Israel as a Technical Term

Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved (1 Cor. 10.31-33).

The Categories of Man

From the passage above, we see that God categorizes man into three groups: Jews, Greeks, i.e. Gentiles, and the Church. Each has a separate and distinct purpose and administration in God's plan. Before God chose Abraham he dealt with mankind as a whole. Or, we might want to say that the world was all Gentile. With his call of Abraham, God created and divided the world into two sphere's: Gentile and Jew. God made a unique relationship with the Jews. He gave them covenants, entrusted them with the Word of God, and governed them through the Mosaic Law. The grand revelation God gave Israel through his prophets and covenants was that he would establish a kingdom with them, that they would be preeminent among all the earth's nations, and that a Messiah would rule this kingdom.

The distinct entities of Jew and Gentile continued until Paul. Through Paul, God revealed a third entity--the Church, also known as the Body of Christ. The Church was a new creation which had been completely unknown until the time of Paul. There is no mention of it in the Old Testament. God did not reveal it to his prophets nor did Jesus reveal it to his disciples in his ministry on earth. Paul declared that the Church, the Body of Christ was a "mystery". That is, it was a "secret" (Gk, μυστήριον) that God had kept hidden until he revealed it to Paul (Eph. 2.11-22; 3.3-9; Col. 1.26-27; Rom. 16.25-27).

Israel a Technical Term

The term "Israel" in Scripture is a technical term for it is always used for Jacob and his physical offspring¹. In the same way, the term "Gentile" is a technical term since it always refers to someone who is not Jewish. This fact is obvious and undisputed in the Old Testament. In New Testament studies, however, the meaning of the term "Israel" is a point of contention. The reason for the contention is not lexical but theological.

The lexical evidence that the word "Israel" means only the physical offspring of Jacob is overwhelming. No lexical evidence exists that "Israel" means anything other than ethnic Jews. In the New Testament, the term "Israel" occurs 69 times and the term "Israelite" occurs twice. In every case it is clear that the terms refer to ethnic Jews. Anyone who has done the most basic word study of the term knows this to be true. As we noted in Paul's passage above, the Scriptures keep the entities of Israel, Gentiles, and the Church separate and distinct.

Despite the fact that the term "Israel" always refers to ethnic Jews, the majority of Christendom defines the Church as "Israel". Why is this? The answer is because of theology. Rather than allow the texts to speak for themselves, a theological viewpoint has been thrust upon the Scriptures. In biblical interpretive terminology this is known as eisegesis. It is the opposite of exegesis in which interpretation is determined from the text. In eisegesis, interpretation is read into the text. A world of difference exists between the two methods. One yields sound theology while the other yields false theology.

A Problem Passage

One particular passage has been used to argue that term "Israel" means the Chruch rather than ethnic Jews. This is Galatians 6.16. To understand the argument requires some historical background. In the second century AD² a poisonous theory arose that promoted the idea that when the nation of Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah, God ended his plan with them. Advocates of this theory rejected the idea that God's covenantal promises to Israel were literal.

Throughout the nation of Israel's history God's prophets had prophesied a coming kingdom. Familiar passages include those of the wolf and lamb lying down together, the lion eating straw, and the swords being beaten into plowshares (Is. 11.6;65.25; 2.4). Both John the Baptizer and Jesus proclaimed the kingdom. They declared that after hundreds of years of prophecy the kingdom was now "near" (Mt. 3.2; 4.17; 10.7; Mk. 1.15; Lk. 10.9-11). Even after the Lord's resurrection and ascension, Peter continued to proclaim the kingdom to Israel. But, unlike John and Jesus' message that the kingdom was "near" he declared that if the nation repented (i.e., accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah) Jesus would return and set up his kingdom (Acts 3.18-21). But, as we know, the nation did not repent and hence, the promised kingdom did not come. Rather than accept a simple literal reading of the passage and understand the text in its normal sense supersessionists maintain that God's promises were not literal but spiritual³.

Superssessionists argue that God created the Church as a "new' or "replacement" Israel and that God's promises to national Israel made in the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants (see Covenants of Israel) have been transferred to the Church and are being fulfilled "spiritually" by the Church.³ Obviously, for this theological theory to work, "Israel" has to mean something other than the physical offspring of Jacob. The "spiritualizing" of texts is a dangerous road. Once one sets foot on that path few hermeneutical roadblocks exist to prevent aberrant theology and apostasy.

