|
Author
|
Topic: Who are the Israel of Yahweh?
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
The Church (Spirit Israel) is what God had in mind for physical Jew and physical Gentile all along. The physical Jews by and large rejected this. The physical Gentiles who believed distorted this (under the Roman Catholicism systematically removing everything Jewish from the faith in the name of dispelling legalism).
This is why there are so many pagan practices adopted into "Christianity" like Astarte / Easter flavored with a Jewish free form of resurrection and pagan easter bunnies and colored eggs.
How Christ-mass which in name was to force out the pagan feast day saturnalia has the druid worship of trees included with the dressing of them in every home with lights and garland and then there's the yule log with it's ties to Nimrod...
That's just on the surface not to get into the doctrines and catechisms and creeds that are adulterated with paganism.
You cannot remove what God put in place and not have paganism (humanism / satanism) rush in to fill the vacuum.
Thankfully... the core doctrines are generally still in place. Without them there would be no room for anyone to be saved at all.
In short, a counterfeiter would have to use something more convincing than Monopoly money to pass his counterfeit money. So God had condescended to save us... yet again...
IP: Logged | 
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Jeremiah 31:31-34 (NASB 1995)
31 Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.
33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
The New Testament / New Covenant was first to the Jew then to the Gentile (Romans 1:16 / Romans 2:10)... so this is not a post tribulation covenant.
Jeremiah speaks of the collective as "the House of Judah and the House of Israel (as Romans 11:16-26 does calling it the Olive Tree and "All Israel").
If we set aside out prejudices and allow the Bible to speak... we will realize we are this Spirit Israel referred to as the Olive Tree, All Israel, the Israel of YHVH (Galatians 6:16).
IP: Logged |
|
|
Betty Louise
Advanced Member
Member # 7175
|
posted
So right Carol. I thank God, that we will be spared the wrath that is going to fall on this earth during the tribulation. We will be at the Marriage Supper of The Lamb. What a wonderful time we will be having up there!
Have a blessed day.
betty
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Posts: 5051 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Betty ![[thumbsup2]](graemlins/thumbsup2.gif)
The Church won't be here during the Tribulation.
Daniel’s prophecy is pointedly Jewish in perspective and so is the Tribulation. It was referred to as the Time of Jacob’s Trouble in the Old Testament, until the Lord coined its new name in Matt 24:21, and the Old Testament is where its purpose is explained. Jeremiah 30:1-11.
In several passages, the Bible refers to the tribulation as a time of trouble for the Jews. The phrase "Jacob's trouble" pertains to the descendants of Jacob. Jeremiah 30:7 says that this time of trouble will come just before the Lord returns to save His people. The final week of Daniel's 70th week is yet to take place. An angel told Daniel that, "70 weeks are determined unto thy people" (Dan 9:24). Scripture never mentions that the tribulation is meant to be a time of testing for Christians.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Betty Louise
Advanced Member
Member # 7175
|
posted
The Bible supports a pre-trib rapture and God made it clear that He will never forsake Israel.
We are living in the Church Age, but after the rapture, God will again turn His focus to Israel.
In fact Israel is being prepared for the work that God is going to do in Her, even now.
betty
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Posts: 5051 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
oh, ok, the bible is wrong... go ahead cut out the passages I cited and be happy. After all... who is God to question Tommy Ice or other biblical theologians?
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
ISRAEL/CHURCH DISTINCTION: THE FOURTH FOUNDATION
by Thomas Ice
The fourth biblical foundation upon which the pre-trib rapture is built is the fact that God has two peoples-Israel and the church. What do we mean by this distinction and how does it impact pretribulationism?
The Distinction Between Israel and the Church
"The New Testament consistently differentiates between Israel and the church," claims Arnold Fruchtenbaum.1 Fruchtenbaum supports this conclusion through a powerful twofold argument in which he first demonstrates the biblical view of Israel and secondly, by showing that the church is viewed in the New Testament as a separate entity.
Belief that God's single plan for history includes the two peoples of Israel and the church does not imply that there are thus different ways of salvation. When it comes to the issue of salvation there is only one way, since all peoples down through history descend from a single source-Adam. Christ's saving work is the only way of salvation for anyone, whether they are a member of Israel or the church.
