For the past 8 months, I’ve been working on an academic essay titled Reframing Romans 11:25–27: Gentile Fullness and the Salvation of Israel in Paul’s Generation. The core question driving the project is a familiar one: What does Paul mean by “the fullness of the Gentiles,” and how does that relate to the salvation of “all Israel”?
The dominant interpretation—especially in futurist and dispensational readings—understands the “fullness of the Gentiles” as a massive, end-of-history ingathering of Gentile converts, followed by a large-scale conversion of ethnic Israel at some distant point in the future. The problem, however, is that this scenario remains perpetually deferred. Two thousand years later, the fulfillment is always still just ahead.
My argument is that there is a more coherent way to read Romans 11:25–27—one that takes seriously the New Testament’s own redemptive-historical framework and the expectations shared by its authors. In the essay, I focus especially on three interconnected passages: Romans 11:25–27, Luke 21:24, and Revelation 11:2. Read together, these texts form a consistent interpretive triad.
Luke 21:24 is particularly important. There, Jesus speaks of Jerusalem being “trampled by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” That language is not abstract or timeless; it is embedded in a concrete historical setting and addressed directly to Jesus’ contemporaries. Luke is not speculating about the distant end of the world—he is interpreting Daniel’s symbolic imagery in explicitly historical terms, locating its fulfillment within his own generation.
This matters for how we read Paul and John. My argument is not that Daniel’s imagery ceases to be symbolic, but that the New Testament itself already tells us how that symbolism is to be understood. Luke provides the interpretive key: Daniel’s language refers to a real, historical judgment on Jerusalem. Paul, writing within that same horizon, assumes this framework when he speaks of the “fullness of the Gentiles.” And John, though writing in apocalyptic idiom, presupposes the same redemptive sequence rather than introducing a new or conflicting timeline.
A crucial part of the essay also addresses the overlap between Israel as a continuing covenantal entity and the emerging new-covenant people in Christ. Paul does not describe a clean break in which Israel disappears and the church simply replaces it (nor does it). Instead, Romans 9–11 presupposes a period of overlap in which Israel remains a visible covenantal reality—complete with temple, Torah, and ethnic identity—while the new-covenant people are being constituted through the gospel. This overlap is not a failure of God’s plan but a redemptive necessity, allowing Israel’s covenantal story to reach its messianic resolution even as Gentiles are incorporated into the people of God. The language of partial hardening, jealousy, and regrafting only makes sense within such a transitional framework.
Another key piece of the argument involves Paul’s use of Isaiah 59:20–21 in Romans 11. Paul’s shift from “to Zion” to “from Zion” is not accidental. It reflects his conviction that Isaiah’s promised redemption has already been inaugurated in Christ. Salvation now proceeds from the redeemed Zion through the gospel, rather than awaiting a future descent to it. This fits naturally with Paul’s emphasis on a remnant, on contemporaneous mercy, and on a covenantal resolution unfolding in his own time.
What ultimately “locks” the argument historically is Luke’s claim that the fullness of the Gentiles coincides with the end of Jerusalem’s trampling. That temporal boundary anchors the entire triad. It explains why Paul and John can speak with urgency, expectation, and confidence that something decisive is at hand. They are not speculating about the distant future; they are interpreting events moving toward a climactic resolution within their own generation.
I’m excited about this project because it offers a contextually grounded, internally coherent reading of some of the most debated texts in the New Testament. It’s certainly not the majority view, but I think it’s a serious and viable one—rooted in close exegesis, intertextual awareness, and the New Testament’s own redemptive logic.
I’ve submitted the essay to the Journal for the Study of the New Testament—go big or go home! Well . . . we’ll see what happens. Either way, I’m hopeful it will spark thoughtful discussion about how we read Paul, how we read prophecy, and how carefully we listen to the New Testament’s own interpretive cues.
~ Romans 11:36
Comments