The Deliverer Will Come from Zion: the Land and People of Israel in Pauline Theology

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” —Romans 11:25–27 (ESV)

Among the more contentious issues in contemporary Pauline studies is whether or not the apostle Paul affirmed the Jewish people’s continuing divine right to possess the land of Israel. In what way did Paul interpret the Old Testament promises regarding the restoration of God’s people to the land? Did he view these promises in a literalistic fashion, such that they refer to the ethnic descendants of Abraham and their return to the geographic region of Palestine? Or did he understand these promises as somehow transformed through the coming of Christ and the establishment of the New Testament church? The goal of this paper will be to argue that Paul adopts a typological view of the old covenant land promises, combined with an eschatological hope in a mass conversion of the Jewish people. This conclusion will be supported first by a broad overview of Paul’s theology of the land, followed by a more detailed exegesis of Romans 11:26.

Statement of the Question

In recent years, there has emerged a movement among dispensational and non-dispensational scholars known as the “New Christian Zionism.”¹ These scholars are united, not so much by a common understanding of a particular sequence of end-times events, but rather by a common interpretation of the Old Testament promises, their reaffirmation in the New Testament, and their (however partial and provisional) fulfillment in the modern state of Israel. Additionally, Christian Zionists are united by a common object of theological critique. They characterize their opponents by various labels (such as “replacement theology” or “transference theology”), but the label most commonly agreed upon by both sides is supersessionism. This can be defined broadly as the belief that certain new covenant realities in some sense supersede certain old covenant realities.² However, such a nebulous definition leaves open the question, exactly which realities are superseded, and in what sense?

My focus here will be on the narrower issue of what Christian Zionist Barry Horner calls “territorial supersessionism.”³ Contrary to Zionism, I will argue that according to Paul, Jews who have rejected their Messiah no longer have a divine right to any of the old covenant privileges, including the historic land of Israel.⁴ Likewise, I will argue that, in Paul’s understanding, the old covenant promises have been expanded and universalized in the new covenant, such that believing Gentiles now share equally in all the privileges of believing Jews. This is what is meant by a typological interpretation of the land.⁵

On the other hand, contrary to stricter forms of supersessionism, I will also argue that Paul still affirms God’s continuing commitment to the Jewish people, even in their state of unbelief.⁶ Focusing especially on Rom. 11:26, I will defend the view that Paul envisions a future mass conversion of ethnic Jews to faith in Christ. This is supported by Paul’s use of Isa. 59:20, which is best understood as a conscious reversal of the prophetic expectation in light of new covenant realities. Paul discloses the “mystery” that, rather than Israel’s salvation serving as the antecedent means of salvation for the Gentiles, it is in fact the salvation of the Gentiles that will ultimately bring about Israel’s salvation. In keeping with this interpretation, and in further support of territorial supersessionism, I will argue that Paul’s departure from both the Masoretic Text of Isa. 59:20 (לְצִיֹּון, “to Zion”) and the Septuagint (ἕνεκεν Σιων, “for the sake of Zion”) is deliberate, underscoring the temporary and instrumental role of the land in God’s redemptive purposes. The Deliverer who first came “from Zion”  (ἐκ Σιὼν) to the nations will one day, by means of those very nations embracing the gospel, banish ungodliness from Jacob.

Paul’s Theology of the Land

The chief difficulty in describing Paul’s theology of the land lies in the fact that he does not seem to have much of one. In marked contrast to most Second Temple Jewish literature, the land of Israel is conspicuously absent from Paul’s writings.⁷ On the other hand, one must bear in mind the relative infrequency with which Paul mentions several other cardinal doctrines. Were it not for 1 Corinthians 10–11, for example, one might conclude that Paul had no doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Consequently, any conclusions regarding his views on the land ought to be tempered with a good deal of modesty. So my argument is presented not as if it were “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but rather on the more limited grounds of a “preponderance of evidence.” Here I will survey some of the more common arguments in the scholarly literature, beginning with Zionism and followed by supersessionism.⁸ I will attempt to show that the cumulative evidence weighs in favor of territorial supersessionism in Pauline theology.

The Case for a Zionist Reading of Paul

Messianic Jewish scholar David Rudolph’s essay on Paul in The New Christian Zionism is fairly representative of a standard Zionist interpretation of Paul.⁹ Although Rudolph’s arguments are not necessarily new, he presents his case in a novel and memorable way, using the acronym GUCCI:¹⁰

G The Gifts of Israel
U The Uniqueness of Israel
C The Calling of Israel
C The Confirmation of Israel’s promises
I The Irrevocability of Israel’s election

Here I will summarize each of Rudolph’s five arguments, evaluating their merits relative to a supersessionist reading of Paul.

The gifts of Israel. In Rom. 9:3–5, Paul lists several of the gifts conferred to the Jewish people:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (ESV)

Rudolph highlights two features of this passage: 1) Paul uses the present tense in describing the Jews’ possession of these gifts, implying the perpetuity of these gifts even after the coming of Christ, and 2) the land of Israel would certainly have been understood as included among these gifts, especially in light of the usage of “gift” language in Second Temple Judaism.¹¹ Similarly, R. Kendall Soulen goes as far as saying that Paul’s two present-tense passages in Rom. 9:4–5 and 11:28–29 function as the “iron brackets” that surround Paul’s argument for God’s continuing gifts to the Jewish people.¹²

I do not find these points compelling. First, Paul’s use of the present tense here needs to be understood in light of the passage’s rhetorical function.¹³ Paul grieves over the fact that his own kinsmen are cut off from salvation for rejecting Christ. This fact is all the more tragic in light of all of the blessings that God had given them; the very purpose of these blessings was to point them to the Messiah! They, of all people, should have seen their own Savior coming. Secondly, it must be noted that Paul refers to unbelieving Israel as “branches” that have been “broken off” (Rom. 11:17–24), implying the loss of gifts rather than their continued possession. So even if the land had been implicitly among God’s gifts to the Jewish people, it does not follow that they have a present right to possess those gifts, especially apart from repentance.