Israel
Fruchtenbaum notes that "the term Israel is viewed theologically as referring to all descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, also known as Jews, the Jewish people, Israelites, Hebrews, etc." (113). He notes that national election distinguishes Israel from those peoples who were not chosen that we know as Gentiles (113-14). Fruchtenbaum outlines four reasons for Israel's election: 1) they were "chosen on the basis of God's love . . . to be 'a kingdom of priests and a holy nation' (Ex. 19:6) . . . to represent the Gentile nations before God." 2) "God chose Israel to be the recipient of His revelation and to record it (Deut. 4:5-8; 6:6-9; Rom. 3:1-2)." 3) Israel "was to propagate the doctrine of the One God (Deut. 6:4)." 4) Israel "was to produce the Messiah (Rom. 9:5; Heb. 2:16-17; 7:13-14) (115)."
No biblically oriented christian would deny these purposes relating to Israel. The differences begins to emerge when we consider Israel in relation to the church. "Some theologians insist," notes Fruchtenbaum "that at some point the church receives the promises given to Israel and thus become the 'New Israel' (known as replacement theology). Some believe the terms church and Israel are used virtually 'interchangeably,' most citing Galatians 6:16 and some Romans 9:6." (116).
However, those commonly known as dispensationalists interpret the Bible literally and thus do not confuse the terms Israel and the church, since there is no basis in the text of any biblical passage for supporting such an approach.
Having noted important aspects of the biblical use of Israel, I will now examine the nature of the church.
The Church
Six reasons are given by Fruchtenbaum from the Bible supporting the notion that the church is a distinct work in God's household from His people Israel.
1) "The first evidence is the fact that the church was born at Pentecost, whereas Israel had existed for many centuries" (116). This is supported by "the use of the future tense in Matthew 16:18 shows that it did not exist in gospel history" (116). Since the church born at Pentecost is called the "Body of Christ" (Col. 1:18), and entrance into the body is through "Spirit baptism" (1 Cor. 12:13), in which Jew and Gentile are united through the church. It is evident that the church began on the Day of Pentecost since Acts 1:5 views Spirit baptism as future, while Acts 10 links it to the past, specifically to Pentecost.
2) "The second evidence is that certain events in the ministry of the Messiah were essential to the establishment of the church-the church does not come into being until certain events have taken place" (117). These events include the resurrection and ascension of Jesus to become head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23). "The church, with believers as the body and Christ as the head, did not exist until after Christ ascended to become its head. And it could not become a functioning entity until after the Holy Spirit provided the necessary spiritual gifts (Eph. 4:7-11)" (117).
3) "The third evidence is the mystery character of the church (117)." A mystery in the Bible is a hidden truth not revealed until the New Testament (Eph. 3:3-5, 9; Col. 1:26-27). Fruchtenbaum lists "four defining characteristics of the church [that] are described as a mystery. (1) The body concept of Jewish and Gentile believers united into one body is designated as a mystery in Ephesians 3:1-12. (2) The doctrine of Christ indwelling every believer, the Christ-in-you concept, is called a mystery in Colossians 1:24-27 (cf. Col. 2:10-19; 3:4). (3) The church as the Bride of Christ is called a mystery in Ephesians 5:22-32. (4) The Rapture is called a mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. These four mysteries describe qualities that distinguish the church from Israel" (117-18).
4) "The fourth evidence that the church is distinct from Israel is the unique relationship between Jews and the Gentiles, called one new man in Ephesians 2:15" (118). During the current church age God is saving a remnant from the two previous entities (Israel and Gentiles) and combining them into a third new object-the church. This unity of Jews and Gentiles into one new man covers only the church age, from Pentecost until the rapture, after which time God will restore Israel and complete her destiny (Acts 15:14-18). 1 Corinthians 10:32 reflects just such a division when it says, "Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God."
5) "The fifth evidence for the distinction between Israel and the church is found in Galatians 6:16" (118). "It appears logical to view 'the Israel of God' (Gal. 6:16) as believing Jews in contrast to unbelieving Jews called 'Israel after the flesh' (1 Cor. 10:18)" (124).2 This passage does not support the false claim of replacement theologians who claim that Israel is supplanted by the Church. Instead, the Bible teaches that a remnant of Israel is combined with elect Gentiles during this age to make up a whole new entity the New Testament calls the church (Eph. 2).
Replacement theology tries to teach that because Gentiles believers are described as the "seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:29) that this is equivalent to saying that they are Israel. This is clearly not the case. Paul's description of Gentile believers in Galatians 3:29 simply means that they participate in the spiritual (i.e., salvation) blessings that come through Israel (Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11, 14). "Those who are the spiritual seed are partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings but are never said to become partakers of the physical, material, or national promises" (126). Therefore, Israel's national promises are left in tact awaiting a yet future fulfillment.
