The Identity of the Israel of God

I. A Review of the Major Points of the Argument

a. The thesis that the paper has defended is the following: The exegetical, analytical, and contextual data cogently demand that the Israel of God in Galatians 6:16 refer solely to regenerate ethnic Jews.

b. A few key exegetical features in the study are particularly significant for us.

i. The prepositions and conjunctions that show up in this passage are significant.

ii. The prepositional phrases and usages of ἐπὶ and καὶ in verse 16 are most important.

iii. “εἰρήνη ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος” is followed by “καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.”

1. “Peace upon them and mercy” is followed by “and upon the Israel of God.”

2. This is unnatural in wooden English.

3. Paul is intentionally distinguishing two groups by using the preposition ἐπὶ twice and by using the simple conjunction καὶ a second and third time in the conjunctive or copulative sense— “and."

4. Arguing that the third καὶ is epexegetical or explicative is unwarranted.

iv. That the third καὶ is epexegetical is a claim that has not been demonstrably substantiated.

v. Additionally, one word study was particularly relevant to the interpretation of the “Israel of God,” Κανόνι.

1. A direct translation of this Greek word from verse 16 is canon.

2. Κανόνι refers to a rule or standard that determines the quality of something else.

3. In context, Paul’s rule must have been established already.

4. Paul’s rule means living by a Spirit-led life of boasting only in the cross of Christ.

5. This rule can be boiled down to spiritual, regenerate life.

6. Paul exhorts the church at large to follow this rule and receive peace, and he adds a distinct benediction of mercy to the Israel of God.

c. The two major views of interpretation concerning Galatians 6:16 are what I have termed the “broader” and the “narrower” interpretation.

i. I could have used the terms inclusiveand exclusive with the same emphasis.

ii. I could have also used the somewhat different terms eschatological and ecclesiological.

iii. The broader interpretation is such because the Israel of God is argued to be composed of the entire church.

1. It claims to have strong historical support.

2. It claims to mesh more closely with the context of Galatians.

3. It is required by the system of Covenant Theology.

iv. The narrower interpretation is called as such because the Israel of God is taken to be composed only of ethnic Jews, though these Jews may comprise a part of the church.

1. The context of the entire epistle of Galatians serves to contrast the faith of Christian Jews and the works of the Judaizers.

2. The exegetical evidence, though not entirely conclusive, supports the claim that there are two separate groups in Galatians 6:16.

3. The phrase “of God” implies that the second group is a subset of ethnic Israel.

4. The unique phrase “peace and mercy” would make no sense if there were only one group pointed out.

5. Paul could have used the phrase “church of God,” as he did in Galatians 1:13, if he wished to address the church again.

6. Most significant is the fact that Paul nowhere else would address the entire church by the term Israel.

7. Paul, who is proudly Jewish, is not disregarding the value of his heritage and has thus not disregarded his Jewish brethren.

8. Moreover, no Christian referred to the church as Israel until Justin Martyr did so in AD 160.

9. These eight arguments demonstrate the superiority of the narrower view. The Israel of God must be composed of regenerate ethnic Jews.

10. There are two likely views under this category.

a. The Israel of God may be those ethnic Jews saved within the early church.

b. Otherwise, the Israel of God may be the eschatological remnant of future ethnic Israel who will be saved in the future.

c. Either of these options is possible, though the present theology has not specifically argued for either at length.

d. More investigation by dispensational commentators is needed to explore these two possibilities.

2. Second, we should also survey some significant examples of verses about Israel to demonstrate that Israel always refers to the nation of ethnic Jews.

a. The Old Testament teaches that Israel refers to the actual nation.

i. 28 “And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. – Gen. 32:28.

ii. 6 “For thou artan holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.” – Deut. 7:6

iii. Jer. 31:2-3 Thus saith the Lord, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; Even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest. 3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: Therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

b. The New Testament likewise everywhere teaches that Israel refers solely to the Jewish nation.

i. “And thou Beth-lehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.” – Matt. 2:6, quoting Micah 5:2

ii. 6 “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of [descended from] Israel:” – Rom. 9:6

iii. 26 “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:” – Rom. 11:26

iv. 12 “That at that time ye [Gentiles] 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:” – Eph. 2:12

3. Third, we should describe the significance of the argument as it relates to replacement theology.

a. The average believer in our churches may see this verse and think little of it.

b. However, this study into the grammar and theology of Galatians 6 and especially verse 16 has not been done in isolation.

i. This verse is theologically significant as a case study in hermeneutics, presuppositions, and interpretive traditions.

ii. Nonetheless, this present exegetical theology is not purely theoretical or abstract.

iii. This verse has systemic implications for the great theological schemas: Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.  

c. This verse considered a “proof-text” for what we as dispensationalists would call replacement theology.  

i. In other words, the majority of theologians will give the reference of Galatians 6:16 to merely assert that Paul refers to the church as Israel.

ii. Some Reformed commentators will use exegetical and theological arguments , but many commentators merely make the assertion without consideration.

iii. Replacement theology essentially teaches that the Christian church has replaced national Israel in God’s plan of history.

iv. Covenant Theologians argue that replacement theology is not equivalent to Reformed theology.

