A Guest Post from Brian J. Abasciano

Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.10-18 continues what I call the “intertextual exegesis” of Romans 9 begun in my first volume for T&T Clark’s LNTS series, which covered Rom. 9:1-9. To put it simply, “intertextual exegesis” of the New Testament is standard grammatical-historical exegesis that pays special attention to the Old Testament and Jewish background of the New Testament text. Scholars have paid increasing attention to such background over the last couple decades due to greater recognition of the prime importance of these factors for the New Testament authors, not least the Apostle Paul. I have found this to be one of the most fruitful avenues of research for understanding Paul’s epistles. Now Paul makes use of Scripture extensively in Romans 9–11, a passage that is undoubtedly one of the most important in Paul’s writings for understanding his theology on multiple issues. Romans 9 in particular relates to some of the most intriguing and controversial issues in Christian theology, such as election, reprobation, divine hardening of human beings, divine sovereignty, human free will and responsibility, and the relationship between Israel and the Church as well as their places in God’s plan for the world. So I have undertaken to exegete Romans 9 in what I expect to be the most extensive study of the chapter in the history of scholarship when it is done (there’s at least another, third volume to come) in order to understand what Paul has written and its theological ramifications.

This second volume analyses Rom. 9:10-18 and corroborates the general thrust of my exegesis of Rom. 9:1-9 in my first volume along with its conclusions regarding Paul’s theology and his use of Scripture (see chapter 5 of that first volume). (In describing the findings of the new book, I will incorporate some material directly from the manuscript.) I have found that Rom. 9:10-18 supports 9:8, which represents God’s election of those who believe in Christ (the Church) as his covenant people/heirs rather than ethnic Israel. In 9:10-18 Paul defends this as faithful to God’s promises to Israel, arguing that God’s covenant promises and purpose for election (to save the world) are fulfilled not by works or ancestry, but by the sovereign call/naming of God, which he bestows on the basis of faith in Christ.

Calling on Scripture, Paul argues that God is righteous (in the sense of faithful to his covenant promises) to do so because (1) the election of God’s people depended wholly on his sovereign will from the beginning and therefore remained subject to the dictates of his own will; (2) the fundamental nature of his covenant with Israel from its inception allowed for the rejection of the unfaithful and covenant blessing for those who trust in God’s chosen means of mediating it; (3) the bestowing of covenantal election by faith rather than works or ancestry, which hardened ethnic Israel, enables God to fulfil his covenant promises by allowing him to include all the nations of the earth in the covenant, which is the climactic covenant promise representative of them all; and (4) God’s nature when relating to sinful humanity is both merciful and sovereign in the determination of the beneficiaries of his mercy, including any conditions for choosing them.

The investigation finds Paul operating with doctrines of conditional, corporate election and hardening that allow for genuinely free human will. It also gives an extensive treatment of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, which I feel makes a contribution to resolving the notorious theological problem posed by the theme in Exodus itself as well as Paul’s use of it in Romans 9.

Comments

[Brian Abasciano]

Steve Moyise recently reviewed this book for the Review of Biblical Literature (http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=8334). I have to say that I am quite disappointed in Moyise's review because of its unfair criticism based on misrepresentation of what I actually say and argue in the book. I would not normally seek to respond to a book review in this fashion (i.e., posting a reply in a blog comment box). One expects book reviews to be critical in varying degrees, and interaction can be taken up in further published work if appropriate. But I think that this review deserves a prompt and direct response in this manner because it actually misrepresents me and the argument of the book. I will not address all of the criticisms Moyise leveled at my book, but try to remain brief and take up those that are based on misrepresentation rather than simple difference of perspective or approach.

In Moyise’s first main criticism, he gives the impression that I argue that Paul largely derived his view that ethnic Israel’s hardening is temporary from what is said about Edom and Pharaoh, and that everything can be deduced from the local context of Pauls’ Old Testament quotations. But that is simply false. My argument is far more nuanced, arguing that one of those texts contributed to Paul’s view of the hardening as temporary (not that it is the main text contributing to Paul’s conception nor even one of the main texts) and that the other gives some subtle support for the idea in our assessment of Paul’s intention. With regard to the former, I wrote, “It would appear that Mal. 1.2-3 provides *some* of the scriptural basis for Paul’s conviction that God’s judgment of unbelieving ethnic Israel would bring Gentiles to faith and that his merciful treatment of the Gentiles would bring Jews to faith, summed up in 11:30-31” (72-73; emphasis added). With regard to the Pharaoh text, I said that it “gives *some support* to the reversibility of the hardening of 9.18” (212; emphasis added), and then later, on the same page, specify the nature of this support as hinting and subtle. Nowhere do I say that everything can be deduced about Paul’s argument from the local context of Pauls’ Old Testament quotations. However, if Paul was drawing his arguments from the Old Testament texts, as he seems to claim and I believe I have shown, then we should expect a great deal of his argumentation to be elucidated by examination of the Old Testament texts he quotes or alludes to. Moreover, I do examine the original contexts of Paul’s Old Testament quotations and compare them to Paul’s argument. If that yields many striking correspondences, then it behooves us to acknowledge that. Indeed, we should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Moyise himself concedes that I “provide a significant challenge to those who think that Paul had little interest in the original context of his quotations.”

Moyise’s other major criticism is that I assume Paul’s readers would be able to follow Paul’s exegetical moves. But he again misrepresents what I actually say (unintentionally I am sure). Moyise claims that I argue that Paul’s readers would take ἐξήγειρά σε in the sense of “I have spared you” because they would know that the Hebrew uses the hiphil of עמד (“to stand”), which was rendered by the LXX with διετηρήθης (“you were spared”). I neither say nor imply any such a thing. I do point out that the both the Hebrew and the LXX (i.e., the original context of Paul’s quotation in both language versions) carry the sense of “I have spared you,” and that this accords with Paul’s only other usage of the verb ἐξεγείρω, as well as with his dominant usage of the cognate verb ἐγείρω. These are standard types of exegetical observations for scholarly biblical literature, and it is surprising if Moyise would find it objectionable for them to be cited as support for construing Paul’s intention. But even if he does, they do not make the sort of claim that Moyise claims I make. He has simply misrepresented me here.

I believe that Moyise and I have sharp differences in our approaches to Paul’s use of the Old Testament, differences that reflect major debates in the field of Old Testament in the New studies. These differences come out in his review, and I have intentionally not addressed them much in this format since such criticisms are par for the course in book reviews. However, Moyise’s two main criticisms of my book are grounded in misrepresentation of what I actually say and argue. That is not par for the course for scholarly book reviews and calls for correction. We should represent others’ views rightly before we criticize them.