point. I think that's very helpful. yeah, yeah. yes, and through reading, the Greek text, it also helps me too. And the second example is on Romans chapter five, verses one to two, is about grace. Mm. growing up from the church context, the notion of grace I heard or learned from the church setting is always freely give and freely receive. And I don't... deserve to receive this gift. It sounds like a powerful figure who is able to give you something freely that I do not deserve. When I read Romans, I do think that Paul also has this notion. But however, apart from this conception to comprehend grace, when I read Romans chapter 5, verse 1 to 2 in particular, said, okay, therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand and We exalted in the hope of the glory of God. Okay, this is based on any NASB version. Okay but when we look at the Greek text especially on chapter 5 verse 2 uh You can see Paul's expressions. Okay obtain our introduction into this grace in which we stand. Okay here it seems to me that Paul's conception of grace has a certain kind of spatial meaning okay because Paul's expressions obtain our introduction into this grace okay so it it sounds like okay Here Paul's conception of grace has you know as I mentioned let me mention again okay Paul's conception of grace has a certain kind of spatial meaning whether it means maybe sphere, realm or domain okay you name it but it seems to me that is clearly not the same with the general understanding of grace freely give and or freely received that I do not deserve it. So I think that is the second example I want to demonstrate. that maybe it needs more further studies or research to focus on, apart from the notion of freely give and freely receive on the conception of grace, what's more? So at least through this example, it really helped me to think when Paul says or his expression on grace, whether he has some spatial sense, Okay, so that is another example I want to share. So when I dig into the Greek text, sometimes it really helps me to re-evaluate the notion or the understanding that I receive in the Church. Yeah, that's helpful. Just to make sure I understand, you say that, yeah, there is the notion in Paul that we hear in church that we receive freely and he gives freely to us his grace undeservingly. But he seems to also want to emphasize some kind of like spatial reality. Like maybe saying that we've been moved from one domain to another or something like that. Yeah, Yeah, so we no longer live, for example, in Colossians it says that we've been brought from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of his, the son of his love. Yeah, so... in Colossians there's a language about transfer from this kingdom to this realm and to that realm. Yeah, so we're no longer under the same ruler and that seems to be what seems to us like. We stand in a different sphere when we are in grace. Which you easily can overlook in translation. Yeah. And then if the uh listener want to know more, you can uh dig into Romans chapter 5 verses maybe 3-5 because after these two verses, Paul continued to share his... uh perseverance, proving character. he continued to, know, it seems like, Paul, he himself already in the new realm, and then to see or to view his presence suffering. And then how he interpret his person suffering and how his characters can be changed or transformed. Yeah. Hmm, yeah, that, yes, as sometimes said in church ways that you may come as you are, but Christ view not leave you as you are. So this is what Paul is like saying, that there is a change that view happen because of it. Yeah. So grace view change you. You may receive it freely and undeservingly, but it view change you. Yes. And, and you add to those things because I think there's also a few elements. I think it's very fascinating text, Romans five, because it's also counter cultural, at least to what I experienced a lot in the Western church. That's like the, then we can say maybe joy in suffering or joy over suffering. He expresses that, that they have a purpose in my sanctification maybe we can say it that way, which is sometimes overlooked. Boom. Yeah, so I think it's a very fascinating text and I think it's an excellent example to bring up. There are some notions here that sometimes, because we read it so quickly, we don't quite get it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So also, yeah, if the listener want to... maybe dig into more in this verse, you can see how Paul use, if you can read Greek, uh you can see uh Paul is using εἰς τὴν χάριν so into uh this grace, ταύτην yeah, into this grace, okay, and then he continue to say, which we have stood, because ἑστήκαμεν uh is a perfect tense, we have already stood in this area. So you can, if the listeners, want to dig more into the meaning or the nuance of these words, they can know more about, okay, what Paul is trying to express, ah because when we know that Paul, wrote these letters at around maybe 57 AD and then in Corinth. But before that, we know that he suffered several times by the Jews tracing him, maybe trying to stone him. But you know how he perceived those sufferings. Maybe, as he mentioned here, because he has already stood in another area to view, to see his suffering. Yeah, I think that that's very helpful. And actually that might actually be a good segue into the topic of the day, because I think that that's also what is actually going on in this discussion about how Jews and non-Jews are saved in Paul's thinking. That could sound a bit strange to some people to hear that, so why did you decide to study this topic? Learning New Testament Greek can be a real challenge. If that's been your experience, I've put together a free PDF guide called Why Learning Greek Could Be a Struggle and How to Move Forward. Inside you'll find the most common pitfalls and my simple three step framework to help you start reading Greek with more confidence. Get your free copy today by clicking the link in the description below or the pinned comment. Now back to the episode. how Jews and non-Jews are saved in Paul's thinking. That could sound a bit strange to some people to hear that, so why did you decide to study this topic? Yes, I guess in general, especially those like me who grows up with church background, uh but I understand it still depends on which denomination you were. Okay, and then the answer is very simple. Maybe for in general for most believers, very simple, both Jews and non-Jews are saved through faith in Christ, in Paul's thinking. right? But is it this really the case in Paul's thought in first century? That is the question the current Pauline scholarship especially the Paul within Judaism school is dealing with. For me why did I decide to study this topic? The answer is very simple because one of ah our great supervisor, Professor Matt Novenson who introduced me, Frederiksen's thought provocing book on Paul to me before I'm doing my PhD. So that is the reason why I jump into