The uniqueness of Israel. Rudolph argues for the ongoing unique identity of the Jewish people on the basis of Paul’s description of them as “the circumcised” in contrast to “the uncircumcised” (Rom. 3:30; 4:9, 12), as “natural branches” in contrast to the “wild olive shoot[s]” (Rom. 11:17, 21, 24), and as “Israel” in contrast to “the nations” (Rom. 9:4; 10:1; 11:11, 25–26).¹⁴ Rudolph further claims that, in Paul’s view, Jewish believers (unlike Gentiles) are still obligated to keep the whole Torah. Even Paul himself is said to be a Torah-observant Jew—a claim also asserted by “Paul within Judaism” scholars (aka the “Radical New Perspective on Paul”) such as Mark Nanos.¹⁵ Thus Paul’s words in Gal. 5:3—“I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law”—are taken literally to mean that the entire Torah is still binding for circumcised Jewish Christians.¹⁶

Although Rudolph is correct to affirm Paul’s belief in a continuing role for the Jewish people in redemptive history (as I will argue below), it does not follow that the form of Jewish identity remains unchanged after Christ. Nor can it be plausibly argued that Paul insisted on full Torah observance for Jewish Christians. For one, most interpreters understand Gal. 5:3 as a reductio ad absurdum, since, according to Paul, not even his judaizing opponents kept the whole law (Gal. 6:13).¹⁷ Paul’s point was not that one should accept circumcision along with the rest of the Torah, but rather that one should not accept circumcision at all. Further, although Paul was willing to follow the Torah when the situation warranted, he considered himself to be free from the Torah (1 Cor. 9:20–21).¹⁸ Accordingly, when Paul circumcised Timothy, whose mother was Jewish, he did so not as a matter of principle but as a matter of expediency, to avoid offending the Jews whom they were evangelizing (Acts 16:1–3).¹⁹ Paul also affirms that “all foods are clean” (Rom. 14:14–20), although he allows those “weak” in the faith (presumably Jewish believers) to continue observing the Mosaic dietary laws, provided that they do not insist on them as a matter of salvation. All of this indicates that, for Paul, Jewish identity is no longer to be found in observance of the Torah.

The calling of Israel. This point is much the same as the previous. In Romans 11:29, Paul writes, “For the gifts and the calling [κλῆσις] of God are irrevocable,” in reference to the Jewish people. Rudolph ties this to Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 7:17–18:

Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called [κέκληκεν] him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call [ἐκλήθη] already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision.

Rudolph takes Paul’s remark about “removing the marks of circumcision” (μὴ ἐπισπάσθω) as a metonymy for a more general assimilation to Gentile customs.²⁰ That is, Jewish believers are still bound to the particular form of obedience consistent with their “Jewish calling.” In response, my comments on the previous point apply here as well: Paul did not conceive of Jewish believers as under the ceremonial requirements of the Torah. His point in 1 Cor. 7:17–18 is about treating matters of indifference as truly indifferent, not about maintaining distinct Jewish and Gentile ways of living within the church. So if Torah observance distinctions are dissolved in the new covenant, it would be surprising if Paul understood Israel’s land promise as still in effect.

The confirmation of Israel’s promises. In Rom. 15:8, Paul writes, “For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs.”²¹ This is followed by Paul’s citation of a series of OT passages (2 Sam. 22:50/Ps. 18:49; Deut. 32:43; Ps. 117:1; Isa. 11:10), the last of which Rudolph takes in support of a Zionist reading: “The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope” (Rom. 15:12). This prophecy originally came in the context of a promise of Israel’s restoration to the land, which Rudolph believes would have been implied by Paul’s reference to part of the prophecy as representative of the whole. Isaiah there declares:

And it shall be in that day, that the Lord shall again show his hand, to be zealous for the remnant that is left of the people…. And he shall lift up a standard for the nations, and he shall gather the lost ones of Israel, and he shall gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isa. 11:11–12 LXX, quoted in Rudolph)

Rudolph’s argument here exemplifies more fundamental debates over whether NT authors engage in “atomistic” exegesis of the OT or whether they take into account the larger context of their OT citations.²² But there is no reason to expect NT authors to use the OT in the same way in every citation; such questions must be handled on a case-by-case basis. With respect to Rom. 15:12, we must ask whether an implied allusion to the broader context of Isaiah’s prophecy would have served Paul’s argument. This, however, seems doubtful; Paul’s purpose in quoting the four OT passages is to demonstrate how they each affirm the promise of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God. The question of Israel’s restoration to the land is simply irrelevant to his argument.²³ Further, Paul does not seem to evoke the context of the other three OT texts cited in vv. 9–11. Therefore, we have no reason to expect that he meant to evoke the context of Isa. 11:10—much less that he interpreted it in a strictly literalistic fashion.

