Paul and the Vocation of Israel: How Paul's Jewish Identity Informs his Apostolic Ministry, with Special Reference to Romans

by Lionel J Windsor

The Apostle Paul was the greatest early missionary of the Christian gospel. He was also, by his own admission, an Israelite. How can both these realities coexist in one individual? This book argues that Paul viewed his mission to the Gentiles, in and of itself, as the primary expression of his Jewish identity. The concept of Israel's divine vocation is used to shed fresh light on a number of much-debated passages in Paul's letter to the Romans.

317 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2014

Reviews

[Gwilym Davies]

There's so much about this that's excellent. To begin with, it's wonderfully accessible, readable and clear (and I've read plenty of comparable monographs that are anything but...) He deals with the wider scholarship on the question with a wonderfully light touch. And he makes all sorts of interesting exegetical observations. But more importantly, I think that Lionel Windsor is really onto something.

Caveats first: I wouldn't dot every i and cross every t in the same place. In fact, I have quite serious reservations about his reading of Philippians 3, where he argues that 'we are the circumcision' is an exclusive statement applying to Paul and Timothy, but excluding the Philippians. I'd suggest that significantly misreads the whole thrust of Paul's argument in this letter. And more generally, I'm nervous of the case he seems to be making for an ongoing 'Jewish exceptionalism' (my phrase, not his): even in Romans, I'd suggest that Paul's aim is that the Romans join him in his renewed Israel, apostolic vocation - not just that they acknowledge him and let him get on with it. But if the Gentile Romans are meant to join him in being a light to the nations, how exceptional is Paul's Jewishness? If I'm honest, I thought that if he was going to make the case for an ongoing, especially Jewish-Christian role of being a light to the nations (which he seemed to be), a role that excludes Gentile Christians, he owed us a longer and more courageous conclusion. It'd be nice to know what he thinks that really means! These caveats are significant - because really I'm saying that I'm not fully on board with the sharp end of where Windsor wants to take his arguments. In terms of the application of his thesis, I'm just not convinced.

But nevertheless, those are the caveats.

Because the headline is that no matter how cautious I'd be about where Windsor wants to take his conclusions, I really think he's got Paul's self-understanding, Isaiah, and much of the argument of Romans, right. Absolutely right. He's surely right that Isaiah (which Paul directly quotes from at least 11 times, arguably more - and alludes to a bunch more) provides the basic matrix for understanding Paul's apostolic vocation. He's surely right that Isaiah 40-55 is especially significant here. He's surely right that Paul understood himself in terms of Isaiah 49 - or Luke is a liar (Acts 13). And I was already persuaded that Romans 9-11 is at least as much about Paul as it is about Israel: I was delighted by his recognition that 9:1-5, 10:1-2 and 11:1 and 11:11-14 are fundamental to the way Paul unpacks the argument (not just tone or a bit of redundant ethos). I was already persuaded that 10:14-18 is about Paul's missionary success, not Israel's failure. In fact, I'd already ended up interpreting Romans 10-11 in very similar terms to Windsor all round. You might say I was primed to like this.

But from the moment I read the introduction to this book, it brought me fresh clarity: of course, Paul's claim to be the servant of the Lord is a claim to be fulfilling the vocation of Israel! Of course, Romans 2:17-29 is about Israel's vocation, not just her salvation! Of course, Romans 9-11 isn't just a tale of Israel and Paul, it's a tale of 2 Israels! And of course, that means Romans 9-11 is slap, bang, front and centre in Paul's case for the Romans to get behind his mission to the Gentiles. Suddenly, Romans 9-11 isn't a digression. It isn't even a fresh start, the other half of the argument (the way I put it the last time I went out to bat on the structure of Romans). It's climactic to Paul's exposition of Romans 1:1-7: he's dealt with the implications of 1:1-4 for those who believe in chapters 1-8. Now it's time for 1:5-6. Boom!

In summary, the best thing I've read on Romans (apart from Romans) since the last time I picked up a published PhD thesis from a Moore faculty member...

[Will Cunningham-Batt]

Fantastic. The final chapter on Romans 9-11 is especially strong in drawing together his argument that Paul fulfils Israel’s divine vocation by preaching the gospel to the nations.

I read the online version of his PhD thesis available here: https://etheses.durham.ac.uk/id/eprin...