The phrase “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 has long been a matter of contention. Scholars and theologians, as well as pastors and church leaders have debated whether or not the Church should be included in Paul’s descriptor “the Israel of God”. Dispensationalists in particular are very concerned that we not include the Church as part of “the Israel of God”. Obviously the interpretation of this verse has theological implications.
What I find interesting is how much trouble has been spent on this verse to avoid the Church (believing Gentiles and Jews) being referred to by the precise term “Israel”. Why should that term be more important than the following terms which all clearly teach that the Church shares much continuity with Old Testament, believing Israel?
Gentile Christians (who, in part make up “the Church”) are called:
- those who share “the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”, and thus share in “the promise” (Rom. 4:16, with vs. 13)
- Jews (Rom. 2:27-29, compare Rev. 2:9, 3:9)
- “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29)
- children of “the Jerusalem above” who is “our mother” (Gal. 4:26)
- “like Isaac”, they are “children of promise” (Gal. 4:28)
- formerly, Gentile Christians were “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise” now they are “no longer strangers and aliens” but are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:12,19)
- “the real circumcision” (Phil. 3:3)
- “the offspring of Abraham” for whom Christ died (Heb. 2:16)
- recipients of the “new covenant” (Hebrews chapters 8 & 10, and 2 Cor. 3:6, compare Jer. 31:31-34)
- “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion“, “elect exiles“, “sojourners and exiles” (James 1:1, 1 Pet. 1:1, 2:11)
- “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9 compare Ex. 19:5-6)
- formerly they were “not a people, but now” they “are God’s people“; formerly they “had not received mercy, but now” they “have received mercy” (1 Pet. 2:10 compare Hosea 1:6-10)
- “a kingdom, priests to… God” (Rev. 1:6, compare 1 Pet. 2:9, Ex. 19:5-6)
This list doesn’t include the sacrifices Gentile Christians bring to God (Rom. 12:1-2, Heb. 12:15-16) nor the idea of the Church being a temple of God indwelt by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:20-22, 1 Pet. 2:4-5). Sure one or two of the terms in the list above might be open to dispute. But the cumulative result of all of the titles above seems to be undeniable — Gentile Christians share many titles and privileges with believing Israel of old.
Given this wider Scriptural context, should it be surprising that in Galatians, a book where Paul goes out of his way to affirm in no uncertain terms the equality all believers (Jew and Gentile) share in Christ, that he would call the Church, “the Israel of God”? Again consider Paul’s statements below:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (3:28-29)
For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (6:15)
Contextually in Galatians, Paul is arguing for the unity of believers in Christ, and the last part of chapter 6 is a summation of his argument. An unconditional blessing given to a Jewish “Israel of God” seems out of line with the rest of the book. Furthermore, “all who walk by this rule” (stated in vs. 15) seems to qualify the receivers of the “peace and mercy”.
I have read and reviewed O. Palmer Robertson’s book The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow and found his arguments concerning the verse quite compelling. Recently I came across 2 additional articles which deal well with this question.
G.K. Beale’s “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6:16b” (Biblica 80, [1999], pg. 204-223) is fantastic. He shows that Isaiah 54:10 is most likely alluded to in Paul’s very unusual linking of the terms peace and mercy. He demonstrates that the terms are not commonly found together and demonstrates convincingly that the “new creation” motif of Isaiah 54 is likely in Paul’s mind when he penned Galatians 6:16. His analysis sides with the view that “the Israel of God” refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles together (i.e., the Church).
Andreas Köstenberger around the same time as Beale, independently worked on an article entitled: “The Identity of ‘ΙσÏαηλ του Θεου (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16″ (Faith & Mission 19/1 [2001], pg. 3-24). His article approaches the issue from a wider angle analyzing the passage syntactically and theologically. He concludes that the term refers to all the believing Church, whereas the “them” earlier in the verse is more specifically focused on believers at Galatia. He also shows how this verse harmonizes with Rom. 9-11 and Paul’s emphasis there.