The irrevocability of Israel’s election. This point again relies on Rom. 11:29: “For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable [ἀμεταμέλητα].” Rudolph notes how the word “irrevocable,” though usually placed last in most English translations of the verse, is actually the first word in the original Greek, placing greater emphasis on Israel’s ongoing status before God.²⁴ Paul makes a similar point in his strenuous denial that God has rejected his people in 11:1. Together, these verses show that God remains committed to the people of Israel, despite their unbelief.

I am in agreement with Rudolph that Paul affirms God’s continuing faithfulness to the Jewish people and that, as I will argue below, he believes that God will one day bring about their conversion to Christ. However, it is one thing to say that God remains committed to the people of Israel, and it is another thing to say that all of their privileges remain unchanged from the old covenant era. The one does not entail the other. The focus of Paul’s argument in Rom. 9–11 is not on whether Israel retains the land or other old covenant shadows, but on whether they will ultimately embrace their Messiah, the gift to which all other gifts were pointing. If Rudolph and others wish to make a persuasive case for Zionism, then short of an explicit reaffirmation by Paul of Israel’s land promise, they would at a minimum need to demonstrate that Jewish identity markers have, in other respects, remained unchanged after Christ. But the evidence in Paul runs counter to this claim.

The Case for Territorial Supersessionism in Paul

Numerous scholars have argued in favor of a territorial supersessionist reading of Paul, and my goal here will be to distill their primary arguments in a memorable way. Following the lead of Rudolph, I have created an acronym of my own: STYLISH.

S The Sacrifices are fulfilled in Christ.
T The Temple is fulfilled in Christ.
Y All the promises of God are Yes in Christ.
L Paul’s references to the Land are always universal.
I The ceremonial laws of the Torah are now Irrelevant.
S The Seed of Abraham are now all who have faith in Christ.
H Abraham is Heir of the whole world.

Here I will seek to ground each of these arguments in corresponding passages from Paul. Together, they form a cumulative case that weighs against Zionism.

Sacrifices. Paul uses the language of “sacrifice” (θυσία) in a number of ways. On some occasions, he refers to the sacrifice of Christ. In 1 Cor. 5:7, he writes, “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” Ephesians 5:2 likewise says, “And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” On other occasions, he refers metaphorically to the sacrifices of believers. He tells the Philippian church that he is being “poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering” of their faith (Phil. 2:17), and that their financial contribution to Paul is “a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God” (Phil. 4:18). He likewise exhorts believers in Rome to present their bodies “as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” (Rom. 12:1). All of these passages indicate that, in Paul’s view, the old covenant sacrifices are no longer binding.²⁵ The ceremonial aspects of these sacrifices all find their fulfillment in Christ.²⁶

Temple. In three key passages, Paul refers to believers themselves as the temple (ναός) of the Lord, implying a contrast with the Jerusalem temple.²⁷ In 1 Cor. 3:16–17, he writes, “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple” (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19). Similarly, 2 Cor. 6:16 says, “What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God.” And in Eph. 2:19–21, Paul speaks of believers as “the household of God,” which “grows into a holy temple in the Lord.” The temple and all that it symbolized—including the sacrifices and the presence of the Spirit—now find fulfillment in those who are united to Christ. G. K. Beale presses this point, arguing that on the basis of Paul’s application of OT passages concerning the end-time temple (Lev. 26:11–12; Ezek. 37:26–27; Isa. 52:11; Ezek. 20:34) to the church in 2 Cor. 6:16–18, Christians are not merely an analogy for the temple, but rather constitute the initial fulfillment of the eschatological temple.²⁸

Yes. In 2 Cor. 1:20, Paul writes, “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him [that is, Christ]. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.” Peter Walker comments that this passage “suggests that he [Paul] would indeed have redefined the land-promises in Genesis through Christ. The fulfilment had evidently come about in a different, non-territorial way.”²⁹ Beale also connects the “promises” that are fulfilled in Christ with the following context of the epistle, which refers to the new covenant (3:1–18), resurrection (5:14–15), new creation (5:16–17), restoration from captivity, and the temple (5:18–6:18), thus having connection to the land.³⁰ It would seem rather contrary to Paul’s thought if Gentile believers, who are as much “in Christ” as Jewish believers, were to hear a “No” and be denied some of these covenant promises.

Land. Whenever Paul uses the word “land” (γῆ), he refers to the earth more broadly, and never narrowly to the land of Israel (Rom. 9:17, 28; 10:18; 1 Cor. 8:5; 10:26; 15:47; Eph. 1:10; 3:15; 4:9; 6:3; Col. 1:16, 20; 3:2, 5). Further, in one instance we see Paul using an OT passage about the specific land of Israel and applying it in a more generalized way. Ephesians 6:2–3 reads, “‘Honor your father and mother’ (this is the first commandment with a promise), ‘that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.’” This is a quotation from Ex. 20:12, but noticeably absent is the final clause of the verse: “that the Lord your God is giving you.” Walker comments:

The ethical commands that previously pertained to Israel’s life in the land are therefore applicable to all who seek to live under Christ’s rule. Hence when Paul quotes the fifth commandment (Eph. 6:3), he omits the phrase ‘that the Lord your God is giving you’; instead, the reference to ‘land’ is left undefined and comes to refer to the ‘earth’ in general. God’s rule over the promised land is now extended through Christ to the whole world, and his true ‘people’ are a worldwide community, not an ethnic group associated with a particular land.³¹

Irrelevance. As explained previously, Paul insists that the ceremonial requirements of the old covenant are now irrelevant, including especially circumcision, holy days, and food laws. A repeated theme in his letters is that neither physical circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value (1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6; 6:15). Rather, “We are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3; see also Rom. 2:25–29).³² He likewise writes, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:16–17; see also Rom. 14:1–23). Some Zionist authors have attempted to limit the scope of these statements by drawing a distinction between the Mosaic covenant as temporary and the Abrahamic covenant as permanent. Michael Vlach writes:

…[T]he temporary Mosaic covenant with its sacrifices and priesthood were inferior types and shadows that were superseded by the new covenant and Jesus’s superior sacrifice and priesthood (Heb. 8:5; 9:23–24; 10:1). But the people and promises connected with the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are not inferior types that pass away.³³

One central problem with Vlach’s bifurcation of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants is that circumcision belongs to the former, not the latter (Gen. 17:9–14). And yet Paul regards circumcision as equally irrelevant as the ceremonial elements of the Mosaic Covenant.³⁴ Circumcision is a matter of the heart, and if a Gentile keeps the precepts of the law, then “his uncircumcision will be counted as circumcision” (Rom. 2:26–29). Since both circumcision and the land promise belong to the Abrahamic covenant, one can reasonably conclude that, for Paul, what is true of the former is also true of the latter.³⁵

Seed. According to Paul, all who have faith in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, are now counted as the seed of Abraham. He states this explicitly in Gal. 3:28–29:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring [σπέρμα], heirs according to promise.

The same idea is found in Rom. 4:16, where Paul states that the promise is for all Abraham’s offspring, “not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.” Lastly, Eph. 2:11–22 speaks of Gentiles as formerly “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise,” but now they are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.” It is evident that, according to Paul, Gentile believers are now the recipients of all of the same promises offered to Jewish believers.³⁶

Some Zionist interpreters object that in these passages, Paul speaks only to the issue of justification and does not intend to eliminate all Jew/Gentile distinctions. It is also objected that, since Paul’s statement that “there is no male and female” cannot mean the complete erasure of gender distinctions, then neither can “neither Jew nor Greek” mean the complete erasure of ethnic distinctions.³⁷ The problem with such objections is that, on other occasions, Paul clearly repudiates those ethnic boundary markers that distinguish Jews from Gentiles. As stated previously, he does not insist that Jews submit to circumcision, the Sabbath, or kosher food laws. With these boundary markers removed, what reason do we have to believe that there are special promises reserved for Jewish believers that do not also belong to Gentile believers? And granting that Paul recognizes male-female distinctions, he still believes that men and women receive equally all the covenant promises. Zionists would deny this for Gentile believers.

Heir. Notably, the only place where Paul comes close to speaking of the land promise given to Abraham is in Rom. 4:13, where he says, “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir [κληρονόμος] of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” Here Paul speaks of Abraham’s inheritance in universal terms, when one might naturally have expected some mention of the specific land of Israel, given its centrality in the OT. Many interpreters consider this verse to be one of the chief evidences in favor of a territorial supersessionist reading of Paul.³⁸ Walker writes:

In Genesis the promised ‘inheritance’ applied only to the promised land. Contemporary Jews may have aggrandized the promise in their belief that Israel would inherit the ‘world’. Paul, however, has a different reason for giving the promise a new twist. Instead, he is asserting that behind the promise of a particular land to Abraham there lay God’s prior purpose to use this as a means of blessing ‘all the nations of the earth’. That divine purpose had now come to pass in Christ, the one who as Abraham’s ‘seed’ was indeed the ‘heir of the world’.³⁹

However, not all interpreters are convinced of this. In an entire chapter devoted to this verse, Horner argues that the supersessionist reading illegitimately conflates the universal dimension of the Abrahamic promise with the particular. The universal, he states, had always been a part of the promise, as when God told Abraham, “In your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 22:18; cf. 12:3), and declared that Abraham would be “the father of many nations” (Gen. 17:5).⁴⁰ In other words, reasons Horner, the universal does not swallow up the particular.

And yet, one must ask, why then does Paul never mention the particular? Why does he never affirm Israel’s unique right to the land? One might fault this as an argument from silence, and we should be careful not to state our case with more confidence than the evidence warrants. However, sometimes absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.⁴¹ When an author knows of a subject, when it is important enough to mention, when it would have been of concern to the audience, when it would have served the author’s argument—then we may conclude that the author’s silence tells us something important.⁴² Paul’s silence indicates that he now understood the land promise in a new light—in universal terms. As N. T. Wright aptly puts it:

The Land, like the Torah, was a temporary stage in the long purpose of the God of Abraham. It was not a bad thing done away with, but a good and necessary thing now fulfilled in Christ and the Spirit. It is as though, in fact, the Land were a great advance metaphor for the design of God that his people should eventually bring the whole world into submission to his healing reign. God’s whole purpose now goes beyond Jerusalem and the Land to the whole world.⁴³

Paul’s Hope for Israel

Given all that has been said above, one might conclude that Paul was a complete supersessionist, and that in his eyes unbelieving Israel had been forever cast aside. But such a conclusion would overlook Paul’s argument in Rom. 9–11, one of the most intensely debated passages in the Pauline corpus.⁴⁴ This is especially so for the climax of Paul’s argument in 11:26: “And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written, ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob’” (quoting from Isa. 59:20).

In order to properly understand this verse, it is first helpful to briefly summarize Paul’s line of reasoning in Rom. 9–11.⁴⁵ He begins by expressing his anguish that his kinsmen according to the flesh, Israel, are cut off from salvation, due to their unbelief. He anticipates the objection that God has broken his promises to Israel, but this is not so, says Paul, for God had never promised to save all the descendants of Abraham without exception. Paul distinguishes between “Israel” as a broader ethnic category and “Israel” as a narrower subset chosen according to God’s promise (9:6). This promise was always based on God’s sovereign choice, not on either ethnic lineage or individual exertion (9:16). For this reason, God has a right to harden Israel, just as he has a right to save the Gentiles. Israel stumbled because it sought righteousness by works of the law, whereas the Gentiles sought it by faith (10:1–10). However, Paul insists that Israel’s stumbling is neither total nor final (11:1, 11).⁴⁶ Just as God has been faithful to preserve a believing remnant of Israel (including Paul himself) in the present, so he will prove himself faithful to save Israel as a whole in the future. And this will happen by a most unexpected means: while Gentiles now come to salvation through Israel’s unbelief, so also will Israel, being provoked to jealousy, finally come to salvation through the Gentiles’ faith (11:25).

The Salvation of “All Israel”

So exactly what does Paul mean by “all Israel” in v. 26? There are at least three major competing interpretations, in addition to a few more idiosyncratic interpretations.⁴⁷ First, the most common view in church history—though it is now a minority view—is that “all Israel” refers to a “spiritual” Israel, consisting of both Jewish and Gentile believers in the church.⁴⁸ Second, many supersessionists today favor the view that “all Israel” refers to the total remnant of Jewish believers throughout history.⁴⁹ And third, a majority of contemporary scholars now believe that Paul was speaking of a future mass conversion of ethnic Jews to faith in Christ.⁵⁰

I side with the majority view for a number of reasons. Against the first view, in Rom. 9–11 Paul always uses “Israel” in reference to ethnic Israelites in distinction to Gentiles (even in the two contrasting senses of “Israel” in 9:6); a “polemical redefinition” of Israel in v. 26 would be contextually unsupported.⁵¹ Against the second view, if Paul’s intent were simply to say “all saved Jewish believers will be saved,” then that would amount to an anticlimactic tautology, which is no “mystery” (v. 25) at all, and would not solve the problem of Paul’s anguish (9:1–3). And against both views, “they” who are described as “enemies as regards the gospel” in v. 28 has as its antecedent the subject of vv. 26–27, which is “all Israel.” It would make no sense to refer to believers, whether Jewish or Gentile, as enemies of the gospel. The majority view also makes better sense of Paul’s expectation that, though the present hardening is partial, there will be a “full inclusion” (πλήρωμα, v. 11) and that the “severed branches” will be grafted in again (v. 23).

Paul’s Use of Isaiah 59:20

Most interpreters who favor the future mass-conversion view of “all Israel” also understand Paul’s use of Isa. 59:20 as a reference to the Parousia—that is, Israel’s salvation will occur either immediately before or at the Second Coming of Christ. Opinions are divided as to whether Paul meant that the Deliverer will come from an earthly Zion or a heavenly Zion; Zionist scholars generally favor the former, whereas supersessionist scholars favor the latter.⁵² However, J. R. Daniel Kirk has made a persuasive case that Paul does not have the Parousia in mind at all.⁵³ Kirk notes that any plausible interpretation of Paul’s use of Isa. 59:20 must explain four things: 1) why Paul uses καὶ οὕτως (“and then/in this manner”), 2) why he uses the phrase πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ (“all Israel”), 3) how his use of Isa. 59:20 supports his argument, and 4) why his citation of Isa. 59:20 says ἐκ Σιὼν (“from/out of Zion”) rather than the Septuagint’s ἕνεκεν Σιων (“for the sake of Zion”).⁵⁴

Regarding Paul’s use of καὶ οὕτως, there is considerable debate on whether the expression is used modally (“in this way”) or temporally (“then”). The more common use of the adverb is modal, and that is likely its meaning in v. 26, although this does not exclude a temporal referent as indicated by the preceding text, where Paul speaks of Israel’s partial harding “until” (ἄχρις οὗ) the coming in of the fullness of the Gentiles (v. 25).⁵⁵ The modal use of καὶ οὕτως also highlights that the inclusion of the Gentiles serves as the means of Israel’s salvation, which should inform our interpretation of the citation of Isa. 59:20.

As argued above, the phrase πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ likely points to a future mass conversion of ethnic Jews by means of the ingathering of the Gentiles. As such, Paul’s reference to the Deliverer coming “from Zion” supports the idea that Jesus, having begun his redemptive work in Jerusalem, extends his reach to the Gentile nations through his disciples’ missionary activity. This would explain why Paul would have deliberately altered the text of Isaiah, especially given that, at first glance, the Septuagint’s expression ἕνεκεν Σιων would seem to better suit his argument for the salvation of Israel.⁵⁶ It is not merely Israel’s salvation (v. 26a), but Israel’s salvation by means of the inclusion of the Gentiles (v. 25), that lies behind Paul’s use of Isaiah.⁵⁷

From this we can conclude two things. First, the Parousia does not figure into Paul’s thought in Rom. 11:26; it is more likely that “from Zion” refers to Christ’s saving work at his First Coming. Thus Paul sees Isaiah’s prophecy as having already been partially fulfilled, although it awaits its complete fruition in the salvation of Israel. Second, this reading lends further support to the case for Paul’s territorial supersessionism. It demonstrates that Zion’s place in redemptive history has been relativized, no longer serving as an end in itself (i.e., “for the sake of Zion”), but rather as a means to the greater end of blessing for the whole world. N. T. Wright, despite his disagreement with the mass-conversion view, insightfully comments:

If… Paul sees Jesus and the spirit as constituting the renewed temple, the place where and the means by which Israel’s God has returned as he had promised, then it would make no sense to undo this powerful theology by reinstating the earthly Jerusalem as the place to which the nations should go to find salvation (or, indeed, by translating it into a heavenly Jerusalem, a concept with which Paul was familiar but which is not relevant to the present discussion). On the contrary: salvation is coming from Zion to the nations. Paul is not reinscribing the older centripetal tradition, but nor is he abandoning the old belief that when Israel’s God finally acted to fulfil his promises to his people the gentile nations would come under his rule, whether for rescue or ruin. Rather, he is transforming the tradition into a centrifugal movement: the Redeemer now comes, with the gospel, from Zion to the world, and as a reflex (exactly as in 11.11–15) will ‘banish ungodliness from Jacob’.⁵⁸

Conclusion

I have attempted to show that Paul believes that all of the old covenant promises, including the promise of land, find greater fulfillment in Christ. This means that all who are united to Christ by faith, whether Jews or Gentiles, are equal heirs of all of the same promises. And yet Paul still recognizes the irrevocable place of the Jewish people in God’s redemptive purposes, despite their unbelief. This is not to say that they have exclusive privileges of their own, but rather that God is committed to ultimately grafting them back into the one olive tree of his covenant people, so that they might one day also share in the same spiritual blessings now enjoyed by the church. And when that day comes, it will mean life from the dead.

1. Gerald McDermott, editor, The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel and the Land (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2016); Barry Horner, Future Israel (Nashville: B&H, 2007). ↩︎
2. See Michael Bird and Scot McKnight, God’s Israel and the Israel of God: Paul and Supersessionism (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2023). ↩︎
3. Barry Horner, Eternal Israel (Nashville: B&H, 2018), 38. ↩︎
4. However, this does not preclude arguments for the modern state of Israel’s right to exist on the basis of general principles of justice. ↩︎
5. Christopher Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004) 192, describes a typological view of the land as follows: “…By incorporation into the Messiah, people from all nations are enabled to enter into the privileges and responsibilities of God’s people, privileges and responsibilities that, in the Old Testament, had been focused on life in the land. Now Christ himself takes over the significance and the function of that old land–kinship qualification. To be in Christ, just as to be in the land, denotes first, a status and a relationship that have been given by God; second, a position of inclusion and security in God’s family; and third, a commitment to live worthily by fulfilling the practical responsibilities toward those who share the same relationship with you. This is what is meant by the typological understanding of the significance of Israel’s land” (emphasis original). ↩︎
6. This position is largely in line with that of James Hamilton and Fred Zaspel, “A Typological Future-Mass-Conversion View,” in Three Views on Israel and the Church, ed. Jared Compton and Andrew Naselli, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2018), 97–140. ↩︎
7. Malka Z. Simkovich, “Jewish Attitudes Towards the Land of Israel during the Time of the Second Temple,” TheTorah.com (2015), https://thetorah.com/article/jewish-attitudes-towards-the-land-of-israel- during-the-time-of-the-second-temple. ↩︎
8. On the side of supersessionism, see W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land (University of California Press, 1974); Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative (Mentor, 2015); Christopher Wright, op. cit.; N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Fortress Press, 2013); Gary Burge, Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012); Peter W. L. Walker, “The Land in the Apostles’ Writings,” in The Land of Promise, ed. Philip Johnson and Peter W. L. Walker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 81–99; Benjamin L. Merkle, “A Typological Non-Future-Mass-Conversion View,” in Three Views on Israel and the Church: Perspectives on Romans 9–11, ed. Andrew Naselli and Jared Compton (Kregel, 2018), 161–208. On the side of Zionism, see McDermott, The New Christian Zionism; Horner, Future Israel; Michael Vlach, “A Non-Typological Future-Mass-Conversion View,” in Naselli and Compton, 21–74. ↩︎
9. David Rudolph, “Zionism in Pauline Literature: Does Paul Eliminate Particularity for Israel and the Land in His Portrayal of Salvation Available for All the World?” in McDermott, 167–196. ↩︎
10. Ibid, 182. ↩︎
11. Ibid, 183–184. ↩︎
12. R. Kendall Soulen, “The Priority of the Present Tense for Jewish-Christian Relations,” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11, ed. Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 498–499, quoted in Rudolph, 182–183. ↩︎
13. It should also be noted that the only verb in this passage is εἰσιν: “they are Israelites.” Regarding the covenant gifts, most English translations must supply a verb like “pertain” (KJV, NKJV) or “belong” (RSV, NASB, ESV). The reader must judge from the context whether Israel’s possession of these gifts is to be understood as past or present. The most likely meaning seems to be a perfective present—that is, these gifts are a past possession that constitute their present identity as “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 10:8). For more on the perfective present, see Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: MI: Zondervan, 1996), 532–533. ↩︎
14. Rudolph, 185–186. ↩︎
15. See Mark Nanos, “A Jewish View,” in Four Views on the Apostle Paul, ed. Michael Bird (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 159–193. The term “Radical New Perspective on Paul” was coined by Magnus Zetterholm, Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship (Fortress, 2009), 161. ↩︎
16. Here I use the term “literal” in the sense of disregarding the distinction between locution and illocution. See C. John Collins, Reading Genesis Well (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 51–61. ↩︎
17. See Thomas Schreiner, Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 314. ↩︎
18. See Schreiner’s response to Nanos in Bird, Four Views on the Apostle Paul, 245. David Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), 429–432, reads Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 9:20–21 differently. He does not believe that Paul meant that he changed his behavior relative to a Jewish or Gentile context. Instead, to be “as a Jew” and “under the law” meant Paul’s willingness to submit to the judicial punishments of the synagogue, as when he received thirty-nine lashes (2 Cor. 11:24). Conversely, to be “outside the law” (i.e., a Gentile) meant viewing his identity as bound up with his relationship to Christ rather than his obedience to the law. I do not find Garland’s argument persuasive here. First, Paul says that he “made himself” a servant and “became” as one under the law or outside the law. This implies a conscious action on Paul’s part, which is more than either passive submission to judicial punishment (which would also be an unprecedented use of the expression “under the law” for Paul), or the general understanding of one’s own Christian identity. Second, when Paul speaks of becoming “weak” in v. 22, that probably relates to his instructions in 8:7–12 on those who were “weak in conscience” regarding food sacrificed to idols. But it also surely connects to his teaching in Rom. 14:1–23, where “weak” referred to Jewish dietary restrictions and holy days. This implies that Paul did not always act as one who was “weak”—i.e., he did not always observe the ceremonial requirements of the Torah. ↩︎
19. Shaye Cohen, “Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:1–3)? Patristic Exegesis, Rabbinic Law, and Matrilineal Descent,” in JBL 105.2 (June 1986), 251–268, has made an alternative case that Timothy would have been considered a Gentile, not a Jew, claiming that the matrilineal principle of Jewish identity did not emerge until the second century AD. However, most commentators have disagreed. Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 474–476, argues that Cohen’s reading would render inexplicable Luke’s reference to Timothy’s Jewish mother in Acts 16:1. Further, the earliest reference to the Jewish matrilineal principle in m. Qidd. 3.12 is at the latest from the early second century and reflects an older tradition. Lastly, if Paul had circumcised Timothy as a Gentile, then this action would have directly and inexplicably contradicted the ruling of the Jerusalem Council in the immediately preceding chapter of Acts. ↩︎
20. Rudolph, 188. ↩︎
21. Ibid, 189–190. ↩︎
22. Jonathan Lunde, “An Introduction to Central Questions in the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 22–24. ↩︎
23. Walker, 85, comments on this passage, “The original inclusion of the land within the patriarchal promises has been either ignored or radically redefined.” ↩︎
24. Ibid, 193. ↩︎
25. On one occasion, Paul does refer to the Jewish sacrifices in the present tense: “Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar” (1 Cor. 10:18)? However, Paul’s purpose here is not to affirm the continuing validity of these sacrifices, but rather to make an analogy regarding believers’ participation in the Lord’s Supper and in meals offered to idols. ↩︎
