Does the New Testament support Christian Zionism?

Abstract

This article evaluates Christian Zionism in light of the New Testament, with a focus on the Pauline corpus. In spite of the fact that the New Testament never mentions the promise of the land in terms of an outstanding promise of territorial inheritance for Israel, the land, which includes Jerusalem and the temple, is incorporated in God’s kingdom in the new era in Christ in a way that fulfils but transcends the original territorial form of the promise. In the New Testament, the land is spiritualised, universalised and eschatologised. The deeper criteria of being God’s people in the New Testament – faith and the indwelling Spirit – cohere with the understanding that historical Israel cannot be seen as continuing as God’s people in the New Testament era, or as still having a valid claim on God’s promises.

Full text

hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
In die Skriig / In Luce Verbi
ISSN: (Online) 2305-0853, (Print) 1018-6441
Page 1 of 1 Erratum
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Author:
Philip La Grange Du Toit1
Aliaon:
1Faculty of Theology,
Stellenbosch University,
South Africa
Corresponding author:
Philip La Grange Du Toit,
plgdutoit@gmail.com
Dates:
Published: 21 Dec. 2017
How to cite this arcle:
Du Toit, P. La G., 2017,
‘Erratum: Does the New
Testament support Chrisan
Zionism?’, In die Skriig 51(1),
a2334. hps://doi.org/
10.4102/ids.v51i1.2334
Copyright:
© 2017. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creave Commons
Aribuon License.
In the version of this article initially published, the surname of Philip La Grange Du Toit was
incorrectly listed as La Grange Du Toit in the ‘How to cite this article’ section. His correct surname
is Du Toit.
The ‘How to cite this article’ section has been corrected as follows:
How to cite this article:
Du Toit, P. La G., 2016, ‘Does the New Testament support Christian Zionism?’, In die Skriflig
50(1), a2164. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v50i1.2164
The error has been corrected in the PDF version of the article. The publisher apologises for any
inconvenience that this may have caused.
Erratum: Does the New Testament
support Chrisan Zionism?
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Note: Doi of original arcle: hp://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v50i1.2164

hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
In die Skriig / In Luce Verbi
ISSN: (Online) 2305-0853, (Print) 1018-6441
Page 1 of 9 Original Research
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Author:
Philip La Grange Du Toit1
Aliaon:
1Faculty of Theology,
Stellenbosch University,
South Africa
Corresponding author:
Philip La Grange Du Toit,
plgdutoit@gmail.com
Dates:
Received: 29 June 2016
Accepted: 17 Oct. 2016
Published: 25 Nov. 2016
How to cite this arcle:
La Grange Du Toit, P., 2016,
‘Does the New Testament
support Chrisan Zionism?’,
In die Skriig 50(1), a2164.
hp://dx.doi.org/10.4102/
ids.v50i1.2164
Copyright:
© 2016. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creave Commons
Aribuon License.
Introducon
While Zionism is the Jewish nationalist movement to establish a homeland in Palestine, Christian
Zionism is support for Zionism on Christian theological grounds. Christian Zionists read God’s
promises to Abraham concerning the promised land (e.g. Gn 12:1–3; 13:15; 17:8; 28:13) as though
they apply to the modern State of Israel, whose citizens they consider to be the descendants of
Abraham. Most Christian Zionists hold dispensationalist views that normally include beliefs
about a literal future millennial reign of peace (Rv 20:1–6) from the current Jerusalem, the
rebuilding of the temple and the reinstatement of the Old Testament sacrificial system. In terms of
their eschatological timeline, they consider the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 as a
signal of the ‘last days’ having arrived. After seven years of tribulation and the rise of the Anti-
Christ, Jesus would secretly ‘rapture’ the church, followed by the Battle of Armageddon. After the
Battle of Armageddon, Jesus would take up the throne of David and reign from the earthly
Jerusalem. During these events, a certain number of Jews would be converted to Christianity,
while the remainder would be annihilated (e.g. Baker 1971; Ryrie 1995; cf. Abraham & Boer
2009:90–91; Church 2009:376–378; Wagner 1992:4).
The contention that today’s Jews still have a valid claim to the land of ancient Israel, presupposes
that the original covenants with Abraham and Israel enjoy continuing literal application within
the New Testament era, including the possession of the land of Israel. Further, the belief that Jews
will be converted to Christianity at some point in the future, which is based on a certain
interpretation of Romans 11:26–27, presupposes that modern Jews are included within God’s
salvific purposes in the era of the New Testament on the basis of their current identity. The aim
of this article is to evaluate the validity of Christian Zionism in light of the New Testament, with
a focus on the Pauline corpus.1 This evaluation will focus on two aspects: first, whether the Jewish
claim on the land, which includes Jerusalem and the temple, can be justified in light of the New
Testament (especially Paul); and second, whether the New Testament (especially Paul) supports
the continued claim on the land of Israel for descendants of historical Israel who do not believe
in Christ.
It could be asked at this point why an article of this nature is necessary, since Christian Zionism
has never enjoyed much support in New Testament scholarship. The fact of the matter is that
Christian Zionism is a ‘standard position among the evangelical Protestant religious right,
especially in the United States of America’ (Abraham & Boer 2009:91) and arguably in much of
Western Christianity, including South Africa. As international political movement, Zionism
became prominent with the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which was supported by international
powers such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Although controversial,
much of America’s contemporary war on terror, its support to the State of Israel and its
antagonism towards Israel’s enemies can be connected to a strong pro-Israeli lobby within
America, which, in turn, derives much support from Christian Zionists (Sizer 2004:213–215;
1.Apart from the seven undisputed Pauline leers (Rm, 1 and 2 Cor, Gl, Phlp, 1 Th, Phlm), the leers to the Ephesians, the Colossians and
the second leer to the Thessalonians are included under the Pauline corpus in this arcle, because their authencity is supported by
most evangelical scholars (e.g. Carson & Moo 2005; Köstenberger, Kellum & Quarles 2009; see Du Toit 2013:24–25).
This article evaluates Christian Zionism in light of the New Testament, with a focus on the
Pauline corpus. In spite of the fact that the New Testament never mentions the promise of the
land in terms of an outstanding promise of territorial inheritance for Israel, the land, which
includes Jerusalem and the temple, is incorporated in God’s kingdom in the new era in Christ
in a way that fulfils but transcends the original territorial form of the promise. In the New
Testament, the land is spiritualised, universalised and eschatologised. The deeper criteria of
being God’s people in the New Testament – faith and the indwelling Spirit – cohere with the
understanding that historical Israel cannot be seen as continuing as God’s people in the New
Testament era, or as still having a valid claim on God’s promises.
Does the New Testament support Chrisan Zionism?
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.

Page 2 of 9 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
Wagner 1992:4–5). Some of the more vocal or popular
supporters of the Christian Zionist cause include figures
such as Hal Lindsey, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Oral
Roberts, John Hagee (see Sizer 2004:22–24), David Pawson
(2008) and the prominent Calvinist Baptist, John MacArthur
(e.g. MacArthur 2012). In the South African context, Christian
Zionism can be perceived as a kind of Imperial Theology
that perpetuates injustice against the Palestinians, which
stands in tension with Palestinian Christians that suffer as a
result of such an ideology (see Kairos Document 2016). The
influence of Christian Zionism in shaping the political
world, especially in terms of the way in which the Middle
East Conflict is perceived, is thus probably stronger than is
usually acknowledged and invites continued theological
reflection.
