Paul and The Israel of God
Paul and The Israel of God
Paul and The Israel of God
*****
*
S. Lewis Johnson was a long-tim e fac ulty m em ber a t both Da llas Th eologic al Sem inary a nd T rinity
Evangelical Divinity School as well as a teaching elder at Believers Chapel, Dall as , Te x as . This essay
appeared in Essays in Honor o f J. Dwight Pentecost, eds. S tanley D. T oussaint and Charles H . Dyer,
which w as published by M oody Press in 19 86. The essay is used by perm ission of the publisher.
41
42 The Master’s Seminary Journal
2:28-29; 9:6; and Phil 3:3; but the primary support is found in Gal 6:16 where Paul
writes, “And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and
upon the Israel of God” (NASB). The rendering of the NIV illustrates the point, for
it has, “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.” It is
obvious from this rendering that the term “the Israe l of Go d” is to be eq uated with
“all who fo llow this rule,” that is, with believers in the present age, whether Jew or
Gentile.
This rendering of the verse serves quite well the purpose of tho se who would
like to . find NT justification for the practice of the spiritualization of Scripture, that
is, the hab it of taking O T texts regarding ethnic Israel and referring them to the NT
church.1
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 sp ite of a mass o f evidence to the contrary leads on e 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. Am illennialism does not hang on this
interpretation, but the view does appear to have a treasured p lace 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
Refo rmed com mentator, writes, “I refuse to accept that explanation.” 2
I am reminded of the comment of Irving Kristol, John M. Olin Professor of
Social Thought at the New York U niversity Graduate School of Business. In another
connection he once said, “When we lack the will to see things, as they really are,
there is no thing so mysterio us as the obvious.”
It is often said by NT and OT scholars that systematic theologians do not
pay enough attention to the text and its exege tical details. The claim is too freq uently
justified, but there is another side to the question. It may also be said that biblical
scholars often unwittingly overlook their own theological presuppositions, logical
fallacies, and hermeneutical errors. 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 of
Gal. vi:16 to support the view that ‘the church is the new Israel’ sho uld be vigorously
challenged. There is weighty support for a limited interpretation.” 3 W e can say more
1
For a defense of the hermeneutical practice see Albertus Pieters, “Darbyism vs. the H istoric Faith,”
Ca lvin Forum 2 (M ay 193 6):25-2 8; M artin J. W yngaard en, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and
Fu lfillme nt: A Study of the Scope of the “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955) 167.
Another familiar illustration of spiritualization is found in Oswald T. Allis’s Prophecy and the Church
(Wayne, Pa.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974) 149, where in the d iscussion of Acts 15 :12-21 Allis refers
the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David to the ingathering of the Gentiles in the church age.
2
W illiam He ndrikse n, Exposition of G alatians , New Testam ent Com men tary (Grand Rap ids: Baker,
1968) 247.
3
D . W . B. Ro bins on, “ Th e D istinc tion Between Jew ish and Gen tile Believers in G alatians,”
Australian Biblical Review 13 (1965):29-48.
Paul and “The Israel of God” 43
than this, in my opinion. The re is more tha n weighty support for a more limited
interpretation. There is overwhelming suppo rt for such. In fact, the least likely view
among several alternatives is the view that “the Israel of God” is the church.
I propose to review the present status of the interpretation of Gal 6:16, then
offer an ana lysis grammatica lly, exegetically, and theologically of the principal
suggested interpre tations. A few concluding comments will bring the essay to its
termination.
V IE W O N E : “ T H E IS R AE L O F GO D ” IS THE CHURCH
A few words will suffice for the context of the text in Galatians, for there
is general agreement regarding it. Whereas others boast of their conque sts and their
statistics in winning adhe rents to their legalistic cause, Paul would confine his
boasting to the cross of Christ, by which he had been severed from the world and its
spirit. In Christ and in the church of Christ the circumcision issue has lost its
relevance. He lives in the realm of the new creation where walking by the Spirit
prevails. For those who wa lk acco rdingly there is the blessing of peace and mercy,
and that also touches the Israel of Go d. His scars in the service of Jesus, not
circumcision, certify and authenticate his confession that his master is the Lord. And,
fittingly, picking up the note o f grace with which he began his letter (cf. 1:3), a
benediction concludes the epistle. So much for Gal 6:11-18.
Three principal interpretations have characterized the exegesis of Gal 6:16.
