Why do some say that the church is now “spiritual” Israel,
and that gentile believers are spiritually made Jews? This is not a new idea. It is found in the writings of church "fathers" of the early church. They derive their doctrine from ONE VERSE of Scripture: Galatians 6:16. This doctrine is a grave error. It became divisive error. It was caused by a divisive spirit. It overturns God's ethnic choosing of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob aka Israel and Judah aka Jew as valid after some point in time (after Jesus ascended?). The church is by this doctrine is now not one new man made up of Jews and gentiles, it is by this error said to be one new man of spiritual Israelites. All Jews today are not saved. But they are still Jews ethnically. All gentiles are not saved. But gentiles who are saved are not then made Jews, spiritual or ethnic.
Galatians 6
American Standard Version (ASV)
16 And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon
them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
New International Version (NIV)
16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel
of God.
What those who teach that Israel is now defunct and the church is made spiritual Israel do is misconstrue that one verse (Galatians 6:16), inventing a meaning not consistent with the rest of the Bible. Arnold Fruchtenbaum writes that they resort "to a very rare use of the
Greek word kai which has for its primary meaning 'and.' ( SEE: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2532&t=KJV ) In fact in the lexicons it points out it is
used with that meaning either third or fourth but never first or second and
furthermore, you only resort to the third and fourth meaning if the first and
second meaning does not make any sense but in this case and context it does
make sense. The reason they need that verse is because Replacement Theology is in desperate need of a verse that
uses the term 'Israel' of the church.
The term 'Israel' is used 73 times in the New Testament, and never is it
used of the Church but the closest possible way to make Israel the Church is using
Galatians 6:16. But here they have to
resort to a rare third and fourth usage and as far as I know, except for the
NIV, no translation has resorted to doing that and the NIV tends to be a bit
more periphrastic and reveals the theology of the translator rather than
staying strictly with the content of what the text says."
In his book Israelology : The Missing Link in Systematic Theology , Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum deals
extensively with Galatians 6:16 and shows you how much one has to strain to
come up with such a faulty conclusion.
From the text:
c. The Israel of God of Galatians 6:16
The purpose of this
section is to present a dispensational view of Galatians 6:16, the only passage produced by all Covenant
Theologians as evidence that the Church is the spiritual Israel, or that
Gentile believers become spiritual Jews. The verse does not prove their case.
The passage reads:
And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and
mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
The Book of Galatians
is concerned with Gentiles who were attempting to attain salvation through the
law. The ones deceiving them were Judaizers, who were Jews demanding adherence
to the Law of Moses. To them, a Gentile had to convert to Judaism before he
qualified for salvation through Christ. In verse 15, Paul states that the important thing for salvation is faith,
resulting in the new man. He also mentions two elements: circumcision and
uncircumcision. This refers to two groups of people: Jews and Gentiles, two
groups already mentioned by these very terms in 2:7–9:
… but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with
the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the
circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the
circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived
the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were
reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowhsip,
that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;…
In verse 16, Paul then pronounces a blessing on members of the two groups
who would follow this rule of salvation through faith alone. The first group is
the them, the uncircumcision, the Gentile Christians to
and of whom he had devoted most of the epistle. The second group is the Israel
of God. These are the circumcision, the Jewish believers who,
in contrast with the Judaizers, followed the rule of salvation by grace through
faith alone. Covenant Theologians must ignore the primary meaning of kai which separates the two groups in the
verse in order to make them both the same group.
In a recent work, Dr.
S. Lewis Johnson, former professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at
Dallas Theological Seminary, has done a detailed study of Galatians 6:16. In his introduction, Johnson makes the following observation:
In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there remains
persistent support for the contention that the term Israel may
refer properly to Gentile believers in the present age.… the primary support is
found in Galatians 6:16 …
I cannot help but think that dogmatic considerations loom large
in the interpretation of Galatians 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 New Testament and in its fifteen uses in Paul, in tones
almost emotional William Hendriksen, the respected Reformed commentator,
writes, “I refuse to accept that explanation.”…
What I am leading up to is expressed neatly by D. W. B. Robinson
in an article written about twenty years ago: “The glib citing ofGal. 6:16 to support the
view that ‘the church is the new Israel’ should be vigorously challenged. There
is weighty support for a limited interpretation.” We can say more than this, in
my opinion. There is more than weighty support for a more limited
interpretation. There is overwhelming support for such. In fact, the least
likely view among several alternatives is the view that “the Israel of God” is
the church.