The articles above (as well as the book mentioned previously) would be a good read for this topic. Michael Marlowe also includes some historic quotations from earlier commentators on this particular question, at bible-researcher.com.
I don’t think that the term “Israel of God” by itself settles the dispensationalist/covenant theology debate. But I would have to think some nuancing is required for strict dispensationalists. For more on the dispensational / covenant debate, I would also point you to my series “Understanding the Land Promise“.
Very interesting. Looking at the referenced articles.
This is great, Bob.
Like you, I think there is so much evidence in the NT for the ‘one people of God’ (esp Eph 2) that nothing really ‘hinges’ on the interpretation of Gal 6:16. However, my Pastor said in a sermon within the last year that non-dispensationalists only have 1 verse of scripture on which to base the ‘one people of God’ theory and that is Gal 6:16. This is not true, to my understanding, but it does mean that this is an obviously important verse in the discussion. What you’ve provided is very helpful! Thanks
I think I’m behind the times! This article was published in November!
I explored this idea in generalwith regards to the question “Who is Israel?” Your thoughts on it are certainly welcome, Bob.
http://totellyouthetruth.net/archives/000606.php
Looks good, Dave. Thanks
Excerpt:
When the Disciples asked Jesus, saying, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?†(Acts 1:6). In other words, “…wilt thou at this time bring the 10 tribes back to the land Israel?†Fact is, the exact opposite was about to take place. In Matthew 21:43, Jesus, speaking to Judah, said: “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.â€
That’s “nation†— not Church! Christianity does not represent the kingdom of God; it’s the national religion of the kingdom of God. In the OT Israel’s national religion was The Law of Moses. After Calvary it was replaced with the New Covenant. (Jer. 31:31.)
The nation Jesus was speaking of was Israel, the northern tribes. “The kingdom†Jesus was referring to was the tribe of Benjamin who was a part of the kingdom, who were the Galileans in the north, but were kept with Judah for David’s sake. Now they would be removed and given back to the northern kingdom and Judah would be alone.
God made an oath to David that he would never want for a man to sit on his throne ruling over the house of Israel.
“Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.†I Kings 9:5. (Jer. 33:17)
However, after the death of Solomon, the northern kingdom broke away from Judah and God’s promise to David was in jeopardy of being broken so the tribe of Benjamin was annexed to Judah. (1 Kings 11:34) Benjamin became Judah’s “Israel†and represented the kingdom. After the throne of David was removed back in Jeremiah’s day via Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion, Benjamin was no longer needed, their purpose had been served.
“Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe [Benjamin] to thy son for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.â€
I Kings 11:11-13.
Benjamin was a kingdom tribe and was given to Judah on a “temporary loan†basis for David’s sake. This is the same kingdom Jesus was referring to in Matt. 21:43. Jesus was speaking of the “one tribe†that was annexed to Judah. If you paraphrase what Jesus said it would read something like this:
“Therefore say I unto you, Judah, the tribe of Benjamin shall be taken from you, and given back to the northern kingdom, a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.â€
That’s how it would have been understood by the Jews in the first century. The “kingdom of God†in the OT was Israel; “Judah was his sanctuary and Israel his dominion.†(Psa. 114:2) Benjamin was not a “sanctuary†tribe, but a “kingdom†tribe. The tribe of Benjamin could not share “sanctuary†status with Judah, the sharing of birthrights was strictly forbidden in the Law of Moses, it was not their birthright. The union between Judah and Benjamin was an “arranged marriage†for David’s sake. Albeit, an “arranged marriage†doomed to end in divorce as Jesus foretold.
“And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.†(I Chron. 28:5.)
The “kingdom of God†or the “kingdom of the Lord†are one and the same. Benjamin was a part of the “kingdom of God†and that’s what Jesus was referring to in Matt. 21:43.