The first is the claim that “the Israel of God” is simply a term descriptive of the
believing church of the present age. T he term is linked with the prec eding words,
“And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy by upon them,” by an
explicative kai (NASB, “and”; NIV, “even”), giving practically the sense of
apposition. 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.
It is well-known that Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho is first
author to claim an identification of the term Israel with the church. 4 Of the
comm entators, Chrysostom is one of the earliest apparently to identify the church
with Israel, affirming that those w ho keep the rule are “true Israelites.” 5 Others who
follow this view include Daniel C. Arichea, Jr., and Eugene Nida,6 Ragnar Bring,7
4
Dialogue with Trypho 11:1-5, etc.
5
Com mentary on the Epistle to the Galatians and Homilies on the E pistle to the Ephesians of S.
John Ch rysos tom , new rev. ed. (London: Walter Smith [Late Mosley], 1884) 98.
6
Daniel C. Arichea, Jr., a nd Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the
Galatians (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975) 158-59 . Ve ry disappointing help is provided for the
translator here.
7
Ragnar Bring , Co mm entary on G alatians , trans. Eric Wahlstroin (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1961)
291.
44 The Master’s Seminary Journal
John Calvin,8 R. A. Cole,9 N. A. Dah l,1 0 Do nald G uthrie, 1 1 W illiam Hend ricksen,1 2
Robert L. Johnson, 1 3 M. J. Lagrange,1 4 Hans K. LaRondelle,1 5 R. C. H. Le nski, 1 6 J.
B. Lightfoot, 1 7 Martin Luther,1 8 Herm an Ridd erbos, 1 9 Henrich Schlier,2 0 and John R.
W . Stott. 2 1
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 (KJV “and”;
8
John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and
Colossians, ed. David W. Torrance and Thom as F. Torrance, trans. T. H. L. Parker (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 196 5) 1 18. Ca lvin con tend s tha t the te rm Israel of God “includes all believers, whether
Gen tiles or Jews .”
9
R. A. C ole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: An Introduction and Com mentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans,1965) 183-84. A cursory treatment in wh ich the author appears to cons ider the k ey term as
sim ply another w ay of saying “ the peo ple of Go d.”
10
N . A. D ah l, “Der Nam e Israel: I. Zur Auslegung von Gal.6, 16,” Judaica 6 (195 0):161 -70, a two-
part article containing a debate w ith Gottlob Schrenk over the m eaning of the term.
11
D ona ld Guth rie, ed., Ga latians, The Century Bible (London: Thomas Nelson, 1969) 161-62.
Though relatin g the terms peace and Isra el to Ps 125:5, where the latter term refers to ethnic Israel,
Gu thrie says, “Israel seems to refer to the same people as ‘all who walk by this rule,’” that is, the church.
12
He ndrikse n, Exposition of Galatians 246-47.
13
Robert L. Johnson, The L etter of Paul to the Galatians ( Au stin , T ex .: S w ee t, 19 69 ) 1 79 -8 0. He
has con fuse d the que stion of the prop er pu nctu ation o f the te xt.
14
M . J. Lagran ge, Saint Paul Epste aux Galates (Paris Libraire Lecoffre, 1950) 166. Lagrange,
however, denies the e xplic ative sense by which Lightfoot and others understand the kai before epi ton
Israe l tou theo u. He und erstand s it as sim ply copulative, “ou vrant un plus large h orizon.”
15
Hans K. LaR onde lle, Th e Isr ael of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation
(Berrien S prings, Mich.: Andrews U., 1983) 108-14. LaRondelle’s defense of his position, made
osten sibly ac cord ing to s oun d he rm ene utics , is fau lty herm ene utica lly and logic ally.
16
R. C. H . Lenski, The Interpretation of Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians and
to the Philippians (Columbus, O hio: Wartburg, 1937) 320-21. Lenski takes the kai to express “exp licative
appo sition.”
17
J. B. Ligh tfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Lon don : M acm illan, 18 96) 224 -25.
Lightfoot takes the kai to be “epexegetic, i.e., it introduces the same thing under a new aspect” (225). C f.
Heb 11:17.
18
M artin Luther, A C om me ntary o n St. P aul’s E pistle to the G alatians , ed. Philip S. W atson
(Westwood, N.J.: Revell, n.d.) 565.