1. Reformed theologians may use the term “traditional replacement theology” to designate that view which teaches total replacement.

2. Often, they will argue that Scripture teaches that the Christian church is the spiritual continuation of Israel.

v. However, this discussion becomes a game of semantics.

vi. In the final analysis, the point remains that this verse is a linchpin text for replacement theology.

d. We must accomplish two things as dispensationalists: we must preserve the distinction between Israel and the church, and we must do so upon the explicit revelation of Scripture.

i. My paper has demonstrated the possibility of arriving at the best interpretation, independent of theological assumptions.

ii. At some level, presuppositions are unavoidable.

1. Theology must progress from exegesis to biblical theology to systematic theology.

2. Presuppositions about the inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and preservation of Scripture play into our hermeneutics, which in turn allow us to interpret the Word of God normally.

3. However, systematic assumptions must be avoided when exegeting an individual text, lest eisegesis take place.  

iii. Nonetheless, in our approach to interpreting Galatians 6:16, we must uphold a difference from the Reformed theologian, namely, that we would allow the words of Scripture itself to be read normally without a preconceived mold that the text must fit.

1. The normal meaning of Israel is Israel; ascribing any other meaning to the term is to ascribe an idea foreign to the biblical author.

2. There are two uses of the preposition upon that, in tandem with the conjunction and, that refer most naturally to two distinct groups: the church that follows Paul’s rule and the regenerate ethnic Israel of God.

3. That this text supports dispensational theology, as opposed to Reformed theology, demonstrates that it is essential to always view ethnic Israel as being separate from the Christian church.

iv. We reach the dispensational interpretation by examining the text’s grammar, syntax, context, history, and normal interpretation.

v. If Galatians 6:16 supports dispensational theology, then amillennialism collapses with its corollary, replacement theology.

4. Finally, we can address any remaining questions:

a. One, why do most commentators interpret Israel in Galatians 6:16 as the church?

i. Without repeating myself too much, the simple answer is that most scholarly commentators are Reformed. They must interpret various passages according to the system that they operate under.

ii. Since the reasoning goes that this text has been proven to declare that the church is Israel, most theologians simply accept that conclusion.

b. Two, is it appropriate to reach this conclusion even if the system of dispensationalism presupposes it? Have we not used the same systematic philosophy as Reformed theologians?

i. It is true that dispensationalism requires a sharp discontinuity between Israel and the church.

ii. However, we have not done as most Reformed commentators do relative to this verse.

1. We have examined the exegesis of the passage in its grammatical-historical context and determined that the normal interpretation of Galatians 6:16 differentiates the church and Israel.

2. We have allowed the exegesis to affirm the system, not the other way around.

c. Three, is the grammar itself conclusive as to the number of groups addressed in the benediction and the identity of the Israel of God?

i. I have admitted that the usage of καὶin triplicate fashion in 6:16 is difficult.

ii. Nonetheless, I maintain that the combination of the extra καὶand the repeated ἐπὶ confirms that two groups are being distinguished.

1. The αὐτοὺς, that is, “them,” refers to those who follow Paul’s rule, the church.

2. The “Israel of God” is a separate group that, in light of biblical and Pauline usage, must designate ethnic Israel.

d. Four, since the exegetical theology has shown that the Israel of God must refer to ethnic Israel, is this Israel of God saved?

i. Yes, by virtue of the fact that Paul explicitly qualifies this Israel as “of God,” the obvious implication is that this group is a subset of the larger Israel.

ii. That this Israel is of God almost certainly means that this term refers to regenerate ethnic Israel.

iii. Our own dear Dr. Saxon has held that the Israel of God may be unregenerate, but I maintain my position.

e. Five, which of the two standard dispensational options mentioned in the paper do I think is the more convincing? We brought up the question of whether this Israel of God is ecclesiological or eschatological. That is, the Israel of God may be those ethnic Jews saved within the early church. Otherwise, the Israel of God may be the eschatological remnant of future ethnic Israel who will be saved in the future. Which of the two dispensational options is correct?

i. This line of inquiry has not been the focus of my research since I have intended to defend the narrower dispensational position over against the broader Reformed position.

ii. Both of these dispensational positions are plausible.

iii. However, if I had to argue for one of the two dispensational positions, I would be obliged to argue with Johnson that the precise identity of the “Israel of God” is clarified by Paul’s argument in Romans 11:25-27.

1. That is, the Israel of God is made up of “all Israel” who will be saved in the end times.

2. This interpretation gives hope to ethnic Israel, who will see God’s hand of direction most clearly in the time of Jacob’s trouble and the ensuing mediatorial kingdom in the Millennium.

f. Six, how is this whole discussion relevant to pastoral ministry?

i. The point that this discussion may seem only philosophical has not escaped me.

ii. However, getting this issue right is critical for those of us who are entering ministry and seeking teaching positions.

1. We must teach our people to read their Bibles correctly and that the grammatical-historical hermeneutic used by dispensationalism is the only one that must be utilized.

2. We must teach our people how, when, and why to be discerning when it comes to listening to the voices of our Reformed brothers and sisters.

3. Finally, we must teach our people that God is sovereign and faithful to keep the promises he makes, whether to Israel or to the church.