Pryor Power
Recently I offered a critique of Dwight Pryor’s lectures on Paul and the Law. It caused quite a stir. Most people who objected reminded me that Dwight was a leader in understanding the Jewishness of Jesus (Yeshua). But none offered in direct rebuttal about what he said in those lectures.
Now I am here to say, “Pryor’s lectures on sinful nature are superb! He is right on target with his analysis and very insightful about the implications of this non-biblical doctrine.” And I am overjoyed to say this. I so appreciate what he has revealed here.
Some of my notes read:
Augustine’s own struggle was read back into the text of Romans. He offered isogesis which became the standard interpretation of the Church.
The Geneva Bible of 1599 mistranslated Romans 5:12, using the LATIN rather than the Greek text as its basis and caused the verse to support the idea of the Federal Headship of Adam (we all sinned in Adam). This false doctrine, eloquently articulated by Calvin and Luther, is still supported by men like Piper and Sproul.
In Jewish thought, the idea that all men are sinners and born that way because of the sin of Adam is blasphemy against God for it implies that men no longer have choice and choice, in Jewish thinking, is essential to the image of God in man.
If this doctrine is correct, God is cruel and capricious since He is willing to eternally punish those whom He predestines to hell.
The Jewish view is that man is created innocent, not perfect, and that through his choices he causes his character to go in one direction or another.
Augustine’s doctrine introduces a Platonic ideal – in the spiritual realm – so that our goal is to escape this earth and live perfectly in heaven. The focus is on the individual and individual salvation (escape) and it leads to “theories of the atonement” rather than imagery about God’s acts of grace.
In the end, Augustine’s view of sin and justification is based on concepts from ROMAN LAW, not from biblical ideas.
There is a lot more. All great.
Thanks Skip! I appreciated your comments on this subject and acknowledgement of Dwight’s contributions …
In those early days of my experience with Dwight Pryor, it was the beginning of my hunger to learn about the Hebraic roots of my faith. As with learning anything we grow and become eager to continue. Dwight was an important first step towards truth for me and I do appreciate his teaching.
Many of us who now embrace the Hebraic way of viewing Scripture, initially cut our teeth on this mode of thinking through Prof. Pryor’s many contributions over the years. I objected regarding the initial commentary that was written (“Some Surprises, Dwight Pryor on Paul”) not so much for your discoveries based on a few lectures but mostly for the tone in which it was presented. I did not provide an immediate rebuttal publicly (although I did personally) because I knew in time, given the erudite scholar that you are, you would understand Dwight’s “overall” position on key Jew/goyim and other related topics after reading more of his materials. He would not command the respect that he did from Hebraic scholars such as David Bivin, Roy Blizzard, Marvin Wilson, Brad Young and others if this were not the case.
Like you’ve always shared with us, the Apostle Paul’s writings must be understood given the audience, culture and times in which he lived. I think the same must be said for Prof. Pryor. Most biblical scholars will say that Paul’s writings are hard to understand at times. They almost sound contradictory. Yet bottom line, I believe that both the Apostle Paul and Dwight Pryor were about building unity within the Body of Yeshua; not at the expense of Truth (based on what they knew in their own timeframes) but in helping their disciples and others understand the greater meaning of what it meant to be Torah-observant during a very difficult, transitory period.
With respect to Paul’s audience, the 1st century listeners were adjusting from God having been on earth, to Him now having left. Yeshua turned the world upside down, not only for the Jew but the goyim as well and it took a special teacher, like the Apostle Paul, to help the Torah-observant and non-observant to understand the eternal weight (kavod) of what had really transpired and how to move on.
Although we’re in a totally different timeframe, cultural venue and place in the 21st century, I’ve always viewed Dwight Pryor and other Hebraic scholars in a similar manner. How do pioneer scholars with this special type of calling, help Christians steeped in Greco-Roman thinking, transition from what they’ve always known to believe, to a totally “new way of thinking” in the most harmonious manner? I believe Prof. Pryor was gifted in this area.
I never viewed Dwight Pryor as a “hero,” as you termed him in the previous commentary, but more of what a sage in this age should be like. There was a countenance and spirit to Dwight that emanated humility and a heart to reveal God’s Truth with passion — which for many of us, was contagious. This was evident by all who attended his special memorial service a few years ago on May 13, 2011. It was inspiring.
All to say as well, I’m so thankful for God’s Table, Today’s Word and your myriad of insightful teachings Skip. Not all scholars are as transparent or willing to give of their time for open dialogue as you are. That is refreshing. You stimulate our thinking into the deeper nature of who we truly are in Adonai Elohim and provide us with the tools whereby we can be renewed daily by the washing of the Word and the Spirit from whenst we came. Thank you for stretching us and getting us ready. As one of my longtime mentors once stated, “In a time of relative peace we must prepare.”
Thank you Tina for these words. I am sure Dr. Pryor deserved them. And I am sure that all of us, me particularly, are at points inconsistent with our overall purpose and presentation. I have so much to learn, and I will continue to listen to Pryor’s lectures for what I can glean from them. Of course, that doesn’t mean I won’t raise an objection when I find it needed or where I find some difficulty, but it does mean that pursing truth, consistency, coherence and comprehensiveness will not be sacrificed. When I am wrong, I hope you and others will be quick to point it out so I can get straight and get on.
“Not all scholars are as transparent or willing to give of their time for open dialogue as you are.”
I have found through this blog, this statement is absolutely true! I have been on many forums, and this is the most open.
Christina-
I would say the same as in your last paragraph-I so enjoy and appreciate the stimulating and stretching that Skip challenges us with TW.
You are a tzadik, Skip, in coming out with this ‘admission’. Thank you, for being such a good teacher, to emulate.
Shalom!
I don’t see this as an ‘admission’ or a recanting at all. As Skip said above: “But none offered in direct rebuttal about what he said in those lectures.” None of us have been able to disagree with the points that Skip objected to in those previous lectures. As always, Skip asks us to glean the truths from any teaching we receive, and leave the stones, but to act as “Bereans” and check for the truth in every statement — no matter the overall stature and honor of the speaker, and our respect for him/her. At times, Dr. Pryor, and the rest of us are “at points inconsistent with our overall purpose and presentation.” Skip has never recommended throwing out the baby with the bath water.
this is mind stretching. It makes me think of the verse something to the effect “name will be blotted out”. To me that is indicative that the name of the individual is already in the Book and because of …. it will be blotted out.