19
Herm an N. R idderb os, The Epistle o f Pau l to the C hurc hes o f Ga latia, trans. Henry Zylstra (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 195 3) 227; cf. also his Paul:: An O utline of H is The ology , trans. John R ichard de W itt
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 ) 336. In both works Ridderbos, for whose scholarship I have the greatest
adm iration, admits that Paul does not “generally,” or “in general” (Paul) speak of Isra el as inclusive of
all believers. In fac t, he states th at Pau l “in genera l” continue s to reserve the nam es “Israel,” “Jews,” and
“Hebrews” for the national Jewish people (Pau l, 33 6). R idd erb os’s u se of “ in g en era l” and “ gen erally”
is a bit amusing, since h e adm its Gal 6:16 is the only example of such usage (if it is).
20
Henrich Sch lier, Der Brief an die Galater (Go ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951) 209.
Schlier follows Lagrange in h is understanding of kai.
21
John R. W . Stott, Only On e Way: The M essage of Galatians (London: InterVarsity, 1968, 1974)
180. Stott takes the kai as “even,” but he also adds that it may be omitted, as the RSV does.
Paul and “The Israel of God” 45
NASB, “and”; NIV, “even”) before the term “the Israel of God” is an explicative or
appositional kai; the fact that the members of the church may be called “the seed of
Abraham” (cf. Gal 3:29); and the claim that if one sees the “the Israel of God ” as a
believing, ethnic Israel, they would be included in the preceding clause, “And those
who will walk by this rule, pe ace and mercy be upo n them.” 2 2
The second important interp retation of Gal 6:16 and “the Israe l of Go d” 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 accord ing to G od’s gracious cho ice” (cf. 11:5),
words that plainly in the context refer to believing Israelites? What mo re fitting thing
could Paul write, it is said, in a work so strongly attacking Jewish professing
believers, the Jud aizers, 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.” At the conclusion of the Kampfepistel2 3 the
battle ceases, an “olive branch” 2 4 is offered to the beloved saints who are brethren.
The epistle after a couple of lines co ncludes appropriately on the note of grace, “The
grace of our Lord Jesus C hrist be w ith your sp irit, brethre n. Amen.”
Perhaps this expression, “the Israel of Go d,” co ntrasts with his expression
in 1 Cor 10:18, “Israel after the flesh” (KJV), as the true, believing Israel versus the
unbelieving element, just as in Rom 9:6 the apostle distinguishes two Israels, one
elect and believing, the other unbelieving, but both ethnic Israelites (cf. vv. 7-13).
The names in support of this second interpretation are not as numerous, but
they are important for scholarly attainment. They include Hans Dieter Betz, the
author of a very significant and original recent commentary on Galatians, one
destined to be consulted by advanced students of the letter for years to come, 2 5
22
Th is is the contention of Anthony A . H oe ke m a in his well-argued The Bible and the Future (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 197. It is a clever observation but unconvincing, especially in the light of Mark
16:7 and its kai tÇ i PetrÇ i (KJV , “and Peter”). It is clear that the kai may single out for special attention
som eon e or s om ethin g from a large r bod y or elem ent.
23
Schre nk’s description of Galatians in his article, “Der Segenwunsch nach d er Kamp fepistel,”
Judaica 6 (1950):170.
24
Cf. C ole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians 183.
25
Hans Dieter B etz, Ga latians, Herm eneia—A Critical and Historical C om m enta ry on th e B ible
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 320-23.
46 The Master’s Seminary Journal
VIEW THREE : “ T H E IS R AE L O F GO D ” IS T H E F U TU R E RE D EE M E D N AT IO N
The third of the interpretations is the view that the expression “the Israel of
God” is used eschatologically and refers to the Israe l 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 proph ecy of the salva tion of “all Israel”
in Rom 11:25-27. As F. F. Bruce com ments, “For all his demoting of the law and the
customs, Paul held good hope of the ultimate blessing of Israel.” 3 0
There are some variations in the expression of their views, but those who
hold that Israel here either refers to or includes the nation as a whole that will turn
to the Lo rd esc hatolo gically, in line with Romans 11, include F. F. Bruce, Ernest De
26
Charles J. Ellicott, A Critical and Gramm atical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians
with a Revised Translation (Andover, M ass. ; Dr ape r, 18 80) 154 . Va luable for gra m m atical an alysis, h is
commentaries illustrate the fact that the old is not always to be overlooked.
