Who Is The Israel of God in Galatians 6:16

Introduction

Paradoxes are one of life's magnificent mysteries. Many of us hate paradoxes because they break our molds of linear thinking and feeble attempts of control. The scripture, particularly Jesus' teachings, brim with paradoxes: those who lose their life find it, the first become last, and the mountains will be brought low while the valleys raised up. Paradoxes force us to wrestle, to become unsettled, and to see something with new eyes. Christian theology is often the tip of the spear in wrestling through scriptural paradox. We see this wrestling in the many ways of reading and understanding Galatians 6:16 and the "Israel of God". As Köstenberger states, "entire theological systems divide over the interpretation of this passage, which has an important bearing on the question of the relationship between Israel and the church."1 This paper is going to analyze and evaluate the different ways of interpreting this mysterious phrase that Paul uses at the end of his Epistle to the Galatians. The core concept of this essay is related to the Church's identity. This question will include equivalent phrases like "True Israel" or "Spiritual Israel," which, while never used in scripture, have worked themselves into popular language and theology based on the "Israel of God" phrase in Galatians. Ultimately, I am asking the question, how should the Church see itself in the light of this enigmatic benediction Paul uses in Galatians 6:16. There are three possible ways to see this scripture, but the basic locus centers around the question, is there one or two groups in view here? The first view states that there is one group comprising all Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus. This view consists of Moo, Beale, Wright, and Köstenberger and will be referred to as View 1. The second way of interpreting this verse sees the “Israel of God” as Messianic Jews or Jewish Christians which stands in contrast to believing Gentiles mentioned in the first part of Galatians 6:16. This view is made up of Vlach, Eadie, Betz, and Yoon, and it will be referred to as View 2. The final way to interpret this phrase is to see the "Israel of God" that Paul requests mercy for as the elect-but-not-yet-saved Israel. Burton, Johnson, and Stern hold this view and will be referred to as View 3.

This essay breaks down the following methods for evaluating the one-group or two-group questions above into three major methods. These methods revolve around syntax, exegetical, and theological reasoning. The first theme on syntax focuses on how to translate the Greek word kia and the order of peace and mercy. This theme explores the different ways of evaluating the copulative vs explicative use of kia in Galatians. The normative use of kia would be translated as "and," which is the copulative translation. However, the detractors believe that kia should be translated as "even," which is the explicative translation. This "and" or "even" difference holds a significant key between associating this phrase as one or two groups. The NIV translates this phrase using "even" as the translation for kia: "Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God". In contrast, the NRSV and ESV translate kia as "and," "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God." This latter way of translating kia creates a two group meaning. In this syntax section, we will also briefly examine the order of peace and mercy in the blessing. The second theme of this essay will evaluate exegetical reasoning that comments on the normal use of the term Israel. It will ask the question of whether, in light of the normal use of Israel in the NT and Pauline literature, this verse can be used as a strong argument to make the case for the claim that the Church is the true Israel or at least true Israel in a way that excludes a future restoration of natural Israel. The third section will evaluate the theological ground for viewing Galatians 6:16 as one group or two in the light of the context of the rest of Galatians. This section will be primarily an exercise of synthesizing the theology of Galatians and Paul's overarching meaning into this closing benediction. Who is being talked about in this closing section, and does this answer do violence to the rest of the theme of Galatians?

Syntax

Evaluating the syntax is relatively straightforward due to the general agreement across all theologians. The seven positions in the latter two groups all hold that the normative use of kia is to translate as the word "and" and thus should be used in this case. Moo and Köstenberger, in View 1, agree that "and" is the standard translation but believe "even" in the copulative is possible. Moo states, "καί does not often function" copulatively and; "all other things being equal, we might expect it rather to be conjunctive ('peace and mercy be upon them and on the Israel of God')."2 In defense of his position, Köstenberger uses Acts 5:21 to compare to Galatians 6:16, in which a copulative use of kia is used and has a similar flow in its rhetoric. Köstenberger states, "The passage reads, συνεκάλεσαν τὸ συνέδριον καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γερουσίαν (‘They assembled the Sanhedrin, that is, the gerousia’). The conjunction καί seems to be used epexegetically to identify a given group by an equivalent expression for the same body".3 Wright puts up the most fight when he states: "Though students beginning Greek all learn that kai means 'and,' this is by no means straightforward. I note the nice line in the now standard Greek lexicon, BDAG, which speaks of 'the vivacious versatility of kia' and warns that its subtle and multiple range of meanings ‘can easily be depressed by the translation and’.''4 To synthesize the position that stands against the translation of kia as "and," we see that it is possible to translate it differently, but not a frequent use of the word kia. Beale leverages the views of C.A. Ray who says, "instead of assuming that the most common meaning applies (which is ‘generally connective’), one should opt for that meaning ‘which contributes the least new information to the total context’ (a principle sometimes referred to as ‘the rule of maximal redundancy’)."5