6) "In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct" (118).3 Thus, the replacement theologian has no actual biblical basis upon which he bases his theological claim that Israel and the church have become one.
The Significance of the Distinction
If Israel and the church are not distinguished then there is no basis for seeing a future for Israel or for the church, as a new and unique people of God. If Israel and the church are merged into a single program, then the Old Testament promises for Israel will never be fulfilled and are usually seen by replacement theologians as spiritually fulfilled by the church. The merging of Israel's destiny into the church not only makes into one what the Scriptures understand as two, it removes a need for future restoration of God's original elect people in order to fulfill literally His promise that they will one day be the head and not the tail (Deut. 28:13).
The more that the believer sees a distinct plan for Israel and a distinct plan for the church, the more they realize that when the New Testament speaks to the church it is describing a separate destiny and hope for her. The church becomes more distinct in the plan of God. Israel's future includes the seven-year tribulation and then shortly before Christ's return to Jerusalem she will be converted to Jesus as her Messiah as the veil is removed and then she looks upon the one Who was pierced and is converted. On the other hand, the distinct hope (the rapture before the 70th week of Daniel) for the church is Christ's any-moment return.
Thus, a distinction between Israel and the church, as taught in the Bible, provides a basis of support for the pre-trib rapture. Those who merge the two programs cannot logically support the biblical arguments for the pre-trib position.
http://www.angelfire.com/la/jlush/thomasice_israelchurch.html
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Finally...
Romans 9:6 (NASB 1995)
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
If I believed there was not a physical and a spiritual plan / identity scheme to the gospel this scripture could only get the response... Huh? What are you talking about?
Because it makes no sense otherwise.
There is a physical Israel and there is a spirit Israel. And btw being a spirit Jew does not make one a physical Jew... only Jewish parents can do that. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
And being born Jewish does not make one a spirit Jew either. Salvation is not by birth... and in fact unbelief cuts the natural branches from the Olive Tree.
Revelation 2:9 (NASB 1995)
9 I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
These are physical Jews who reject Jesus. They are therefore not (spirit) Jews but claim they are.
Don't get freaked out over the reference to Satan (this is not antisemitism) it is the dichotomy of all mankind... we either serve the Lord saved or serve the devil doomed. There is no in between or other choice. And in John 8 (around verse 44) he calls the Jewish pedigree leaders of Israel who opposed him children of the devil. And Peter when he opposed Jesus was called Satan (Matthew 16:23).
So don't go all Hollywood or Entertainment Tonight about the language the Bible uses. Before we came to faith in Christ we were all children of the devil also. And at times (even sometimes here in this message board) we give into our human reasoning and thinking and traditions and oppose the truth and Jesus could say to us as he did to Peter...
Matthew 16:23 (NASB 1995)
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”
We still have that stupid stupid stupid human nature to contend with and the only way to do so is in the spirit.
See the common thread here? Spirit / flesh...
If we were united as Jesus prayed for us to be in John 17... acting as priests of God rather than laity with overseer / enablers... think of the damage we could do to the kingdom of darkness simply by changing hearts by the billions one at a time.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
The early Church did not require conversion to Judaism in order to become believers. Those who tried to do this were the Judaizers Paul and the Apostle contended with in New Testament writings.
But the Roman Catholic Church threw the baby out with the bathwater.
And in its place the void (vacuum) was filled with Christianized paganism. The worship of the dead (prayer), statues, feasts and holy days of pagans like Astarte and Saturnalia along with All Hallows 'een to oppose the invented All Saints day (saint by definition and election of Roman Catholic governance and criteria)... creeds and catechisms placed on par with holy scripture... in some instances elevated above scripture (placing that aspect of RCC on par with cults who do the same thing for the same reasons... to elevate the word and traditions of man above God and his word).
But my question is...
Should we rule out the Jewish feasts, for example, in place of Roman Catholic traditions Protestants uphold to this very hour?
Think a moment.
The Jewish feasts all point to the Christ.
Or should we allow the furtherance of the slide of Christianity into the traditions of men (to the point it is so much fluff and psychology and geared towards worldliness and how to manage and succeed in being worldly)?
Another question is...
