Gentile Inclusion in Paul within Judaism: Rethinking the Eschaton
This is an extract from my dissertation entitled: “Why Does the Paul within Judaism School Conceptualise the Status of Gentiles in the Eschaton Through the Use of the Term Inclusion?”
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 The Central Question
This dissertation critically examines the proposition put forward by the Paul within Judaism (PwJ) school that ‘inclusion’ is the most accurate descriptor for the status of gentiles in the eschaton.1 The central question is why does the PwJ school conceptualise the status of gentiles in the eschaton through the use of the term ‘inclusion’? This conceptualisation stems from the PwJ school’s fundamental understanding that Paul remained a practicing and Torah-observant Jew. Consequently, they reject the view that Paul believed the church replaced Israel, arguing instead that his apostolic vision involved gentiles being included alongside a Jewish remnant.2 While the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) also acknowledges gentile inclusion, their differing assumptions about Paul’s relationship with Judaism lead them to suggest alternative descriptors like a ‘renewed family’, based on differing assumptions about Paul’s relationship with Judaism and perceived ethnic exclusivism in Second Temple Judaism.3 The PwJ perspective assumes continuity, while the NPP perceives a transformative break in Paul’s theology.
While this dissertation concludes that ‘inclusion’ accurately reflects the PwJ school’s understanding of gentiles’ status in the eschaton, rooted in Paul’s Jewish identity and the diversity of Second Temple Judaism, it also highlights the complexities of Paul’s theological language and the potential limitations of this single descriptor. This necessitates a careful unpacking of the assumptions embedded within the PwJ concept of ‘inclusion’ and a comparative analysis with alternative perspectives.
1.2 Foundational Principles of the PwJ School
The PwJ school’s assertion that ‘inclusion’ is the most fitting descriptor depends on the principle that Paul remained a practicing and Torah-observant Jew, operating within the diverse landscape of Second Temple Judaisms.4 This frames gentiles’ status within a Jewish eschatological perspective, not as a departure from it.5 However, this is debated, with traditional and NPP scholars often arguing for a fundamental shift in Paul’s identity to one ‘in Christ’ that transcended ethnic boundaries.6 Passages seemingly critical of Paul’s former way of life in Judaism are key points of tension. For example, when Paul speaks of his former zeal in persecuting the church (Gal 1:13), does this indicate a rejection of his underlying Jewish convictions, or a zealousness based on a particular interpretation of Jewish law that he later revised? The PwJ view tends towards the latter, seeing it as a correction within Judaism, while others see a more radical transformation. The PwJ school maintains that Paul’s primary concern was the inclusion of gentiles without their becoming Jews or being under Torah on the same terms as Jews, and that his letters should be read within a Jewish context, albeit directed to gentiles. Examining the validity and implications of Paul’s enduring Jewish identity is therefore essential to evaluating the accuracy of the PwJ school’s concept of ‘inclusion’.7
1.3 The Significance and Implications of the PwJ School's Understanding of Gentile 'Inclusion'
Drawing upon the central question of this dissertation, which examines the PwJ school’s proposition of ‘inclusion’ as the most accurate descriptor for gentile status in the eschaton, and the foundational principles underpinning this perspective – namely, Paul’s enduring Jewish identity within the context of Second Temple Judaism – this section now turns to explore the significance and far-reaching implications of the PwJ school’s distinctive understanding of this ‘inclusion’. Having established the PwJ’s core assumption that Paul operated within a Jewish eschatological framework, we will explore how their interpretation of ‘inclusion’ diverges from traditional notions of gentile ‘conversion’ to Judaism and presents a direct challenge to alternative perspectives. By examining the theological contours and potential impacts of the PwJ school’s concept, this chapter aims to illuminate its unique contribution to Pauline studies and its broader relevance for understanding early religious identities and Jewish-Christian relations.