On the other side lies the arguments for the common translation of the word kia. Eadie states "The simple copulative meaning is not to be departed from, save on very strong grounds; and there is no ground for such a departure here, so that the Israel of God are a party included in, and yet distinct from, the ὅσοι."6 Johnson adds to this by stating,

If it were Paul's intention to identify the "them" of the text as "the Israel of God," then why not simply eliminate the kai after "mercy?" The result would be far more to the point, if Paul were identifying the "them," that is, the Church, with the term "Israel." The verse would be rendered then, "And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them and mercy, upon the Israel of God." A case could be solidly made for the apposition of "the Israel of God" with "them," and the rendering of the NIV could stand. Paul, however, did not eliminate the kai.7

I find Johnson's comments here compelling. It is compelling in the sense that his proposition seems to bring the kind of clarity that one would expect out of Paul's writing if Paul was indeed making a new theological statement in Galatians 6:16.

Preceding on, we come to Yoon. Yoon quotes Stanley E. Porter when saying, "kia is the most widely used conjunction and particle in the Greek of the New Testament."8 Yoon offers three observations to support his position, discussing the three times "kia" is used in Galatians 6:16, and explaining that in the first case, it clearly means "and." He observes that kia is used in the second and third instances of the verse, "do not function to join items of equal status," and then analyzes how kia works to conjoin the different phrases. In the end, Yoon states, "Paul addresses two groups and provides each of them a different benediction, first, peace upon those who follow this rule, and, second, mercy (also) upon the Israel of God. This solution makes the best sense of the syntax of this verse and best reflects the functions of kia."9 Eadie, Johnson, and Yoon see the normative translation of the word kia preferred, which shows that Paul speaks to two groups. My view on the syntax question is that to make such a strong theological adjustment, such as claiming the Church is Israel, one needs a much stronger reason than the possibility of a disputed conjunction.

While we do not have the space to explore the order of the unusual peace and mercy order of the blessing, I want to point out Moo's statement on the structure of the blessing, which is helpful to at least grasp the basic idea,

Another syntactical factor to consider is word order. Note the symmetry:

εἰρήνη ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς
καὶ
ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ eirēnē ep’ autous
kai
eleos kai epi ton Israēl tou theou.

This order of words might suggest that there are two separate blessings on, presumably, two separate entities. Moreover, as noted above, the sequence of peace-mercy seems unusual if both blessings are conferred on the same people.10

All the theologians in these 3 groups debate about the peace and mercy order. Unfortunately, we don't have the space here to give this point its own treatment, but I want to give it a basic explanation under the syntax theme.

Exegetical Exploration

This section will explore the meaning of the term Israel and how this term is generally used in NT literature and the Pauline Epistles more specifically. Moo encapsulates the landscape well when he states:

In an influential study, P. Richardson (1969) argues that "Israel" was not used to refer to the Church until AD 160, in the writings of Justin Martyr. Everywhere in the NT, then, he argues, "Israel" denotes ethnic Jews. This pattern of usage, if borne out, obviously favors interpreting "the Israel of God" as a Jewish entity separate from "all who follow this rule." In fact, however, the data are disputed. No one doubts that Israel refers to an ethnic/national entity in the vast majority of its NT occurrences. But two occurrences of the word in Rom. 9–11 are in dispute. In 9:6b, Paul distinguishes between two "Israels": "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." It is not clear whether the second refers to a (Jewish) "Israel" within Israel or to an "Israel" that extends beyond ethnic Israel to embrace the whole new-covenant people of God (see 9:24–25). Famously in dispute is the referent of Israel in Rom. 11:26, "and in this way all Israel will be saved": a significant minority of contemporary scholars insist that the reference is to all the elect of God, Jew and Gentile alike. In our view, the reference in both verses is to ethnic Israel (see Moo 1996: 573–74, 719–26), but in any case, the meaning of these passages is so debated that they can shed no certain light on the meaning of Gal. 6:16. On the one hand, then, the preponderant NT usage of "Israel" suggests a reference to ethnic Israel.11

