This chapter evaluates the landscape of Pauline studies, demonstrating the need for reevaluation of Paul’s understanding of the relationship between Israel, the Jews, and the non-Jewish individuals receiving the spirit through Paul’s ministry. Contrary to many modern readings, Paul’s gospel is not systematically opposed to “legalism” or “ethnocentrism,” and his treatment of (former) gentiles as descendants not only of Abraham but of Israel begs explanation. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the composition and interpretive capacity of the recipients of Paul’s letters and a discussion of key terms in the Pauline letters.

The concept of Israel is central to the development of Judaism and Christianity, but the boundaries of Israel and Israelite identity were the source of significant conflict throughout the Second Temple period. This chapter argues that mapping the concept of Israel in the Second Temple period requires a recursive process that first examines the biblical constructions of Israel and then evaluates how later participants appropriated, performed, and developed thaose traditions. This introduction then outlines how this work aims to accomplish these tasks and concludes with a discussion of the equally difficult term Ioudaios (Jew/Judaean) and its relation to the concept of Israel.

The final chapter provides a brief summary of the conclusions that can be drawn from the study, explaining the relationships between the concepts and terms Israelite, Jew, and Hebrew as they were used in the Second Temple period. The chapter concludes that the concept of Israel was inextricably linked with the concepts of covenant and restoration eschatology established in the Torah and other biblical literature. Nevertheless, within those larger bounds, Israel was then variously understood and the boundaries of Israel variously defined as different groups laid claim to the historical and theological heritage embedded in the name Israel.

This chapter examines Philo's views of exile and eschatology and his use of Israel terminology. The first part of the chapter argues that despite his tendency towards allegory, numerous places in the Philonic corpus suggest that Philo viewed the exile as ongoing and—like Josephus—looked forward to a future restoration of Israel. The second part of the chapter shows that Philo avoids the term "Israel" when referring to his contemporaries, whom he calls Ioudaioi ("Jews"), while "Israel" appears in other contexts and correlates closely with his eschatological statements. Like Josephus, Philo argues that Israel's restoration will come through divine initiative rather than violent revolution, and the first element of that restoration will be a divinely initiated return to virtue and obedience. Remarkably, Philo also suggests that not all Jews are or will be included in "Israel," a view that reflects sympathy with a prophetic or sectarian view of Israel in which Israelite status is contingent on proper obedience to God.