If God opened up the Gospel to Gentiles to incite jealousy of the Jews... and the point is to bring the Jews back into the fold / grafting back in...
...how is it God intended for it to be so unJewish as Christianity is?
How is that supposed to appeal to a Jewish heart a Jewish mind?
And this is not to mention how divided the Church is... read John 17 carefully about how important unity is to the Messiah / High Priest of our Salvation.
The Church is divided over human traditions... because it threw out everything Jewish about the faith and that suckin' sound ya hear (to quote little Ross Perot) is the sound o' paganism fillin' the void.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Philippians 3:3 (NASB 1995)
3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,
John 4:19-25 (NASB 1995)
19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
20 Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”
21 Jesus *said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
25 The woman *said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.”
Romans 2:28-29 (NASB 1995)
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
Galatians 6:13-16 (NASB 1995)
13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.
14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Romans 11:16-26 (NASB 1995)
16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
Notice how the Olive Tree never changes?
Was it planted as the new covenant or did it precede the new covenant?
If it did not precede the new covenant, then how could the Jews be considered the natural born branches?
And how is it by then by having unbelief they can be grafted back into that which they were born naturally to under the preceding covenant?
And if the Gentiles who are grafted in are to be somehow distinct.. then why the omission about their faction (all Israel and the Church or all Israel and the Gentile believers...) will be saved?
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
is it so funny that I quote a source that uses the Roman Catholic Wh!otre as source of research....
I don't deny the Roman Catholic Wh!ore's detrimental influence on the True Church!
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
The traditional Protestant and Catholic approach to this matter is quite different, however, because in these traditions "Israel" is often interpreted typologically. The Church is understood to be a "Spiritual Israel," so that many things said in connection with Israel in Scripture are applied to the Church
giggle
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
Romans 9
4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Romans 11
1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, 3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
The Israel of God
(Galatians 6:16)
by Michael Marlowe, Dec. 2004.
14 ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι᾽ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ. 15 οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία, ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις. 16 καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.
14 But far be it from me to boast, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world. 15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
The proper interpretation and translation of the last phrase in Galatians 6:16 has become a matter of controversy in the past century or so. Formerly it was not a matter of controversy. With few exceptions, "The Israel of God" was understood as a name for the Church here. [1] The καὶ ("and") which precedes the phrase ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ ("upon the Israel of God") was understood as an explicative καὶ. This understanding of the grammar is reflected in the Revised Standard Version's "Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God," and in the New International Version's "even to the Israel of God." It is not necessary, however, to understand the καὶ as an explicative in order to get substantially the same sense. If it be regarded as an ordinary connective καὶ, as Marvin Vicent says, "The ὅσοι ['as many as'] will refer to the individual Christians, Jewish and Gentile, and Israel of God to the same Christians, regarded collectively, and forming the true messianic community." (Word Studies in the New Testament vol. 4, p. 180). So the rendering "and upon the Israel of God" (KJV and others) is acceptable enough, if it is not misunderstood. In any case, it seems clear that in this verse Paul cannot be pronouncing a benediction upon persons who are not included in the phrase "as many as shall walk by this rule" (the rule of boasting only in the cross). The entire argument of the epistle prevents any idea that here in 6:16 he would give a blessing to those who are not included in this group.
The phrase has become controversial because the traditional interpretation conflicts with principles of interpretation associated with Dispensationalism. Dispensationalists are interested in maintaining a sharp distinction between "Israel" and "the Church" across a whole range of theological matters pertaining to prophecy, ecclesiology, and soteriology. They are not comfortable with the idea that here Paul is using the phrase "Israel of God" in a sense that includes Gentiles, because this undermines their contention that "the Church" is always carefully distinguished from "Israel" in Scripture. This is a major tenet of dispensationalist hermeneutics. C.I. Scofield in his tract, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (New York, Loizeaux Brothers, 1888) wrote, "Comparing, then, what is said in Scripture concerning Israel and the Church, [a careful Bible student ] finds that in origin, calling, promise, worship, principles of conduct, and future destiny--all is contrast." Likewise Charles Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism Today (Chicago, 1965) explained that the "basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity." (pp. 44-45).