Moo notes that Israel is almost exclusively, if not completely exclusively used in an ethnic/national sense, while admitting that some scholars debate the two previously disputed passages in Romans. As Moo states above, it is worth noting that in his Romans Commentary, Moo translates Israel as ethnic/national in both "disputed" cases.

Wright aims at what he considers to be "cultural and theological pressures"12 in regards to translating "God's Israel" as anything but Jew and Gentile in the Church. He goes on to state that he believes a reading of Romans 11:26 that sees future salvation for ethnic Israel is mistaken. Moo states above that Wright's view of Romans 11:26 is in the "significant minority of scholarship" and thus cannot be reduced, as Wright states, to only "dispensationalists and classical liberals."13 (Moo is neither a dispensationalist nor classical liberal for instance, nor are the majority of other sources in this essay) Wright builds his conclusion in Galatians 6:16 by using Romans 11:26 and deploying a total redefinition of the words Israel and Jew. Wright states, "I am advocating that Paul is consciously employing a polemical redefinition of the word 'Israel.' But on the basis of Galatians as a whole, thinking both of its argument and its irony, that seems not only perfectly comprehensible but almost to be expected. This fits with the reading of Romans 11:26 that I have frequently argued."14 Wright carries his argument through with a reading of Romans 2:25-29, Romans 9:6, and Romans 11:26, which all, according to Wright, paint the picture that Paul has reworked his definition around Jew and Israel. Wright goes much further in his "reworking," "redefining," "reimagining," the definition of Israel and Jew than any other theologians in his View 1 group. Wright also basically accuses an erroneous cultural moment of any view outside his own. One might also say that Wright builds some of his portrayal of Paul on many of his outlier stances regarding Israel. Could it also be said that much of Wright's view of Paul collapses in the light outside of Wright's view, and this might be what produces such an insistent and maximal view from Wright?

Beale's contribution on this topic leans heavily into what Beale believes is the background context to Galatians's "new creation" theme. He actively employs Isaiah 54:10 as the backdrop for interpreting Galatians 6:16. Beale argues that only the Isaiah background offers the peace and mercy connection in a logical way. He also argues against other backgrounds related to the Psalms, Jewish benedictions, or other propositions around the background of this unusual closing benediction. Beale argues on behalf of the nations being absorbed into this Isaiah 54:10 promise as part of Israel in the "new creation." Beale goes on to state:

From the Septuagintal translator's perspective, the Gentiles cannot enjoy these blessings separately from Israel but only by becoming a part of national, theocratic Israel. Paul also likely does not see that Gentiles can enjoy end-time blessings separately from Jews because the only way that either can participate in such blessing is by identifying with Christ, the true Israel, the true "seed of Abraham" (Gal 3,16.29).15

There is much about Beale's compelling argument. Specifically, as Beale says, if Paul had Isaiah in his mind when writing this, it is unlikely that Paul saw two groups in this blessing, at least two groups of believing Jews and Gentiles. Beale might be right about that, but through Beale's arguing, he forgoes completely the reality that Isaiah speaks of a future time for the Jewish people. While it is true that the nations come to this blessing through Israel, and they stream to Israel, there is no mention that the nations become Israel in this Isaiah 54 refrain. Isaiah 54 is a refrain and a reminder to Israel that they will not be cast off forever (Isa. 54:6-10) and that God will remember his covenant with them. Even further than that, in every case of the nations mentioned in the OT, of which there are over sixteen mentions in just the prophets, they are mentioned and blessed alongside Israel as two distinct groups. Scripture never merges these terms together, and Isaiah 54 provides no hint of this either. Beale's argument leads me to believe in a much stronger case for View 3: the call to mercy in Galatians 6:16 is for the elect-but-not-yet-saved Israel mentioned in Isaiah 54:10.