These verses make it clear that when Jesus said that the “kingdom of God†would be taken away from Judah He was referring to the tribe of Benjamin. This was the last tribe Judah had contact with. And yet there’re many Christians who still claim that the Jews represent all 12 tribes! A complete contradiction of what Jesus said. If the kingdom of God is represented by the 10 tribes, now 11 with the return of Benjamin, and Jesus told the Jews that the kingdom would be taken from them how can the Jews represent all 12 tribes? Answer: It’s impossible! Judah (with an add-mixture of Levites) is alone today. Many claim that the Jews of today are made up of Judah and Benjamin, but that also contradicts what Jesus said.
In closing let me say this, if you research this issue online you’ll find 1000’s of articles debating how many members or how many tribes of the northern kingdom returned with Ezra. In the end, it doesn’t matter if one Israelite or one million Israelites or if every Israelite on the face of the planet returned with Ezra – according to Matthew 21:43, they would all be removed and separated from Judah. Matthew 21:43 renders all these arguments null, void and moot. According to Matthew 21:43, the “kingdom of God†was removed from Judah.
Paul referred to the Galatians as “the Israel of God” because they were expatriated Israelites from the northern kingdom. If you examine the manner in which Peter and Paul addressed them there’s no argument that they were expatriated Israelites. The only place in the NT where the prophecies recorded in Hosea were declared fulfilled are found in 1 Pt. 2:9-10 while Peter was addressing the Galatians. If the Galatians were not Israelites Peter made a serious error in judgement by claiming they fulfilled Hosea’s prophecies…but I doubt that was the case.
Jeff said: “The only place in the NT where the prophecies recorded in Hosea were declared fulfilled are found in 1 Pt. 2:9-10 while Peter was addressing the Galatians.”
This is not the case, Jeff. Read Romans 9:
So it isn’t just expatriated Israelites in view, it is “Gentiles”. And yes Hosea was addressed to the Israelites, but Paul claims Gentile conversions fulfill that promise. I contend it is the admixture of Gentiles and Israelites together as one new body of Christ which ultimately fulfills new covenant promises.
“Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?†(Rom. 9:24.) Who are the “Gentiles†that Paul is speaking of here? Look at the next five verses for the answer: (25) As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, [Ammi] which were not my people; [Lo-Ammi] and her beloved, which was not beloved. (26) And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; [Lo-Ammi] there shall they be called the children of the living God. [Ammi] (27) Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, [The birthright promise given to Ephraim and Manasseh] a remnant shall be saved: (28) For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. (29) And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrah.†EVERY OT verse Paul quotes is addressing the 10 tribes. Not ONE of these verses was addressing Judah or Gentiles. Notice that Paul first used the term “Gentiles†in his opening question and then quoted Scripture mentioning Israel twice thereafter? The “Gentiles†Paul was referring to were Greek-Israelites…AND the Galatians/Celts in Asia Minor! And other groups of people, however, time and space doesn’t allow me to expound upon this in detail.
You mentuioned “the admixture of Gentiles and Israelites together,” nowhere in the book of Hosea is an “admixture” of Gentiles mentioned. Quote me chapter and verse. Hosea was not a prophet to the Gentiles — he was a prophet to the northern kingdom. Paul was not addressing Gentiles, or Judah, in Romans 9, 10 & 11, he was addressing the northern kingdom of Israel.
You quoted; “Paul claims Gentile conversions fulfill that promise.” How can the Gentiles “fulfill” a prophecy that was not addressed to them? There are several prophecies in the OT that are specifically addressed to Gentiles coming into the covenant with Israel. Notice what Paul said in Rom. 15:27: “For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things.” Who’s “their”? Answer; Israel. I.e., Gentiles and Israel together. Gentiles would be “partakers” in Israel’s “spiritual things.” But the Gentiles would not “replace” Israel.
This is what Paul meant where he wrote: “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid.” Rom. 11:1.