The traditional Protestant and Catholic approach to this matter is quite different, however, because in these traditions "Israel" is often interpreted typologically. The Church is understood to be a "Spiritual Israel," so that many things said in connection with Israel in Scripture are applied to the Church. For instance, the words of Psalm 122, "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee," are understood as in Matthew Henry's commentary: "The peace and welfare of the gospel church ... is to be earnestly desired and prayed for." This is in keeping with the method of the apostles, as for instance in Galatians 4:26, where the apostle Paul speaks of "the Jerusalem that is above." Therefore when Paul speaks of "the Israel of God" in 6:16, the meaning of this expression is readily grasped. Rather than seeing a contrast, a deeply meaningful typological relationship is perceived.
As a young Christian I attended a church where the Dispensationalist approach was taught, and I remember how it was frequently supported by the statement that in Scripture "the Church is never called Israel." Galatians 6:16 was explained as if the phrase "and upon the Israel of God" referred to a Jewish subset of those people who "walk by this rule," that is, the Christians of Jewish ethnic background as distinguished from those who are of non-Jewish background. Apparently this unqualified assertion that the Church is never spoken of as "Israel" continues to be important to dispensationalists, because in a recent article a prominent dispensationalist author calls it a "horrendous mistake" when "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16 is understood to include Gentiles. [2] There does not seem to be any reason for this interpretation aside from the desire of dispensationalists to exclude all typological interpretations and to defend their contention that "the Church is never called Israel."
Aside from typological considerations, this dispensationalist explanation of the meaning of "The Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16 seems contrary to the tenor of the epistle, in which it is said that "in Christ Jesus ... there is neither Jew nor Greek." This is the central idea of the epistle, as expressed in the third chapter: "you are all one in Christ Jesus ... if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring" (3:26-29). Scofield himself acknowledged this when he wrote, "In the Church the distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears." This raises several questions. If "in the Church the distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears," as Scofield says, then why would Paul make such a distinction in 6:16? And if it is true that the Church is never called Israel in Scripture, and "all is contrast" between the two, then in what sense can Christians of Jewish background be called "Israel" any longer, if they are in the Church? If someone in the Church is being called "Israel," then the all-important distinction between Israel and the Church has been breached. If it is said that people of Jewish background may still be called "Israel" after they have become Christians, then it must be admitted that the strict terminological distinction between "Israel" and "the Church" has broken down at this point. Further, if it is said that only persons of Jewish backgound can be so called, then we may rightly ask what has become of the teaching that "In the Church the distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears"? Do we have a separate class of "Jewish Christians" who alone are entitled to the name "Israel of God"? If so, what is the significance of this? Are there two types of Christianity, two Churches? My own experience of dispensationalist teaching suggests to me that in fact this is the view held by many dispensationalists today: the idea is that there is a "Jewish" Christianity and a "Gentile" Christianity, and in some sense the "Jewish" Christians are thought to be more important and especially favored by God. [3]
The older dispensationalist writers, such as Darby, Scofield, and Chafer, avoided some of these embarrassing questions and implications because their distinction between Israel and the Church was more consistent and more radical. Scofield believed that the Jews of the end times were to be saved according to the Law of Moses, with renewed animal sacrifices. His scheme of interpretation envisioned a time when the parenthetical "Church age" has ended and the Law of Moses is reinstituted for salvific purposes. After this change of "dispensations" people will be saved according to a different gospel, the "Gospel of the Kingdom." Paul's doctrine (called the "Gospel of the Grace of God") was no longer in effect. Paul's teaching on the unity of the Church did not apply because the Church has been "raptured" and is no longer in the earth, and God is no longer dealing with the Church. In this manner the distinction between "Israel" and "the Church" was upheld without denying the unity of the body of Christ. But it is difficult to speak of Scofield's "Israel" of the end-times as consisting of "Jewish Christians," because they are not in the Church, and they are not dealt with on the same terms as the Christians who are of the Church. They are "God's earthly people," according to Scofield, as distinguished from the Church, who are God's "heavenly people." They are the "wife of Jehovah" and not the "bride of Christ," and so forth. Such teachings of the classic dispensationalist theology rigorously maintained the distinction between "Israel" and "the Church." If this distinction is to be upheld in Galatians 6:16 then presumably the "Israel of God" must be taken as a reference to the eschatological Israel who are to be saved by a different gospel, after Paul's own gospel dispensation has ended. [4] But one rarely hears this kind of pure and radical dispensationalist teaching now. Today dispensationalists seem to be in a muddle, having moved away from consistency in distinguishing Israel and the Church. Israel may now be spoken of as a part of the Church, and so there is a special and privileged class of "Jewish Christians" within the body of Christ. [5]
These features of dispensationalism raise many serious theological problems which I will not go into here. My main purpose here has been to show what notions are being brought to the text when a dispensationalist says it is a "horrendous mistake" to interpret Paul's "Israel of God" as a way of referring to the Church in Galatians 6:16. The dispensationalist complaint against the traditional understanding of Galatians 6:16 is, in my opinion, an example of sectarian "end-times prophecy" baggage being brought to the text, and it does not represent a serious attempt to understand the phrase in its context.