Looking at the other side of the exegetical argument, we come to Burton. He states "Rom. 9:6; 1 Cor. 10:18 show that Paul distinguished between Israel according to the flesh and the Israel according to election or promise, and Rom. 2:29; Phil. 3:3 suggests that he might use 'Israel of God' of all believers in Christ, regardless of nationality, there is, in fact, no instance of his using 'Israel' except of the Jewish nation or a part thereof."16 Vlach adds a question to Burton's reasoning, "is Galatians 6:16 the exception to this rule? Probably not," Vlach states, "since every other reference to Israel in both the OT and NT carries the ethnic sense, there needs to be a particularly strong reason to go with a nonethnic understanding of the title."17 Burton states further that:

These facts favor the interpretation of the expression as applying not to the Christian community, but to Jews; yet, in view of God's Israel, not to the whole Jewish nation, but to the pious Israel, the remnant according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:5), including even those who had not seen the truth as Paul saw it, and so could not be included in God's Israel. In this case, the benediction falls into two distinct parts. In the first the apostle invokes peace upon those who recognize and act in accordance with the principle of v. 15, and, in distinction from them, the mercy of God through which they may obtain enlightenment and enter into peace, upon those within Israel who even though as yet unenlightened are the true Israel of God.18

Betz adds to this direction by saying, "Paul does not use the term 'Israel of God' elsewhere, when he refers to the Church, the expression 'Israel of God' is redundant: it makes no sense to speak of an Israel which is not 'of God.' Yet such an expression does make sense as a critical distinction between a 'true' and a 'false' Israel. There is no doubt that Paul makes such a distinction, even if he uses other terminology."19 Betz goes on to state, much like Burton, that Paul is distinguishing between a true and false Israel within the dimension of national/ethnic Israel. Eadie adds to this idea that,

The apostle is not in the habit of calling the Church made up of Jews and Gentiles—Israel. Israel is used eleven times in Romans, but in all the instances it refers to Israel proper; and so do it and Israelietes in every other portion of the New Testament. In the Apocalypse, the 144,000 sealed of Israel stand in contrast to "the great multitude which no man can number," taken out of the Gentile or non-Israelitish races. Rev. 7:9. The "Israelite indeed" is also one by blood. John 1:47; comp. 1 Cor. 10:18. The as many as, may not be Gentile believers as such, and opposed to Jewish believers, but the entire number who walk according to this rule; while Paul finds among them a certain class to whom his heart turns with instinctive fondness—"the Israel of God."20

Bringing David Stern's voice into the mix, he gives us a new perspective on the word Israel when he states,

In Sha'ul's time this term (Israel) was current only among those acquainted with Jewish writings, which means, for most practical purposes, that it was known only to Jews. Both Jewish and Gentile Greek-speakers said "Ioudaioi" when referring to the Jews (or "Judeans"; see Yn 1:19N) as a geographic, ethnic, national, political or socio-religious entity. But Jews reserved the word "Israel" to refer to themselves as God's people, the people of promise, whereas Gentiles did not use the term "Israel" at all.21

If Stern is right above, this is helpful. It illuminates how this word would not even have made sense to those Gentiles hearing this outside the bounds of natural Israel. If Paul wanted this to make sense to people unfamiliar with the word, he would have used a different expression. Stern continues by saying,

In Romans, Sha'ul devotes three chapters to the subject of Israel (chapters 9–11). There all eleven instances of the word "Israel" refer to the Jewish people, never to the Church. The climax of his teaching is that "all Israel"—the Jewish people as a whole—"will be saved.". And his purpose in those chapters is to prove that God can be counted on to keep his promises, both to the Jewish people and to all believers in Yeshua—which is precisely the opposite of the theology that says the Jews are no longer God's people, no longer the people of promise.22

To add to the climax of the exegetical opinions for a reading of Israel that only includes a national/ethnic Israel, we look at what Johnson states regarding the book of Acts in regards to the term "Israel". He notes that "Israel" and "Ecclesia" are used as two distinctly separate terms, side by side and in cooperation, though never collapsed throughout the book of Acts. He also comments on Wright's position of Romans 9:6:

The usage of the terms Israel and the Church in the early chapters of the book of Acts is in complete harmony, for Israel exists there alongside the newly formed Church, and the two entities are kept separate in terminology. Occasionally, Rom 9:6 has been advanced in support of the view that Israel may include Gentiles. Paul writes, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" (NASB). But that will not do, for Paul is here speaking only of a division within ethnic Israel. Some of them are believers and thus truly Israel, whereas others, though ethnically Israelites, are not truly Israel, since they are not elect and believing.23

Yoon adds to this by stating, "Regarding the semantic range of 'Israel', there is no instance where it is used metaphorically to refer to any entity besides the nation of Israel. As Saucy points out, the term 'Israel' occurs 68 times in the New Testament, and none of these instances, including Gal 6:16, is clear that the term refers to anything other than the national entity of Israel."24

Theological Implications

We will now look at the broader theological implications of this discussion. This perspective of the discussion is the most interesting and of value for our meta-question. The question we are asking here is what implications the syntax and exegetical output bring to bear on the reason for Paul's letter in Galatians. As Wright, Moo, Beale, and Köstenberger believe, does any analysis that separates what Paul has just brought together truly do violence to Galatians? Or, is it, as the others believe, completely harmonious and cohesive to see two separate groups?

Moo, who, up until this point, could have been mistaken for taking the opposite position he holds, believes that the theological implications of Paul's letter are much weightier than the syntax and exegetical issues. He states,

This latter point leads to the third issue, the context of Galatians. Scholars who think that "Israel of God" must be coextensive with "all who follow this rule" and include believing Gentiles as well as Jews cite this issue as by far the most significant. Throughout Galatians, Paul has argued strenuously that the old barriers distinguishing Jews and Gentiles, circumcision and the law, have been removed. In Christ, there is no longer a distinction between "Jew" and "Gentile/Greek" (3:28): both have equal access to God through faith. Moreover, Paul redefines the "seed of Abraham," insisting that his heirs consist of all who believe (3:7–29) and that the Gentile Galatians are "like Isaac, children of promise" (4:28). Granted this central and critical argument, it is inconceivable, so it is argued, that Paul would here at the end of his letter suddenly reerect ethnic considerations by pronouncing a blessing on an "Israel" distinct from Christian believers in general. While the data do not all point in one direction, we think this last point is decisive in favoring interpretation 1a above: "the Israel of God" is another way of referring to "all who follow this rule." By speaking of an "Israel of God" (language found only here in the NT), Paul tacitly recognizes the existence of an ethnic/national Israel, but he insists that the Israel that counts before God, the Israel that will receive the blessings of peace and mercy, is constituted on different grounds.25

Köstenberger states that given all of the contemporary and historical theological questions raised through this verse, it is quite possible that Paul had not fully formed his ideas on these issues yet, and this is behind some of the lack of clarity within Galatians. This might be possible since the Acts 15 council had not yet happened, nor had Paul's Romans 9-11 writing on the nature of Israel. Köstenberger also thinks that nothing about combining Jews and Gentiles in the "God's Israel" of Galatians negates any future salvific purpose for the Jewish nation. He most clearly states his thoughts on the theological implications when he says,

Paul's point in Galatians—that the "Israel of God" proper are all those who follow his "new rule" (that is, faith in Christ)—is not violated by his projection of a future time when "all Israel" will turn to Christ in faith. Then a more substantial portion of "ethnic Israel" will again become part of the "Israel of God." Paul's discussion in Romans 9–11 therefore represents not so much a different perspective on the issue of Israel and the Church as a further development of Paul's insights which are already found in Galatians in seed form in light of the needs of the Roman Church.26

I think Köstenberger handles this tension better than any other theological analyses in his View 1 group. While his final analysis does not sway me, I find his thoughts around the future salvation of ethnic/national Israel a welcome observation.

Beale likewise believes that there is no theological issue in combining the Jew and Gentile in "God's Israel." Based on the background of Isaiah 54 and Beale's analysis, he states,

Redeemed Gentiles now form true Israel, "Abraham's seed" (Gal 3,29) together with Jewish Christians because they are identified with and represented by the individual "seed of Abraham," Christ, who sums up Israel in himself (Gal 3,16). Consequently, Paul did not consider it "twisting" the prophetic meaning of Isaiah 54 to apply it to Gentile believers, since they are now viewed as true Israelites and their return to God is part of the fulfillment of the restoration and new creation promise made to Israel.27