The PwJ perspective reinterprets ‘inclusion’ by distancing itself from traditional notions of gentile ‘conversion’ to Judaism.8 Instead, it situates Paul’s theology within Jewish eschatological frameworks, arguing that gentiles relate to Israel’s God in the eschaton without adopting Jewish identity markers. This directly challenges the NPP, which often frames gentiles’ status as a consequence of ethnic barriers being removed in Christ.9 The underlying assumption here concerns the nature of these barriers. The PwJ sees them as related to the specific demands of Torah observance for non-Jews, while the NPP often views them as more fundamental issues of ethnic exclusivism within Second Temple Judaism itself.
The PwJ school maintains that Paul’s framework for inclusion was deeply rooted in Jewish theological concepts, particularly the Abrahamic covenant. They argue that faith in the Messiah and reception of the pneuma (Spirit) allow gentiles to become descendants of Abraham and heirs of covenantal blessings alongside Israel, without rejecting Jewish particularity. This last point is crucial and highlights a key distinction. The PwJ school assumes that Jewish particularity remains a significant aspect of God’s eschatological plan, whereas some within the NPP see a diminishing of ethnic distinctions in the ‘new creation’. This perspective emphasises the hybrid identity of eschatological gentiles, highlighting their transformation through the exclusive worship of Israel’s God rather than full conversion.
By aligning Paul’s vision with strands of Second Temple Jewish thought that envisioned gentiles turning to God as non-Jews, the PwJ reframes Pauline studies, arguing that Paul’s apparent opposition to gentile proselytization was a halakhic stance, preserving the unity of God as expressed in the Shema.10 This approach has profound implications for Jewish-Christian relations, encouraging a framework of unity within diversity rather than models of conflict or supersessionism.11 By emphasizing ‘inclusion’ rather than ‘conversion,’ the PwJ school contributes to a deeper understanding of religious identities in the early Jesus movement.
1.4 This Study’s Approach and Aim
To interpret the PwJ approach and evaluate whether ‘inclusion’ is the most accurate descriptor, this study will examine PwJ’s assertion of Paul’s enduring Jewish ethnicity within Second Temple Judaism’s eschatological expectations regarding gentile status. It will critically engage with alternative interpretations of Paul’s eschatological framework, which view Paul as the founder of ‘Christianity’, considering the extent to which Paul’s reinterpretations represent continuity with, or departure from, Second Temple Jewish thought.12 The study will highlight the distinctiveness of the PwJ approach while critically evaluating whether it adequately addresses the theological shifts in Paul’s writings that some scholars argue suggest a new religious identity was emerging. The ultimate aim is to present a coherent understanding of the PwJ school’s perspective and to evaluate the accuracy and inherent limitations of ‘inclusion’ as the most fitting descriptor for the status of gentiles in the eschaton according to the PwJ school. This involves analysing their key arguments and consideration of internal coherence in light of alternative scholarly interpretations. By identifying the strengths and weaknesses of ‘inclusion’, as a descriptive term, this study seeks to provide a balanced and well-supported assessment of its effectiveness in capturing the multifaceted reality of gentile status within Paul’s complex eschatological vision.
You can find the books referenced in this article listed in the footnotes below.
Footnotes
1. This work acknowledges that advocates of the Paul within Judaism perspective are diverse with various contesting viewpoints, but which also rely on the foundational presupposition that Paul remained a practicing and Torah observant Jew. PwJ scholars who explicitly use the term ‘inclusion’ include Garroway, ’Messy Metaphors’, 69; Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 116; Sheinfeld, ‘Who Is the Righteous Remnant in Romans 9–11?’, 46.
2. The PwJ perspective rejects Paul as founder of a new religion, counting amongst its advocates Nanos, Reading Paul within Judaism, 82; Fredriksen, ‘What Does it Mean to See Paul “within Judaism”?’, 379; Novenson, Paul and Judaism at the End of History, 174; Zetterholm, ‘State of the Questions’, 35; Elliott, ‘Question of Politics’, 262.
3. Williamson, ‘Covenant’, 428; Scobie, Ways of Our God, 493; Wright, Paul, 111
4. Noting the diversity within Second Temple Judaism, Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 187, recognises that Paul’s position should not be placed over against his fellow Jews, nor in total agreement with them but rather located on a complex and variegated map.