The promised land, Jerusalem and
the temple in the New Testament
The most profound question behind evaluating the theology
of the promised land is a hermeneutical one. Should one read
all the promises concerning the promised land in the Old
Testament strictly literally and territorially as dispensationalists
often insist (see Abraham & Boer 2009:103–106), or should one
derive one’s hermeneutic from the New Testament reflection
on these promises? While the New Testament on the surface
seems to be silent on the promised land, the underlying
fulfilment of the promised land in Christ can be discerned
throughout the New Testament.
The Gospels and Acts
Jesus’ proclamation of the ‘kingdom of God’ (e.g. Mt 6:33;
21:43; Mk 1:15; Lk 4:43; 6:20; 9:27; Jn 3:3, 5) or the ‘kingdom
of heaven’ (e.g. Mt 4:17; 5:3) can be understood as
‘fundamentally a spiritual idea, a spiritual experience that
transcended any particular place or time or land’ (Burge
2013:186). This can be derived from the fact that Jesus never
defined his messiahship in terms of an earthly king who
frees Israel from Roman rule, even though such an
expectation was prevalent (Fitzmyer 2007; Wright 1992:308)
and even though the disciples’ minds were still on political
restoration (Lk 24:21; Ac 1:6; cf. Mt 16:21–22; Mk 8:31–32; Lk
17:20; Jn 6:15). In answer to the disciples’ query about the
restoration of the ‘kingdom of Israel’ (Ac 1:6), Jesus answered
that the rise of the community of believers in Jesus, from
Jerusalem to the ‘ends of the earth’ (Ac 1:7–8; cf. Mt 28:19),
would fulfil the traditional hope for the restoration of Israel,
although Jesus conveyed a change of emphasis from Israel’s
kingship to its task as servant that would bring the light of
God’s salvation to the nations (Schnabel 2012:76–80; Turner
1996:290–315).2 Similarly, Jesus’ parable of the vineyard (Mt
21:33–46; Mk 12:1–12; Lk 20:9–18), which was a well-known
2.This view has to be disnguished from the view that considers Jesus’ response (Ac
1:7–8) as a reinterpretaon of the tradional interpretaons of Israel’s fortunes
(contra Barre 1994:76; Maddox 1982:106–108). Jesus’ answer rather alludes to
Isaiah 32:15 where the prophet speaks of the desolaon of Israel unl the Spirit is
poured out from on high, to Israel being God’s witnesses (Is 43:10–12) and to Isaiah
49:6 that ancipates the Servant making Israel a light for the naons that God’s
salvaon may reach ‘to the ends of the earth’ (Schnabel 2012:76–80; cf. Peterson
2009:110–112).
metaphor for the Israel’s rootedness in the land (Is 5:1–8; Ps
80:8, 14),3 portrays the vineyard as being given to others after
the residents of the vineyard would reject and kill God’s
messengers. In the same vein, Jesus’ reference to the meek
who will inherit the gē [the word that is used in the New
Testament and the Septuagint for both the ‘earth’ and
the (promised) ‘land’ of Israel] (Mt 5:5; cf. 2:6) seems to
involve the promised land, albeit in a way that transcends a
territorial understanding (Burge 2010:52–56; 2013:186–187).
While Psalm 37:11, which Jesus alludes to, clearly points to
the land of inheritance, the word erets (Ps 37:11) is here in
Matthew 5:5 extended to mean the whole world (Osborne
2010:167; Robertson 2000:26–27). For Charette (1992:84–88),
this eschatological inheritance is built on the idea of a
spiritual return from exile to the ‘land’, as a transcendent
promise that relates to kingdom blessings.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus himself becomes the locus of the
holy place instead of Jerusalem and the temple, which were
considered to be the most sacred locations in the land. This
can be derived from Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the
well where Jesus diverts the woman’s question about the
location of worship (Mount Gerizim vs. Jerusalem) and
denies that the worship of the Father would be confined to an
earthly location. Jesus rather indicates that worship would
‘now’ be in spirit and truth (Jn 4:20–24). In a sense Jesus
became the new Moses (Jn 1:17; Burge 2013:189; Walker
2000:92–93).4 Since the Torah was always connected to the
land, in that the inheritance and the retention of the land
involved repentance (2 Chr 6:24–25; 7:14; 30:9; Jr 7:5–7; 25:
5–6; 35:15), the keeping of the Law (Lv 26:3–6, 14–20, 32–34,
43; Dt 11:22–24; 19:8–9; 28:21, 45, 63; 30:20; 1 Kgs 9:7; 14:15; 2
Kgs 21:8; 1 Chr 28:8; 2 Chron 7:19–20; Ps 37; Ezk 33:23–26,
28–29) and the keeping of the covenant (Gn 17:8–9; Jos 23:16),
the ‘grace and truth’ (Jn 1:17) that Jesus embodied can be
understood as fulfilling and replacing both the Torah and the
land. Similarly, while the vineyard was a prominent symbol
that signified Israel’s rootedness in the land (see above),
Jesus’ fulfilment of the land is further indicated by Jesus
being the true vine (Jn 15:1–6). John 15:1–6 convey a relocation
of Israel’s holy space (Burge 2010:53): ‘The crux for John 15 is
that Jesus is changing the place of rootedness for Israel’
(Burge 1994:393; cf. Walker 2000:94). Jesus is now the true
vine. In other words, Jesus displaces and ‘christifies’ holy
space (Davies 1974:316–318, 368). Jesus is ‘the reality behind
all earthbound promises’ (Burge 2013:190; cf. Heb 10:1).
Jesus’ words in John 15:1–6 could thus be interpreted as
spiritualising the land (Burge 2010:56). In the same vein, the
Fourth Gospel interprets Caiaphas’ remark on Jesus’ death
(Jn 11:49–50) as pointing to Israel’s ingathering from
3.Although the vine metaphor in Isaiah 5:1–8 involves Israel as a naon, the fact that
the metaphor in this passage also involves the land, can be derived from the
references to the ‘ferle hill’ (v. 1), to the ‘inhabitants of Jerusalem’ (v. 3), to God’s
intenon to ‘make it waste’, to God’s command to the clouds not to rain upon it (v.
6) and to Israel dwelling alone ‘in the midst of the land’ (v. 8, English Standard
Version – ESV). Burge (2010:53–56) explains that the land itself was seen as a source
of life, hope and future. Psalm 8:7–13 describe how God brought a vine (Israel) out
of Egypt, drove out the naons and planted it. God cleared the ground, the vine
took deep root and it lled the land. The vineyard metaphor thus described Israel’s
rootedness in the land.
4.Compare the feeding miracle in the wilderness (Jn 6:1–34) and Jesus being the
‘bread of life’ (v. 35).

Page 3 of 9 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
dispersion, albeit in a non-geographical way (v. 52; Walker
2000:93–94).
Even Stephen’s speech (Ac 7:2–60) can be understood as
challenging the assumption that the land is integral to the
plan of God. For Stephen, the land of Israel was not the sacred
domain of revelation, for he outlined how God had spoken in
other foreign lands such as Mesopotamia (Abraham) and
Egypt (Joseph and Moses). From this point he concludes that
God’s work is not confined to the land of Israel (Burge
2013:194). Stephen stressed that God does not dwell in houses
made by hands, that heaven is his throne and that the ‘earth’
(gē) is his footstool (Ac 7:48–49). In this way, Stephen arguably
subverted notions among his contemporaries that God’s
revelation and the place of worship had to be confined to
these earthly locations. But as Burge (2013:195) writes, it is
‘the conversion and mission of Paul, whose meeting with
Christ had shattered his Jewish preconceptions about God
and the world’. This led him to lands beyond the scope of the
promised land.