Other agendas are at work among non-dispensationalist scholars who have argued against the traditional view. When I was a seminary student in the early 1990's one liberal professor's favorite topic was "anti-semitism" in the Church, and he was an outspoken opponent of evangelization of the Jews. This professor taught a course on the Pauline epistles in which he objected to the traditional interpretation on the grounds that it was anti-semitic. He maintained that in Galatians 6:16b Paul was blessing the nation of Israel, not appropriating the name "Israel" for the Church, nor even using the phrase "Israel of God" for Christians of Jewish background. In his opinion, Paul's statement should be read as an affirmation of the kind of religious pluralism that prevails in liberal circles. I am not aware of an exegetical commentary which adopts this very dubious view, but the HarperCollins Study Bible (1993) prepared by liberal scholars does have a note at Galatians 6:16 which reads, "Israel of God, the church as the true Israel ... or, alternately, the whole people of Israel." Although the annotator of Galatians here (indentified as Richard B. Hays of Duke University in the list of contributors) goes on to say "the argument of Galatians appears to support the former interpretation," the alternative he gives is not "Jewish Christians" but "the whole people of Israel." The pluralism and the opposition to Jewish evangelism I encountered at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary is probably one reason for this, and also one reason why the New Revised Standard Version (1989) revisers inserted the word "and" before the RSV's "upon the Israel of God." Here again a good deal of baggage is being brought to the text, consisting of ideas which are completely foreign to Paul's gospel.
It may be wondered whether some dispensationalists have also adopted the view that "the Israel of God" simply refers to Israel according to the flesh. As noted above, it would be entirely in keeping with the earlier dispensationalist writers to maintain that Paul is blessing Jews who are outside of the Church, as the "earthly people of God." The fascination with the secular state of Israel which is so characteristic of dispensationalists today has apparently led many of them to think that the restoration of the Jews as "God's people" has already occured, despite the fact that the Church has not been raptured and the Jews continue to reject Christ. Dispensationalists insist that this unbelieving Israel according to the flesh must be blessed by everyone. If this is the case, why indeed should Paul not be blessing them as the "Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16? But of course the premise is all wrong, because there is no blessing for those who reject Christ.
In conclusion, I will state my opinion that the attempt to limit the meaning of "Israel of God" to the carnal sons of Judah betrays a fundamentally wrong approach to biblical interpretation, and to New Testament theology in particular. I give below some excerpts from writers whom I believe to be more in touch with the meaning of Paul's expression. Even in these authors I find, however, an insufficient appreciation of Paul's expression. "Peace be ... upon the Israel of God" is not so much a polemical or ironic usage directed against the Judaizers (Luther and Calvin) as a positive blessing and affirmation of the Church as the true spiritual Israel. It is a mistake to see bitterness in this blessing.
Justin Martyr on "the true spiritual Israel" [6]
Jesus Christ ... is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and the descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ.
John Chrysostom on Galatians 6:15-16 [7]
Observe the power of the Cross, to what a pitch it hath raised him! not only hath it put to death for him all mundane affairs, but hath set him far above the Old Dispensation. What can be comparable to this power? for the Cross hath persuaded him, who was willing to be slain and to slay others for the sake of circumcision, to leave it on a level with uncircumcision, and to seek for things strange and marvellous and above the heavens. This our rule of life he calls "a new creature," both on account of what is past, and of what is to come; of what is past, because our soul, which had grown old with the oldness of sin, hath been all at once renewed by baptism, as if it had been created again. Wherefore we require a new and heavenly rule of life. And of things to come, because both the heaven and the earth, and all the creation, shall with our bodies be translated into incorruption. Tell me not then, he says, of circumcision, which now availeth nothing; (for how shall it appear, when all things have undergone such a change?) but seek the new things of grace. For they who pursue these things shall enjoy peace and amity, and may properly be called by the name of "Israel." While they who hold contrary sentiments, although they be descended from him and bear his appellation, have yet fallen away from all these things, both the relationship and the name itself. But it is in their power to be true Israelites, who keep this rule, who desist from the old ways, and follow after grace.