26. Vern Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1995), chapter 3, https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-shadow-of-christ-in-the-law-of-moses/ (accessed February 27, 2023), writes, “All these aspects are combined fully in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. Christ bore the punishment for our sins (1 Pet. 2:24; Isa. 53:5). Thus he is the final sin offering. Christ was wholly consecrated to God. He suffered death and destruction for sin, and also brings about our death to sin (Rom. 6:2–7). Thus he is the final burnt offering. Christ in his perfect obedience gave to God the honor and thanks that is due to him. Thus he is the final grain offering. Christ now offers us his flesh to eat (John 6:54–58). By communion with his flesh and blood we have eternal life, we have communion with the Father, and we are transformed into Christ’s image (2 Cor. 3:18). Thus Christ is the final fellowship offering.” ↩︎
27. Despite his support for supersessionism, Davies, 185–194, doubts that Paul would have rejected the Jerusalem temple entirely. If, Davies reasons, both Qumran and the Pharisees could affirm both the idea of a spiritualized temple embodied in the faithful community and the hope of a restored physical temple, then there is no reason why Paul could not do the same. Davies also notes Paul’s apparent reverence for the Jerusalem temple in Acts 21:17ff. and his reference to the “temple of God” in 2 Thes. 2:4. While it is true that Paul never explicitly rejects the Jerusalem temple, nevertheless, given his belief in Christ’s fulfillment of the sacrifices, his belief in the presence of the Spirit in all believers, and his connection of the present Jerusalem with “slavery” (Gal. 4:25), it seems likely that he viewed the Jerusalem temple’s significance as substantially diminished. As for 2 Thes. 2:4, interpreters are divided on Paul’s meaning. While it is possible to take it as a reference to the Jerusalem temple, it may also be understood within a preterist framework, having reference to the Second Temple which was destroyed in AD 70. It may also be that Paul used the expression “temple of God” as descriptive of the church, or that he was simply using what Sam Storms calls “stock, proverbial language for self-deification,” in keeping with OT apocalyptic texts. Whatever the case may be, it is doubtful that Paul saw any continuing theological significance in the Jerusalem temple. See Storms, 534. ↩︎
28. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 254. ↩︎
29. Walker, 85. ↩︎
30. Beale, 253. ↩︎
31. Walker, 87. ↩︎
32. Horner, Future Israel, 322–325, interprets “we” in Phil. 3:3 as exclusive (Paul and Timothy only) rather than inclusive (the Gentile Philippian readers also). However, Gordon Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 298, notes how Paul regularly shifts from the third/second person to the inclusive first person plural when dealing with soteriological matters (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5; 1 Thess. 1:9–10). Further, the use of the inclusive first person plural later in vv. 15–16, 20–21 supports an inclusive reading in v. 3. ↩︎
33. Vlach, 22–23. ↩︎
34. Rudolph, 178, argues that when Paul says that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything,” he is only speaking hyperbolically. That is, Paul’s point is not that circumcision is unimportant, but that being in Christ is far more important, and that circumcision has no bearing on salvation. And yet, according to Rudolph, Jewish believers must still accept circumcision. The problem with Rudolph’s reading is that it does not accord with Paul’s actual practice, as when he circumcised Timothy for merely pragmatic reasons (see previous comments on Timothy). ↩︎
35. Christopher Wright, 188, agrees: “My own feeling (I put it no stronger) is that if Paul had been faced with questions over the land as he was over the matter of circumcision, he would have handled them in a similar way” (emphasis original). ↩︎
36. Davies, 176–177, writes, “Paul discovers in the promise to Abraham a supra-national hope for salvation apart from circumcision and the Law: the promise is pan-ethnic not pan-halakic…. [The church’s] members, without distinction, were the heirs of the promise and, like Christ himself and in unity with him, constituted the ‘seed’ of Abraham (Gal. 3:27–29; Rom. 4:13–16). There seems no doubt that in Rom. 4:13–16 Paul takes ‘the seed’ or ‘offspring’ to refer both to Christ himself and then to the Church, including both Jewish and Gentile Christians: it has no territorial boundaries.” ↩︎
37. Rudolph, 180–181. ↩︎
38. Oren R. Martin, Bound for the Promised Land (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 134–135. ↩︎
39. Walker, 87. ↩︎
40. Horner, Eternal Israel, 36. ↩︎
41. This is one of Davies’s chief arguments for territorial supersessionism. See Davies, 166–168, 179. ↩︎
42. For more on the uses and limitations of arguments from silence, see Timothy McGrew, “The Argument from Silence,” Acta Analytica 29.2 (2014), 215–228. ↩︎
43. N.T. Wright, “Jerusalem in the New Testament,” in Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God, ed. Peter Walker (Cambridge: Tyndale, 1992), 70. ↩︎
44. As N. T. Wright says, “Everything about Romans 9–11 is controversial.” Wright, “The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, 12 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 10:620. ↩︎
45. See Michael Bird, Romans, The Story of God Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 304–305; Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2018), 460–65. ↩︎
46. Zaspel and Hamilton, Kindle loc. 1767. ↩︎
47. I will not give attention to so-called “two-covenant theology,” which posits two paths of salvation, one by faith in Christ for Gentiles, and another by Torah-keeping for Jews. For a critique of this view, see Reidar Hvalvik, “A ‘Sonderweg’ for Israel: A Critical Examination of a Current Interpretation of Romans 11.25–27,” JSNT 38 (1990), 87–107. ↩︎
48. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to Apostle to the Romans, trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009), 437; N.T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2 vols, Christian Origins and the Question of God (Fortress, 2013), 2:1231–52. ↩︎
49. Merkle, 161–208; Storms, 303–334; Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008), 4:668–672. ↩︎
50. Bird, Romans, 391–392; Schreiner, Romans, 597–602; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 2:96–100. It should also be noted that this third view does not imply the salvation of every individual Jew—whether throughout history or at some future point—but rather simply the majority of Israelites at a given time, in keeping with common OT usage of the expression “all Israel” (see Jos. 7:25; 1Sa. 3:20; etc.). See Murray, 98; Schreiner, Romans, 599. ↩︎
51. Contra N.T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1242–43; see also Merkle, 196. ↩︎
52. For the Zionist view, see Vlach, 59; Horner, Future Israel, 305. For the supersessionist view, see Zaspel and Hamilton, 120, 230; Bird, Romans, 393; Schreiner, Romans, 602–3. ↩︎
53. J.R. Daniel Kirk, “Why does the Deliverer Come ἐκ Σιών (Romans 11.26)?” JSNT 33.1 (2010), 81–99. ↩︎
54. Ibid, 81. ↩︎
55. Ibid, 88; see Zaspel and Hamilton, 119. ↩︎
56. One question that Kirk does not address is, how does this interpretation accord with Paul’s high view of Scripture? Did Paul consider himself free to alter God’s Word at will? Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009), 128–29, considers Paul’s altered citation of Isaiah to be incompatible with biblical inerrancy. Such a conclusion might be warranted if Paul were intending to give a direct quotation of Isaiah, but there is no reason to suppose this. Paul is more likely intending to make a composite citation, combining references to Isa. 59:20 and 27:9, along with possible echoes of Ps. 14:7 and Isa. 2:2–3, as well as his own theological reflections on the new covenant era. ↩︎
57. Contra Seifrid, it is unlikely that the expression ἐκ Σιὼν alludes to Diaspora Jews in supposed exile. Such an idea is entirely absent from Paul’s argument in Rom. 9–11. See Mark Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. D. A. Carson and G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009), 674. ↩︎
58. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1250. ↩︎