I am pleased to report that my article, “What Do the Gentiles Have to Do with ‘All Israel’? A Fresh Look at Rom 11:25–27” has (finally!) been published in the summer edition of the Journal of Biblical Literature, available for download here. 
This article is a piece of a project that began in the spring of 2003 and is continuing in my dissertation, “Paul, the Gentiles, and the Restoration of Israel.” My article reexamines that difficult passage that sums up Paul’s grand theological argument in Romans:
I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery (lest you become high-minded yourselves) that a hardening has come upon a part of Israel until the fullness of the nations (τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν) has come in—and thus (καἰ οὕτως) all Israel will be saved, just as it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”
The central point of the article involves an exploration of what Paul means by “the fullness of the nations” and how that relates to “all Israel,” a term that refers to a larger group than just Jews/Judaeans and is especially important in light of Jewish apocalyptic hopes of the restoration of (all twelve tribes) of Israel, as the prophets had promised. Essentially, Paul is arguing that Gentile inclusion in the church (קהל ישראל) is inseparable from the promises made to Israel and ultimately to Abraham.
19 Comments. Leave new
Its about time! Congrats, brother!
Great to see it in print! It took long enough.
Congratulations on the publication, Jason. I look forward to reading it. Nice to be in the same volume of JBL with you!
Thank you, Mark. I was pleased to see that I was sharing a volume with you as well. I just read your piece, which has the advantage of being quite right. Well done, as usual.
Jason… I’ve read parts of your article and your concluding thoughts. The conclusion that I come away with is that you seem to hold to a version of a Two House theology (without calling it that), which supposes that the Church is in fact the regathered “Ephraim” (term from your paper), i.e. the “lost” ten Northern Tribes of Israel. This theology is nothing new, of course, as you may know, since it’s a slightly modernized derivative of British Israelism.
What say you?
I must confess that I just had to look up “two house theology,” as I’m not familiar with that term or movement. I’m somewhat more familiar with (and repudiate) “British Israelitism,” which seems to be a Western European attempt at establishing racial superiority.
My argument is a historical/exegetical one, starting with the expectation of a full (twelve-tribe) Israelite restoration in Second Temple Judaism and then trying to make sense of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles in that context. My conclusion is that Paul takes Hosea’s “not my people” very seriously, believing that much of the house of Israel had become ethnically indistinct from the nations/Gentiles by being assimilated through intermarriage, so the incorporation of Gentiles is actually necessary for the full restoration of Israel (becoming “my people” again). I suppose my work is somewhat similar to “two house theology” in that it rests on drawing a historical distinction between the northern and southern houses of Israel (as the ancient sources from the period seem to do), but from what I can tell from the quick glance I just took, modern “two house theology” has typically assumed the Israelites migrated to Europe (or the Americas) and includes a racial component foreign to Paul and his day and/or argues for a return to external Torah-keeping for those convinced of their genetic Israelite heritage, etc.
In contrast, I think for Paul the key is that Israel has become “not my people,” so “not my people” have to be brought in for Israel to be complete, and only those who receive the Spirit become Israelites. That seems different to me from what I found when I looked up “two house theology,” though I certainly share one of the foundational assumptions of that particular theology: the historical fact of the division between the two houses of Israel, two exiles (each in stages), and the later theological expectation of a full restoration of both houses.
One other thing: I don’t say the Church is Ephraim. Rather, I think Paul envisions the Church, the “ekklesia,” as the full assembly of Israel, composed of both Jews and Gentiles (=restored Israel from the Gentiles).
“My argument is a historical/exegetical one, starting with the expectation of a full (twelve-tribe) Israelite restoration in Second Temple Judaism and then trying to make sense of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles in that context.”
Jason, if that were the case, why would not Paul speak of the restoration of Israel by identifying the Gentiles as the long-lost tribes of Israelites? If he indeed believed this, logic dictates that he should have used this “historical/exegetical” argument to prove to his fellow Jews that this is the one of the reasons they should accept the Gentiles as their fellow “lost” Israelites coming back into the fold…but he never does.
Paul also missed his chance to use that argument at the “Council of Jerusalem” (in fact, it may have worked against him if he did – after all, if one is an Israelite, is it not breaking of Torah to not circumcise him?). Or, what about when he chided Peter for avoiding being seen eating with non-Jews? Would not showing Peter that he’s been avoiding not foreigners, but fellow Israelites be a good way to reinforce the message of “all Israel”. The circumcision party too has missed their chance to use this argument of “Gentiles are lost Israelites” to justify their push for circumcision. Instead, it seems that it has crossed neither Paul’s mind nor those any of the apostles.
It just doesn’t add up that they viewed bringing in Gentiles to faith as the restoration of “all Israel” or as creating of some sort of “spiritual Israel” where the only thing that matters is “having the Spirit”. It’s a forced argument that sounds a lot like the same old Supersessionism.
Thanks for the reply, Gene. My argument is that Paul did speak of the restoration of Israel by identifying the faithful Gentiles as Israelites. That’s the essence of my argument. From what I gathered from your first post, you read “parts” of my article but not all of it. The middle section addresses this part of your question, although I had to leave quite a bit out that will be in my dissertation.