Johnson presents three
views concerning this verse. Only the first insists that the Israel of
God is the Church as a whole while the other two limit it to Jewish
believers. The first view is described as follows:
The first is the claim that “the Israel of God” is simply a term
descriptive of the believing church of the present age.… The Israel of God is
the body who shall walk by the rule of the new creation, and they include
believing people from the two ethnic bodies of Jews and Gentiles.
The basis for the
first view is:
The list of names supporting this view is
impressive, although the bases of the interpretation are few and feeble,
namely, the claim that the kai … before the
term “the Israel of God” is an explicative or appositional kai;…
and the claim that if one sees the term “the Israel of God” a believing ethnic
Israel, they would be included in the preceding clause, “And those who will
walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them.”
Johnson rejects this
view on three grounds. The first is for grammatical and syntactical reasons for
which there are two. The first is that this view must resort to a secondary
or lesser meaning of kai:
It
is necessary to begin this part of the discussion with a reminder of a basic,
but often neglected, hermeneutical principle. It is this: in the absence of
compelling exegetical and theological considerations, we should avoid the rarer
grammatical usages when the common ones make good sense.
Because the latter usage serves well the view that the term “the
Israel of God” is the church, the dogmatic concern overcame grammatical usage.
An extremely rare usage has been made to replace the common usage, even in
spite of the fact that the common and frequent usage of and makes
perfectly good sense in Galatians 6:16.
Second, Johnson points out that if Paul’s
intention was to identify the them as being the Israel
of God, then the best way of showing this was to eliminate the kai altogether. As shown earlier, this was
exactly what Hendriksen wanted to do by leaving kai untranslated. The very presence of the kaiargues against the them being the
Israel of God. As Johnson notes, “Paul, however, did not eliminate the kai.”
The second ground for
rejecting this view is for exegetical considerations, which deals with context
and usage. Concerning usage, Johnson states:
From
the standpoint of biblical usage this view stands condemned. There is no
instance in biblical literature of the term Israelbeing used in the
sense of the church, or the people of God as composed of both believing ethnic
Jews and Gentiles. Nor, on the other hand, as one might expect if there were
such usage, does the phrase ta ethné (KJV, “the Gentiles”)
ever mean the non-Christian world specifically, but only the non-Jewish
peoples, although such are generally non-Christians. Thus, the usage of the
term Israel stands overwhelmingly opposed to the first view.
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.
For those who would
cite Romans 9:6 as evidence, Johnson shows that this
verse is no support for such a view for the distinction is between Jews who
believe and Jews who do not:
… 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 … No Gentiles are found in the statement at all.
Even many Covenant
Theologians have agreed with this view of Romans 9:6 and do not use
it to support their view of Galatians 6:16.
As for context, Johnson observes:
On the contrary, the apostle is concerned with correcting the
gospel preached to the Galatians by the Judaizers, particularly their false
contention that it was necessary to be circumcised to be saved and to observe
as Christians certain requirements of the law of Moses in order to remain in
divine favor … The apostle makes no attempt whatsoever to deny that there is a
legitimate distinction of race between Gentile and Jewish believers in the
church.… There is a remnant of Jewish believers in the church according to the
election of grace.… This approach fails to see that Paul does not say there is
neither Jew nor Greek within the church. He speaks of those who are
“in Christ.”… But Paul also says there is neither male nor female, nor slave
nor free man in Christ. Would he then deny sexual differences within the
church? Or the social differences in Paul’s day? Is it not plain that Paul is
not speaking of national or ethnic difference in Christ, but of spiritual
status? In that sense there is no difference in Christ.
The third ground for
rejecting this view is theological:
… there is no historical evidence that the term Israel was
identified with the church before A.D. 160. Further, at that date there was no
characterization of the church as “the Israel of God.” In other words, for more
than a century after Paul there was no evidence of the identification.
Johnson’s summary
concerning the rejection of the first view is:
To conclude the discussion of the first interpretation,
it seems clear that there is little evidence—grammatical, exegetical, or
theological—that supports it. On the other hand, there is sound historical
evidence against the identification of Israel with believing
or unbelieving Gentiles. The grammatical usage of kai is
not favorable to the view, nor is the Pauline or New Testament usage ofIsrael Finally,
… the Pauline teaching in Galatians contains a recognition of national
distinctions in the one people of God.
