6 Reasons Why the "Israel of God" Refers to Jewish Christians & NOT the Church as the New/Spiritual Israel
1) There is no reference in the earliest church literature that equates Israel to the Church. It was not until 160 A.D. that any reference was made to the Church being the Israel of God. That is nearly 100 years from the time Paul wrote Galatians to any mention of Galatians 6:16 being cited as a proof text to equate Israel with the Church. It seems odd that if Paul had meant to equate the Church with the Israel of God in Gal. 6:16, it took nearly 100 years for Christians to figure that out. It is much more likely that Gal. 6:16 speaks of 2 ethnic groups – saved Gentiles and saved Jews.
2) The epistle of Galatians is largely about the Judaizers seeking to force the Gentiles to follow the Law to obtain salvation. Thus it is only natural that Paul would commend the Jewish Christians specifically by not conforming to the accursed gospel proposed by the accursed Judaizers. If it was hard for Gentile converts to not conform to the Judaizers doctrine, how much more difficult would it be for the Jewish Christians not to conform to the accursed doctrine of the Judaizers since they were coming from that background? Therefore, a commendation to the Jewish Christians would only be natural and expected.
3) Paul has been dealing with 2 groups of people in the entire context of the book – Jews & Gentiles. This is seen in Gal. 2:7-9 when Paul speaks of the “uncircumcised,” the “Gentiles,” and the “circumcised.” This is repeated in Gal. 6:15 with the “circumcision” and the “uncircumcision.” Paul caps this off in the passage under question with “them” referring to the Gentile converts and the “Israel of God” referring to the Jewish converts. It seems more than reasonable to understand 6:16 as 2 groups of people since the previous context of the epistle has been referring to 2 groups.
4) The primary meaning for καὶ is the conjunctive “and!” This meaning of καὶ is used 99 % of the time in the New Testament. At other times, καὶ can be used emphatically as “especially” (Mark 16:7) or epexegetically/appositionally as “namely/even” (John 3:5 is a possibility). The omission of καὶ would be expected had Paul meant to equate “them” with the “Israel of God.” In fact, the RSV translates the passage without the καὶ. It is difficult to do honest exegesis and force the appositional use of καὶ when the primary meaning is conjunctive.
5) Israel is always used as an ethnic term referring to the people who have descended from the patriarch Jacob. Some refer to Rom. 9:6 as another reference to Israel as a non-ethnic term, but this is less held even in academic reformed circles.
6) Paul uses the preposition ἐπί before both “them” and the “Israel of God.” Paul does this on other occasions to distinguish 2 separate groups (cf. Rom. 3:30). If Paul were meaning to equate the two nouns with an appositional καὶ, then Paul would only use ἐπί before “them” and not before the “Israel of God.”
I understand that καὶ can be used appositionally. But the fact remains that the primary usage is a conjunction. That includes the passage in Gal. 6:16. It is hardly legitimate for Covenant Theologians to equate Israel and the Church, refer Gentile Christians as the new spiritual Israel, or make the Church the new spiritual Israel without Scriptural support. By using Gal. 6:16, they do not allow for the natural meaning of the text to rise out. A theological bias is placed upon the text and the interpretation is skewed to fit their own doctrinal conclusion.
Timothy L. Decker
Galatians 6:16 & the “Israel of God”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
For the true spiritual Israel,and decendants of Judah,Jacob,Isaac,
and Abraham,who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith,and called the father of many nations,
are we who have been led to God,
through this crucified Christ.
Justin Martyr {c.160,E},1.200.
Thank you for this post. I had been struggling with this part and the way you laid out your position is clear, logical and best of all based in Scripture.
Thank you,
Brad Friedl
It is fair to say that the primary meaning for kai is conjunctive, however, there are certainly other strong examples of it being used expegetically. To name a couple of examples: Acts 3:20 - "that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you - even Jesus." Surely this does not mean to send the Christ AND Jesus. Also John 12:13 comes to mind: "Hosanna! BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD, even the King of Israel." Once again, here the even (kai) clarifies the preceding thing mentioned rather than adding a new subject. Now to be clear, I am not advocating that this is a sufficient basis to insist that it be translated this way in Gal 6:16, but merely pointing out that this usage is present elsewhere in the NT scriptures. Rather, I think the clearest argument for this usage stems from a holistic look at the NT language regarding the church. There is a clear continuity between God's history with Israel in the OT, the promises made to them at various times in the OT scriptures, and God's gathering a people to Himself around the person of Christ. Even looking just within the book of Galatians there is ample evidence for this. You mention that Israel is an ethnic term referring to descendants of Jacob. It seems that they consider themselves, more fully, to be descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and here Paul states that those who have faith in Christ are the descendants of Abraham and heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:7, 29). This is reflected elsewhere in scripture as well. Luke 3:7-9 states: John said to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits worthy of repentance. Do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our ancestor'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Here John warns them not to rely upon there ethnic status for it is not enough; no one can come to the Father except through Jesus. (cont...)
Gal 3:28, Col 3:11, and Eph 2 all argue powerfully for the fact that Jews and Gentiles in Christ have been made into co-equal members of the one body of the people of God. Heb 8 quotes Jeremiah, who states that God will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The author presents the new covenant effected by Christ's blood, of which he is the mediator, as the fulfillment to this very prophecy. Now, if this is the case, how do we (gentile Christians) take part in this new covenant if it is meant only for ethnic Israel. Back to Galatians we see the contrast Paul makes between Hagar and Ishmael who represent the "present Jerusalem" and Sarah and Isaac who represent the "Jerusalem above" (Gal 5:21-26). Paul then states that the children of the slave (present Jerusalem) will not share the inheritance with the children of the Spirit (Jerusalem from above). This idea of heavenly Jerusalem (vs physical Jerusalem) seems to be echoed in Heb 12:22-24: "But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." And once again, in Revelation physical Jerusalem is called "the great city" (which is later used to refer to the woman Babylon, 17:18) and is "prophetically called Sodom and Egypt" (11:8). This is contrasted to the later description of "the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband" (Rev 21:2). The bride being a traditional image for the church, it would seem there is a contrast once again between earthly Jerusalem and the Jerusalem from above, which consists of those who have faith in Christ. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. (cont...)
There are so many places where OT prophecies for Israel are quoted as finding NT fulfillment in the church (e.g. Acts 2:17-21; again Heb 8:8-12). There are so many places where OT language and symbols are appropriated for use with the church (e.g. Peter speaking to Christians states that they are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.") In light of all of this it seems that, first, the NT stands in continuity with the OT. As one moves from old covenant to new covenant there is not a rejection/replacement of the Jews nor a setting aside. Rather, God's promises find fulfillment in Jesus to the Jews and the gates are flung wide to include Gentiles in the blessing as well. Second, there is a definite contrast in NT writings between those who adhere to the law (those who are "Israel according to the flesh," 1 Cor 10:18) and those who live according to the Spirit, according to faith in the promise of Christ. Again, this is not an exhaustive look at this. But, given the presence of this theme running through even just Galatians itself, it would seem strange that Paul would at once argue for the sufficiency of Christ, the insufficiency of the law, the equality amongst all those in Christ, and then turn around and issue a separate blessing to a subset of Christian believers or to ethnic Israel. Something to think on anyway. I welcome any further discussion. Please do realize I offer these thoughts in love as a fellow brother in Christ. I believe we can pursue the truth vigorously and even disagree while still maintaining love and unity within the body that Christ called for. Looking forward to hearing from others.
Post a Comment