Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Who is the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16?

by

Question: Whether the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles, to Jewish Christians only, or to elect Israelites who will be saved?

NA28: καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.

NRSV: “As for those who will follow this rule—peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

Positions

1. “Israel of God” refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles, that is to the new creation/new covenant people of God, the church.

NIV84: “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.”

NIV2011: “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.”

  • a. Several exegetes argue that the “decisive” consideration is Paul’s argument within Galatians (Cowan 2010: 80; Schreiner 2010: 383; Moo 2013: 403; cf. Longenecker 1990: 298; Köstenberger 2001: 17-18). If Paul distinguishes between Jews and Gentiles within the church, he has undercut the message of the book (and the “rule” [6:16a] laid down in 6:15). Paul’s main point has been the lack of distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision (6:15), between Jew and Gentile, who are one in Christ (3:28). Paul has maintained that Gentiles, with Jews, are the seed of Abraham (3:6-9, 14, 16, 26-29; 4:21-31); together they comprise the new Israel, the Israel of God (Woudstra 1988: 235; Longenecker 1990: 298; Beale 1999: 205; Robertson 2000: 41; Köstenberger 2001: 4, 15-16; Cowan 2010: 80; Schreiner 2010: 382-83).
  • b. An appositional use of καί, as required by view 1, is possible, see Acts 5:21 (Beale 1999: 204; Köstenberger 2001:13; Moo 2013: 401; cf. Schreiner 2010: 382; BDAG, s.v. καί, 1c;). Cowan argues this is the most likely option because whichever option has the greatest semantic redundancy is linguistically preferred (Cowan 2010: 81; but see Moo 2013: 401-2).
  • c. Schreiner and Moo seek to cast doubt on the idea that Paul always used Israel to refer to ethnic Israel, noting that Romans 9:6 and 11:26 are debated (though both argue in their Romans commentaries that those verses refer to ethnic Israel). In the end, they hold that point a. overrides usage considerations (Schreiner 2010: 382, Moo 2013:402-3; cf. Schreiner 2018: 483, 598-99).
  • d. Paul’s reference to an “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 10:18), implies an “Israel according to the Spirit,” which would be the church (Perkins 2015: 560; Lightfoot 1874: 224-25; Schreiner 2010: 382; Moo 2013: 402-3). Further Cowan argues that the “concept” of the church as Israel “is ubiquitous” in the NT (Rom. 2:28-29; 8:14; 28; 33; 1 Cor. 1:24; Gal. 3:7, 26; Eph. 1:4; 2:21-22; Phil. 3:2-3; Col 3:12; 1 Thess. 1:4) (Cowan 2010: 80).
  • e. Galatians 6:16 alludes to Isaiah 54:10, and this background requires understanding “Israel of God” as inclusive of Gentiles. “[T]his was a prophecy for Israel, with the implication, therefore, that it was not a prophecy for the redeemed nations except as they identify with Israel, convert to Israel’s faith, and take refuge under the umbrella of Israel and Israel’s God” (Beale 1999: 217, n. 36).

2. “Israel of God” refers to Jewish Christians, a subset of “all who walk by this rule.”                 

NKJV: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”

ESV: “And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”

  • a. The copulative use of καί allows for understanding Israel as a distinct group within all those who will walk by this rule (Eadie 470; Johnson 1986: 192). The “kai may single out for special attention someone or something from a larger body or element”; see Mark 16:7 (Johnson 1986: 184, n. 22). This view is preferred since the appositional use of καί is rare and never occurs in this construction (Eadie 1979: 470; Burns 1999: 275; Vlach 2010: 143).
  • b. The Bible in general, and Paul in particular, does not use Israel to refer to anything other than ethnic Israel (or a subgroup within ethnic Israel) (Eadie 1979: 470-71; Johnson 1986: 192; Vlach 2010: 143). The genitive “of God” indicates that believing Jews are in view here (Burns 1999: 275).
  • c. It is contextually more likely that the reference was to believing Jews within the church than to elect Jews who will be saved in the future (view 3) (Burns 1999: 276).
  • d. Paul’s purpose in highlighting believing Israel is to indicate that his condemnations of the Judaizers were not directed to believing Jews (Vlach; Ngewa 2010: 194, n. 340). Indeed, Paul is here commending the Jews who have joined with the Gentiles in the church (Ngewa 2010: 169).

3. “Israel of God” refers to elect Israelites who will be saved.

CSB: “May peace come to all those who follow this standard, and mercy even to the Israel of God!”

Johnson (reflecting Burton): “And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy also upon the Israel of God.”