Beale almost seems to be aware that his view of what Paul "saw" could be accused of "twisting" Isaiah 54, based on his use of the word above. It is interesting that he almost anticipates this accusation in his own writing. While certainly, it is true that Paul could have meant what Beale is suggesting, I do not see evidence for it in Isaiah 54. I base this on the numerous dual uses of the nations and Israel mentioned in the Old Testament, observing how they actively receive blessings in tandem with each other throughout the text. Beale suggests that Paul anticipates Isaiah's prophecy, but nowhere do we see Isaiah lay out any clear articulation of what Beale suggests Paul is anticipating in this use of the "new creation". Even very practically, the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 33 is given strictly to the ethnic/nation of Israel. According to the OT, the nations become blessed by coming into this covenant as separate but equally blessed peoples. We do not see an OT example of the blessing collapsing into one group. As I mentioned before, rather than convince me of his position, Beale's argument leads me to believe in View 3's position of the hope in a future-elect-but-not-yet-saved-Israel.

Wright also argues strenuously to see "God's Israel" as anything other than "Abraham's seed" or combination of "Jew and Gentile" in what has been the primary work of Galatians according to Wright, does indeed undermine everything Paul had just done in Galatians. He states,

All this leads to the conclusion that if, in 6:16, Paul had intended to say that Abraham's family kata sarka was really "God's Israel" after all, irrespective of pistis and pneuma and allegiance to the Messiah, and that he looked for peace and mercy for them as a separate body to the Abraham family that had been redefined around the Messiah, he would have been undoing everything he had said in the previous five chapters. Very well, the puzzled Galatians might have said, so, why don't we get circumcised anyway and join that group?28

We can see through all four of these opinions in this section that regardless of syntax or exegetical concerns, they all hold the position that the theological concerns far outweigh the implications of the other two areas. The theological concern is primarily seen as a rebuilding of a “dividing wall” Paul just spent five chapters breaking down. While this is a very relevant concern and implication, I believe it is ultimately unfounded.

There are a few major rebuttals to the theological concerns above. To start, we will look at David Stern, who states the following concerning the purpose of Galatians,

Sha'ul's purpose in the book of Galatians is polemic, not didactic. He is destroying the arguments of the Judaizers, not teaching about the nature of Israel. This is clear from the fact that the word "Israel" appears only here in the whole book of Galatians. Thus whatever we learn in this verse about Israel is a byproduct, gleaned in passing and to be set alongside his reasoned discussion of the subject, which is found not in Galatians but in the book of Romans.29

Stern goes on to state that if one wants to learn about the nature of Israel, the obvious place would be Romans 9-11. This methodology seems straightforward enough, and it's an instrumental perspective. Though not a voice in this essay, W.D. Davies makes the same observation about the connection between Galatians 6:16 and Romans 9-11 and why he does not believe "God's Israel" includes the Church in Galatians. Davies states that "if this proposal were correct, one would have expected to find support for it in Rom. ix-xi where Paul extensively deals with 'Israel.'"30 This way of viewing the term "Israel" in Galatians makes it subservient to the more cohesive and extensive treatment Paul gives the nature of Israel in Romans 9-11. This hierarchy is not to limit Paul's comments on Israel to only this part of scripture, but if there is an area where interpretation is unclear it seems reasonable to allow the place of most theological clarity be the true north on how to define another scriptural definition or area which is unclear. Köstenberger handles this tension by allowing a future salvation of ethnic Israel, which we reviewed above.

While Stern holds to the view that the phrase "God's Israel" refers to the elect-but-not-yet-saved Israel, Yoon makes a similar observation from his position that he believes it is two groups, but the second group are Jewish believers. Yoon states,

First, it is necessary to understand the difference between an ontological distinction between ethnic groups (Israel and non-Israel are ontological realities) and a practical distinction that affects the way the Christian life is carried out. The point of Gal 3:28, for example, is not that these distinctions no longer exist-because obviously they do ontologically-but that being in Christ means these distinctions do not matter. Also, by using the enigmatic phrase "Israel of God," Paul's purpose is not to distinguish between Israel and non-Israel, but merely to highlight in his benediction those within Israel who belong to God. The inclusion of this sub-group appropriately fits the co-text, and even entire letter, because Paul had been arguing against the practices of circumcision and the law, which were clearly distinctive to Israel. Paul including in his benediction "the Israel of God" to refer to those within Israel who belong to God (whether referring to Jewish Christians or Jewish believers who followed "this rule") is entirely appropriate in this context.31