The Pauline corpus
For Paul, Jesus confirmed the promises to the patriarchs (Rm
15:8) and all the promises of God find their ‘yes’ in Christ (2
Cor 1:20). Yet, Paul rarely, if at all, refers to the promised land
of Israel as prophesised in the Old Testament (see below).
Similarly, Paul does not mention Israel’s national reign over
the nations (e.g. Is 11:10-14; 42:1, 6; 49:6; 54:3; Jr 4:2; 23:5)
through a worldwide earthly dominion of the Messiah (e.g.
Ps 72:8-11; Is 9:7; Jr 23:5). Other theological motifs have taken
their place (cf. Walker 1996:116). Paul rather regularly and
deliberately rejects the territorial aspects of the promise
(Davies 1974:179). In Romans 9:4, when Paul lists the
privileges of ancient, historical Israel5 (adoption, glory,
covenants, giving of the law, worship, promises, Christ
according to the flesh), it is noteworthy that Paul does not
explicitly mention the land. Yet, it is in Romans 4 and
Galatians 3 where Paul does something quite unexpected. In
the popular thinking of many Israelites, salvation required
descent from Abraham (Burge 2013:196; cf. Mt 3:9; Lk 3:8)
and circumcision (Barrett 1975:58; adopted by Cranfield
1975:172). But more importantly, in its original form, the
promise of Abraham’s offspring, which involves the blessing
of all nations, is only found in promises that involve the
promised land (Gn 12:3, 7; 13:12–17; 17:4–5, 8, 16, 20; 24:7;
26:3–4; 28:3–4, 13–14; cf. Holwerda 1995:103). Yet, when Paul
refers to this promise with Abraham (Rm 4:11–13, 17–18; Gl
3:8, 16, 19) he directly connects believers’ inheritance through
faith to the promise to Abraham, but deliberately omits an
explicit reference to the land.
It is in Romans 4:13–14 where Paul’s interpretation of how
the promised land is fulfilled in Christ is probably most
evident. He states that the promise to Abraham and his
offspring that he would be heir of the world (kosmos) did not
come through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
5.That Paul primarily has ancient, historical Israel in mind can be derived from the
context (see below).
For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs,
faith is null and the promise is void (ESV).
With Paul’s reference to Abraham being the heir of the kosmos,
he brings to mind the fact that the retention of the promised
land was dependent on the keeping of the Law (see above).
Although the kosmos could indicate all the nations that
become Abraham’s offspring through faith (Bauer et al. 2000,
s.v. kosmos §6a; Wright 2002:496), all nations inhabit the whole
world. Therefore, kosmos also involves the promise about the
land itself, albeit in a way that transcends the original
promise. It points to the restoration of the whole created
order that transcends a territorial understanding of the
promise of the land to Israel (Dunn 1988:213; cf. Davies
1974:179). Pointedly, Stott (1994:130) writes that ‘the
fulfilment of biblical prophecy has always transcended the
categories in which it was originally given’. Further, Paul,
who elsewhere identifies Abraham’s seed with the Messiah
(Gl 3:16), also uses the word kosmos here to indicate the
universal dominion of the Messiah’s reign. According to
Galatians 3, Christ is now Abraham’s single ‘seed’ (v. 16) and
believers are now considered to be Abraham’s children
through faith in Christ (v. 7). They are partakers of the (whole)
promise, which originally involved land, through their
connection to Christ (Gl. 3:29). Galatians 3:29 thus implies
that even the promise of the land is fulfilled in Christ in some
way. As Brueggemann (2002) states:
it is central to Paul’s argument that the promise endures. The
heirs in Christ are not heirs to a new promise, but the one which
abides, and that is centrally land. (p. 178)
Although a territorial understanding of God’s kingdom was
prevalent in the time of the Second Temple (see above) and
can be found in Jewish apocalyptic literature that postdates
Paul (e.g. 4 Ez; 2 Bar), Paul’s conception of God’s kingdom
transcended such an expectation. It could in fact be argued
that the political, earthly messianic ruler that is envisioned
within later Jewish apocalyptic thought, might in fact reflect
a kind of polemic or reaction against the Christ-believers’
claim of Jesus being ancient Israel’s Messiah. Even though
Charlesworth (1992:16) argues for Rabbinic Judaism not
having a clear anti-Christian polemic, he admits that it ‘could
not develop in ignorance of the growing strength of
Christianity, which claimed to be the true religion of Israel
because it was empowered by God’s Messiah, Jesus Christ’.
He writes that the ‘dearth of messianology’ in Rabbinic
Judaism ‘should be seen also in the context of the struggle for
survival of rabbinic Judaism alongside of, and sometimes
against, a messianic movement heavily indebted to Judaism,
called Christianity’ (Charlesworth 1992:16, [author’s italics]).
Similarly, Dahl (1992:382) argues that even ‘Jewish messianic
ideas were to a large extent read in light of, and in contrast to,
faith in Jesus Christ, the true Messiah’ [author’s italics].
Paul often sees the kingdom as something to be ‘inherited’
(1 Cor 6:9–10; 15:50; Gl 5:21; cf. Eph 5:5), which is related to
the idea of being found worthy of the kingdom (2 Th 1:5)
and differs from later Jewish language about the kingdom

Page 4 of 9 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
(Witherington 1992:55). Human beings must have a
resurrection body in order to inherit the kingdom (1 Cor
15:50), a body that transcends the current natural, earthly,
mortal existence (1 Cor 15:40–54). Paul’s conception of the
ultimate kingdom to be inherited thus transcends the
expectation of an earthly, this-worldly messianic rule (cf. Fee
2014:865–890; Fitzmyer 2008:594). The kingdom to be
inherited in the Pauline corpus is rather a heavenly kingdom
(see esp. epouranos in 1 Cor 15:40, 48, 49 and ouranos in v. 47).
This is related to Paul defining the kingdom of God as
righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rm 14:17), all
of which can be seen as eschatological gifts of the Spirit (Moo
1996:857). Rather than existing in (arrogant) human words (1
Cor 4:19), the kingdom exists in power (1 Cor 4:20), which
comes from the Spirit (Barrett 1976:118; Fee 2014:209) and
involves a way of living (Pop 1965:98). Fee (2014:209) writes
that they ‘were living in the Spirit as though the future had
dawned in some measure of fullness’. These notions about
the kingdom all signify a present reality for believers,
although containing a future element: they already share in
and live from the eschatological, spiritual reality and power
of God’s kingdom (cf. Witherington 1992:57; Col 1:12–14;
4:11). While the first human being’s existence is derived ‘from
the earth [/land]’ (ek gēs) and is inextricably linked to it,6 the
raised Christ’s existence, and believers’ eschatological
existence at the resurrection by implication (Fee 2014:877), is
derived ‘from heaven’ (ex ouranou, 1 Cor 15:47). The
eschatological existence in God’s kingdom in which believers
already share (see above), although they do not have
resurrection bodies yet, is thus not dependent on earthly
territory.