  • a. The Bible in general, and Paul in particular, does not use Israel to refer to anything other than ethnic Israel (or a subgroup within ethnic Israel) (Burton 1920: 357-58; Johnson 1986: 192; Allison 2012: 85).
  • b. The order “peace” followed by “mercy” is unusual. Logically, the bestowal of mercy precedes the bestowal of peace (Burton 1920: 357; Allison 85-86; cf. Moo 2013: 402). In addition, there is a “symmetry” in the verse between
    εἰρήνη ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς
    καὶ
    ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ
    that suggests two distinct groups with two distinct blessings are in view (Moo 2013: 402).
  • c. If the first group, “those who follow this standard,” refer to redeemed Jews and Gentiles who receive God’s peace, the second group still stands in need of God’s mercy. Thus, the reference is to yet unredeemed Israel. The genitive “of God” indicates that the elect remnant of Israel is in view. Paul is expressing his prayer for mercy to be shown to this remnant that they might be saved (Burton 1920: 358). Paul has hope that those Jews who already followed the standard laid out in v. 15 were “a pledge that this remnant would increase until, with the ingathering of the full tale (πλήρωμα) of Gentiles, ‘all Israel will be saved’ [Rom. 11:26]” (Bruce 1982: 275; cf. George 1994: 440).
  • d. The rationale for this reading is clear. Paul began Galatians by pronouncing damnation on those who preached another gospel, a Judaizing gospel. Now Paul closes the letter by expressing his hope that God will show mercy to Israel (Burton 1920: 358; Allison 85).
  • e. On this understanding, the third καί in the verse is “slightly ascensive” (Burton 1920: 358) or “adjunctive” (Johnson 1983: 186, n. 31).
  • f. G. K. Beale persuasively argues that Isaiah 54:10 provides the OT background to Galatians 6:16. This background favors position 3. Isaiah 54:10 is about the salvific restoration of the nation of Israel in connection with the day of the Lord. The peace referred to in this verse refers to the covenant of peace, or new covenant. This covenant, as may be inferred from the inclusion of the Gentiles in Isaiah 54, and as may be understood from the NT, includes Gentile believers. The mercy, however, refers specifically to the restoration of the nation Israel (in distinction from Gentiles, who are mentioned within the context).

Rejected Positions

1. “Israel of God” refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles, that is to the new creation/new covenant people of God, the church.

  • a. This position contradicts the main thrust of Paul’s argument in Galatians, and thus cannot be correct. Notably, the Judaizers held that there should be no distinctions between Jewish and Gentile Christians―Gentiles, they argued, must become Jews by obeying the Mosaic law. Beale’s claim that Isaiah 54 teaches that the Gentiles must “identity with Israel” is ironically close to message of Paul’s opponents―except that Beale has spiritualized Israel. By contrast, Paul’s argument in Galatians is that Gentile Christians do not need to become Jews. Thus, it would be out of character with the book for Paul to close by identifying Gentile Christians as Israel. “His point has been to deflate the importance of Jewish identity, so why would he suddenly refer to the church” as Israel (Allison 2012: 86; cf. Saucy 1988: 247).
  • b. It is not valid to argue that since both the church and Israel are identified as the seed of Abraham, the church is Israel. This “is a textbook example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle” (Johnson 1986: 190-91). The labels “sons of Abraham” and “seed of Abraham” do not identify the church with Israel because Abraham is the father of many nations. “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 10:18) in context refers not to ethnic Israel but to sinful Israel (Garland 2003: 478-79; Thiselton 2000: 771-72; Taylor 2014: 2014: 242). Identifying Christians as the true circumcision (Phil. 3:3) is not a claim that the church is Israel but is a claim that the church is part of the new covenant, which provides for the circumcision of the heart (Saucy 1993: 202-3; Bockmuehl 1997: 191). The fact that OT language that applied to Israel is used of the church need not mean that the church is the new Israel since each are the people of God in their respective testaments. Romans 2:28-29 is the most likely passage in which a Gentile Christian may be identified as a Jew. Verse 27 refers to a Gentile who is circumcised in the heart condemning the circumcised Jew who breaks the law. However, in the broader context of 2:12-3:4 may well indicate that the law-keeping Gentile in 2:27 is a hypothetical comparison; chapter 3 certainly continues to use Jew in its ethnic sense. It may be best, then, to understand Romans 2:28-29 along the same lines as Romans 9:6 (Vlach 2010: 146-47; Saucy 1993: 197-98; Blaising and Bock 1993: 269; cf. Cranfield 1975: 175-76). Far from being a ubiquitous concept in the NT, under close examination no passage clearly teaches this concept. The word Israel, as all acknowledge, is not used with the meaning of new covenant people of God or church anywhere else in the Bible (Johnson 1986: 190; Saucy 1988: 246).
  • c. Paul does not eliminate all distinctions within the people of God. For instance, Paul can say that men and women are equal in Christ even while differentiating their roles within the church (Gal. 3:28; 1 Tim. 2:8-15). Similarly, Paul in Galatians is not arguing against “distinctions that separate Jewish and Gentile Christians” (to cite Köstenberger 2001: 15-16). That was the argument of the Judaizers, who maintained that Jew and Gentile alike should obey the Mosaic law. Rather, Paul was arguing for freedom from the Mosaic law. He continues to distinguish between Jew and Gentile within the church (Gal. 2:3, 12, 14; Rom. 4:11-12; 11:13) even while maintaining their unity in Christ (Gal. 3:28).
  • d. It would be strange for Paul to introduce a major new theological topic, that the church is a new Israel, here at the end of the letter. It would be even stranger for Paul to introduce this idea off-handedly at the end of Galatians and not return to it in the extended discussion of Romans 9-11 (George 1994: 349-40).
  • e. Cowan’s proposal for an appositional use of καί being the most preferable usage does not seem to be granted even by those holding his position (cf. Moo 2013: 401-2). Though this use of καί is possible, if Paul wished to communicate an appositional sense, he would have communicated this more clearly by leaving off the final καί altogether (Johnson 1986: 188; Campbell 1993: 441; notably, this is how the NIV 2011 translates the verse; compare with the more literal NRSV).