The entire dispute about circumcision is nonsense unless one of the parties was claiming that the Gentiles had full Israelite status without physical circumcision. “Righteous Gentiles” had been a standard feature within Judaism and ancient Israelite theology for centuries, with textual precedent as far back as the Exodus narrative. These Gentiles never needed to be circumcised unless they wanted full Israelite privilege, unless they wanted to be “grafted into” the assembly of Israel, in which case they needed to be circumcised. (That word “assembly” is another key, as it denotes the full body of Israel in the LXX and is used for the Christian community in the NT.) Paul’s claim was that physical circumcision was no longer necessary for Israelite status, since the Spirit had produced a circumcision of the heart that had already marked them out as members of the New Covenant and therefore members of Israel.
As far as the Jerusalem Council, we only have Acts’ version of what was said in that meeting, and even in Acts’ version, they apply scripture about the restoration of a full twelve-tribe Israel to the Gentiles. Take from that what you will.
If Paul does not see the Gentiles coming to faith as a necessary component of the restoration of “all Israel,” Romans 9–11 (11:25–27 in particular) is incoherent, as is the central portion of Romans 2. Likewise Paul’s claim that he is a “minister of the new covenant,” which is a covenant with Israel and Judah but not Gentiles. So, Paul regularly cites scripture about the north with reference to Gentile converts, claims his apostleship “to the Gentiles” is the fulfillment of “the new covenant” (a covenant with Israel and Judah but not the Gentiles), has to defend his claim that these Gentiles are full members of the “assembly” (a term typically used for the full body of Israel in the LXX) without circumcision (which would not be a controversial issue without a claim to Israelite status), and makes the “circumcision of the heart” by means of the Spirit the centerpiece of his defense. Add that data up, and it points rather clearly to Paul believing faithful Gentiles were Israelites and that their ingathering was necessary for God to keep his promise to “all Israel.”
Unfortunately I am getting a 404 error when I click on the link to read the article directly from this page.
My apologies. That should be fixed now.
Hi Jason, Your article was recently used by an “Israel Only” group, to support their view that no “actual” gentiles were saved, but only those who were of Jacob’s heritage. This group also supports their eschatological view of Full Preterism, so they argue, no one is saved today, or has been since AD 70.
Is this your view? As someone stated above, that is British Israel’s claim as well as Black Hebrew Israel and Christian Identity, except they think they are Israel.
While Paul most certainly recognized prophecy, he would have also recognized all of the Old Testaments prophetic statements to the nations in general, through Abraham and also many Psalms and in Isaiah-“a light to the gentiles”.
Thanks
That is by no means my view, and I similarly repudiate the claims of so-called British Israelites, Black Hebrew Israelites, and Christian identity groups.
As I understand it, Paul is aiming to explain why gentiles have to be incorporated with equal status for Israel to be complete while simultaneously explaining how God is going about saving the nations through the same process. This is quite different from these modern identity groups, which I think miss the whole point of what Paul is doing in these passages.
Interesting! They use an article that claims that all nations are included in the restoration of Israel to back their exclusive claims? I used to think Israel was still a distinct group with the “olive tree”, but Staples has convinced me that Israel really has been expanded to include the nations as the means by which the promises to Israel have been fulfilled. It’s just ironic that what was to me the strongest case that Israel is truly not defined by ethnic descent or cultural assimilation is somehow misconstrued into the complete opposite. Paradigm shifts are hard, and I wouldn’t blame the article for our own difficulty in processing new ideas.
Thanks, it would be great if you wrote an addendum to your article or another article to explain this. Maybe go into detail how Paul was saving not just the northern tribes, but all nations.
I have a book coming out that expands on the article pretty significantly, and the book should take care of any questions in that regard.
Hi Jason,
Is your book on this subject out yet? I’d like to throw you a curve ball…if the doctrine of election is applied to your thesis, if Paul was truly looking to restore the northern kingdom, if he was “fishing for men”, then wouldn’t the above group of Israel Only cohorts have a point? What if the Holy Spirit by grace was only leading those of Jacob’s heritage to Christ, while non bloodline gentiles, were non elect? By the way, for clarity, this particular group holds to a Preterist view of eschatology, as I mentioned before, so their views taken from Christian Identity do not contain the racial elements we all repudiate, but they do rely heavily on their view of “who were the gentiles”, which are very similar to what you wrote in your article.
Thanks
The first book (dealing with early Jewish material) will be out around the end of 2020. The one specifically on Paul will be a 2021 book.
As for the Israel Only folks, I think they’re missing the point Paul makes about how anyone who pledges allegiance to the messiah is incorporated in Abraham. The point is that Israel is no longer ethnically distinct, which is what requires gentile inclusion. The version of individual election that group holds is different from the notion of corporate election Paul is working with.
Hi Dr. Jason,
Looking forward to your book coming out. Will it be available on Amazon?
Hi Ed, yes, it’ll be available on Amazon. Also hoping to get the second volume in press by end of spring next year.