Another pertinent aspect of Paul’s portrayal of God’s
kingdom is that it is universal (cf. Holwerda 1995:102–104;
Walker 2000:87). In Philippians 2:9–10, Paul writes that Jesus
obtained the Name above all names and that every knee in
heaven and on earth should bow at the name of Jesus. In 1
Corinthians 3:21–23 Paul describes believers’ inheritance
such as all things being theirs: the world, life, death, the
present and the future. The reason is that believers belong to
Christ, while Christ belongs to God. These notions correspond
to the notion that all things in heaven and earth are united in
Christ in whom believers obtained an inheritance (Eph 1:10–
11), that all things are placed under Jesus’ feet as head over
all things (Eph 1:22; cf. Ps 110:1), and to the notion that all
things are reconciled to God through Christ – whether on
earth or in heaven (Col 1:20). In this regard, Davies (1974)
states that the:
logic of Paul’s Christology and missionary practice, then, seems
to demand that the people of Israel living in the land had been
replaced as the people of God by a universal community, which
had no special territorial attachment. (p. 182)
A noteworthy example of this concept is Ephesians 6:2–3,
which repeats the promise of Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy
5:16 that involves the promised land, but applies it in a
6.The Hebrew text to which Paul alludes (Gn 2:7), underscores the inextricable link
between humans and the earth (adam [human being]; adamah [ground/land/
earth]) (Collins 1999:571).
Christ-believing context that cannot be confined to the land
of Israel (cf. Robertson 2000:28; Walker 2000:87). As Hoehner
(2002:793) notes, the clause ‘which the Lord God gives you’ is
omitted, ‘because the church is not the continuation of Israel
and has not received the promise of a specific land’. The
promise is thus universalised (O’Brien 1999:444). Therefore,
many translations translate gē (v. 3) by ‘earth’ (e.g. American
Standard Version; International Standard Version; King
James Version; New International Version; New King James
Version; New Revised Standard Version – NRSV; Revised
Version).
In Old Testament times the land was considered the centre
of the earth (Ezk 38:12; 5:5; 1 En 26:1; Jub 8:19), Jerusalem the
centre of the land and the temple the centre of Jerusalem
(Holwerda 1995:106–112; Robertson 2000:7; Burge 2013:184).
Even though Jerusalem was a central part of Paul’s ‘world’
(kosmos), that world and all its aspirations had been crucified
to him (Gl 6:14; Walker 1996:153).7 Yet, considering the
general concept of the land, Jerusalem and the temple,
Paul’s portrayal of Jerusalem and the temple in light of the
dawn of the ‘end of the ages’ (1 Cor 10:11) should cohere
with his theological thought around the promised land. The
notion behind Paul’s referral to the ‘Jerusalem above’, which
he contrasts to the ‘current Jerusalem’ (Gl 4:25–26), is that a
‘spiritual Jerusalem’, the mother of believers in Christ, is
juxtaposed against an ‘earthly Jerusalem’ (Fung 1988:210;
Meyer 2009:137).8 While the earthly Jerusalem would
represent a fleshly, worldly existence (see kata sarka
[according to flesh] in Gl 4:23, 29), the ‘Jerusalem above’ is a
present spiritual reality (see kata pneuma [according to Spirit]
in v. 29) for believers (cf. Meyer 2009:137). Christ-believers’
citizenship is already in heaven (Phlp 3:20; cf. Gl 2:19–21).
This citizenship transcends a visible city on earth (Davies
1974:197).
Even Paul’s portrayal of his connection to the Jerusalem
church seems to emphasise his independence of the Jerusalem
leaders (Davies 1974:198). Paul almost anxiously points out
to the Galatians that, after he received the gospel by revelation
(Gl 1:12), he did not consult anyone and especially that he did
not go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before
him, but that he went away into Arabia (Gl 1:16–17). Even
Paul’s reference to the elders in Jerusalem as ‘pillars’ (Gl 2:9)
could imply that, in some ways, Paul considered them as
weak, for he does not directly speak of them as pillars, but
7.Although kosmos in the Pauline corpus oen refers to the world and everything that
belongs to it as being opposed to God (e.g. 1 Cor 11:32; 2 Cor 2:12; Gl 4:3; Bauer
et al. 2000, s.v. kosmos §7b) in the context of Galaans 6:12–15, kosmos stands in
connecon with circumcision being a part of Paul’s ‘world’, which, in turn, stands in
connecon with Paul’s pedigree or identy in the esh (Phlp 3:4–11). Yet, Paul’s
former identy ‘has disappeared altogether … (Gal 2:19–20)’ (Hays 2000:344). Paul
entered a new eschatological world (Hays 2000:344) that transcended Paul’s former
identy and the world that constuted such an identy (cf. Moo 2013:396). Being
rooted in the land of Israel, with the temple in its centre, was an integral constuve
element in the identy of Israel. By implicaon, Paul’s crucixion to the ‘world’ and
his change of identy would thus involve the fullment of the land in Christ.
8.Most scholars agree that Paul’s allegory of the two women (Gl 4:24) is ‘fundamentally
tempered by typology’ (Martyn 1997:436; cf. Hays 2000:301; Moo 2013:295).
Longenecker (1990:209–211) correctly noces that the manner in which Paul
applies allegory is more Palesnian than Alexandrian (e.g. Philo). Paul is not
emancipang the meaning of the passage from its historical content in order to
transmute it into a moral senment or philosophical truth (Alexandrian). Paul rather
refers to the original historical content and interprets it typologically. Paul’s allegory
is thus an aid to typology and regards history as meaningful.

Page 5 of 9 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
writes that they ‘were considered to be’, ‘were reputed to be’
or even ‘seemed to be’ (dokeō) pillars (Longenecker 2015:207,
cf. Bauer et al. 2000, s.v. dokeō).
Paul’s portrayal of the temple is along similar lines. He
portrays the believing community as God’s temple. For
Paul, believers constitute God’s temple (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; cf.
Eph 2:21–22). A pertinent example is 2 Corinthians 6:16
where he incorporates Leviticus 26:11–12. He writes: ‘For we
are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will live in
them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and
they shall be my people”’ (NRSV). It is noteworthy that in
Leviticus 26, God’s promise to dwell and walk among his
people, to be their God and that they will be his people
(vv. 11–12), is set within his people’s obedient, fruitful and
peaceful living in the land (vv. 1–10), God’s deliverance from
Egypt (v. 13), and God’s warning to curse their land and
make them flee from it if they did not adhere to his
commandments (vv. 14–20). Similarly, the promise in Ezekiel
37:27 that closely resembles that of Leviticus 26:11–12, is also
set within references to the establishment of the people in
the land (Ezk 37:12, 14, 21, 22, 25). In Paul’s appropriation of
the promise, God’s dwelling and walking among his
people is fulfilled in the believing community (Barnett
1997:351–352; Seifrid 2014:296). Such a fulfilment, unlike the
context of Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel 37, is, however, not
confined to the land or the tabernacle. As Harris (2005:506)
notes, in light of the new age that has dawned (2 Cor 6:2),
such a fulfilment includes the notion of the restoration of his
people from exile (Ezk 37:11–14, 21), yet involves all people
groups in Christ: ‘God’s people had been reconstituted for a
final time’. They now consist of both Judaean and gentile as
God’s temple.
Hebrews and Revelaon
One of God’s main intentions with the promised land in the
Old Testament was that it would provide his people with a
place of rest (e.g. Ex 33:14; Lv 26:6; Dt 3:20; 12:10; 25:19; Jos
1:13, 15; 21:44; 22:4; 23:1). Yet, in the letter to the Hebrews, the
divine rest, which originally referred to entrance into the
promised land, is now understood as a reference to a greater
heavenly reality: ‘For if Joshua had given them rest, God
would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there
remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God’ (4:8–9, ESV).