"Spiritualizing" Texts

"The angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.'"

The angel told Mary she would give birth to a son whom she would name Jesus and that God would give him the prophesied throne of his father David. God had made a covenant with David in which he had promised David that he would establish his throne forever (2 Samuel 7). Under this covenant, Jesus, in his role of King, would reign over the house of Jacob, i.e. Israel, forever.

According to a normal reading of the passage, Mary was to have a literal, physical son by means of a literal, physical pregnancy and birth. God promised that he would give this son the throne of David. What did this mean? Where was David's throne? Did David ruled from Jerusalem or heaven? One only has to read the Old Testament accounts in 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, etc. The angel declared to Mary that her son would have the throne of his father David and like David would rule the house of Jacob, that is, Israel. But, unlike the limited reign David had enjoyed, his reign and kingdom will have no end.

What did Mary make of this? Certainly the fact of her pregnancy was confusing to her since she was a virgin. But the fact of the Messiah reigning over the Jews was not. This had been prophesied for hundreds of years. What kind of hermeneutical legerdemain would lead one to conclude that Mary's pregnancy and son were literal but that Jesus' kingship and kingdom was not, i.e. that his reign would not be in Jerusalem over the Jews? Tragically, most of Christendom teaches (without a shred of scriptural support it) that Jesus is presently occupying some sort of spiritualized Davidic throne in heaven and is ruling over a "spiritualized" Israel, i.e. the Church. What do the Scriptures teach? They teach that Jesus is now seated at the right hand of his Father's throne and that he is awaiting his Father's will in the fulfillment of his prophesied and covenanted rule over the nation of Israel.

Let us continue to follow the logic of a "spiritualizing" hermeneutic by examining the verses which immediately follow those above. Luke recorded in Luke 1.34-37,

"Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I am a virgin?' The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. For nothing will be impossible with God.'"

If we are consistent with a hermeneutic that leads to the conclusion that Jesus is reigning "spiritually" over a "spiritual" Israel (the Church), we are obligated to conclude that Mary was not a literal virgin but a "spiritual" virgin, i.e., a woman of pure character and motives. Pushing this interpretive line a bit further, it is but a short step to reason that Jesus did not rise literally (physically) from the dead but that he rose "spiritually" in the hearts of his followers. When we reach this point Christianity is destroyed. How did it happen? By "spiritualizing" the texts and abandoning their normal sense any interpretation becomes possible because their is no restraint or discipline to such a system. Tragically, this kind of interpretative poison is rampant throughout most of Christendom and the result is mass confusion and division.

Children of Abraham

In Romans 4 (cf. Galatians 3), Paul made the case that those who believe in Christ are the children of Abraham. Does this mean that Paul taught that Gentiles or the Church was Israel? Quite the contrary. Throughout his writings, Paul kept Jew, Gentile, and the Church distinct. Paul's argument with respect to Abraham was soteriological only. Paul never stated that Gentiles or the Church were "Israel". Paul argued that Abraham obtained righteousness by faith. He was not saved by obeying the Mosaic Law (it did not yet exist) or by any works or by any combination of faith plus works. Abraham was saved soley on the basis of his faith apart from works. As such, Abraham's faith was the pattern for obtaining salvation solely on the basis of faith. All who believe in Christ in the Church age become children of Abraham because they obtain righteousness according to the pattern of Abraham. The Jew under the Law did not fit into this pattern. Under the Mosaic Law works were required for salvation in addition to faith. What if a Jew said, "I believe that the animal sacrifices cover my sin but I'm not going to give an animal to the priest". Would that Jew have been saved. Absolutely not! Since the Mosaic Law was in operation faith required works. Failure to provide the animal (work) would indicate that the person really did not have faith. But for the Church Age believer, to whom Paul was the apostle, no works are required, i.e. faith in Christ plus nothing, and so the Church Age beliver fits the pattern of Abraham for Abraham performed no works to obtain righteousness. It is an entirely different argument and an unscriptural leap to state that the Church is Israel on the basis of invoking Abraham and saying that those who believe are his children and therefore the Church is Israel. Such a statement is to fundamentally misunderstand the soteriological argument Paul is making. We know from Paul many declarations that the Church, the body of Christ, was a new entity created by God and that prior to him the Church was a "mystery", i.e. a secret which God had kept unrevealed until God revealed it to him (Eph. 2.11-22; 3.3-9; Col. 1.26-27; Rom. 16.25-27).