Martin Luther on Galatians 6:16
Lectures on Galatians, 1519.[8] "Walk" is the same verb that is used above (5:25). "Walk," that is, go, by this rule. By what rule? It is this rule, that they are new creatures in Christ, that they shine with the true righteousness and holiness which come from faith, and that they do not deceive themselves and others with the hypocritical righteousness and holiness which come from the Law. Upon the latter there will be wrath and tribulation, and upon the former will rest peace and mercy. Paul adds the words "upon the Israel of God." He distinguishes this Israel from the Israel after the flesh, just as in 1 Cor. 10:18 he speaks of those who are the Israel of the flesh, not the Israel of God. Therefore peace is upon Gentiles and Jews, provided that they go by the rule of faith and the Spirit.
Lectures on Galatians, 1535.[9] "Upon the Israel of God." Here Paul attacks the false apostles and the Jews, who boasted about their fathers, their election, the Law, etc. (Rom. 9:4-5). It is as though he were saying: "The Israel of God are not the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel but those who, with Abraham the believer (3:9), believe in the promises of God now disclosed in Christ, whether they are Jews or Gentiles."
John Calvin on Galatians 6:16 [10]
Upon the Israel of God. This is an indirect ridicule of the vain boasting of the false apostles, who vaunted of being the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh. There are two classes who bear this name, a pretended Israel, which appears to be so in the sight of men, and the Israel of God. Circumcision was a disguise before men, but regeneration is a truth before God. In a word, he gives the appellation of the Israel of God to those whom he formerly denominated the children of Abraham by faith (Galatians 3:29), and thus includes all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, who were united into one church.
William Hendriksen on Galatians 6:16 [11]
Paul continues: 16. And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace (be) upon them and mercy, even upon the Israel of God. According to the preceding context, this rule is the one by which before God only this is of consequence, that a person places his complete trust in Christ crucified, and that, therefore, he regulates his life by this principle. This will mean that his life will be one of gratitude and Christian service out of love for his wonderful Savior. Upon those — all those and only those — who are governed by this rule peace and mercy are pronounced. Peace is the serenity of heart that is the portion of all those who have been justified by faith (Rom. 5:1). In the midst of the storms of life they are safe because they have found shelter in the cleft of the rock. In the day of wrath, wasteness, and desolation God "hides" all those who take refuge in him (Zeph. 1:2 ff.; 2:3; 3:12). See on 1:3. Hence, peace is spiritual wholeness and prosperity. Peace and mercy are inseparable. Had not the mercy of God been shown to his people they would not have enjoyed peace. God's mercy is his love directed toward sinners viewed in their wretchedness and need. See N.T.C. on Philippians, p. 142, for a list of over one hundred Old and New Testament passages in which this divine attribute is described.
So far the interpretation runs smoothly. A difficulty arises because of the last phrase of this verse. That last phrase is: "kai upon the Israel of God." Now, varying with the specific context in which this conjunction kai occurs, it can be rendered: and, and so, also, likewise, even, nevertheless, and yet, but, etc. Sometimes it is best left untranslated. Now when this conjunction is rendered and (as in A.V., A.R.V., N.E.B.), it yields this result, that after having pronounced God's blessing upon all those who place their trust exclusively in Christ Crucified, the apostle pronounces an additional blessing upon "the Israel of God," which is then interpreted to mean "the Jews," or "all such Jews as would in the future be converted to Christ," etc.