The implication is that the historical entrance into the land
did not give the people rest at all. Although the author does
not develop the idea in full, the underlying notion is that ‘the
whole concept of the promised land was really an advance
metaphor for the heavenly rest enjoyed by God’s people’
(Walker 2000:89). Walker (2000) argues that it is reasonable to
derive from the pattern of thinking behind the writer’s
exposition of the shadows and fulfilment of the temple in
chapters 7–10 that it:
would cause him to view the land in the same way. Just as the
temple was now eclipsed by the revelation of the ‘heavenly
sanctuary’, so the land was eclipsed by the new focus on the
heavenly rest. (p. 89)
Or as Johnson (2006:129) states, ‘the promise offered to God’s
people now is no longer that of a material possession, but of
a participation in the divine life’.
In Hebrews 11, the author specifically mentions the ‘place’
that Abraham ‘was to receive as an inheritance’ (v. 8) and the
‘land of promise’ (v. 9), but such an expectation in a physical
land is eclipsed by looking forward to a ‘city that has
foundations, whose designer and builder is God’ (v. 10, ESV)
and by the eschatological vision where the patriarchs ‘desire
a better country, that is, a heavenly one’ that includes the
heavenly city (v. 16, NRSV). Similarly, Hebrews 12:22 reports
of ‘Mount Zion’, ‘the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem’, and of ‘the assembly of the firstborn who are
enrolled in heaven’ (v. 23, ESV) to which believers have come
already (v. 22). The concept of the promised land has thus
now been caught up into a new understanding that includes,
but fulfils and eclipses its former role within God’s purposes
(Walker 2000:91). Thompson (2008:267) remarks that the
believing community has approached this heavenly world,
because Christ, the forerunner, opened up the way to enter
the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 6:20; 10:19). The author of
Hebrews ends off this eschatological vision with a reference
to the receiving of ‘a kingdom that cannot be shaken’ (12:28),
a kingdom that clearly supersedes one that is confined to the
land of Israel.
In Revelation, one finds a shift of focus from the land to the
world. The frequent references to ‘the kings of the earth’ (e.g.
Rv 1:5; 6:15; 16:14; 17:2; 18:3, 9; 19:19) and ‘the four corners of
the earth’ (7:1; etc.) strongly suggest that the seer is
envisioning the whole world (cf. the references to the
inhabited world: 3:10; 12:9; 16:14). The focus of Revelation is
thus cosmic and not confined to the land of Israel (Walker
2000:97). Further, it is telling that the new heaven, the new gē
and the new Jerusalem from heaven (Rv 21:1–2), is set in 21:3
within the same promise that Paul quotes in 2 Corinthians
6:16 (see above), namely, the one in Leviticus 26:11–12 and
Ezekiel 37:27. As indicated above, this promise is set within
the restoration of God’s people in the promised land in both
Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel 37. It is thus reasonable to conclude
that the new heaven and the new ‘earth’ (gē) incorporate,
fulfil and supersede the original promised land in this
passage. Neither is God’s divine presence (Rv 21:3) limited
by the physical boundaries of an Israelite temple (see esp.
22:22), for all ‘peoples’ (laoi, v. 3) experience God’s intimate
tabernacling presence (Beale 1999:1047).
The land of Israel and unbelievers
In light of the above, the question can be asked whether the
New Testament supports the continued claim on the land
of Israel for descendants of historical Israel who do not
believe in Christ. If it can be derived from the above
discussion that the promised land has been fulfilled and
superseded in a cosmic and spiritual way within the Christ-
believing community, it can be asked if the New Testament
creates a precedent for descendants from historical Israel
who do not believe in Christ to continue to lay claim on the

Page 6 of 9 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
physical land of Israel. At a basic level the New Testament
nowhere reaffirms the promised land in a way that the
descendants from historical Israel could lay claim to it
apart from belief in Christ. Also, since the New Testament
portrays the promise to Abraham as being fulfilled,
transferred and transcended in or for those who believe in
Christ as discussed, it would logically follow that the New
Testament does not leave any room for non-believing
descendants of historical Israel to lay claim to the land of
Israel. There is one passage, however, that is often
mentioned as proof that God still has salvific plans for
contemporary Jews, which Christian Zionists presuppose
includes their return to the land of Israel, and that is
Romans 11:25–27 (e.g. Blaising 1999; Ladd 1972:61, 113, 150;
Thomas 1992:282–283). That is in spite of the fact that there
is no reference to the land in Romans 11. In terms of the
notion that God would still have salvific plans for
contemporary Jews, it is worthy of note that even Burge
(2013:201), who rejects Christian Zionism, holds that
contemporary Jews still have ‘a unique future’ and ‘a place
of honor even in their unbelief’ on the basis of Romans
11:25–27.9 The deeper question behind such a notion is a
question of identity that consists of two aspects:
• Should contemporary Jews be equated with Israel of the
Old Testament?
• Does the New Testament leave room for the continued
existence of historical Israel as God’s people or as a group
of people who can continue to lay claim on God’s Old
Testament promises or His salvific purposes apart from
belief in Christ?
These are the questions which will now be dealt with.
Should contemporary Jews be equated with
Israel of the Old Testament?
In the time of the Second Temple, the designations Israēl
[‘Israel]’ and Israēlitēs [‘Israelite]’ mainly denoted God’s
ancient, historical people who lived before the time of the
second temple. At the same time the term Ioudaios [‘Jew’ or
‘Judaean’] leaned more toward denoting the ethnic people
who descended from historical Israel, without necessarily
carrying connotations of being God’s people. This tendency
can especially be noted with Josephus who speaks of
Israēlitai [Israelites] 188 times in Antiquities 2–6 when he
describes the ancient time, but predominantly employs
Ioudaioi [Jews or Judaeans] from Antiquities 6.6 onward and
exclusively from 6.317 right up to the end (see also Ant
11.169–173; Jewett 2006:561–562; Kuhli 1991b:205; Kuhn
1965:360, 372). In the Pauline corpus, the term Ioudaios
generally leans toward being an ethnical or social
designation10 of people in his present and, apart from most
prevalent interpretations of Romans 11:26 (see below), the
designation Israēl also seems to carry more of a theological
9.Even Sizer (2007:171), who is also against Chrisan Zionism, seems to work in this
direcon, although in a somewhat more restrained fashion.
10.The most notable excepon is probably Romans 2:29 where Paul alludes to the
inherent meaning of Ioudaios [‘give thanks’ or ‘praise’] (Gn 29:35).
quality denoting God’s elect people (Kuhli 1991a:204; Kuhn
1965:357, 359–360) in Paul’s past.11
Even the term Israēlitēs, although Paul applies it twice as a
self-designation (2 Cor 11:22; Rm 11:1), leans toward the
historical side in that it denotes Paul’s historical line of
descent. In Romans 9:4 the term can be understood as
primarily pointing to historical Israelites – although
unbelieving Ioudaioi in Paul’s present would stand in
continuity with them – especially in view of the content of the
privileges listed in verses 4–5 and the subsequent retelling of
salvation history in verses 9–17 (Du Toit 2013, 60–64, 69–74,
290; cf. Jewett 2006:562). As argued elsewhere (Du Toit 2015),
even the salvation of ‘all Israel’ in Romans 11:26 can be
interpreted as pointing to the salvation of inner-elect Israel (in
distinction from outer-elect, national Israel) of the Old
Testament that lived before the first Christ advent, for the future
tense sōthēsetai [‘will be saved’] can function as a logical future
that logically follows the prophetic material in 11:26b–27, but
has been fulfilled in Christ’s first advent. I argue for building
such a conclusion on an underlying motif in the letter to the
Romans that begs the question of historical Israel’s salvation.
