(Part 1)

JBTM Book Reviews
134
Thornhill describes his purpose and methodology clearly in chapter 1. He positions himself
within the “remnant-oriented and conditional” group. 1 Thornhill’s book is commendable in
its vast research of the primary literature of Second Temple Judaism. He has been critiqued
for omitting some key OT texts; such were outside the scope and purpose of his study. 2
The author’s research affords the reader access to the topic of election in this vast body of
intertestamental literature and shows how it intersects with primary Pauline texts.
In chapter 2 Thornhill shows how Judaism understood election of the individual in
relation to corporate responsibility. Though he admits the distinctions of individual and
collective are artificial, this groundwork is necessary for grasping how Judaism viewed
collective responsibility of each individual to the larger group. The author sees these
categories reflected in Paul’s thought patterns (52). The revelatory work of God in Christ is
an added dimension in Paul’s thought (57).
Thornhill in chapter 3 moves from individual election to corporate perspectives on how
Judaism defined the “people of God.” Judaism used corporate metaphors and motifs like the
vine/plant motif, houses, remnants, and the like, to describe the collective nature of Israel’s
election (70). These corporate metaphors like “first fruits,” plants, vineyard, and foundation
imagery appear in Paul’s discussions on the people of God. A collective emphasis demands
individual “right behavior” (94) and separation from the world. Thus, there is “continuity
between Israel as God’s chosen people and those who are his people through the Messiahfrom-Israel”
(94, emphasis his). Paul uses similar terms like “elect,” “called,” “beloved,” and
“election,” which all refer to God’s people as they are defined by God’s Messiah (98).
In chapter 4 Thornhill examines the criteria in Judaism for who was “in” and who was
“out.” All writers in Judaism viewed the Torah as central (146), but the implicit and/or
explicit criteria varied among writers. Although Judaism displayed a wide variance in criteria
for determining who was “in” or “out,” Thornhill argues for strong agreement among them
that “being Jewish did not mean one belonged among the people of God” (135). Contra
Sanders, a large portion of ethnic Jews were thought to be “out.” Thornhill views Paul’s
argument in Galatians on who was “in” and who was “out” as the apostle’s way of “joining in
the same theological soiree as he lays out his own understanding of what defines the people
of God” (135). Though Paul obviously diverges significantly from his contemporaries, he was
¹The other two “camps” are: G. F. Moore’s “national and unconditional view” in Judaism in the
First Centuries of the Christian Era (1927–1930; reprinted, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997). E. P.
Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985) also holds this view; and Joseph
Bonsirven’s “national and cooperative” view in Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Jesus Christ (New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1984). Thornhill believes Sanders pushed the pendulum too far. The
“camp” designations are Thornhill’s.
²Thornhill entertains key OT texts as they appear in the NT text and when appropriate for the
study. Full treatment of OT theology on election and/or the treatment of how the NT uses the OT are
beyond Thornhill’s purposes here.