William Campbell’s Romans– Part Thirteen

Last updated on: May 7, 2023 at 1:57 am by Ben Witherington

William Campbell’s Romans– Part Thirteen 2023-04-13T13:38:40-04:00 Ben Witherington

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In Romans 8.4 and 10.4 the language of fulfillment comes up. Campbell suggests. the verb to fulfill does not mean to observe. He argues since it is passive in Rom. 8 ‘might be fulfilled’ that it refers to the indwelling work of the Spirit, not to human effort or accomplishment or observing. But fulfill is also the language originally applied to prophecy— something said in the past is fulfilled at some point thereafter and if it is fulfilled it has accomplished its purpose and is at an end. So what then does Rom. 10.4 mean when it says Christ is the telos of the Law? it could be translated goal/ terminus/ or end. But Paul’s view is that Christ is not merely the goal of the Mosaic law though is true in one sense (namely that all Scripture points to Christ and the promises of God are yea and amen in Christ as 2 Cor. says), but it is also true that has fulfilled it righteous requirements and its demands in regard to dealing with sin etc. Followers of Christ don’t have to keep making literal sacrifices etc. whether Jew or Gentile, and this is why Paul will suggest a different sort of personal sacrifice for one and all in Rom. 12.1-2.

In regard to the issue of ‘being in Christ’ one of the more interesting insight in Campbell’s treatment looks back to what Paul says at the beginning of Rom. 6. When Paul speaks of being buried with Christ in baptism in Rom. 6, it indicates belonging to the same family of the person with whom one is buried. So Gentiles in Christ become part of the family of God through Christ, though Campbell prefers the designation an associate family, a brotherhood with Christ, not part of Israel. Campbell adds that Gentiles become co-heirs with Christ, not with Israel, nor do Gentiles become part of Israel to do so. But this ignores that Israel as well, in order to become co-heirs, have to become followers of Christ now that there is a new covenant, which is why Paul says what he does about the salvation of the rest of Israel when Christ returns in Rom. 11. They do not receive this inheritance just by keeping the Mosaic covenant or because of their ethnicity, though there is nothing wrong with their ethnicity, indeed there is much to be proud of (see Rom. 9.1-4).

One of the more interesting and helpful insight from Campbell’s treatment of Rom. 8 is this— It is possible that Paul is concerned that now that the Gentile Christians have abandoned their former gods, they are worried that they don’t have security or protection from the wrath of such gods, and so Paul is reassuring them that in Christ they are protected even against malevolent angels or principalities…. And also they possibly are being harassed or persecuted by Gentile relatives and neighbors who noted this change. But I would note that Paul already sees Gentile Christians as part of God’s elect or chosen ones, not a separate group.

When we get to Rom. 9 Campbell seems to think Paul’s distress involves not just the spiritual state of Israel who has rejected their own messiah, but also their political plight being oppressed by Rome (of which Paul gives not a hint in Rom. 9-11, much less in Rom. 13). Notice that Campbell says nothing about the fact that God gave Israel covenants plural, nor one word about the discussion of whether Christ is called God in Rom. 9.5—which B. Metzger and various commentators think likely. No Paul’s anguish is specifically tagged to the rejection of Christ by Jews, but he wants to make clear to the largely Gentile audience that the story is not over yet, and that such people are only temporarily broken off from God’s people. And there is no basis for Gentiles thinking God has replaced Israel with Gentile Christ followers.

What would have been helpful is if Campbell had discussed the difference between election for historical purposes like being a light to the nations, and salvation which is a different matter. For example, Christ is depicted as the Elect One in Ephesians and Hebrews, but Christ has no need of salvation. He did not sin. So election for historical purposes is one thing, salvation another. That Israel is God’s chosen one doesn’t mean automatically that all Israelites are saved. Indeed, what Paul will say in Rom. 11 is it is only when the Redeemer turns away the impiety of Jacob at the return of Christ that all Israel can be saved. And this brings us to the helpful comments of Bill Campbell on ‘Jacob I loved but Esau I hated’ He notes that the Hebrew root sana of the Greek verb miseo is not an exact equivalent to the English word hate. It is better to render I did not prefer or did not choose [for this specific historical purpose]. I totally agree. This is about choosing for some purpose, not about personal hate. And it is interesting as well that the distinction is made between vessels of mercy prepared in advance for good use, and vessels of wrath that have prepared themselves for such an outcome. The difference in the verbs and their form here is crucial.