this topic and then do my PhD thesis on that. Yeah, that's helpful to see that. Yeah, Matt's a great guy. Yeah. So what is it, the Paul within Judaism school, or sometimes also called the Radical Perspective on Paul, what is it? okay so yeah in in short though difference PWJ scholars Paul within Judaism I would call them PWJ scholars okay may have different wheels on some issues but however in general PWJ scholars view Paul uh never converted to a new religion and he never left Judaism in the first century. For instance, um Zetterholm reads Paul forthly within Judaism and then uh in their view uh Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles um who functioned as a Jewish ambassador to outreach to Gentiles. and lead them to believe Christ. They called them Messiah, showed us those Gentiles in Christ view enter a state and in that state is neither exactly the same with Jews, known as an ordinary Gentiles by believing in Christ, but in a state that was enabled to observe the Torah by injuring spirit through faith in Christ. show that Gentiles in Christ can become self-mastery and join Jewish communities as the eschological people of God. the next question maybe asked is why did Paul always go to synagogues to preach the gospel? Okay. According to PWJ scholars, was because Paul went to preach the gospel to Gentiles already affiliated with synagogue and brought them into Judaism. So in PWJ, what is Paul within Judaism? Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. It makes sense if Paul evangelized to Gentiles. And then, yeah, and that is maybe the overview of what is Paul within Judaism, but maybe in our foreign conversation, actually, was another aspect on that, yeah. Hmm, yeah. Yeah, so a couple prominent scholars from this view is like you already mentioned Paulina Frederiksen. There's also Matthew Thiessen and Mark Nanos. And what is it that they argue that Paul thinks on this question? Okay, so, Frederiksen and Thiessen believed that Paul was driven by the eschological age inaugurated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. uh and the coming of Messiah was so imminent, Paul was urged to outreach Gentiles and lead them to know Judaism as it would fulfill in what Isaiah described. All the nations view come upon the Zion in the end. oh In short, to Frederiksen Isaiah functions as a mentor for Paul's fault. Okay, so starting from the promise of God to Abraham, for instance, the view of God was culminating through his elected Jewish people and reached its climax at the point of the first coming of Christ. So since then, the good news was explained, it was explained to the Gentiles by including them to be the people of God. So in other words, the PWJ scholars view the view of God was taking place continuously throughout historical progression and reached the high point at the first coming of Christ. So yes, that is what they want to argue and I can remember and there's another argument of them. They also argued that there was no term like Christian in the first century. uh In PWJ scholars' view this term Christian appears in fourth century, and it was wrong to put it back to the first century. In other words, they think it was anachronism. Yeah, and then for them, since Paul was within Judaism in the first century, and Paul was not converted and created a new religion, there was no parting of the ways. And then formed Judaism and Christianity thereafter. So basically, is what they want to try to argue or form the arguments. Yeah. So what is it that Nanos, how is he differentiating from Frederiksen and Thiessen? Okay, so Nanos basically is more or less the same but okay according to my understanding Nanos would stick more on the text or Pauline text okay and then um Nanos basically he has a bit difference from Frederiksen and Thiessen because Nanos okay, he thinks that Paul has two roads to salvation while Frederiksen is not and Thiessen is not. So if you read Nanos' work it's quite clear that, okay, Nanos believes that Paul has two covenants of salvation. But if you read Frederiksen's work and Thiessen's work, it's not clear. And then especially Frederiksen, her view on the salvation of Jews and non-Jews, um it's not exactly too too covenant salvation but I would say it's a modify or another version kind of version uh on salvation of jews and non-jews and for Thiessen uh if you read uh his substantial work on Paul and The Gentile Problem okay um Thiessen seems does not say explicitly on how especially how in Thiessen's view how Jews are saved in Paul's thought. So there are a big difference between know, Nanos, Thiessen and Frederiksen. Yeah, and think without getting into the weeds of it, I think it's maybe important to ask the question, why are these guys arguing that there are two roads to salvation? A particular Nanos, maybe Frederiksen Okay, so it's because we need to know the development of PWJ scholars or this aspect of Pauline scholarship. Because if you know the development of it, because in maybe 1990 something at that time, okay, I would call the founder of this school, maybe one of them, maybe a Lloyd Gaston. Okay, so he wrote a book on Paul's thought and then he argued that, okay, law, Torah for Jews, Christ for Gentiles. So you can have a sense that, okay, in his view, okay, Torah for Jews. Christ for Gentiles and then after Lloyd Gaston Hmm. There are some other PWJ scholars involved. one of them is called Pamela Eisenbaum. her view is also that Christ is for Gentiles only. so there is no sense that christ is for Jews. you can sense that. The question is, okay, why there's such a view, okay, Christ for Gentiles only, because some of the PWJ scholars, they adopt NPP view. NPP, it means New Perspective on Paul. because oh if we read the book from Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which was published in 1977, the famous term is called covenantal nomism. So I suppose maybe some of the listener may heard, okay, getting in and then maintaining in because if we imagine we as a Jew, ah If I'm a Jew, was born, inborn a Jew, okay, I already in the covenantal relationship with the Jewish God, okay, and then after that, in my whole life, I try to learn the Torah, obtain the Torah, and then throughout my life, in order to maintain this covenantal relationship with the Jewish God until the end of my life. So in my brain, when I try to observe the Torah, I'm not trying to earn salvation because I have already gotten into it. Okay, so what is the most important thing for a Jew is to maintain this covenantal relationship with Jewish God by observing the Torah throughout my life. So... Some of the PWJ scholars adopt this covenantal normism notion from EP Sanders. And then they may think that, okay, put it into Paul's fault. And then, oh, Christ is for Gentiles only, not for Jews. So that is the reason why, okay, Nanos, Lloyd Gaston, Pamela Eisenbaum some of PWJ scholars, not all, they assert two roads to salvation. Yeah. That's the background. Yeah. And