The Israel of God:
Galatians 6:15-16 For
in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision,
but a new creature. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on
them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of
God.
This
passage has been used erroneously to attempt to prove that the Church is now
Israel and all of the promises given to that nation now belong to the Church. The theme of the book of Galatians is to
refute the teachings of Judaizers who were promoting the addition of
circumcision to Christianity. According
to Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible, “To a Christian under the New Covenant, following
the Abrahamic sign of circumcision does not mean anything in terms of
spirituality. What really matters is
being a new creation in Christ.”[1] The phrase that makes this passage difficult
is “Israel of God.” This is a reference
to believing Jews that are Israel both in flesh and spirit. Some believe that “Israel of God” is the Church[2];
the evidence does not support such a conclusion.
First, the repetition of the preposition (“upon” or “to”)
indicates two groups are in view.
Second, all the 65 other occurrences of the term “Israel” in the New
Testament refer to Jews. It would thus
be strange for Paul to use “Israel” here to mean Gentile Christians. Third, Paul elsewhere referred to two kinds
of Israelites-believing Jews and unbelieving Jews (cf. Romans 9:6). Lest it be thought that Paul is anti-Semitic,
he demonstrated by means of this benediction his deep love and concern for true
Israel, that is, Jews who had come to Christ.[3] Ryrie explains this passage brilliantly. He
wrote,
The
question is, Who composes the Israel of God?
The Amillennialist insists that these verses equate the Israel of God
with the entire Church. The
premillennialist says that Paul is simply singling out Christians Jews for
special recognition in the benediction.
Grammar
in this instance does not decide the matter for us. The “and” in the phrase ‘and upon the Israel
of God’ can be understood in three ways.
First, it
could be explicative; that is, it can mean “even,” in which case the phrase
“Israel of God” would be a synonym for the “new creation” and would thus make
the Church the Israel of God.
On the
other hand, if the “and” is understood in an emphatic sense, it has the meaning
of “adding a (especially important) part to the whole” and is translated “and
especially” (cf Mark 16:7; Acts 1:14).
Third, the “and” might be a simple connective, which would also
distinguish the Israel of God as Jewish Christians but not identify them as the
whole Church. The connective force would
be less emphatic than the “especially” meaning, but both interpretations would
distinguish Jewish and Gentile believers.
Although the grammar cannot of
itself decide the question, the argument of the book of Galatians does favor
the connective or emphatic meaning of “and.” Paul had strongly attacked the
Jewish legalists; therefore, it would be natural for him to remember with a
special blessing those Jews who had forsaken this legalism and followed Christ
and the rule of the new creation. One
might also ask why, if the New Testament writers meant to equate clearly Israel
and the Church, they did not do so plainly in the many other places in their
writings where they had convenient opportunity to do so. Historically, the word “Israel” is applied to
the Christian Church for the first time by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with
Trypho, where the Church is equated with the ‘true Israel’ (not labeled the
Israel of God).[4]
Thematically,
this passage is most likely emphasizing a blessing upon Paul’s brothers in the
flesh who are Jews but now are part of the Church. This line of reasoning is supported by the
theology of many of the first and second century Church leaders and
Theologians. As is seen in 1 Corinthians
10:32 there are three groups of humanity: Jews, Gentiles, and believers in Jesus
Christ (the Church). But in the early Church
the Jewish believers were often designated separately from the Gentiles. This type of distinction can be found in the
writings of Justin Martyr among others.[5] And as Charles Ray notes, “Scholars of every
stripe agree that the vast majority of occurrences of ‘Israel’ in the New
Testament refer to ethnic Israel, yet some want to make an exception to
Galatians 6:16, with no compelling reason for doing so.”[6] This “exception” serves as a prime
illustration of the inconsistent hermeneutics of the covenant theologian that
is used to support their supposition regardless of the Biblical facts. Arnold Fruchtenbaum sums up the issue by
writing,
… like all Covenant Theologians,
[LaSor] ignores that there are two groups mentioned in the passage: the them and the Israel of God. … there is no
textual or contextual reason to depart from the primary meaning of kai, which
means “and,” or to resort to a secondary meaning of “even.” The them
refers to the Gentile believers to and of whom Paul had been writing throughout
the epistle. The Israel of God refers to Jewish believers specifically and not to
the Church at large. There is no
exegetical reason to make the Israel here a reference to the Church.[7]
The term
“Israel of God” can only refer to the Church “at large” if an unnatural
hermeneutic is employed. The context of
the passage, especially the more specific reference to the Church at large
demands that the phrase “Israel of God” is a specific reference to a segment of
the Church: Jewish believers.
Romans chapter eleven is, of course, one of the key
passages in which Paul addresses the future of national Israel right after
doing his own comparison of the three groups of humanity (Gentiles, Jews, and
the Church) in chapter nine and ten.
[1] Nelson’s NKJV Study
Bible. Thomas Nelson
Publishers. Nashville TN. 1997, 1980.
[2]
Riddlebarger, 122-123.
[3] Walvoord, John F. and Roy B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge
Commentary, An Exposition of Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, Old
Testament (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Cook Communications Ministries, 2004),
611.
[4] Ryrie, Dispensationalism,
149-150.
[5] Crutchfield 261-262.
[6] Ray,
Charles, Basic Distinctives of
Dispensational Systematic Theology, Dispensationalism Tomorrow
& Beyond: A Theological Collection in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie (Fort
Worth TX: Tyndale Seminary Press. 2008), 56.
[7] Fruchtenbaum,
Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (Tustin, CA:
Ariel Ministries, 1996), 314.