On p. 261 Bill helpfully adds—– “Nothing could be clearer in reading Paul’s letters than that he has an important place for individual persons within the body of those who are ‘in Christ’ and in the final judgment from which not individual can be omitted. But the individual’s social identity is derived from the collective of which they are a part and has no independent existence in isolation….Romans focuses not on individuals and their final destiny but on God’s purpose for Israel and the nations within history.” This is exactly right, and this is where SIT helps us see that the emphasis is on corporate personality or group identity, not on the future of isolated individuals. Paul for instance doesn’t say ‘every individual Israelite will be saved’. He says all Israel as a collective will be saved, for example, as will the full number of Gentiles.

The overarching theme is that God’s purpose is to have mercy on both the nations and Israel, which means patience with both to the end when Christ returns. The vessels are not thrown away, not even the vessels that have prepared themselves for wrath or the vessels whom God has prepared before hand for glory.

One of the regular themes in the OT prophets as stressed by Koch, is redemption beyond judgment on Israel. Judgment comes on the household of God, but after that there is restoration. Campbell seems to be unaware of this theme in the major and minor OT prophets. I.e. God does not give up on his people even after he judges them or sends them intol exile etc. It is important to pay attention to the pronouns, not only the ‘us’ where Paul identifies himself with his fellow Christ followers, but the ‘them’ which is Israel, by which he means non-Christ following Israel, which is why he distinguishes himself from them.

The discussion of the hardening of some has been difficult. Here Campbell I think is on the right track. He suggests that Paul concludes that the hardening of a large portion of Israel must have some positive purpose, so he concludes that it was done so the Gentiles could be saved through Christ, but God is not finished with Israel yet. So the hardening did not lead to a permanent fall. (the hardening of Pharoah may be a different story, but its purpose was so God could force Pharoah’s hand to let his people go). So God intended Israel’s poor response to Christ initially which opened the door to go ahead and save the nations. It is called a ‘musterion’ or mystery because the normal way of thinking was that Jews, including Diaspora Jews would return to Zion and the Gentiles would come in on their coat-tails. Now Paul says, God has reversed the process of Gentiles being saved in large numbers first and thereafter ‘all Israel will be saved’

The larger plan of God involves saving all Israel but this is not the focus of Paul’s mission, which is to be apostle to the Gentiles. Paul is not opposed to presenting the Gospel to Jews when opportunity arose but that is not the focus of his ministry, rather it is Peter’s. So his work with Gentiles, he hopes will make Israel jealous, and along the way some Jews will also be saved as his letter showed did happen. Indeed, Campbell thinks early on many Jews accepted the Gospel, but how many through Christ one cannot say. So the root of the olive tree and the first fruits mentioned are the remnant, the Jewish Christians, but their holiness implies the holiness of the whole lump or the whole tree. Paul then talks about the temporary breaking off of some Jews who have rejected Christ, the grafting in of the wild olive shoot i.e. Gentiles, then later the regrafting in of the large majority of Israel.

The olive tree metaphor involves some natural branches being broken off (Nanos is wrong that it merely means broken or bent). No the grafting in of wild olive branches is in place of the one’s broken, though God can definitely regraft in the natural ones later, just as he can also cut off the wild olive branches grafted in. Campbell is right that Paul implies the ethnic differences here, by talking about two different species of olive tree, only one of which is normal or natural. Campbell is right that throughout this argument Paul is countering potential Gentile arrogance if they might see themselves as replacing Jews as God’s people, and of course also countering anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. True enough. But what Campbell totally misses is that the goal here is a single people of God in Christ— Jew and Gentile united in Christ, not two separate groups of saved people. Otherwise the grafting into the single olive tree metaphor doesn’t work at all, especially if, as Campbell admits ‘the remnant’ in this argument appears to Jewish Christians. The final form of God’s people is not a big family with two parallel and quite different groups of people following different commandments and praxis, but rather Jew and Gentile united in Christ, which requires sacrifices by both Jews and Gentiles in order to be a single people of God. Ekklaw can mean to break. It certainly doesn’t merely mean to bend. It can also regularly mean break off…….

The phrase ‘all Israel’ occurs about 150 times in the Ot and always refers to historic ethnic Israel as a whole. Campbell wants to argue that the deliverer that comes forth from Zion is God, not Christ, but this ignores the eschatological context where Paul has already said that the restoration of Israel will be connected with life or resurrection from the dead, the event Paul clearly connects with the 2nd coming in 1 Cor. 15, and while he is right that Paul believes the new covenant has already begun with Christ’s first coming, he is wrong that this is a renewal of the Mosaic covenant. That view is impossible in light of Gal. 4.

History and Religion

Education and Religion

Uncategorized

Life in the Spirit without sin's bondage

Previous Post

May 6, 2023

William Campbell's Romans-- Part Twelve

Next Post

May 8, 2023 William Campbell's Romans-- Part Fourteen

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz