William Campbell’s Romans– The Dialogue Part Ten

Last updated on: June 10, 2023 at 1:24 am by Ben Witherington

William Campbell’s Romans– The Dialogue Part Ten 2023-05-17T13:30:36-04:00 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.

Q. You are right that not infrequently Paul uses the rhetorical device of diatribe and also the device of rhetorical questions to further his arguments. This however does not amount to alternating between diatribal sections and epistolary sections of the document. The non-diatribal material does not reflect epistolary anything, other than at the outset and conclusion of the document. Rather, we have a progressive series of arguments and they follow rhetorical not epistolary rules and categories. The need ito see this document as overwhelmingly an oral and rhetorical discourse meant to be read out loud at Rome to a group or groups, and not primarily a text to be studied is crucial.

As for the rhetorical questions which include the word ‘not’ they do indeed expect a negative answer, though not requiring a formal response. This is because they are conveying a Pauline concept in question form. It seems particularly off target and not dealing with the grammar of the sentence of Rom. 9.6 to read that rhetorical question to mean ‘Are not all Israel Israel?’ This reading is really not very possible in light of the previous question—’it’s not as though God’s Word has failed, has it’? The only reading that explains why Paul has to ask that question is answered in the context of Rom. 9 by Paul’s anxiety that so many Jews have rejected Christ, and this leaves them outside or broken off from the people God, at least temporarily. No, the literal reading of the second rhetorical question has to be noting how the first word is ‘ou’. i.e. NOT which requires a negative answer, ‘Not all those from Israel, are Israel [are they]? Answer NO, and Paul proceeds to give the example of Jacob and Esau with the former being the very founding father of Israel in the sense of giving the group his name, and the latter being excluded and leading to a separate people—the Edomites. If Paul really believed those Jews who had rejected Christ had NOT been broken off from the people of God, it is difficult to understand why he himself was prepared to be anathema in God’s view if only they could be back in God’s graces in his place. How would you respond to this?

A. The problem in discussing the status of Jews who were not convinced that messianic time had arrived is partially the metaphorical language used. Thus you speak of Jews been broken off, whereas this image could refer to broken branches not completely separated for the specific purpose that others might be grafted in. Metaphors are not the same as concepts and only the broad meaning can be assumed otherwise they become allegories where every word and phrase stands for something specific. Paul uses many metaphors particularly where he cannot or will not be over-precise. Paul’s willingness to become anathema tells us beyond any debate that he was deeply and permanently attached to his own people as God’s people. It caused him much grief that the majority could not be convinced, but attributed this to God’s will and plans to allow space and time for the gentiles to come in. It is not warranted that, because Paul reveals the depth of his concern, to presume from this the worst possible judgement upon his people. In fact Paul later will argue that the love of God for them is unbroken and his gifts and calling are irrevocable (11.29).

With specific regard to the translation of Rom 9.6 note that I do not argue for a textual emendation nor deny any particular word. My translation ‘For not all those from Israel are Israel, are they not ?’ is simply based on whether it is a rhetorical question and how it should be presented. I could also have translated ‘For are not all from Israel Israel ?’ Indicating the answer to be ‘yes of course they are’(Commentary, 250). Rhetorical questions differ from ordinary questions in that they include a suggestion that indicates the way the speaker is thinking. So if I say it will rain today, will it not ? This means I am not denying the possibility of rain but even suggesting that this will happen. 9.6a denies that the word of God has failed. It is in answer to this possibility of failure that Paul claims that all those from Israel are Israel, are they not? (Thus affirming God’s word to Israel). Then he explains that not all the children of Abraham are his seed (of the promise), but only those through Isaac are named his seed. Note that Paul does not make a statement regarding Israel, but asks a questions suggesting an affirmative answer, that all Israel are in fact Israel. The entire passage does not deal with selection within Israel, but only with selection within Abraham’s children that led to the emergence of the people Israel (Jacob). Even if you do not accept my reading of Rom 9.6b what follows is not a selection within Israel but sets out how Israel came into being.

Education and Religion

History and Religion

Uncategorized

Are all Israel true Israel?

Previous Post

June 8, 2023

About all those Books I've been Writing....

Next Post

June 11, 2023 William Campbell's Romans-- The Dialogue Part Eleven

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