5. Nanos, Paul Within Judaism, 10, states the key tenets of PwJ are Paul’s abiding Jewish identity, concerned for the inclusion of gentiles without becoming Jews or being under Torah on the same terms. Nanos contends that Paul’s letters should be read within a Jewish context. This is similar to Garroway, ‘A Jewish View of Paul’, 79.
6. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (III and IV), 1436; Bird, Anomalous Jew, 66, argues that whist Paul’s own identity is ‘umbilically related’ to Judaism, Paul’s Jewishness is ‘subsumed’ in Christ.
7. While all PwJ scholars agree that gentiles are included in God’s people without becoming Jews, they differ in the specifics of how this inclusion works. Nanos, Reading Romans within Judaism, 5,contends that gentiles are included but separate from Jews who still follow Torah. Zetterholm, Formation of Christianity in Antioch, 148, claims that gentiles belong in God’s plan as non-Jews with great demands placed upon them; Fredriksen, ‘Paul, Pagans and Eschatological Ethnicities’, 55-6 argues that gentiles are eschatological participants in God’s plan, not as Israelites but as ‘eschatological gentiles’; Thiessen, Contesting Conversion, 139, suggests that the outpouring of the Spirit has overcome the genealogical status of formerly impure gentiles; Novenson, Paul and Judaism at the End of History, 185, argues that gentile inclusion is shaped by Jewish Messianism.
8. Motyer, Israel in the Plan of God, 23 and Dunn, A New Perspective on the New Perspective, 159 specifically speak of Paul’s former life in Judaism which changed after his ‘conversion.’
9. Contra Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans Part 2, 55–56 and Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, 111 that understand Paul’s opposition to Judaism being anti-ethnocentrism. Fredriksen, ‘Paul, Pagans,’ 62, argues that Paul saw gentiles-in-Christ or ‘ex-pagans’ as gentiles with a difference and coins the term ‘eschatological gentiles’ to refer to those members of the ethnē who turn to Israel’s god at the end of days. Whilst ‘ex-pagans’ emphasises a first-century Greco-Romans social context, she argues that ‘eschatological gentiles’ emphasises the Jewish prophetic and ethno-history-specific context of mutual salvation.
10. The NPP and the PwJ schools have different views on who Paul’s opponents were because they interpret Paul’s relationship to Judaism differently. The NPP argues that Paul’s gospel challenged both Jewish and Roman systems while PwJ argue that Paul opposed gentiles misunderstanding how they fit into God’s plan through adopting Jewish identity markers. Novenson, Paul and Judaism, 170–1, states that Philippians 3 is evidence of inter-ethnic terms of abuse: ‘Dogs’ and ‘bad workers’ make good sense as inter-ethnic terms of abuse, by which Paul (a Jew) slanders his (gentile) opponent as ‘dogs’ and ‘mutilators of the flesh’ similar to how Jesus calls the Syro-Phoenician woman a “dog” (Mark 7:27–28; Matt 15:26–27). ‘Mutilation’ here does not mean traditional Jewish circumcision – which Paul praises (Phil 3:5) – but proselyte circumcision of adult male gentiles so that proselyte circumcision is mutilation.
11. Although the NPP is more positive regarding Paul’s Jewish ethnicity than traditional perspectives such as Schreiner, ‘Election,’ 451–452, and Grudem, Systematic Theology, 862, who argue that Paul rejects Judaism thereby gentiles replace Israel as the new people of God, they have merely exchanged Paul’s anti-legalistic opposition for an anti-ethnocentric one which frequently positions Paul as rejecting Judaism. See Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, 119.
12. See Giles, What on Earth is the Church? 60.
About the Author
Work with Me
As well as editing and proofreading projects, I contribute essays and reflections for wider publications. If you’re looking for thoughtful, accessible theology,
More Articles
Explore
Newsletter
Essays and reflections delivered weekly.
Unsubscribe anytime.
© 2025 Rooted Theology. All rights reserved.