maybe before we get into whether that actually fit with Paul's own thought, there's thing that I have found very peculiar with the Paul within Judaism school, em is that they are obsessed with uh what audience Paul has. Like, so who is he talking to in his letters? and they are hammering it so hard. And I find it a bit peculiar, but why is it that they're hammering this point so hard? Yeah, that's a very good question. is the, okay, Paul's audience, okay, is the fundamental arguments they need to establish for their subsequent arguments. Okay, if you have read the book called Romans Debate in maybe 1977, if I remember correctly, okay. At that time, Paul's audience with respect to Romans has already been hotly debated. For PWJ scholars, if they can establish that Paul writes only to Gentiles, Hmm. in his letters. That means from the perspective of ethnicity, Paul was talking to Gentiles through his letters and it would govern how we should understand and interpret his letters. For example, if Paul was actually talking to Gentiles only, what is the meaning of all? in his letters. Let's say in Romans chapter 3 uh verses 20. ah It said because by the words of the law no flesh view be justified in his sight for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. So in Greek in Greek text no flesh view be justified in his sight. actually is πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ (pasa sarx enõpion autou) 'all fresh uh before him.' Okay, all. Okay, if, okay, let me let put into a shoe of PWJ scholars, okay, if Paul was actually talking to Gentiles only, here this word all fresh, it means all Gentiles. Mm-hmm. it has nothing to do with Jews because Paul, through his letters, he is talking to Gentiles only. So that is one of examples to show that, ah how important it is for them because this argument is the fundamental argument for them. So... Yeah, so that is why it's very, very important. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes, in their thinking, if Paul is only speaking to Gentiles, then Jews are left out of the question. Yep. Yeah, so, and that's why we also see some of them argue of two roads for salvation because they think that whatever Paul says in his letters only applies to the Gentiles. Yes, and that's the reason why Thiessen's book's title, Paul and the Gentile Problem, because in their view, Paul is dealing with the issue of gentile problem. Yeah. Yeah. So, but then we might want to ask a couple of questions of Paul. Paul's letters. So what is the evidence in Paul's letters for who his audience actually is? Okay, so yeah, that is also a good question. If you still remember the presentation that I presented in New College in 2022, let's say for Romans, for instance, the clear data for Romans, I think, is on Romans 11, 14. In that verse, Paul is saying, I'm speaking to you gentiles. in that verse, it's very clear that Paul, through the letter of Romans, he is speaking to gentiles directly. And then that is one of the evidence in Paul's letters to show his audience is Gentiles. then the next example is, let's say for in First Corinthians, Chapter 12, verses 2, it said, you know that when you were pagans, you were lead astray to the mute idols, however you were led. So you know that's when you were pagans. So Paul was talking to Gentiles. So in another example, in Galatians, you can see, let's say in Galatians 4, 8, uh The adverb τότε (tote) formally shows the former life of his audience who according to Paul were enslaved to idolatry when they did not know God. Galatians 4.8 Okay, and then in Galatians 5.2, Paul's conditional sentence ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε (ean peritemēsthe) implies that the audience has not been circumcised. So... Hmm. This data also shows that Paul is talking to Gentiles through his letters of Galatians. So first Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, at least we have this evidence to show that Paul was talking to Gentiles through his letters. oh Yeah, but do we have evidence that it's not always the case? To be honest, it's quite hard to find uh another data to push back. but because, let's say, uh let's take Romans for example. uh We may ask, can you find any other data which can show us very clearly Paul is talking also to Jews? Like Romans 11.13, I'm speaking to you Gentiles. It's very clearly Paul is talking to Gentiles in that verse at least. But can we also find similar data to show that I'm speaking to you Jews? in the the letter of Romans. No, I think it's at least I cannot find it. But yeah, it's not easy, you know, to find similar data to show that, okay, Paul also talking to Jews, but But okay, as you heard in my presentation in 2022, I find at least according to my finding, I find data to show that's Paul also talks to Jews rather than, you know, only Gentiles. Yeah. Yeah. just from the top of my head, just that, and I know that some of the Paul within Judaism scholars, they try to make this because they think that the Jew that he's talking to in chapter two, that's actually a Gentile, that thinks he's a Jew. I know that that's what Matt is arguing. And I think a lot of the others opt up the same reading, but you could disagree with them and say, no, he's actually a Jew that is doing some stuff that he shouldn't. And then he is, it seems to me that he does address Jews in the beginning of chapter three, at least. He talks about people who actually, like the Jews, have the law. So he's talking about Jews. He may not like say, I speaking to you Jews, but he is actually addressing Jews. ah Okay. condition at least. Okay, yes. So, or at least you can say, okay, in Romans chapter one, verses 16 to 17, the salvation is to all and then to Jew first and then to Gent..., to Greeks, okay. So on this issue, okay, PWJ, I'm trying to put their shoes, okay, trying to pretend I'm a PWJ scholar, okay. What they view say is, okay, Okay, they define it very clearly. Paul is talking to Gentiles through his letters, but also he's talking about both Gentiles and Jews in his letters. So for example, right now I'm talking to you Daniel, right? I'm talking to you Daniel, but in our conversation, I can also talk about maybe another person, right? Matt Novenson okay, another Pamela Eisenbaum but I'm talking to you. so what they were push back is that, okay, yes, Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles in his letters in chapter one, in chapter three, okay, but... But at least there's a clear data. Paul is talking to Gentiles in chapter 11. And then on Romans chapter two, verses 17, if you call yourself a Jew in chapter two, verses 17, actually there's a very controversial verse to be interpreted. It depends on how the interpreters understand you call yourself, okay, or the name yourself a Jew. So I know in PWJ's understandings, they view see, it was a gentiles who call himself a Jew. Okay, another. scholars may think, okay, it is just a rhetorical device. We cannot establish, okay, in