(Part 1)

JBTM Book Reviews
135
informed by the literature of his day. Thornhill’s argument seems a bit forced here. Even
Sanders recognized that by not upholding the law, such behavior would result in being “out.”
Second, is Paul trying to join the ancient debate or might he truly be fighting proponents of
a “different gospel” (Gal 1:6–12)?
In chapter 5 Thornhill discusses the issue of Jewish and Gentile inclusion and/or exclusion
in Judaism. His arguments include frequent challenges to E. P. Sanders’s conclusions from
the primary literature (155) that all Jews are included (elect). Thornhill (170) finds some
evidence (albeit not abundant) suggesting eschatological conversion of the Gentiles (Tobit,
Wisdom of Ben Sira, Sibylline Oracles, 1 Enoch). He maintains that Paul’s discussion of
the place of Jews and Gentiles in the people of God derives from this context. Again, this
argument seems forced based upon the tenuous evidence presented. Would not a stronger
argument be found in Thornhill’s conclusions from his next chapter, that Gentiles inclusion
is consistent with God’s covenant with Abraham?
Thornhill offers a strong exegetical argument from Romans 3:21–4:17. He garners support
from N. T. Wright that Paul has “re-defined” election (174). Jesus’s obedience (“faithfulness
of Jesus Christ”) brought a significant shift in God’s plan for humanity. The “works of the
law” no longer constitute the marker of God’s people. These themes constitute a renewal of
the covenant with Israel and are consistent with God’s covenant purpose through Israel to
bring about the new covenant for the inclusion of Gentile and Jew alike. Paul maintains the
covenant of Abraham has come to fruition apart from the law, just as God had intended (178).
Paul refused to define the boundaries of the elect to a limited, specific group. Rather, he sees
consistency with God’s original purpose in his covenant with Abraham “to bless the nations
and bring resurrection life of his son to humanity” (185).
In chapter 6 Thornhill pulls his thesis together in discussion of divine determinism and
human responsibility. He demonstrates both of these perspectives in the literature of Second
Temple Judaism. Thus, he contends that Paul’s perspective in Romans 8 and Ephesians 1:3-
2:10 is one of “Both/And” (211ff). There is divine initiative and human responsibility. Paul is
asserting both realities. Thornhill does not mean “that Paul understands divine and human
action to be occurring on the same level or to the same efficacy. But neither should we take
Paul as asserting that God acts in such a unilateral manner so as to make the presence of
human responsibility either illusory or meaningless” (212).
Thornhill in chapter 7 states his case calling for a “rereading of Romans 8:26–11:36” set
against a Jewish background (229). He contends Paul’s concern is for the “fate of Israel and
inclusion of the Gentiles” against the idea of double predestination (229). The election of
Israel is not nationalistic and the “boundary marker” of God’s people is now faith in Jesus
the Messiah (253). The author concludes his book with chapter 8. He offers a recap of ideas
and suggestions for further discussion.