The basic question is, if it was required for someone under
the Law (under the Old Covenant) to perfectly observe the
Law in order to be justified (Rm 2:13; 10:5), but no one
could perfectly observe the Law as a result of being under sin
(3:19–20), including Old Testament Israel (by implication),
and if the only way one can be justified is through faith in
Christ (Rm 3:22–26; 4:12, 16, 24;12 5:1; 10:9–13), what happens
to historical Israel? Are they saved? Such an underlying
question would then be answered in Romans 11:26.13
Part of the hermeneutical tension that exists between the
concepts Israēl, Israēlitēs and Ioudaios in Paul’s time, on the
one hand, and contemporary Judaism, on the other, is the fact
that Judaism as a full-scale religion only started to develop
after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE (Langer
2003:258; Mason 2007:502). Therefore, the Ioudaioi constitute
for Paul more of an ethnos than a religion in the strict sense
(see Du Toit 2015:421–422).14 If today’s Judaism as a religion
(commencing after 70 CE) is anachronistic to and, to a large
11.See Campbell (1993:441–442) who also reads Galaans 6:16 as poinng to
historical Israel. Israēl in both Romans 9:6 (rst occurrence) and Phillipians 3:5 is
likely to point to the patriarch Israel, denong Paul’s line of descent from the
historical naon (Bauer et al. 2000, s.v. Israēl).
12.Christ can be understood as the object of faith throughout Romans 4 in that
3:27–4:1 can be understood as previewing Paul’s narraon of the Abraham account
in 4:2–25 (Du Toit 2015:423; Jipp 2009).
13.In this reading, the ‘coming in’ (a subjuncve) of the genles (Rm 11:25) is
interpreted as the generic inclusion of the genles in God’s salvic economy in
Christ, similar to the noon(s) in 9:24–26, 30 and 11:11, and not as the future
salvaon of each individual genle. It is noteworthy that ‘Jacob’ is passive in God’s
acons in Romans 11:26b–27, excluding an act of conversion on Jacob’s part. Apart
from my own interpretaon of Romans 11:25–27, other interpretaons that do not
envision a specic end me event where Israel would be converted somewhere
in the future, include, in the rst place, the ecclesiological interpretaon (‘all Israel’
is understood to include the church, e.g. Maljaars 2015:138–238; Wright
2002:687–693) and, in the second place, the total naonal elect view (the salvaon
of ‘all Israel’ consists of the salvaon of all elect Israelites in the OT – not naonal
Israel – together with all their descendants in the NT that come to belief in Christ,
e.g. Merkle 2000:711–721; Zoccali 2010:104–116).
14.In disncon from a ‘religion’, Mason (2007:481–488) denes an ethnos as having
its own disncve nature or character, which was expressed in a unique ancestral
tradion and reected a shared ancestry or genealogy with its own charter stories,
customs, et cetera. In other words, a ‘religion’ is strictly a Western category with no
counterpart in ancient culture.

Page 7 of 9 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
extent, in discontinuity with the faith of Old Testament Israel
and even with the Ioudaioi in Paul’s time, it is thus problematic
that interpreters of Paul can see contemporary Jews as the
same Israēl that Paul would have envisioned in Romans 11:26.
The way in which the terms Israēl, Israēlitēs and Ioudaios were
used in the time of the Second Temple and the hermeneutical
distance between contemporary Judaism and the faith of the
Ioudaioi in Paul’s time, thus argue against the continuation of
Israel as God’s people beyond the first Christ advent.
Are contemporary Jews God’s people?
The question that flows from the above is if contemporary
Jews can still be considered as God’s people or if they can still
lay claim on God’s promises apart from Christ. Apart from
the hermeneutical distance between contemporary Judaism
and the Ioudaioi in Paul’s time that was discussed above, the
only criteria that Paul lays down for being God’s people in
the new era in Christ are firstly, faith in Christ, and secondly,
partaking in the Spirit.
Regarding the first-mentioned in Galatians 3, Abraham’s
offspring are identified as believers in Christ only (vv. 7, 9; cf.
Rm 4), for Christ himself is seen as the single ‘seed’ of
Abraham in which believers share through faith. That is why
faith is portrayed as something that ‘came’ (Gl 3:23) or ‘has
come’ (v. 25). In Galatians 3:29, Paul concludes that those
who ‘belong to Christ’ are heirs of the promise to Abraham
(cf. Rm 4). He leaves no room for natural descendants to
inherit Abraham’s inheritance apart from being in Christ.
Concerning the second-mentioned in Romans 8:16, Paul
states that it is God’s Spirit that bears witness with the human
spirit that they are God’s children. The Spirit is therefore the
‘guarantee’ or ‘first instalment’ of believers’ inheritance in
Christ (arrabōn, 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14). In light of these
criteria for identity (first and second), the cut-off point for
Israel being God’s people by default is strictly the death and
resurrection of Christ himself and the new identity
that follows as a result of it (e.g. Rm 6:4–6; Gl 2:19–20; 2 Cor
5:14–17), and not the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.
Further, the criteria in the Pauline corpus that constitute
identity in the new era in Christ are set in contrast with the
criteria for identity in the age before the first Christ event.
This contrast is essentially an eschatological contrast that
coheres with two salvation-historical epochs before and after the
Christ event. In this contrast, Christ’s death and resurrection
is an innately eschatological event that inaugurated ‘the end
of the ages’ (1 Cor 10:11). As argued in some length elsewhere
(Du Toit 2013:219–287; cf. Fee 1994:469–470, 553, 816–822;
Jewett 2006:436–437, 486; Moo 1996:49–50; Silva 2001:183),
the contrast of identity in the old age before (or outside of)
Christ and the new age in Christ, is especially recognisable in
Paul’s contrast between ‘flesh’ and ‘Spirit or spirit’ in their
extended application. Regarding ‘flesh’ at the deepest level, it
stands for a way of existence and a mode of identity before (or
outside of) Christ that is defined by and under the control of
the Law, sin and death. This identity coheres with the age
before Christ was revealed, when people’s status before God
was marked off by natural, external and observable markers
of identity (e.g. the keeping of the Law, including feasts and
Sabbaths, dietary restrictions, circumcision and ethnicity).