chapter two, verse 17, Paul is actually talking to Jew because it's just a hypothetical or rhetorical device. But compared to the data in Romans chapter 11, 13, I'm speaking to you Gentiles. It's very clearly Paul is really talking to Gentiles. So you can have a sense that okay they dig into this question very deeply. Yeah, it makes sense to me how they think about it. I'll be asking questions to how that works. And maybe that actually leads into my next question is that how does Paul's letters and how does Paul actually talk about the salvation of Jews and non-Jews? Sorry to interrupt the episode, but if you're enjoying the content, please consider subscribing and leaving a like. It really helps the algorithm and helps the podcast grow. Thank you for your support and now back to the episode. how does Paul's letters and how does Paul actually talk about the salvation of Jews and non-Jews? Okay. Yeah, yes, uh what does Paul's letters say about how Jews and non-Jews are saved? so in general, just as I mentioned, if you are growing up... from the church settings. I think most of us growing up with church setting would say, both Jews and non-Jews, how they are saved both of them are saved through faith in Christ. But this is not the case in PWJ scholars, because Once they believe that Paul is writing his letters only to Gentiles, Paul is dealing with Gentiles' problem. And then once they adopt ah the Covenantal Nomenism from EP Sanders uh thesis, PWJ scholars view think that, okay, in Paul's letters, Paul is dealing with the issue of Gentiles. Yes, he is talking about Jews, but they understand the salvation of Jews differently. They have their own view. So that's the reason why why there's a so controversial, so different between maybe what we heard from the church setting and what we heard from PWJ scholars. oh Yeah, but so what is, like when we actually examine Paul's letters, we go a little bit into more details. Well, what is it actually that Paul says himself on this issue? Okay, you mean what does Paul himself say? Okay, how Jews and non-Jews are safe, right? Okay, so let's say, okay, I just point out some examples from let's say Romans chapter three verses 20 to 21, okay. So the understanding of all fresh before him. So as I mentioned, they assume Paul is writing his letters to Gentiles only. So they view understand these all fresh points to Gentiles only. So that is how they understand Romans chapter three versus chapter 21. Okay, and then let's say on... 1 Corinthians chapter 1, 21 to 25, okay it says for in this Jew ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom but we preach Christ crucified to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God but the foolishness of God is wiser than man and the weakness of God is stronger than man. ah so what would PWJ scholars would do with this kind of passage? ah Okay, because in this passage, it talks about the stumbling of Jews in Paul's time. actually, PWJ scholars noticed that in the first century, there were Jews who were, quote unquote, blind or stumbling in Paul's time, according to Romans chapter 9-11 Because if we remember the content in Romans chapter 9 to 11, ah there's something like, Jews were blinded, okay, they can't see Jesus is the Messiah, something like that. And then, Frederiksen especially view identify, okay, the first coming and the second coming of Christ. After the first coming of Christ, some Jews were still qoute unqoute blinded to see Jesus was the Messiah. But some Jews such as Paul or Peter, they were enlightened to see Jesus was the Messiah. And then they see Jesus Christ inaugurates an eschatological Era until his second coming. So, and then during the second coming of Christ, let's say some passage dealing with that first Corinthians chapter 15 and then Romans chapter 11 verses 26, all Israel view be saved Okay, it's said. Okay. So in let's say in Frederiksen's view in that moment, I mean the second coming of Christ. in a mystery or mystical moment at that moment okay Jews eyes view be open to see who Jesus is okay at that moment okay and then so and then they view identify okay Jesus is the Messiah but for but In PWJ scholars view, what they would say how Jews are saved is that because Jews already in the covenantal nomism. So what they need to do is to observe the Torah. That is how they understand the different salvation trajectory between Jews and Gentiles. So they would... know even though okay we read let's say Galatians chapter 2 verses 16 to 17 or what I just mentioned first Corinthians chapter 1 verses 21 to 25 yeah yeah but I need to be honest, I may not make everything correct according to PWJ scholars, but I'm trying to put on their shoes and then try to read how they would read this passage and try to explain what they think. and then, so you can see. Maybe the believers uh or brothers and sisters in the church, when they read the passage, let's say on 1 Corinthians chapter 1 verses 21 to 25, it makes very clear that, okay, both Jews and Gentiles are saved through faith in Christ, right? But. That is not the case in PWJ School because of what I just mentioned before. Yeah, but isn't that special pleading in many ways? Yeah. Yes. so, by special pleading I mean that they develop a system wherein they can read the text the way they want to read them. That's just for if you don't know what the word special pleading means. I'm just telling you to the listeners here that they might not know what special pleading means. Because it's a technical term, some people might not be familiar with it. So I just wanted to make clear that that was understood. So, yeah, and I actually have like this. So how would the deal with like Galatians two, like if you read like have to follow the flow of the text in Galatians two from 15 through 21. Mm-hmm. I find it very difficult to accept the system that you just described that the Paul within Judaism scholars have because especially verse 16 and 17 and 18 as well, no matter how you deal with the logic of the flow of the passage, it becomes very difficult to say, I might just want to bring it up here. And now... So. Obviously there are a few interesting things to be said about it exegetically, but... Mm-hmm. free-throwing translation it would be like we are Jews by nature or in nature and you and and not from the Gentile sinners or the people of sinners people sinners from the peoples because ἔθνος (ethnos) can mean people but usually translated Gentiles. em But we know that no human being is saved from deeds of the law but through Christ Jesus, through faith in Christ Jesus or of Christ Jesus depending on how you deal with the genitive. And then he says, and we believed in Christ Jesus, in order that we may be justified from faith in Christ and not deeds of the law, because of for all flesh view not be justified from deeds of the law. And then he gives a conditional sentence, that's what he comes on with, he says. But if we seek to be justified in Christ, we