Paul's great treatise on Israel in Romans 9-11 asserted the nation's identity and affirmed that God would fulfill his promises to the nation. He reiterated the covenantal relationship and promises God had made to Israel. Romans 9 deals with Israel's past, Romans 10 with Israel's present condition, and Romans 11 with Israel's future. Paul stated that one day national Israel (Israel according to the flesh, cf. Romans 9.3-8 would return to the Lord and be saved (Rom. 11.25-27). Jesus prophetically summed this up as he concluded his tirade against the Pharisees in Matthew 23.37-39:

"'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! (v. 37) How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! (v. 38) For I say to you, from now on you shall not see Me until you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! (v. 39)'"

In verse 37 Jesus recorded Israel's past (cf. Romans 9), verse 38 (cf. Romans 10) recorded Israel's status when Jesus was present, and in verse 39 (cf. Romans 11) Jesus prophesied Israel's future. Jesus awaits the day when the nation will repent and say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!" When national Israel utters these words--a divine certainty--Jesus will return as Israel's Savior and King. God will then fulfill his covenantal promises to the nation. Thus, Paul asserted that God had not abolished his promises to ethnic Israel nor applied them in a "spiritual" manner to the Church.

Galatians 6.16--Grammatical and Lexical Evidence

Paul wrote his epistle to the Galatians to address and correct the error of Jewish teachers who taught that Gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law to be saved. Some maintain Paul addressed only one group in Galatians 6.16. For this argument to be valid "kai\" in the phrase kai\ e0pi\ to\n 0Israh\l tou= qeou must have an explanatory sense of "even" rather than the usual connective sense of "and". Thus, according to this sense, the passage would read, "and as many as who will walk by this rule, peace upon them and mercy, even upon the Israel of God".

Gramatically, such a translation is strained. A simpler and straightforward translation is that Paul addressed two groups rather than one. The grammatical evidence strongly supports this conclusion for the following reasons:

The NIV has translated ka\i as "even" as opposed to the KJV and NAS versions' choice of "and". Why the NIV translators chose to translate as they did in the face of nonexistent grammatical support is interesting. Since there were many translators knowledgeable of Greek one can only conclude that they were biased and wanted to promote a theological agenda that the text will not support.

Galatians 6.16--Contextual Evidence

The choice of a translation or an interpretation is governed not only by grammatical or lexical evidence but by the context of the work. Throughout the Galatian epistle Paul had two groups in mind. In the previous verse, Galatians 5.16, Paul wrote, "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." The two groups Paul had in mind are the circumcised, i.e. Jews, and the uncircumcised, i.e. Gentiles. Earlier in the Epistle, in Galatians 2, Paul introduced these two groups in terms of ministry. According to Paul, he and the Twelve decided on their missionary targets. They agreed that Paul would go to the Gentiles while Peter and the eleven would go to the Jews. Thus, we read Paul's words:

But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised" (Gal. 2.7-9).

While God had commissioned Paul as the "apostle to the Gentiles" Peter's commission was to Israel (Acts 9.15-16; 14.26-28; 18.6; 22.21; 26.16-18; 28.28; Gal. 2.2, Rom. 11.13; Eph. 3.1, 8; 1 Tim. 2.7). The two ministries were distinct. Paul had not been part of Jesus' earthly ministry. Peter and the eleven had received their commission from Christ on earth. But Paul had received his commission from the risen, heavenly Christ. These verses indicate a clear change of commission from how Jesus had instructed them earlier. In Matthew 28.18-20 the Scripture records,

Now, instead of going to the nations, the Twelve agreed to limit their ministry to Jews. Clearly, a change had taken place to the original commission by Jesus. The Twelve continued to preach the "gospel of the kingdom" (cf. Acts 2.22, 38; 3.12, etc.) which they had preached during Jesus' earthly ministry. Paul, on the other hand, according to his commission preached the "gospel of the grace of God".

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise".

Does this verse militate against the distinctiveness of Jew, Gentile, and Church? Paul maintained the distinction of each of these groups while also revealing that a new relationship had been created. Paul did not write that functional differences between slave and free had been abolished. He told slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6.5-6). Are we to conclude that when one believes in Christ that sexual differences are abolished? When one believes in Christ does one become androgynous? No, sexual identities remain unchanged. Did Paul teach that the Church is the "Israel of God" because if one belongs to Christ one is Abraham's offspring in any ethnic sense? Not at all. Paul argued that those who trust in Christ are children of Abraham in a soteriological sense; they have come to God the same way Abraham did--by faith alone.