Concerning ‘Spirit or spirit’ at the deepest level, it stands for
a way of existence and a mode of identity in Christ and the Spirit
that is defined by and under the control of the indwelling
Spirit, which is a consequence of the new creation. This
identity coheres with the new, eschatological age in Christ
where identity is marked off by the internal work of the Spirit
that constitutes adoption as God’s children. This kind of
contrast between ‘flesh’ and ‘Spirit or spirit’ is especially
portrayed in passages such as Romans 7:5–6; 8:4, 5, 8–9 and
Galatians 4:4–6; 5:16–17, 25.15
While the contrast between ‘flesh’ and ‘Spirit or spirit’ in the
Gospel of John is not exactly the same as in the Pauline
corpus, two mutually exclusive ways of existence or sources
of origin can be identified, where ‘flesh’ pertains to that
which is natural or human, and ‘Spirit or spirit’ pertains to
that which comes from God (Ridderbos 1997:131; cf. Carson
1991:196–197). Christ who was not born of the will of the
‘flesh’ or the will of a ‘man’, but of God (Jn 1:13), has to be
understood in this way. According to John 3:3 someone must
be born ‘from above’ or ‘again’ (anōthen) in order to enter the
kingdom, for ‘what is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is
born of the Spirit is spirit’ (3:6). Birth ‘of the flesh’ points to
natural birth and the mode of existence of the natural person
(Carson 1991:196; Ridderbos 1997:128). By implication, any
claim on God’s kingdom on the basis of things such as
nationality, ethnicity or even religious tradition (all pertaining
to natural existence) cannot assure entrance into God’s
kingdom: every person, including either Ioudaios or gentile,
has to receive the Spirit as ‘eschatological gift’ (Ridderbos
1997:127; cf. Carson 1991:224–225). Similarly, in 1 Peter the
‘chosen race’, the ‘royal priesthood’, the ‘holy nation’, which
are God’s ‘own possession’, and the people who were once
not ‘God’s people’, but who are now (2:9–10; cf. Rm 9:25–26),
are those who have been ‘born again’ through ‘the resurrection
of Jesus Christ’ (1:3) and through ‘the living and abiding
word of God’ (1:23).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the answer to the question whether the New
Testament supports Christian Zionism has to be negative.
The way in which the New Testament writers incorporate the
concept of the promised land, which includes Jerusalem and
the temple, transcends the original promise to Abraham and
its significance in the Old Testament. God’s kingdom is
portrayed as showing that the inheritance of the land has
been incorporated, fulfilled but transferred to believers in
Christ, not as an earthly territory, but as an inheritance of
eternal rest in Christ (esp. Heb and Jn), as inheriting the
whole cosmos under Christ’s lordship (esp. Paul and the
15.Some of the specic textual markers that indicate the eschatological and salvaon-
historical dimension of the contrast between esh and Spirit or spirit in Paul is the
‘but now’ (nuni de) in Romans 7:6, the ‘now’ (nun) in 8:1, the indicaon that
believers are not in the esh in 8:9, the clause ‘when the fullness of me had come’
in Galaans 4:4, and the noon that believers ‘have crucied the esh’ in 5:24.

Page 8 of 9 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
synoptic Gospels), and as inheriting the new heaven and
‘earth’ (gē – the same term that the Septuagint (LXX) uses for
the promised ‘land’) in the consummation (esp. Heb and Rv).
There is thus some variation in the New Testament in terms
of how the promised land has been fulfilled in Christ: the
land has been spiritualised, universalised and eschatologised,
even though not all of these notions are simultaneously
present in all of the New Testament.
If the promised land has been transferred to believers in
Christ, it means that, apart from belief in Christ, there is no
precedent in the New Testament for the continued existence
of historical Israel in the time of the New Testament or for
the inclusion in God’s salvific economy of people descending
from historical Israel on the basis of ethnicity, Law or
anything external or natural. While some interpret Romans
11:25–27 as creating such a precedent, such an interpretation
firstly goes against the grain of the way in which the terms
Israēl, Israēlitēs and Ioudaios were understood in the time of
the second temple, and secondly, it is in conflict with the
criteria for being God’s people laid down by the New
Testament writers. If contemporary Jews were to lay claim
to the land of Israel, they would be an ‘Israel according to
the flesh’ (1 Cor 10:18), a mode of identity that essentially
belongs to the old age before the first Christ advent that was
fulfilled and superseded by the new creation in Christ (2
Cor 5:16–17). The idea of ‘Christian Zionism’ thus has to be
understood as an oxymoron on two counts: In the first place
it bypasses the underlying teaching of the New Testament
in respect of the way in which the promised land (including
Jerusalem and the temple) is fulfilled in Christ-believers;
and in the second place, it disregards the criteria for being
God’s people in the New Testament, which implies that a
claim on God’s promises apart from Christ and the Spirit is
invalid.
Acknowledgements
Compeng interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal
relationships which may have inappropriately influenced
him in writing this article.
References
Abraham, I. & Boer, R., 2009, ‘“God Doesn’t Care”: The Contradicons of Chrisan
Zionism’, Religion & Theology 16, 90–110.
Baker, C.F., 1971, A Dispensaonal Theology, Grace Publicaons, Grand Rapids, MI.
Barne, P., 1997, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
(The New Internaonal Commentary on the New Testament).
Barre, C.K., [1962] 1975, A Commentary on the Epistle of Romans, Adam & Charles
Black, London. (Black’s New Testament Commentaries).
Barre, C.K., [1971] 1976, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Adam
& Charles Black, London. (Black’s New Testament Commentaries).
Barre, C.K., 1994, A Crical and Exegecal Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles,
T&T Clark, Edinburgh. (The Internaonal Crical Commentary, 1).
Bauer, W., Danker, F.W., Arndt, W.F. & Gingrich, F.W. (eds.), 2000, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Chrisan Literature (BDAG),
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Beale, G.K., 1999, The Book of Revelaon: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids, MI/Paternoster, Carlisle. (The New Internaonal Greek Testament
Commentary).
Blaising, C.A., 1999, ‘Premillennialism’, in D.L. Bock (ed.), Three Views on the
Millennium and Beyond, pp. 155–227, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Brueggemann, W., 2002, The Land: Place as Gi, Promise and Challenge in Biblical
Faith, Fortress, Philadelphia, PA.
Burge, G.M., 1994, ‘Territorial Religion and the Vineyard of John 15’ in J. Green & M.
Turner (eds.), Jesus of Nazareth Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and
New Testament Christology, pp. 384–396, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Burge, G.M., 2010, Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to ‘Holy Land’
Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI.
Burge, G.M., 2013, Whose promised land? Whose Promise? What Chrisans Are Not
Being Told about Israel and the Palesnians, The Pilgrim Press, Cleveland, OH.
Campbell, W.S, 1993, ‘Israel’, in G.F. Hawthorne & R.P. Marn (eds.), Diconary of Paul
and His Leers, pp. 441–446, InterVarsity Press, Leicester.
Carson, D.A., 1991, The Gospel according to John, Apollos, Leicester/Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids, MI. (The Pillar New Testament Commentary).
Carson, D.A. & Moo, D.G., 2005, An Introducon to the New Testament, Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, MI.
Charee, B., 1992, The Theme of Recompense in Mahew’s Gospel, JSOT Press,
Sheeld. (JSNTSup 79).
Charlesworth, J.H., 1992, ‘From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects’,
in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and
Chrisanity, pp. 3–35, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Church, P.A.F., 2009, ‘Dispensaonal Chrisan Zionism: A Strange but Acceptable
Aberraon or a Deviant Heresy?’, Westminster Theological Journal 71, 375–398.
Collins, R.F., 1999, First Corinthians, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN. (Sacra
Pagina Series, 7).
Craneld, C.E.B., 1975, The Epistle to the Romans, T&T Clark, Edinburgh. (The
Internaonal Crical Commentary, 1).
Dahl, N.A., 1992, ‘Messianic Ideas and the Crucixion of Jesus’, in J.H. Charlesworth
(ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Chrisanity, pp. 382–403,
Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Davies, W.D., 1974, The Gospel and the Land: Early Chrisanity and Jewish Territorial
Doctrine, University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London.