The second view is
that the Israel of God is the believing Jewish remnant within
the Church. This is Johnson’s own view and is the common dispensational view.
Johnson describes this view as follows:
The second of the important interpretations of Galatians 6:16 and “the Israel
of God” is the view that the words refer simply to believing ethnic Israelites
in the Christian church. Does not Paul speak of himself as an Israelite (cf. Rom. 11:1)? And does not the
apostle also speak of “a remnant according to God’s gracious choice” (cf. 11:5), words that plainly in the context refer to
believing Israelites? What more fitting thing could Paul write, it is said, in
a work so strongly attacking Jewish professing believers, the Judaizers, than
to make it most plain that he was not attacking the true believing Jews?
Judaizers are anathematized, but the remnant according to the election of grace
are “the Israel of God.”…
Perhaps this expression, “the Israel of God,”
is to be contrasted with his expression in 1
Corinthians 10:18, “Israel after the flesh” (KJV), as the true,
believing Israel versus the unbelieving element, just as in Romans 9:6 the apostle
distinguishes two Israels, one elect and believing, the other unbelieving, but
both ethnic Israelites (cf. vv. 7–13).
Johnson supports this
view on the same three grounds that he rejected the first view. On grammatical
and syntactical grounds, Johnson states that “there are no grammatical, or
syntactical considerations that would be contrary” to this view and,
furthermore, the “common sense of kai as continuative, or conjunctive is followed.” In other
words, it uses the primary meaning of kai.
On exegetical grounds
Johnson states:
Exegetically the view is sound, since “Israel” has its uniform
Pauline ethnic sense. And further, the apostle achieves a very striking
climactic conclusion. Drawing near the end of his “battle-epistle” with its
harsh and forceful attack on the Judaists and its omission of the customary
words of thanksgiving, Paul tempers his language with a special blessing for
those faithful believing Israelites who, understanding the grace of God and its
exclusion of any human works as the ground of redemption, had not succumbed to
the subtle blandishments of the deceptive Judaizers. They, not the false men
from Jerusalem, are “the Israel of God,” or, as he calls them elsewhere, “the
remnant according to the election of grace” (cf. Rom. 11:5).
As for theological
grounds, Johnson states:
And theologically the view is sound in its maintenance of the
two elements within the one people of God, Gentiles and ethnic Jews. Romans 11 spells out the
details of the relationship between the two entities from Abraham’s day to the
present age and on to the fulfillment in the future of the great unconditional
covenantal promises made to the patriarchs.
The third view agrees
with the second, that the Israel of God must refer to Jewish
believers and not the Church as a whole but sees this Jewish remnant as still
future:
The third of the interpretations is the view that the expression
“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 Romans 11:25–27.
The third view … takes the term “the Israel of God” to refer to
ethnic Israel but locates their blessing in the future.…
Johnson has no major
objections to the third view for “grammatically and syntactically this last
option is sound.” Theologically, this view is also sound for:
… the view harmonizes with the important Pauline teaching that
there are two kinds of Israelites, a believing one and an unbelieving one.
The only real problem is exegetical since “…
the eschatological perspective … has not been one of the major emphases of the
Galatian epistle as a whole …” However, Johnson allows for the exegetical
possibility of this view for the wider context did mention the Abrahamic
Covenant and the Kingdom of God.
The second view is
probably the best. While the third is biblically acceptable, the first view is
not. Johnson concludes:
If there is an interpretation that totters on a tenuous
foundation, it is the view that Paul equates the term “the Israel of God” with
the believing church of Jews and Gentiles. To support it, the general usage of
the term Israel in Paul, in the New Testament, and in the
Scriptures as a whole is ignored. The grammatical and syntactical usage of the
conjunction kai is strained and
distorted—and the rare and uncommon sense accepted when the usual sense is
unsatisfactory—only because it does not harmonize with the presuppositions of
the exegete. And to compound matters, in the special context of Galatians and
the general context of the Pauline teaching, especially as highlighted in Romans 11, Paul’s primary
passages on God’s dealings with Israel and the Gentiles, are downplayed.… the
doctrine that the church of Gentile and Jews is the Israel of
God rests on an illusion. It is a classic case of tendentious exegesis.
For Dispensational
Israelology, the conclusion is that the Church is never called, and is not, a
“spiritual Israel” or a “new Israel.” The term Israel is
either used of the nation or the people as a whole, or of the believing remnant
within. It is never used of the Church in general or of Gentile believers in
particular.