have found, indeed ourselves, sinners. And remember this is Paul talking. m And then he says, then Christ is a servant of sin, let it not be, or something like that. However you want to, may not be, I think as many translations deal with it. m And then he goes on to say, use another condition to explain his condition. And then he says, for if whatever I have broken down, I again build that up, I demonstrate myself to be a transgressor. So not just a sinner, but even worse. m for I have died to law through the law em in order that I may live for God. I've been crucified with Christ. Remember this is first person, this is Paul talking. em And he says, then he says the very famous verse, he says that I do no longer live but the life that I live, Christ lives in me, em but Christ lives in me and what I live in the flesh I live in faith in the one, the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Do I then em reject em the grace of God? If... sorry, it's just... Yeah, nullify. It's another way to put it. Nullify the grace of God. em But for if... righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain. So that's sort of like a rough translation of this, like the flow of argument here in Galatians. Yeah. what I find problematic is that the Paul within Judaism scholars, don't actually deal with especially the καὶ αὐτοὶ in verse 17 is like, we ourselves Mm. So he's emphasizing that it's not just the gentiles he's talking to. oh What are your thoughts on it? And maybe you have other critiques of this. Yes. Okay. So again, I'm trying to, you know, put on the shoes of PWJ scholars and... If I remember correctly, the passage in Galatians chapter 2, at least part of it, Paul was describing an Antioch incident. What was happening in Antioch, what was happening before and after Peter arrived. ah If I remember correctly, you can ponder Frederiksen's book and how she interprets this Antioch incident, what was really happening, what was the conflict about oh between Paul and Peter actually in her view. So she has another kind of interpretation. ah I think her interpretation, she has her version, maybe very different from the general view of that instant. So that is one of the... maybe approaches the PWJ scholars trying to reconstruct what was happening in that Antioch incident, what was happening, what is really they are struggling or conflict really about. If I remember correctly, because it has been already several years before my PhD life, but it... it seems like about some maybe eating or wine, something like that, okay, in that incident, are, are, Frederiksen is trying to explain or, trying to interpret that incident. And then on the other hand, okay, especially on Galatians chapter two, verses 19 to 20 about Paul's own, autobiographical statement. Okay. Hmm. just what you are trying to translate it um for I die to the law through the law okay and then um I recall another argument they would say is, okay, Paul um was called to be an apostle to the Gentiles, but he was not converted. to another religion or there's no, you know, no implication in that calling. He just called it, okay, by God, okay, to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. So that means in short, he's calling rather than converting. Okay, so in that autobiographical statement, Some of them may say, okay, means, okay, Paul was called to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Why the Lord is, through the Lord, he died the Lord because it's about related to Gentiles. Yeah, because. Gentiles always cannot self master their own desires. Why the Gentiles are not able to self mastery? Because they are not able to do it. So they need to believe in Christ and they are enabled by the endwelling spirit and they are enabled to observe the Torah. Yeah, I'm just trying to put on their shoes and then think what they ah may answer these questions. But for me, I understand. I understand what you're trying to say. it's very difficult for the readers. When we read the passage in Galatians chapter two especially, the thesis statements is on Galatians chapter two, verse 16. Yeah, but what I can say is they have their own reading and that is why my project, my PhD project is to dialogue with them and then trying to... Yes, on some point, yes, I agree with you that we do have a very different reading on the text Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and maybe if we take off the shoes and say like, so does those readings actually work? Because I think it's important to try to present people accurately before you critique them. But I think my try was like saying, so that reading of Galatians 2, is it even fair? Like you have to like jump through those loops. I can maybe understand. understand what they're saying, for example, about Paul's conversion. So did he convert from Judaism to Christianity? I think that is probably anachronistic to talk about it that way because Paul doesn't think that he is starting a new religion. Paul thinks that he he is preaching the Jewish Messiah and the consequences that has for both Jews and Gentiles, I think. But that's where I think that I view differ with some of these scholars is that I actually think that Paul is arguing. And I think that it's very hard to justify from the texts, especially Galatians, if you really follow the flow of thought, it doesn't make sense to say that he is only talking to Jews here. It's not just about that instance. It's also the fact that Peter is is mentioned to be someone who is acting out of hypocrisy, like he's playing a game. So he's actually not acting according to what he actually believes. He is just being so afraid of whoever is persecuting the Jews and the Christians. We can say Christians because of the lens of Christ followers in Jerusalem. And he's getting afraid that whatever he's been doing is making it worse for them. That's how I understand it. I know that even if you understood a little bit differently, the point view be the same. eh That Peter is not disagreeing with Paul. He's just acting out of character. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah and also okay I remember okay if we are talking about Galatians if we go to chapter 1 verses 8 or chapter 2 verse 8 it said okay Peter was entrusted to preach the gospel to the circumcised while Paul was entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised yeah they would say yeah yeah yeah so PWJ scholars would say okay Peter so Paul has nothing to do with the Jews because he was entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised. It means gentiles only. So that is another point they would try to argue is their proposal. But then, is Peter's job not meaningless? If all the Jews stay okay? Maybe. Yeah, that is like, why is that? If there is someone who needs to preach the gospel to the Jews, then it means that Jews also need to see who the Messiah is and follow him. Yep. And that's where it becomes a bit, that's where I think it begins to fall apart, these Paul within Judaism readings. Yep. It's because the letters, and also like what is is Kephas or Peter doing in Corinth? Like if there's only Gentiles there. Yeah, yeah, I understand. Yeah, so it's just like maybe like, like I think like, so is Paulina Frederiksen's or Mark Nanos' reading of Galatians actually fair when we read Paul if you actually try to decipher what Paul is trying to say. For me, okay, right now, okay, I put on my own shoe. yeah, yes, in my own view, I think sometimes they push too much, I think. And also one of the main points I would like to point out is that, okay, because one of the arguments is based on, okay, calling rather than converting or conversion, okay. So, and then they would further argue that, okay, Paul was not converted. He just was called by, in their view, Jewish God to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, okay. ah But... It's very hard for me to interpret, let's say, Galatians chapter two, verse 19, I die to the law through the law. I die to the Torah through the Torah. And then in, if I remember correctly, in Galatians, let's say, three, 20 or 22, Hmm. Is that I'm not in the curse of the Torah? Or I'm no longer under the Torah? Okay, because in the first century, as a Jew, no one would say that he is not under the Torah. In Greek, ὑπὸ νόμον (hupo nomon) under the Torah. Because in the first century, basically all the Jews, they uphold Torah as their ultimate authority. Yeah. no Jew would say he is not under the Torah, but Paul says that. So you can see in this expression, in Paul's value system, he has a certain kind of change. Okay, right now he is not under the Torah, but right now he's under what? I understand in Galatians chapter 2, verse 20, right now he's under Christ. In other words, he's not rejecting all the Torah. But right now he upholds Christ as the ultimate authority. Rather than Torah, he puts Torah under... under the authority of Christ. And actually there's another very interesting phase in Galatians chapter 6 verses 12. said in Galatians chapter 6 verses 12, it said the law of Christ. means, yeah, okay, that phase is very interesting because It depends on how we interpret that genitive relationship between Torah and Christ. Yes, we can translate it because in general, once we know it's genitive, okay, the law of Christ. But it can be the law, maybe a genitive of source coming from Christ. or maybe, you know, it has many different kind of genitive. But that phrase has a lot of discussions in Pauline scholarship actually. But at least, I think, in my view, Paul's value system has changed. Because in the first century, it's very hard for a Jew. to say he is no longer under the Torah. It's very strange because uh Pharisees, Sadducees, basically everyone, every Jews in the first century, they view uphold Torah as their ultimate authority. What they are trying to do in their whole life is to observe Torah. So for me, is maybe another point to push back. PWJ or I have that's the reason why I different view with them Yeah Yeah, yeah. And I think I am also not going to be talking about this is that like one of the points is in Galatians three and four is that the law was never meant to save. It was made to be a guide or pedagogos, which is the word he uses, which to a Greek first century Greek person reading that someone who knew Greek, that meant someone who was guiding a child until he was ready to be the heir and take over the the house. em And he's like saying that while we were before Christ came, we were under the guide, not because that saved us, but because that was the best thing we could have until Jesus came. Yeah. So Galatians, I think, in many ways subvert the idea that the law is the standard by which you are saved in Paul's thought, em which undermines Nanos' two-road idea, because then it doesn't make sense to talk about two ways of salvation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, and if you want to pick more on it, you can also go to... And then it becomes... I think we could go back to Romans and the πᾶσα σάρξ (pasa sarx) because it's the same quote almost as we just read in Galatians. Here is in verse 9, I think it's verse 9, Romans 3, 9. He is actually addressing Jews and Gentiles in the sense that he is talking about, he might not say or to you Jews, but he is talking about both groups. Yep. um so he says So who has an advantage? None at all. Because we have previously already accused both Jews and Gentiles to all be on the sin. Yeah, yeah, he's talking about Jews and Gentiles here. Yeah, so when you then take the full context of the chapter, how do we then read chapter, like verse 20? Mm. Mm. into account, what is the point? Yeah. I'm not sure actually. I'm not sure what they... uh when he says that all are under sin, when he says πᾶσα σάρξ (pasa sarx), he cannot mean what the Paul within Judaism scholars mean. He can only refer to all of humanity. But when talking about humanity... or when talking about in Greek ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos), it mean human being or man. Okay, let's say, I remember one of the arguments of PWJ is that, okay, when they read, let's say, Romans chapter one, verses 18 to 32, oh that passage is about sins list. Paul writing a lot of different kind of sins. Okay, chapter one, verses 18 to 32 PWJ scholars view set their view is that okay that list is especially Paul is describing the problems of Gentiles yeah so but in my okay in my thesis what I'm trying to push back is that when we let's say uh when we read chapter one Romans chapter one verses 18 is that for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of man who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. And then ah in English versions of man in Greek, ἄνθρωπων (anthrōpōn) ah is a genitive, plural masculine form of ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos). So, PWJ scholars would say that, okay, as Paul is writing Romans to Gentiles only, okay, how should we understand ἄνθρωπων (anthrōpōn) here, Gentiles? But in my thesis, after searching all the usage of ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) in Paul's undisputed letters, basically, Every time ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) appears, means human being, not only gentiles. Yeah. If we still focus on this passage, we can jump to verses 32 and it says, and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death. Okay, who are the 'they' who know the ordinance of God? Hmm. Yeah, the oracles of God here. Yeah. Jews, right? So it's very difficult to argue that, okay, this passage, Paul is only pointing to Gentiles, just because, okay, because of his usage of ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) and then because here in verses 22. Hmm. are the they, Also, if you remember the presentation I presented in New College, after my presentation, actually Matt Novenson asked me question. In Romans chapter 11 verses 13, Paul is clearly pointing out that