27
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “Ioudaios, Isra l, Ebraios in the New
Testament,” by Walter Gutbrod, 3:387-88. Gutbrod’s comm ents are quite significant. He points out that
Paul “ne ither c ould n or w ould s epa rate th e term fro m thos e who b elong to Israel by descent.” Cf. Rom
11:17-24.
28
Ad olf Sch latter, Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser, Kolosser and Philemon (Stuttgart: Calwer,
1963) 150-51. He says Paul refers here in the blessing to the Israel that is a new creation in Christ, just
as he is. Paul does n ot forget his genuine brethren (cf. Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5).
29
In two im porta nt artic les G ottlob S chre nk a rgue s pe rsua sively for the s econ d inte rpre tation. His
com m ents on the gram matical usage of kai, as well as the usage of Isra el and peace (cf. Ps 124 :5, LXX;
127:6, LXX), are telling. Cf. Gottlob Schrenk , “W as bedeu tet ‘Israel Gottes?”’ Judaica 5 (1949):81-95;
“Der Segenwunsch nach d er Kamp fepistel,” Judaica 6 (1950):170-90. The secon d artic le is a re ply to
Dah l’s response to his first article. I find Schren k mu ch m ore convincing.
30
F. F. Bru ce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Com mentary on the Greek Text, Th e N ew
International Greek Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 275.
Paul and “The Israel of God” 47
V IE W O N E : “ T H E IS R AE L O F GO D ” IS THE CHURCH
31
Ernest De W itt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians
(Edinburgh : T. & T . Clark, 1921) 35 7-59. Bu rton argues for a change in the com mon punctuation of the
verse, preferring to put a comm a after autous (NA SB, “them ”), pointing out that if eir n (NASB,
“peace”) and eleos (NAS B, “mercy”) were taken together, the order is illogical, for the effect would be
placed first and the c aus e afte rwa rds. Fur ther, in cou nterin g the c laim that th e fina l clause of the vers e is
exp licative o f thos e w ho w alk acc ordin g to this rule and thus com posed of both Jews and Gentiles in the
church, he says, “[T]h ere is, in fact, no instance of his [Paul’s] using Isra el except of the Jew ish nation
or a part thereof” (358). Bu rton takes the “and m ercy” to be an afterthought and the final words, “and
upon the Israel of God,” to be a second afterthought. He contends that the kai (NASB, “and”) following
eleos (NA SB, “m ercy”) is slightly ascensive, introducing the last clause, “and m ercy upon the Israel of
God” (Burton’s rendering). This last clause refers to “those within Israel who even though as yet
unenlightened are the tru e Israel of God ” (ibid.). H is view w ould be s trengthen ed, it seem s to m e, if he
had taken the fir st kai after “them” as copulative or continuative and the second one after “mercy” as
adjunctive, rendering the verse, “And as many as sha ll walk by th is rule, peace be upon them, and m ercy
also upon the Israel of Go d,”
32
W . D. D avies, “Paul and the P eople of Israel,” New T estament Studies 24 :4-39 . D avies sp ecific ally
finds it difficult to see Isra el here as the church of Jews and Gentiles, which would be contrary to Pauline
usage elsewhere. H e says, “If t hi s p ro p os al w ere correct o ne w ould h ave e xpe cted to find sup port f or it
in R om . ix -xi wh ere Pa ul e xte ns ive ly deals with ‘Israel”’ (11 note) . D avies ’s vie ws are n ot very d efinite
or clear, but he does admit that the desire for peace in v. 16, recalling the Shem oneh Esre h, m ay refe r to
the Jewish p eople as a whole (10).
33
Robert Gov ett, Govett on Galatians (Miam i Springs, Fla.: Conley and Schoe ttle, 1981 [ orig. ed.,
1872]) 233-36. Govett, the well-known nineteenth-century independent scholar, and pastor, referred the
clause “and upon the Israel of God” to “the renew ed m en of Israel, whom God will restore to Himself and
to their land in millennial days” (235). Cf. Pss 135:5; 128:5-6; Isa 54:7-8, 10; Mic 7:20.
34
Franz M ussn er, De r G alate rbr ief (Frieburg: Herders, 1977) 417. H e links the clause with Rom
11:26. His final comm ents are, “So deutet der Apostel in Gal 6, 16 shon an, was er dann in Rom 9–11
explizieren wird. Paulus hat sein Volk nie vergessen” (417). The “Israel of God” is identical wi th the “all
Israel” of Rom 11:26.