In the above, Yoon makes a point I think is often overlooked in View 1’s position. Mainly, biblical viewpoints like Acts 15 in the Jerusalem Council were aimed entirely at the Gentiles and did not have Jewish believers in view at all. In this way, Paul also continued to sacrifice and worship at the temple (Acts 21: 17-26), and circumcised Timothy, a Jew (Acts 16:3). The way of reading Paul, demanded by View 1, forces Paul to become incoherent with the rest of what the biblical witness says concerning Paul. The demand that scripture speak about Jewish and Gentile believers as if no difference is allowed is misguided in my view and in no way undermines the main point of Galatians. The point being, under Jesus's rule, is not that there are no differences, but that these differences do not matter from a salvatory perspective. Thus, Galatians destroys the Judaizers who were at work but still allows for the obvious distinction between Jew and Gentile. In my view, Moo and Wright make too much of this "dividing line" issue. To be one does not necessarily mean to be the same. The point is to be one under the Messiah. Distinctions like male/female and Jew/Gentile continue to exist after salvation.

Burton and Vlach hold a similar view, which is that after Paul's polemic against the Judaizers, Paul wanted to encourage "God's Israel". Vlach sees this as Paul not extending his "harsh attitude towards the true Jewish believers, so he reaches out to them and calls them 'God's Israel'."32 Burton sees a similar theme but aimed at a different audience. Burton says this regarding the future Israel, "the apostille invokes peace upon those recognize and act in accordance with the principle of v.15, and, in distinction from them, the mercy of God through which they may obtain enlightenment and enter into peace, upon those within Israel who even though as yet unenlightened are the true Israel of God."33 Johnson follows close behind Burton when he states,

The "Israel of God" is used eschatologically and refers to the Israel that shall turn to the Lord in the future in the events that surround the second advent of our Lord. Paul would then be thinking along the lines of his well-known prophecy of the salvation of "all Israel" in Rom 11:25-27. As F. F. Bruce comments, ‘For all his demoting of the law and the customs, Paul held good hope of the ultimate blessing of Israel.’34

In Conclusion

View 1's position does not sway me. By most standards, this view loses the syntax and exegetical argument. This loss can be seen mostly through their own admission. If we were to say that the theological implications are indeed the weightiest, I still believe they make too much of the "dividing line" issue, but let us say they are right. Right in the sense that Paul could not, or would not, bless two separate groups of believing Jews and Gentiles independently if he had just made five previous chapters anathematizing the Judaizers. Certainly, this accusation could not hold for View 3's position that "God's Israel" is made up of unbelieving natural/ethnic Israel. This example avoids the accusation of singling out two believing groups receiving blessings differently, and it paves the way for Paul to request mercy for this elect group. Paul may ask for peace on both believing Jews and Gentiles who "walk by this rule" and then mercy on unbelieving Israel. Specifically, View 3, held by Johnson, Burton, and Stern, avoids the primary accusation of View 1, which is that Paul could not bless Jewish believers independently of their Gentile counterparts. An additional thought is that mercy is a strange thing to ask for as it relates to believers and those who have already come under the mercy of the Messiah. Mercy seems to be far more relevant for people who are isolated from the mercy found in the Messiah.

It is hard to look at Galatians 6:16 outside the light of Romans 2:28-29, Romans 9:6, and Romans 11:25. Asked simply, is Paul expanding the definition of "Israel” or “Jew” or contracting it? I would argue that Paul is using these moments to define what a true Jew is and who real Israel is. He is contracting this terminology only to include those Jews that believe in the Messiah and the future elect-but-not-yet-saved group of national/ethnic Israel and is not expanding it to mean believing Gentiles. Thus, the "Israel within Israel" of Romans 9:6 or the "inner dimension of a true Jew" in Romans 2:28,29 is saved for the use of national/ethnic Israel who turns towards Jesus. Eadie states it beautifully when he says,

To the apostle there were two Israels—"they are not all Israel which are of Israel,"—and he says here, not Israel κατὰ σάρκα, but "the Israel of God," or the true believing Israel; his own brethren by a double tie—by blood, and especially by grace. Was it unnatural for the apostle to do this, especially after rebuking false Israel—the wretched Judaizers—who certainly were not the Israel of God.35