2. “Israel of God” refers to Jewish Christians, a subset of “all who walk by this rule.”

  • a. This position does not account for the order of “peace” followed by “mercy” as well as view 3.
  • b. This position’s rationale for why Paul singles out Jews within the church for a special blessing is weaker than that given view 3. The rationale given seems a bit ad hoc.
  • c. Though the argument that Paul would not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles in the church is overstated, it does seem a bit odd that Paul would single out the Jewish members of the church for a special blessing at the end of this letter.

Accepted Position:

3. “Israel of God” refers to elect Israelites who will be saved.

  • a. This position handles all of the data the best: It best coheres with the overall message of the book, it understands καί and Israel in line with their typical usage, it pays close attention to word order and logical flow, it coheres well with Paul’s thought in other epistles, and it best accounts for the allusion to Isaiah 54:10.
  • b. Robertson claims that the views of Eadie and Burton violate the rule Paul articulated in 6:15 (Robertson 2000: 42, nn. 5 and 6). This is certainly not the case with Burton. View 3 understands Paul as praying for the salvation of elect-but-not-yet-converted Jews. This view thus avoids the criticism that Paul was singling out Jewish believers for a special blessing (Allison 2012: 85).
  • c. Johnson concedes, “There may exist some question regarding the exegetical aptness of the eschatological perspective. That certainly has not been one of the major emphases of the Galatian epistle as a whole.” However, he also observes, “but in the immediate context it is very appropriate psychologically, providing a note of hope and expectation after a stern and severe admonition” (Johnson 1986: 194).

Bibliography: Galatians Commentaries: Bruce NIGTC (1982); Burton, ICC (1920); Calvin, (2010); Eadie (1979); George, NAC (1994); Lightfoot (1974);Longenecker, WBC, (1990); Luther, Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Luther’s Works, vol. 27 (1999); Moo BECNT (2013); Ngewa, ABCS (2010);  Perkins, The Works of William Perkins, vol. 2 (2015); Schreiner, ZECNT (2010) Articles: G. K. Beale, “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6,16b,” Biblica 80 (1999): 204-23; J. L. Burns, “Israel and the Church of a Progressive Dispensationalist,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism (1999); W. S. Campbell, “Israel,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (1993); C. W. Cowan, “Context is Everything: ‘The Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16; SBJT 14, no. 3 (2010): 78-82; S. L. Johnson, Jr., “Paul and the ‘Israel of God’: An Exegetical Case Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost (1986); A.  Köstenberger, “The Identity of the ᾿Ισραηλ Του Θεου (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16,” Faith and Mission 19, no. 1 (2001): 3-18; O. P. Robertson, “The Israel of God: It’s People,” in The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (2000); R. L. Saucy, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (1988); Woudstra, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (1988); Other: G. R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (2012); C. A. Blaising and D. L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (1993); M. Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians, BNTC (1997); C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (1975); D. E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (2003); R. L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (1993); T. R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT, 2nd ed. (2018); M. A. Taylor, 1 Corinthians, NAC (2014); A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (2000); M. J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? (2010).