35
Peter Rich ardson , Israel in the Apostolic Church (Cam bridge: Cambridge U., 1969) 74-84.
Ric hard son ’s dis cus sion is on e of th e leng thies t of the treatm ents of the text.
48 The Master’s Seminary Journal
36
Schrenk lists as examples of the exp licative usage 1 Cor 8:12; 12:27f.; 14:27; 15:38; 2 Cor. 5:15.
The usage is often found in conjunction with kai touto , as in 1 Cor 2:2; 5:1; 6:6, 8, 10-11; Rom 13:11;
Eph 2:8; cf. Heb 1 1:12. A cu rsory study of these instances will cast doubt over the validity of som e of
the exam ples. Cf. F. Blass and A . De brun ner, A Gr eek G ram ma r of th e N ew Tes tam ent a nd O ther Ea rly
Christian Litera ture, trans. and rev. Robert W . Funk (C hicago: U. of Chicago, 1961) 228-29; Maxim ilian
Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examp les, adapted from the 4th Latin ed. by Joseph Smith (Rome:
Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963) 15 2-54. Zerwick is un decided abou t Gal 6:16 (154).
37
Cf. Lenski, Interpretation of Saint Paul’s Epistles 320 -21; Lightfoot, Epistle to the Galatians 25;
Hoe kem a, The Bible and the Future 197.
38
G. B. Winer, A Treatise on the Gramm ar of New Testament Greek, Regarded as a Sure Basis for
New Testa me nt Exe gesis, trans . with additions by W. F. Moulton, 9th English ed. (Edinburgh: T. &. T.
Clark, 1882) 546.
39
Ellicott, St. Paul’s Epistle to the G alatians 154. He also discusses and questions other of the
relatively few claimed instances of this usage.
Paul and “The Israel of God” 49
40
Cf. Schrenk, “Der Segenwunsch ,” Judaica 6 (1950):177-78.
41
Cf. Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Lu ke A cts (Minn eapolis: Augsburg,
1972) 49.
42
Cf. Davies, “P aul and the Peop le of Israel” 11, who w ith others makes the p oint that if Israel here
sh ou ld include believing Gentiles, one would expect to find sup port for this in Romans 9-11. But none
is there.
50 The Master’s Seminary Journal
43
Cf. Gutbrod, “Israel” 3:387. He comm ents, “On the oth er h an d, we are no t told he re t ha t G en tile
Christians are the true Israel. The distinction at R. 9:6 does not go beyond what is presupposed at Jn. 1:47,
and it corresponds to the distinction between Ioydaios en tÇ2 kryptÇ2 and loydaios en tÇ2 phanerÇ2 at R.
2:28f., w hich d oes no t imp ly that Paul is calling G entiles the true Jew s.”
44
LaRon delle, The Israel of God in Prophecy 108.
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid., 110.
Paul and “The Israel of God” 51
undistributed middle.4 7
V IE W TW O : “ T H E IS R AE L O F GO D ” R E FE R S T O JE W IS H B EL IE V ER S IN P A U L’ S DAY
47
LaRonde lle’s c om m ents on Gal 6:16 in dicate little, if any, interaction w ith Bu rton, Critical and
Exegetical Com mentary, the finest old technical comm entary on Galatians; Betz, Galatians, the best new
technical work in English; Bruce in his ex cellent work Galatians: Comm entary on the Greek Text; or w ith
the periodical articles of Dahl, Schrenk, and Robinson. The carefully thought through article by Robinson
is particularly appropriate for questions con cern ing G al 6:16 , as its title (“The Distinction between Jewish
and Gentile Believers in Galatians”) indicates.
48
Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church 83. Many am illennialists, including LaRondelle,
overlook this.
49
Cf. Robinson, “The Distinction Between Jewi sh an d G en tile B elie vers i n G alatian s,” espe cia lly
47-48.
50
Betz, Galatians 320-21.
51
Ibid., 323.