Sometimes the word “Gentiles” in the NT can be sometimes misleading. Case in point: John 7:33-35: “Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed [“Israelite resident in Gentile countries,†Strong’s 1290] among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?†In the KJV you’ll see that the word “Gentiles†is used in this verse but it should have been translated “Greeks†(“hel’lane,†Hellen, Grecian, Strong’s 1672) In other words the “dispersed†were among the “Greeks†in the first century. Or, the Greeks were the dispersed. What the Jews literally said was; “Will he go unto the Israelites among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?†Notice the Jews used the term Israelites and Greeks synonymously.
In Matt. 15:24, Jesus said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” You seem to translate this as the “lost sheep of the house of the Gentiles.”
Jeff,
I’m afraid of a position that lets us redefine “Gentiles” so that our theological system stays intact. That’s a pretty novel interpretation.
So in Eph. 2, when Jew and Gentile become one new man in Christ, it’s really Northern Kingdom expat Jews and Judahites?
Why is it a big deal if Paul in Galatians declares “if you are Christs then you are Abraham’s seed”? If they were already Israelites, then why make a big deal about them being Israelites?
You quoted: “I’m afraid of a position that lets us redefine “Gentiles†so that our theological system stays intact. That’s a pretty novel interpretation.” Well…let’s see how “novel” it is:
“The term gentiles is derived from Latin, [gentilis] used for contextual translation, AND NOT AN ORIGINAL HEBREW OR GREEK WORD FROM THE BIBLE.” –Wikipedia
And:
“Now the word gentile is a translation of the Hebrew word goi (singular) and goyim (plural) and the Greek word ethnos (singular) and ethne (plural). Using the word gentile to translate these words is often misleading because it is a misapplication of the Hebrew and Greek words as used in the Bible. The modern use of the word has come to mean non-Yahudi or non-Israel, but that meaning cannot be maintained in the face of the evidence…” — Curtis Clair Ewing.
Here’s a small sample of how the word “Gentiles” is misused in the KJV in the NT:
“Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: I Cor.10:32.
“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” I Cor. 12:13.
“What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;” Rom. 3:9.
In the 3 verses mentioned above you see the word “Gentiles” but it’s the Greek word “hel’-lane,” i.e., “Greeks.” (Strong’s 1671) It’s “Jews and Greeks” not “Jews and Gentiles.”
And there are many more examples I could mention, but I’ll just leave you with these three for now. But if you want more — just let me know. I have plenty of them from both the Old and New testament. I don’t need to “redefine” the word Gentiles to support my “theological system” — I’ll let the Bible do it for me.
Your quote: “If they were already Israelites, then why make a “big deal” about them being Israelites?” Strange how history repeats itself…the Romans were saying the same thing 2000 years ago. Lets allow Paul to answer your question:
“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” Rom. 3:1-2
And:
“They are Israelites, and to them [not the Romans] belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rom. 9:4-5.)
That’s a pretty good “big deal” wouldn’t you say? The Romans also held this “big deal” attitude toward Israelites and Paul rebuked them for it. He warned them against being “high minded” (Rom. 11:20) What caused this was the fact that they, the Romans, were being saved while the northern kingdom was still in exile. The Romans were actually “boasting” about it. (Rom. 11:18) “Boast not [Gentiles] against the branches [Israel]. But if thou [Gentiles] boast, thou [Gentiles] bearest not the root, [Israel] but the root [Israel]thee.”
See the difference? The “big deal” is the fact that Israel opened the door of salvation to the Gentiles…that’s the “big deal.”
“Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: …Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;” (Eph 2:11-12,19)
Gentiles were ALIENS from Israel and STRANGERS from the covenants
BUT NOW
Gentiles are NO LONGER STRANGERS to the covenants, but are FELLOW CITIZENS (of Israel) with the saints.
Note: caps are for emphasis, not for shouting
Yeah…I know. You’re talking basic Christianity here…what’s your point? It has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
The Israel of Ephesians 2 are those that were circumcised and had the covenants of God – Old Testament Hebrews of the 12 tribes. At the time this was written, 10 of those tribes were lost. The Gentiles Paul Addresses are now fellow citizens of this common-wealth nation of Israel. Seems pretty clear to me that the traditional Protestant understanding regarding Israel is the right one.