My Response to First Things Review

Addressing Misrepresentations and Calumny in Gerald McDermott's Review

In mid September, I was initially pleased to learn about a second First Things review of my book, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel. (The first, by James R. Wood, had involved a robust and stimulating engagement with the arguments of my book.) But on reading this second review (by Gerald McDermott), I was startled to discover that it misrepresents the arguments of my book so significantly that it probably meets the standards of libel.

As such, I quickly fired off a rejoinder to the First Things editors. After the usual editorial back-and-forth, that rejoinder was published today (unfortunately most of it remains behind the FT paywall). Rather than responding to every argument of McDermott’s review, I limited my response to correcting the numerous factual inaccuracies in that review.

For example, McDermott concludes his article with reference to “Staples’s suggestion that non-Messianic Jews no longer matter to God” and a claim that any reference to Romans 11:28–29 (which emphasizes God’s continued concern for such persons) was “buried in a single footnote.” But, as my review states, this is patently false, since Romans 11:28–32 appears in full as a block quote within the body text (page 320), followed by the explanation:

contemporary unfaithful Israelites have in no way lost their election. They remain God’s chosen despite their opposition to the gospel, which (like historical Israel’s unfaithfulness) is itself being used for redemptive purposes (cf. 9:21–26). Paul thus argues that the covenantal promises to Israel are being fulfilled in the present—the redemption of the nations together with Jews witnesses to the fidelity of God to the whole people of Israel.

Had McDermott simply used the book’s index to check his work, he could easily have avoided such a dreadful mistake.

The editors understandably trimmed out some of the more spicy lines from the review, aiming to keep it as measured as possible. (Definitely the right call. This is how my own process tends to work even without editorial oversight—my early drafts tend to be much sharper than my final versions.) Nevertheless, since I’m the editor here, I can reproduce a few of those spicier lines.

In one section, after correcting McDermott’s misrepresentation with a restatement of the actual argument of that section of the book, my initial draft stated, “This is so far from McDermott’s claim that one wonders which book McDermott read, because it was manifestly not the same book that I wrote.”

In response to McDermott’s claim about my alleged suggestion “that non-Messianic Jews no longer matter to God,” my draft had pointed out that such a claim surely crosses the line into the territory of libel or calumny. The line, “One wonders which process McDermott has undergone to become blind to what one would expect any competent reader to see” (bonus points to those who recognize the allusion here) was also rightly struck from the final version.

And whereas the final First Things version (appropriately) ends with the observation that it is fortunate that I can correct the record in response to such misrepresentations, my less-measured draft concluded with the following:

In any case, McDermott’s review amounts to a libelous misrepresentation of my book and is unbecoming of the pages of this esteemed periodical. All authors must eventually face the fact that some readers will inevitably misinterpret their writing. Fortunately, in this case, I am still alive and able to correct the record. If this review is reflective of McDermott’s habits as a reviewer, I suggest he limit his future reviews by those—like the apostle himself—no longer able to respond.

The larger response is of course over at First Things, so if you have access and read McDermott’s review, you may want to take a glance.