Dunn, J.D.G., 1988, Romans 1–8, Word Books, Dallas, TX. (Word Biblical Commentary, 38a).
Du Toit, P.La G., 2013, Paul and Israel: esh, spirit and identy, Ph.D. Dissertaon,
Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch.
Du Toit, P.La G., 2015, ‘The Salvaon of “All Israel” in Romans 11:25–27 as the Salvaon
of Inner-Elect, Historical Israel in Christ’, Neotestamenca 49(2), 417–452.
Fee, G.D., 1994, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Leers of Paul,
Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI.
Fee, G.D., 2014, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, revised ed., Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids, MI. (The New Internaonal Commentary on the New Testament).
Fitzmyer, J.A., 2007, The One who is to Come, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Fitzmyer, J.A., 2008, First Corinthians, Yale University, New Haven/London. (The
Anchor Yale Bible).
Fung, R.Y.K., 1988, The Epistle to the Galaans, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI/
Cambridge. (The New Internaonal Commentary on the New Testament).
Harris, M.J., 2005, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek
Tex t , Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI/Paternoster, Milton Keynes. (The New
Internaonal Greek Testament Commentary).
Hays, R.B., 2000, ‘The Leer to the Galaans: Introducon, commentary, and
reecons’, in L.E. Keck (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 11, pp. 181–348,
Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN.
Hoehner, H.W., 2002, Ephesians: An Exegecal Commentary, Baker Academic, Grand
Rapids, MI.
Holwerda, D.E., 1995, Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two?, Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids, MI/Apollos, Leicester.
Jewe, R., 2006, Romans: A Commentary, Fortress, Minneapolis, MN. (Hermeneia).
Jipp, J.W., 2009, ‘Rereading the Story of Abraham, Isaac, and “Us” in Romans 4’,
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32(2), 217–242.
Johnson, L.T., 2006, Hebrews: A Commentary, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY.
(The New Testament Library).
Kairos Document, 2016, viewed 13 October 2016, from hp://www.kairospalesne.
ps/index.php/about-us/kairos-palesne-document
Köstenberger, A.J., Kellum, L.S. & Quarles, C.L., 2009, The Cradle, the Cross, and the
Crown: An Introducon to the New Testament, B&H Academic, Nashville, TN.
Kuhli, H., 1991a, ‘Ισραλ’, in H. Balz & G. Schneider (eds.), Exegecal Diconary of the
New Testament, vol. 2, pp. 202–204, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Kuhli, H., 1991b, ‘Ισραηλτης’, in H. Balz & G. Schneider (eds.), Exegecal Diconary of
the New Testament, vol. 2, pp. 204–205, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Kuhn, K.G., 1965, ‘σραλ, σραηλτης, ουδαος, ουδαα, ουδαϊκς, ἰουδαΐ ́ζω,
ουδαϊσμς, βραος, βραϊκς, ἑβραΐ ́ς, ἑβραϊστί’, in G. Kiel (ed.), Theological
Diconary of the New Testament, vol. 3, pp. 359–369, transl. and ed. G.W.
Bromiley, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Ladd, G.E., 1972, A Commentary on the Revelaon of John, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Langer, R., 2003, ‘Jewish Understandings of the Religious Other’, Theological Studies
64, 255–277.

Page 9 of 9 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
Longenecker, R.N., 1990, Galaans, Word Books, Dallas. (Word Biblical Commentary 41).
Longenecker, R.N., 2015, Paul: Apostle of Liberty, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
MacArthur, J.F., 2012, ‘The Salvaon of Israel’, viewed 13 October 2016, from hp://
www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-445/the-salvaon-of-israel
Maddox, R., 1982, The Purpose of Luke-Acts, T&T Clark, Edinburgh.
Maljaars, B., 2015, Heel Israël Zal Behouden Worden: Een Krisch Onderzoek van
de Gangbare Exegese van Romeinen 11, speciaal vs. 26, Uitgeverij Aspekt,
Soesterberg.
Martyn, J.L., 1997, Galaans, Doubleday, London/New York, NY. (The Anchor Bible).
Mason, S., 2007. ‘Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorizaon in
Ancient History’, Journal for the Study of Judaism 38, 457–512.
Merkle, B.L., 2000, ‘Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel’, Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 43(4), 709–721.
Meyer, J.C., 2009, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology, B&H
Academic, Nashville, TN.
Moo, D.J., 1996, The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge.
(The New Internaonal Commentary on the New Testament).
Moo, D.J., 2013, Galaans, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI. (Baker Exegecal
Commentary on the New Testament).
O’Brien, P.T., 1999, The Leer to the Ephesians, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI/Apollos,
Leicester. (The Pillar New Testament Commentary).
Osborne, G.R., 2010, Mahew, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI. (Zondervan
Commentary on the New Testament).
Pawson, J.D., 2008, Defending Chrisan Zionism, Terra Nova, Bristol.
Peterson, D.G., 2009, The Acts of the Apostles, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI/Apollos,
Nongham. (The Pillar New Testament Commentary).
Pop, F.J., 1965, De Eerste Brief van Paulus aan de Corinthiërs, Callenbach, Nijkerk.
Ridderbos, H., 1997, The Gospel according to John: A theological commentary, transl.
J. Vriend, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Robertson, O.P., 2000, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, P&R
Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ.
Ryrie, C.C., 1995, Dispensaonalism, Moody, Chicago, IL.
Schnabel, E.J., 2012, Acts, Zondervan, Grand Rapids. (Zondervan Exegecal
Commentary on the New Testament).
Seifrid, M.A., 2014, The Second Leer to the Corinthians, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI/
Apollos, Nongham. (The Pillar New Testament Commentary).
Silva, M., 2001, Interpreng Galaans: Exploraons in Exegecal Method, Baker
Academic, Grand Rapids, MI.
Sizer, S.R., 2004, Chrisan Zionism: Road-map to Aramageddon?, InterVarsity Press,
Leicester.
Sizer, S.R., 2007, Zion’s Chrisan Soldiers? The Bible, Israel and the Church, InterVarsity
Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Sto, J.R.W., 1994, The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World,
InterVarsity Press, Leicester. (The Bible Speaks Today).
Thomas, R.L., 1992, Revelaon 1–7: An Exegecal Commentary, Moody, Chicago, IL.
Thompson, J.W., 2008, Hebrews, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI. (Paideia
Commentaries on the New Testament).
Turner, M.B.M., 1996, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoraon and
Witness in Luke-Acts, Sheeld Academic Press, Sheeld.
Wagner, D.E., 1992, ‘Beyond Armageddon’, The Link 25(4), 1–13.
Walker, P.W.L., 1996, Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspecves on
Jerusalem, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Walker, P.W.L., 2000, ‘The Land in the New Testament’, in P.W.L. Walker (ed.), The Land
of Promise: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspecves, pp. 81–120,
Apollos, Leicester/InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Witherington, B. III, 1992, Jesus, Paul and the end of the world: A comparave study
in New Testament eschatology, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Wright, N.T., 1992, The New Testament and the people of God, SPCK, London.
Wright, N.T., 2002, ‘The Leer to the Romans: Introducon, commentary, and
reecons’, in L.E. Keck (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10, pp. 394–770,
Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN.
Zoccali, C., 2010, Whom God Has Called: The Relaonship of Church and Israel in
Pauline Interpretaon, 1920 to the Present, Pickwick, Eugene.