Balance is what Tom calls for in the discussion of Paul’s already and not yet comments on rulers and authorities, and I quite agree. And the not yet seems clearly enough in play in 2 Thess. 2.1-5 when we hear about the man of lawlessness who will be revealed, who usurps divine roles, making himself out to be a god. Here, it would indeed appear that the target may be the Emperor cult. Having said that, it is well to... Read more

Tom points to 1 Cor. 2.6-8 to make his point on p. 1285. Here he is probably right that human rulers are meant, especially since the crucifixion by them is mentioned in vs.6. What is said of them however is that they are not in on the eschatological secret that Christ is the Lord of glory, otherwise they would not have crucified him. Now this implies that with more knowledge they would not have done what they did. In other... Read more

It is always a dangerous thing to make categorical statements about either/ors when you are in a situation of already and not. Tom, however, following the lead of his doctor father George Caird, and others says on p. 1281— “Either the history of Rome provides the true story, with Christian faith content to shelter as a permitted religion under its banner. Or the history of Israel climaxing in the crucified and risen Messiah must be seen as the true story,... Read more

Tom’s fondness for chiastic structures leads to the final three chapters of the book (minus the final final chapter which is just conclusions) being a revisiting of the issues introduced in the first three chapters of this magnum opus, only now in reverse order. SO the overall plan of the book is: 1) the study of Paul’s world in three parts; 2) the study of Paul’s theology focused on three major themes— monotheism, election, and eschatology; and then 3) the... Read more

As Tom admits, in discussing the phrase ‘The Redeemer/Deliverer’ (p.1251) in Rom. 11.26-27, Paul does elsewhere use the cognate phrase, ho rheumenos’ very clearly to refer to Christ’s return and delivering his people from wrath in 1 Thess. 1.10. And I would say there is no reason it can’t mean that here in Romans as well. Tom seizes on the Isaianic phrase “whenever I take away there sins” and while he is right that this could refer to multiple actions... Read more

The discussion in pp. 1245ff. is a good example of how a scholar can be right as rain about what he rejects, but wrong about what he affirms. It will be remembered that Tom’s view of Romans 11 is that “the saving of all Israel may refer here as in 11.14 and surrounding verses to actual concrete ‘turnings’ in which more and more of Paul’s fellow kinfolk will no longer remain in ‘unbelief’ (11.23)” (p. 1245). He quotes Ed Sanders... Read more

The discussion of God’s hardening of Pharaoh and then of Israel is of course a difficult one. Fortunately for us, we don’t need to deal with the Pharaoh example, but we do need to deal with what Paul says about God hardening Israel due to their unbelief. On p. 1225 Tom helpfully points us to the parallel passage in 2 Cor. 3 where the hardening of the mind is related to the metaphor of a veil over the human heart.... Read more

On p. 1215, Tom has an interesting way of contrasting the rhetorical thrust of Galatians as opposed to Romans. He puts it this way: “The difference between the two epistles is this. In Galatians, Paul is warning Gentile believers that they must not try to become physically, ethnically, Jews. To do so would undermine that single family by insisting on an ethnic basis. In Romans he is warning Gentile believers that they must not imagine that God cannot and will... Read more

Giving full marks to Tom, the lengthy discussion on Rom. 11.1-32 which stretches to some 70 plus pages (to p. 1265 in fact) is one of his best in this huge work. And it needed to be, because his position on Rom. 11 is difficult to defend in light of the water that has already gone under the bridge in Rom. 9 and 10. He goes into more detail here than in the treatment of the other relevant passages that... Read more