Tak for dit svar - og din forklaring.
Jeg forsøger, om jeg kan fatte, hvad du skriver.

Boundary markers are observances such as circumcision, food laws, the sabbath etc. that separated the Jews from the Gentiles. One could distinguish who was a Jew or Gentile by seeing who followed these laws. Specifically, this set up the boundaries of identifying who were and were not God's people.

when Paul criticized the Jews for adhering to "works of the law," he was referring to these "boundary markers" rather than a system of works-righteousness, as is presumed in the traditional understanding of Paul's arguments.

An ongoing debate related to the "new" perspective has been over Paul's use of the Greek word pistis (πίστις, meaning "trust", "belief", "faith", or "faithfulness"). Writers with a more historic Lutheran and Reformed perspective have typically interpreted this word as meaning a belief in God and Christ, and trust in Christ for salvation with faith that he will save you. This interpretation is based on several passages from the Christian Bible, notably Ephesians 2:8–9, which reads, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Interestingly, E. P. Sanders, notes that Ephesians 2:9 teaches the traditional perspectives.

By contrast, many recent studies of the Greek word pistis have concluded that its primary and most common meaning was faithfulness, meaning firm commitment in an interpersonal relationship. As such, the word could be almost synonymous with "obedience" when the people in the relationship held different status levels (e.g. a slave being faithful to his master). Far from being equivalent to "lack of human effort", the word seems to imply and require human effort. The interpretation of Paul's writings that we need to "faithfully" obey God's commands is quite different from one which sees him saying that we need to have "faith" that he will do everything for us. This is also argued to explain why James was adamant that "faith without works is dead" and that "a man is saved by works, and not by faith alone", while also saying that to merely believe places one on the same level as the demons (see James 2). The "new" perspective argues that James was concerned with those who were trying to reduce faith to an intellectual subscription without any intent to follow God or Jesus, and that Paul always intended "faith" to mean a full submission to God.

Basically, the theory answers the question “how does Jesus save?” by saying, “Jesus is the paradigmatic example of a holy life.” In other words, Jesus saves us from a bad life by showing us how to live a good life.

The Moral Exemplar theory of atonement doesn’t say we are saved by Jesus’ teachings, but by his example. It isn’t only what Jesus said that is salvific in this understanding it is the entire pattern of his life, death, and resurrection. Jesus’ example doesn’t give us a list of instructions, it provides us a trajectory, a paradigm, a narrative to live into. Jesus as Moral Exemplar becomes the context which reframes our entire existence. Incarnation, Mission, Crucifixion, Resurrection – these become the sea we swim in, the grammar that structures our every waking moment.

Jeg inspireres mere af oplevelsen af den guddommelige kærlighed (og moralen fødes for mig naturligt deraf).