I'm speaking to you gentiles by using second person plural. Okay, I'm speaking to you gentiles. Okay, very clear. Okay in that verse and then in that passage Romans chapter 9 to 11, he always used first person plural pointing to Jews. And then he was trying to establish his arguments by saying that Paul usually use second person plural, you by saying, okay, I'm talking to you Gentiles. And then third person plural, they, okay, talking to Jews, okay. Hmm. Okay, My question is, okay, how did this pattern, what was the range in the latter? uh Okay, every time, okay, second person plural appears in the letters, is it really must point to Gentiles? Every time they appears in the letters of Romans, appear to Jews? But when you say, Why I'm trying to say is that when we look back in this passage, Romans chapter 1 verses 18 to 22, if we read the passage on let's say verses 18, 19, every time let's say verses 21, for even they knew God for even they knew God So here, they, PWJ would say here's the list pointing to Gentiles only But here, the 'they' appears if according to the logic of Matt's notion here 'they' may mean Jews, right? but it doesn't make sense yeah, it's first person plural Yeah, there's a contradiction, Yeah, you know, I think you understand what I mean, yeah. So, yeah. as they would like it to be. Paul is very clear, and Matt is actually arguing in his new book that it's impossible to argue for two-road salvation. says that Paul very clearly means that everybody is saved in Christ. cannot be saved outside of Christ. Okay. Okay. He really goes against this notion that there should be two roads to salvation. He really, really hammers that very, very hard. And I think he makes a very, very good case. eh Because I agree with him in that. em And I think that that is very difficult to read Paul when you actually read him, try to follow his argument, his logic, without trying to force some kind of hermeneutical... Interpretational key into his argument then it's very difficult to not for example read this language this way. I think Even if you agreed with them that okay, this third-person plural actually does refer to Gentiles. So that's an exception Then when you read through he is accusing Jews for for all sorts of things in there in the beginning of chapter 3 m And then he gets to say and then he says what I just read before that We have accused everybody to be under sin, like Jews and Gentiles. So what Paul's argument then is when you go into chapter, the end of chapter three is that when he says that everybody has like lost the glory of God, or missed the glory of God, then he is not saying Gentiles missed the glory of God. He's saying that Jews missed the glory of God as well. And that is a very accurate reading of what says in Deuteronomy. Like that's the point of Deuteronomy is that that God says to the Israelites, you can choose between life and death, choose life, but then goes on to explain that they view choose death. the point is that, the Deuteronomy's point is that you cannot fulfill the Law to salvation, you need to hope in God. Yeah. And I think Paul is a very accurate reader of Deuteronomy when he explains his logic in Romans throughout 3 and 4, and then he goes to chapter 4 where he talks about the one who works is not receiving by grace. Talking about Abraham. in chapter four, Yeah, so then the logic breaks down because this is the father of Jews. Yeah. So when you look carefully about it, then the logic view always follow that the Paul But the Paul has no category for for salvation outside of Christ. Okay, on this point, I don't know, but I just had a thought pop up in my head that, okay, uh even Frederiksen uh she rejects two-way salvation, uh but she has a different kind of, you know, salvation scheme of Jews and non-Jews in Paul's thought because in her scheme, would say, okay, both Jews and Gentiles saved through Christ, but in different ways, but in different ways, in her scheme, she would say, okay, yes, Gentiles, through faith in Christ, and then join in the Jewish community and enabled by the enduring spirit, and then Gentiles are able to observe the Torah. But for Jews, as I mentioned before, okay, in the first century, some Jews were blind, but until the second coming of Christ, suddenly or mysteriously, the Jews their eyes were opened and see Jesus Christ as the Messiah and then at that time they would be secure. If I remember correctly her term is secure in Jewish God. Hmm. So you can see that even, okay, Frederiksen, okay, she rejects two convenant salvation scheme. ah She has maybe another kind of, yes, maybe on the surface, yes, both Jews and non-Jews are saved by Christ. But... Yeah But maybe her scheme is that Jews and non-Jews are saved by Christ differently. Yeah. But I'm not sure that that works for Paul. Because when, like, if go back to Galatians, he talks about... And then he's not actually removing the categories when he talks about, in Christ there is no differentiation between Jews or Greek, slave or free, male or female. He's not saying that those categories disappear in Christ, but he says that they're secondary. Yep. Yeah, so I don't know what your thoughts on that verse would be in relation to this. Actually Okay, her scheme. Okay, yeah, I understand what you just mentioned. And in my thesis, therefore I need to argue very specifically, both Jews and non-Jews are saved in the same way in Paul's thought yeah. So, but. Why? Frederiksen's scheme is quite different. Although she said yes, both Jews and non-Jews are saved by Christ, but in different ways. But why is it in different ways? Because the reason behind it is that maybe she adopted some notion of covenantal nomism or And it depends on how she interprets, especially the text of Romans chapter 11, 26, all Israel view be saved. Yeah, because that verse is very controversial. then, also how Frederiksen understands which one is the mantra of Paul. because in her view, Isaiah, the prophets of Isaiah is the mantra of Paul. because uh if we read especially Isaiah, maybe chapter 55 to 66, it said, okay, in the end, all the nations view come to the Mount Zion. Okay, that means, Maybe in her veiw, he understands Paul's thought Finally, all Jews view be saved and the Gentiles view be included. All the nations view come to the Mount Zion. Maybe like that. Hmm. Yeah. Yeah. So I just, I find it difficult to understand what he she is trying to make the difference. and it's also my critique of the whole notion, generally speaking, and it is a very complicated discussion. This, I think, I think it's, it's, it's clear in Paul's thought that, that there's, that you, you need Christ to be saved. and I actually think that, that the obsession about ethnicity is a little bit strange here as well, because it seems like Paul is trying to say that these things are secondary in Christ. Mm-hmm. Not that they're unimportant, but they're not.. they are secondary. Would you say that that's a fair way of putting