Jason A. Staples has recently released his important new book, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024). It enters into key debates concerning Pauline theology, is very well argued, makes some original yet compelling points, and needs to be engaged with. Here’s my own review.
Jason Staples is an Assistant Teaching Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at NC State University. I can personally attest to his scholarly acumen–he gave me excellent and detailed feedback on a Galatians paper I presented at the 2022 Institute for Biblical Research conference in 2022.
This book is certainly worth watching, for several reasons. Firstly, Staples helps to draw Pauline scholarship back to a stronger biblical theological hermeneutic. Secondly, he seeks to draw the best out of the New Perspective on Paul and the “Paul within Judaism” movement while critiquing their exegetical shortcomings. Thirdly, his work represents a deep, careful reading of both primary and secondary literature. And fourthly, he makes an important contribution to the exegesis of that famous interpretative crux in Romans 11:26, “and thus all Israel will be saved” (kai houtōs pas Israēl sōthēsetai).
Context: Movements in Pauline Studies
To set Staples’ work in some context, here’s a very brief summary of key movements in Pauline studies over the last 50–60 years. I’ll focus on the question “What does Paul find wrong with Judaism”?
The so-called “Old” perspective saw Paul’s main problem with Judaism as legalism (“the human sin par excellence”[1]). Nevertheless, Judaism was valuable because the Jewish law provides a foil for gospel.
For E. P. Sanders, Paul’s main problem with Judaism was that Jews didn’t trust in God’s work through Jesus (“this is what Paul finds wrong in Judaism: it is not Christianity”[2]). Nevertheless Judaism is a grace-based pattern of religion.
For N. T. Wright (a prolific proponent of the “New Perspective on Paul”): Paul’s main problem with Judaism was ethnocentrism (“the attempt to confine grace to one race”[3]). Nevertheless Israel is key to God’s purposes because it is the “place” where sin grows to its full height in order to be dealt with in the Messiah.
For Stanley Stowers (and many proponents of “Paul Within Judaism”), Paul’s main problem with Judaism had to do with the gentile mission. Some Jews believed that Gentiles should observe Jewish law, but the gentile path is faith in Christ.[4] But Paul never criticises Judaism per se. Jews should continue to follow the law.
Prolegomena: Israel in Second-Temple Judaism (2021)
Three years before Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, Staples published his study of significant Jewish contextual material. It’s important to come to grips with Staples’ findings in this earlier book, The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021).
In this earlier book, Staples writes:
After examining a wide variety of evidence from the Second Temple period in some detail, several conclusions can now be drawn. Remarkably, the one perspective not significantly represented in this body of evidence is the one usually assumed by modern scholars: namely, that Israel is equivalent to the Jews (Ioudaioi/ Yehudim) … Throughout the period covered by this book, one constant is that Israel is the name either for the tribes of the biblical northern kingdom or for the twelve-tribe covenantal people of YHWH; a totalizing adjective is sometimes used to clarify that the latter meaning is in view (e.g., “all Israel”)
Staples, The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism, p. 339.
Hence, we need to think about terms for first century Jewish identity in terms of nested identities, e.g., a diagram on p. 343:
This means that in the first century, “Israelite” status was a matter of conflict among Jews (and others like Samaritans):
The best explanation of this fact is that the partitive relationship between Israel and Judah established in biblical literature persisted within the tradition. That is, “Jew” continues to refer to the subset of Israel specifically derived from the kingdom of Judah either by descent, marriage, or (eventually) proselytism/conversion. Because Judah is only part of Israel, the Samaritans, who claimed to be derived from the northern tribes of Israel rather than Judah, could claim Israelite heritage without being considered Jews … Many of these texts continue to show a surprising degree of concern with the fate of the northern tribes scattered by Assyria in the eighth century BCE.
Staples, The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism, p. 340.
Therefore, throughout second-temple Jewish writings, “Israel” and “all Israel” are not identical to “Jews’ and “all Jews”, but are common terminology for eschatological hopes:
a (perhaps the) key element of restoration eschatology: Jews in this period did not anticipate merely a Jewish restoration but a full restoration of all Israel… Thus Israel is the covenantal term for the full people of YHWH, but is also a scattered, fragmented, and incomplete entity at present
Staples, The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism, p. 341.
Highlights of Paul and the Resurrection of Israel
Back to Staples’ 2024 book, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, here are my highlights:
Staples reads Paul firmly within the concepts of prophetic eschatology as seen in the Scriptures (“The Law and the Prophets”) and in many other Jewish texts. The primary framework, which he labels “Israelite restoration eschatology”, can be understood in terms of the “death” and “resurrection” of Israel:
This paradigm, which I will call “Israelite restoration eschatology,” reflects a narrative framework in which: (1) because of biblical Israel’s covenantal infidelity and disobedience (2) Israel fell under the covenantal curses, most notably the dissolution, captivity/exile, and dispersion of Israel, sometimes characterized as the “death” of the people as a whole, from which (3) God will redeem, reunify, and restore all twelve tribes of Israel to covenantal favor, including an inward ethical transformation of the people to ensure the restoration will be lasting, an eschatological miracle akin to resurrection from the dead (Ezek 37:1-14).
Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, p. 59.
What did Paul see wrong with Judaism, then? Paul’s controversial claim was that gentiles are being included in Israel’s restoration:
Such a view of Israel’s plight, while surely not universal (some groups such as the Sadducees seem not to have shared the popular eschatology of their more apocalyptically-minded contemporaries), would hardly have been controversial, as it amounts to little more than a restatement of the basic framework of restoration eschatology presumed in most early Jewish literature. But what was controversial was the claim that the eschatological hopes of Israel were already being fulfilled through Jesus, who had been declared Lord and messiah upon his own resurrection (cf. Rom 1:4). Even more controversial was Paul’s application of these promises to uncircumcised non-Jews and his insistence that these uncircumcised men could be included as full members of the new covenant, and it is this latter claim and its relationship to those promises that has caused so much difficulty for later interpreters.
Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, pp. 105–6.
Staples argues that Romans 1–2 is very much about Jewish sin and Jewish restoration (in which gentile believers are incorporated by the Spirit). This is a direct counter to the interpretations of many “Paul Within Judaism” proponents who claim Paul is only speaking to gentiles here.
Staples’ understanding of justification in Romans is highly pneumatological, echoing the idea of the Spirit writing the law on the heart in Scriptural texts. Justification, for Staples, is primarily a matter of the restoration of a heart that keeps God’s law through the Spirit—a promise to Israel into which gentiles are incorporated.
In Romans 9, Staples argues that the prophetic citations from Hosea and Isaiah in 9:24–29 mean: Just as Israel (= the Northern Kingdom) became scattered among the nations (by Assyria) and so became “gentiles”, so the present calling of God’s “people” “from the gentiles/nations” (9:24) is the calling of lost Israel, i.e., the fulfilment of prophetic hopes for the Northern Kingdom.
In Romans 10: Staples argues that Paul “is opposing a common early Jewish idea that the coming of the messiah—and therefore Israel’s restoration—is contingent on Israel’s repentance and proper Torah observance” rather than the other way round (p. 227). His exposition includes a fascinating argument that Romans 10:5 (“the one who does these things will live by them”) is messianic and refers to Christ’s active obedience and subsequent resurrection.
In Romans 11, Staples argues that “all Israel” (11:26) refers to “the whole (house) of Israel” (cf. Ezek 37:11): not just Judah, but Spirit-indwelling gentiles who represent core prophetic hopes for the ingathering of the lost Northern Kingdom. “The fullness of the nations” (to plērōma tōn ethnōn) in Romans 11:25 refers to Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim in Genesis 48:19 (MT), “his [Ephraim’s] offspring shall become the fullness of the nations” (melo’-haggoyim).
Hence Paul sees an “ethnic” transformation of gentiles:
These spirit-filled gentiles are not just religiously converted but are in face ethnically transformed into Israelites through the process of adoption by incorporation into the body of Messiah.
Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, p. 316.
although Fredriksen is right to emphasize that these incorporated ex-pagans do not become Jews, they do become Israelites. Since not all Israelites are Jews, equating the two is a category error.
Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, p. 318.
Strengths
Here are some key strengths of Staples’ book:
Biblical Theology: The book contains many (many!) strong links to Old Testament passages, especially Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, which have been missed by NT scholars. Yet his work is also strongly integrated with Judaism contemporary to Paul.
Theology: Staples has a helpful focus on the many Old Testament passages that contain strong prophetic indictments of Israel’s sin and judgment alongside eschatological promises. This is often missing in New Testament scholars reading the OT.
Hence what does Paul find wrong with Judaism? It’s got humans in it! Who are sinners, like all of us.
Exegesis: The book contains exceedingly careful readings of precise phrases and terminology (esp. of Israel and Judah), along with very careful readings of secondary sources, which are refreshingly clear. Staples’ view of Romans 11:26 (“all Israel will be saved”) would support Calvin’s minority yet influential reading of “all Israel” (11:26) as the church—which which would sit comfortably with Reformed amillenial views.
Critiques
While this is a great book in many ways, here are my key questions and critiques:
Biblical Theology: The key question that remains for me: Is Paul saying that the gentiles are ethnically incorporated into Israel (an ecclesiological concept), or are they better seen as being incorporated into God’s promises to Israel (a theological concept)? I still lean towards the latter but Staples’ book has given me much to ponder.
Theology: Staples is not sufficiently aware of reformed theology and exegesis. Hence Staples’ description of justification is exceedingly pneumatological and insufficiently Christological. Staples often describes justification by faith in Paul as rectification by allegiance, i.e., being made “just” people by the Spirit through allegiance to Jesus as King. While this idea is becoming increasingly common in much Pauline scholarship, it doesn’t take into account the massive amount of work that has been done on the meaning of justification in Paul in prior centuries–which today is too often neglected and caricatured. For an important exploration of these issues, see Stephen Chester, Reading Paul with the Reformers.
Exegesis: While Staples makes an excellent case that Paul regards gentile believers as the fulfilment of promises concerning the Northern Kingdom, he has not sufficiently made the case (for me at least) that gentile believers are therefore ethnically the restored Northern Kingdom in Paul’s mind. Note that in the eschatological vision of Romans 15 (after Romans 11), the gentiles are still alongside Israel: “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people” (Rom 15:10). How does Romans 15 fit into the overall argument of Romans?
Interestingly, Staples sees the Samaritans as a possible analogy to Paul’s argument about the restoration of the Northern Kingdom (e.g. p. 287) but sees gentile believers as actually the restored Northern Kingdom in an ethnic sense. Why not reverse this? Why not see Samaritan believers as ethnically the restored Northern Kingdom (cf. Acts), while the inclusion of gentile believers in God’s promises is a broader eschatological fulfilment of promises re: the restoration of the Northern Kingdom? (The fact Paul doesn’t mention Samaritans can be explained by the fact that he’s writing to Rome where it’s not an issue).
Conclusion
Despite these caveats, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel is an important, ground-breaking book that needs to be engaged with. Highly recommended!
[1] Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975 [original 1966]), 142.
[2] E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM, 1977), 552.
[3] N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (London: T&T Clark, 1991), 240.
[4] Stowers, Stanley K. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994).