52 The Master’s Seminary Journal
VIEW THREE : “ T H E ISRAEL O F GO D ” REFERS TO THAT BODY OF ETHNIC ISRAEL WHO ARE
Exegetical considera tions. The third view of “the Israel of God,” namely,
that the term is eschatological in force and refers to the “all Israel” of Romans 11:26,
is an extension of the previous interpretation. It, too, takes the term “the Israel of
God” to refer to ethnic Israel but locates their blessing in the future. Their salvation
was a great concern of Paul, as his ministry attests (cf. Rom 9:3-5; 10:1). An
impressive array of contempo rary interp reters hold this view, although with some
minor variations.
Because Peter Richardso n, largely following Burton, has discussed the
matter at some length, his views will be emphasized. Seeking to overthrow th e
common misconception that “the Israel of God” refers to the church composed of
both believing Gentiles and believing Jews, he makes the following points: First, the
unique order o f peace and mercy, probably suggested by Jewish benedictions,
particularly Benediction XIX of the Shemoneh Esreh (Babylonian recension), may
be significant. The prayer has the order of peace and then mercy in it, followed by a
reference to “us and all Israel.” 5 3 Other OT passages, such as Ps 124:5 (= 127:6),
offer more general parallels. In such p laces “Israel” is used ethnically and, if there is
Pau line dependence on them, he pro bab ly used the term ethnically.
Second, the strange order of peace and mercy suggests, as Burton
52
The force of 1:8-9 and its “let him be accursed” is very strong, since anathema referred ultim ate ly
to that under the divine curse. In Rom 9:3 Paul says he could pray to be a na th em a from Ch rist, that is,
consigned to Gehenna, if his people could be saved by his sacrifice. In other words, it is almost as if Paul
were saying, “If any man should preach a contrary gospel, let him go to hell!” Galatians certainly is a
“K am pfep istel!”
53
Cf. R ichards on, Israel in the Apostolic Church 78-80.
Paul and “The Israel of God” 53
54
Contrast the NASB.
55
Cf. B urton, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians 358.
56
Bru ce, Galatians: Comm entary on the Greek Text 275.
57
Several linguistic ma tters lend further support to an e sch atologica l pers pec tive. In a dditio n to the
mention of the phrase “the kingdom of God,” the frequent use of the concept of prom ise in the letter (cf.
3:14; 16, 17, 18 [twice], 19, 21, 22, 29; 4:23, 28) and the concept of inheritance (cf. 3:14,18, 29; 4:1, 7,
30; 5:21), related as they are to the A brah am ic cove nan t, acce nt the futu re pe rspe ctive. A nd f inally, is
there s ig nific an ce in th e fa ct th at th e te rm inheritance in Romans 11 is related by Paul to God’s saving
work toward the nation Israel in the future? The concept is found in 11:30, 31, and 32 in both noun and
verb form s. And h ere in Gal 6:16 the concep t appears also.
54 The Master’s Seminary Journal
there are two kinds of Israelites, a believing one and an unbelieving one. The
teaching is plainly set out in such passages as Rom 2:28-29; 4:11-12; 9:6; and 11:1-
36. Gal 6:16 forms another link in the apostle’s teaching.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
58
Stew ard C hase, Guides to Straight Thinking: With 13 Comm on Fallacies (New York: H arper &
Row, 1956) 122
59
LaRon delle, The Israel of God in Prophecy 110-11.
Paul and “The Israel of God” 55
This is hardly the place to enlarge up on this theme. It has been done well
elsewhere.6 0 Nev ertheless I think it is permissible to suggest that exegetes seem
particularly prone today to logical fallacies. The case of the undistributed middle,
mentioned earlier, underlines the im portance of clear thinking in exegetical
discussion.
R E FL EC T IO N S O N C O N T EM P O R A RY T H EO LO G IC A L P O S IT IO N S
60
Cf. D . A. C arson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) 91-126.
61
Hoekem a, The Bible and the Future 146-47. H e also adds certain strictures to the comm on
perception of a future for Israel. Referring to Rom 11:26 he says, “There is nothing in the passage which
wo uld rule out such a future conversion or such future conversions, as long as one does not insist that the
passage points only to the f utur e, or th at it describes a conversion of Israel which occurs after the full
num ber of Gentiles has been gathered in” (147). Th at, of course, is ju st w ha t R om 11 :25 -27 do es do . It
poin ts to the future, and the conversion of Israel is plac ed b y the apostle after the gathering in of the
Ge ntiles. It, therefore, r eally is diff icult for Ho ekem a to inc lude a n eth nic fu ture f or Israe l in his
amillennial scheme.