it? Yeah, so basically I my thesis is arguing that yeah Let's say in Paul's thought Romans chapter 1 verse 16 to 17 The salvation is for all yeah for Jude 1st and then Greek and then Galatians chapter 2 verse 16 or people because Paul used ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) there. A man is justified through faith in Christ. Although some of them I know right now in Pauline scholarships may argue that, okay, πίστεως χριστοῦ righteousness of Christ or faith in Christ. Yeah, but. But basically, in my view, I would say in Paul's thought that both Jews and non-Jews are safe, through faith in Christ, and they are safe in the same way. And also, I would say that through faith in Christ, it means that after the first coming of Christ. Hmm. not another, maybe the Jews were saved in the second coming of Christ. So that's the reason why in my thesis I need to make it very specific ah based on how we read the text, how we understand the text and interpret the text. Yeah, think I think that yeah, there are nuances that we we can that that we may have to reassert because they have some good points but but the overall scheme is that Paul is not saying that that you can be saved in different ways, but Just being saved in Christ Yeah, that maybe actually view bring us into the like the question that we have as a tradition here on the podcast. So how can this complicated discussion that we have tried to illuminate and critique and talk about. em How can each listener and viewer of this podcast today, and our conversation today, how can they apply this to their everyday walk with Christ? Yes, okay, if we are talking about what we just discussed, Paul within Judaism, I think for me, okay, actually this issue is very related to ethnicity. Hmm. if we are putting our shoes in the first century in Paul's context, is very related to Paul as a Jew and then how he view the salvation of his fellow Jews and Gentiles. um I still remember when I was in Edinburgh, I, okay, usually my family attend an evangelical church. I still remember because at that period of time the church showed hospitality to receive those people who were in the war, let's say Ukrainians. to put all our discussions, to apply today's, is that I think God loves the whole world, Whether you are Jews or non-Jews, in God's view, all of us are safe, full faith in Christ. Although we are coming from maybe different cultural backgrounds, ah We have different social classes. the main thing is, like in Romans chapter 1, 16, the gospel is the salvation for all who believe in Jesus Christ. So it really helped me. Right now I'm in Hong Kong. Sometimes I also maybe get in touch with some, kind of, another people with another ethnicities. So it really reminds me how to treat them. even though I know, yes, maybe our practices, because of our cultural backgrounds are very different, your practice and my practice are very different, uh but I need to learn how to show the kindness to different people. And then, and that is, that may be one of the things that uh we may apply our conversation today uh in our everyday walk with Christ. And then, And then second, I think we need to dig into the original language of the biblical language if we can try to understand the meaning of text in the original context first. And then... ah Given that is a big difference between ancient times and modern era in terms of social, economic, political and religious culture, I think the more we know the meaning in the first century, the more precise we can apply the message to the modern world. Okay, so maybe finally let me... uh have a sharing to demonstrate this. ah So if I pick up ah Philippians chapter one, uh verses 9, said, and this I pray, show that your love may advance still more and more in knowledge and all discernment. Because yes, in the first century, know when Paul writes Philippians, he was in the prison. And then he encouraged Philippians, your love may still, abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment. So what is the meaning of love in knowledge and discernment? So to make... the uh application for me. I still remember one day my 10 years old son asked me, okay, why he doesn't have a digital phone while all of his friends do? He said to me, daddy, could you please get me one? He asked me, okay, so that's my friends and I can play the game every day. so the question I would ask myself is what does love signify? What would you do if you were me? Hand me a cell phone, allow him to spend three to five hours a day on screens when he was younger? Is that what love is all about? Sometimes parenting presents its challenges. My wife dedicates considerable time to uh help my son to avoid not to permit him to have a digital phone even now he has 10 now he is 10 years old I know it was so attractive that he's willing to work up at 6 a.m. to engage with the iPhone My wife established a boundary for my son, allowing screen time of no more than 20 to 30 minutes per day for him. Initially, it was quite challenging to assist my son in developing this habit. As the digital phone presents a significant temptation for him. But if you read the which is called Anxious Generation, by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. He presented research indicating that the significant changes in childhood experience are contributing to a widespread increase in mental illness with a substantial impact from digital device. The impact on a child's development, including social skills and the typical progression of brain development is significant. As parents, may we be guided to ensure that our love continues to grow in knowledge and insight for all situations that may arise. So, one day when I read this text, it really reminds me, okay, as a father, my wife as a mother. It's very challenging for us in this generation, know, how to set a boundary for them. Yeah, so... Through this example, maybe I just want to demonstrate the importance of reading the original language in the Biblical text to know the meaning and nuance in this occasion, in Paul's situation and how it related to our modern life. I hope maybe the listeners can... maybe benefits a bit through our conversation. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for sharing that. think that's a great way of like knowing that, yeah, love is not just about agreeing with people. It's about showing them what is good for them. And in Paul's context and for Christians is that what is good for them is to share Christ with them as well. Yeah. Yeah. and if in parenting or other things, I think it's wonderful example here. So thank you for sharing that and thank you for joining me on the podcast. absolutely. Yeah. And God bless you and But before you go, if you enjoyed this podcast and you want more people to see it, please subscribe and leave a like. It really helps us create more episodes like this one. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Have a great day and I'll see you in the next one.