A Time of Transition

The lives of the apostles was a period of theological transition. In his second volume of history, Luke wrote Acts and recorded the history of the transition of the prophetic program of Israel following Jesus' death and resurrection to the "mystery" Church program. The purpose of the book of Acts was to explain the fall of the nation of Israel. This is in contradistinction to those who view Acts as a history of the birth of the Church.

In Galatians 6.16 Paul identified Jewish believers as the Israel of God. Paul had these same believers in mind in Romans 9.6-8 when he stated, "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" and earlier in Romans 2.28-29. A true Jew was not merely a descendent of Jacob; a true Jew was a descendent of Jacob who had exercised faith in YHVH, or in Jesus' day, one who had believed in Jesus as the Messiah and had been baptized. These were the "Israel of God". Adjectively the phrase "Israel of God" could be called "godly Israel". The transition period recorded in Acts ended with God's judgment of national Israel in 70 A.D. After that, there was no "Israel of God". There was only the Church, the Body of Christ. The "gospel of the grace of God" fully supplanted "the gospel of the kingdom". This had largely occurred by the close of Acts 28.26-28 when Paul declared:

Today, under the dispensation of grace, Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ are equal "in Christ". There is no "Israel of God" in the sense of Paul's day. But a future day remains in which the prophetic program will restart. When it is reinitiated national Israel will recognize Jesus as her Messiah and King and be saved (Rom. 9-11).

Conclusion

The grammatical, lexical, and contextual evidence for the distinctiveness and differences of Jew, Gentile, and the Church is overwhelming. On the basis of this evidence Paul clearly addressed two groups of believers in Galatians 6.16. The term "Israel" is a technical word since it is always used for ethnic Jews. Those who teach that the Church is a "new" or "replacement" Israel" reach this theological viewpoint with no Scriptural support. The Judaizers, whom Paul opposed, taught that Gentile believers needed to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law to be saved. Paul had issued a stern warning against them at the beginning of his letter (Gal. 1.6-10) and concluded his letter by wishing peace and mercy upon Gentile believers who followed his teaching along with "true" or "godly Israel", i.e. "the Israel of God".

¹The reader can examine for himself that every occurrence of the term "Israel" in the New Testament refers to the physical offspring of Jacob. Paul always used the term in this manner as did every other Scripture writer. There no instance in which "Israel" means Church or Gentile. In some cases the term refers to believing Jews or to unbelieving Jews. But in all cases it refers to Jews. See the terms Israel and Israelite in the New Testament to confirm this fact.

² Craig A. Blaising, "The Future of Israel as a Theological Question", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 44/3 (September 2001), p. 435. The article is online. This view is known as supersessionism and we know of it from the writings of Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, and the Letter of Barnabas. Blaising's article includes explanations of the three types of supersessionism which have been taken from R. K. Soulen's work, The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Tragically, the error of supersessionism that begin in the 2nd century has poisoned theological opinion to such a degree that in our day it has become the predominate view of Christendom.

³ The term "spiritual" is used by convention for figurative, non-literal, or non-normative language. There is nothing "spiritual" as in holy, good, or beneficial, in "spiritualizing" biblical texts. Figurative language is completely legitimate in a number of contexts and is relatively easy to spot, for instance in poetry, parables, or examples (cf. Isaiah, "all flesh is grass"; Jesus, "I am the door"). But the twisting of texts to mean something other than their normal reading and imputation of unscriptural theological views is a carnal exercise, not a spiritual one. The only "spiritual" exercise available to those who "spiritualize" texts is repentance!

⁴ It is ironic that most of those who maintain this theory profess to have a strong view of God's sovereignty. But according to their theory, God's sovereign promises were abrogated through the disobedience and failure of one generation of Jews! Paul declared, "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom. 11.29). The entire chapter 11 of Romans is Paul's prescient warning against the arrogance of supersessionism. In essence, supersessionism impugns God's veracity. We can only conclude from the logic of supersessionism that if we cannot trust God to keep his promises to the Jews then there is no reason for us to trust him to keep his promises to the Church or to believers.

tw~| a)gapw~nti h(ma~j kai\ lu/santi h(ma~j e)k tw~n a(martiw~n h(mw~n e)n tw|~ a(i/mati au)tou~.

�1998 Don Samdahl. Anyone is free to reproduce this material and distribute it, but it may not be sold.