We see cohesion through all uses of Israel in the NT and OT when viewed this way. Johnson adds his cultural moment opinion to match Wright's feistiness when he says,

I cannot help but think that dogmatic considerations loom large in the interpretation of Gal 6:16. The tenacity with which this application of "the Israel of God" to the Church is held in spite of a mass of evidence to the contrary leads one to think that the supporters of the view believe their eschatological system, usually an amillennial scheme, hangs on the reference of the term to the people of God, composed of both believing Jews and Gentiles. Amillennialism does not hang on this interpretation, but the view does appear to have a treasured place in amillennial exegesis.

In speaking of the view that the term refers to ethnic Israel, a sense that the term Israel has in every other of its more than sixty-five uses in the NT, and in its fifteen uses in Paul, in tones almost emotional, William Hendriksen, the respected Reformed commentator, writes, "I refuse to accept that explanation."

I am reminded of the comment of Irving Kristol, John M. Olin Professor of Social Thought at the New York University Graduate School of Business. In another connection he once said, "When we lack the will to see things, as they really are, there is nothing so mysterious as the obvious."36

In the end, I hold that View 3's position, that this mercy requested is for future-elect-but-not-yet-saved Israel, is correct and that we don't see a place in scripture that calls the Church by the name "Israel," "True Israel," or "Spiritual Israel." At the same time, I think there are ways to argue, as View 1 does, that the Church is a form of Israel that could rightly be called a term like the "commonwealth of Israel" (Eph. 2:12) or a branch of Israel. If I were to do this, I would argue this using the one-tree metaphor that Paul creates in Romans. In this, we do not see two trees; we only see one. I would also use themes like Exodus 12:48, which show that when a foreigner joined Israel, they became a full part of the tribe of Israel. If we extrapolate this idea to the true Israel being under the Messiah, we can call all men and women who confess Jesus to be part of Israel. The problem mostly seems to stem from the way View 1 seems to think that the Gentile Church subsumes Israel. There is also the issue of leaning on Romans 9-11 to validate Galatians 6:16 when the majority of scholarship sees Romans 9-11 as ethnic/national Israel. Johnson rightly points out that the general error made in terminology is the logical fallacy of the "undistributed middle."37 What this means is that just because a lion is a cat and a tiger is a cat does not mean that a tiger is a lion. In our analogy, just because the Church is part of Abraham's seed and Israel is part of Abraham's seed, does not mean that Israel is the Church. We have to let scripture define these concepts on its own terms. The way View 1 approaches this issue lacks a certain clarity demanded by the text and makes assumptions that I believe lie outside the bounds of scripture. The nature of the Church and Israel is admittedly a profound paradox, and people uncomfortable with paradox will no doubt flounder in this mother of all paradoxes.

Bibliography

Beale, G.K. “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6,16b”. Biblica. Volume 80. Issue 2. 1999.

Betz, Hans D. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. 1979.

Davies W.D. Paul and the People of Israel. Cambridge University Press, Volume 24. Issue 1. 2009.

De Witt Burton, Ernist. Galatians, International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh, Sco: T&T Clark International. 1920.

Eadie, John. Commentary on Galatians. St. Lucia, FL: Solid Ground Christian Books. 1869.

Johnson, S. Lewis. 2009. “Paul and "The Israel of God": An Exegetical and Eschatological Case Study.” The Masters Seminary Journal. Volume 20. Issue 1. 2009.


Köstenberger, Andreas J. 1999. “The Identity of the ̓ΙΣΡΑΗΛ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16.” Faith And Mission. Volume 19. Issue 1. 1999.

Moo, Douglas J. Galatians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group. 2013.


Porter, Stanley E., and Alan E. Kurschner, eds.. The Future Restoration of Israel: A Response to Supersessionism. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers. 2023.


Stern, David H. Jewish New Testament Commentary: A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament. Jerusalem, IS: Messianic Jewish Publishers. 1992.


Vlach, Michael J. Has the Church Replaced Israel? A Theological Evaluation. Brentwood, TN: B&H Publishing Group. 2010.


Wright, N. T.. Galatians. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2021.