Now this interpretation tends to make Paul contradict his whole line of reasoning in this epistle. Over against the Judaizers' perversion of the gospel he has emphasized the fact that "the blessing of Abraham" now rests upon all those, and only those, "who are of faith" (3:9); that all those, and only those, "who belong to Christ" are "heirs according to the promise" (3:29). These are the very people who "walk by the Spirit" (5:16), and "are led by the Spirit" (5:18). Moreover, to make his meaning very clear, the apostle has even called special attention to the fact that God bestows his blessings on all true believers, regardless of nationality, race, social position, or sex: "There can be neither Jew nor Greek; there can be neither slave nor freeman; there can be no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (3:28). By means of an allegory (4:21-31) he has re-emphasized this truth. And would he now, at the very close of the letter, undo all this by first of all pronouncing a blessing on "as many as" (or: "all") who walk by the rule of glorying in the cross, be they Jew or Gentile by birth, and then pronouncing a blessing upon those who do not (or: do not yet) walk by that rule? I refuse to accept that explanation. Appeals to the well-known "Eighteen petition prayer of the Jews," [12] to the meaning of the word Israel in other New Testament passages, etc., cannot rescue this interpretation. As to the former, Gal. 6:16 must be interpreted in accordance with its own specific context and in the light of the entire argument of this particular epistle. And as to the latter, it is very clear that in his epistles the apostle employs the term Israel in more than one sense. In fact, in the small compass of a single verse (Rom. 9:6) he uses it in two different senses. Each passage in which that term occurs must therefore be explained in the light of its context. Besides, Paul uses the term "the Israel of God" only in the present passage, nowhere else.
What, then, is the solution? In harmony with all of Paul's teaching in this epistle (and see aslo Eph. 2:14-22), and also in harmony with the broad, all-inclusive statement at the beginning of the present passage, where the apostle pronounces God's blessing of peace and mercy upon "as many as" shall walk by this rule, an object from which nothing can be subtracted and to which nothing can be added, it is my firm belief that those many translators and interpreters are right who have decided that kai, as here used, must be rendered even, or (with equal effect) must be left untranslated. Hence, what the apostle says is this: "And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace (be) upon them and mercy, even upon the Israel of God." Cf. Psalm 125:5. Upon all of God's true Israel, Jew or Gentile, all who truly glory in the cross, the blessing is pronounced.
O. Palmer Robertson on the Israel of God [13]
the Israel of GodThe recognition of a distinctive people who are the recipients of God’s redemptive blessings and yet who have a separate existence apart from the church of Jesus Christ creates insuperable theological problems. Jesus Christ has only one body and only one bride, one people that he claims as his own, which is the true Israel of God. This one people is made up of Jews and Gentiles who believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah.
1. H.A.W. Meyer in his Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Epistle to the Galatians (5th German edition, 1870), lists the following commentators as supporting this view: Chrysostom, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, Pareus, Cornelius a Lipide, Calovius, Baumgarten, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Borger, Winer, Paulus, Olhausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Wieseler. Meyer himself favors this view. To these names, the American editor of the English translation of his commentary (1884) adds Alford and Lightfoot. Andreas J. Köstenberger (who favors this view in "The Identity of the Israel tou theou (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16," Faith & Mission 19/1 [2001]: 3–24) adds the names of Justin Martyr, Beale, Dahl, D. Guthrie, Lietzmann, Luz, Longenecker, Ray, Ridderbos, and Stott. But not all of these are commentators. For commentators favoring the view that the phrase refers to Jewish Christians, Meyer lists Ambrosiaster, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Schoettgen, Bengel, Räckert, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Ewald, and Reithmayr; and the American editor adds Ellicott and Eadie. G. Schrenk (who favors this view in "Was bedeutet 'Israel Gottes'?" Judaica 5 [1949]: 81–94) adds to these Pelagius, B. Weiss, Hofmann, Zahn, Schlatter, Bousset, and Burton. Köstenberger lists also Schrenk, Robinson, Mussner, Bruce, Davies, Richardson, Betz, Walvoord, S. L. Johnson, and "other dispensationalists" as favoring this view. For a survey of commentators and an argument in favor of the latter view see S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., "Paul and 'The Israel of God': An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study," in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost (ed. Stan Toussaint and Charles Dyer; Chicago: Moody, 1986), pp. 183–94. These lists of names, which include some little-known and some non-Christian scholars, do not in themselves convey an accurate impression of the extent to which the first view has predominated. The combined influence of Chrysostom, Luther, and Calvin far outweighs all the others. Prior to the twentieth century the first view alone was mentioned in commentaries intended for laymen and preachers. See, for example, Matthew Henry's Exposition of All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1721), and the Explanatory Notes of Thomas Scott (1822). The interpretation was taken for granted in theological writings generally.
2. Mal Couch, "The Rise of Anti-Semitism: 'The Rustling of the Leaves'" Conservative Theological Journal 6 (December 2002), pp. 288-9. Couch apparently believes that the denial of special privileges for ethnic Jews under the gospel is "anti-semitic."
3. This is explicitily stated by Charles Ryrie in his book Basic Theology (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press, 1986). In his discussion of Galatians 6:16 he says "the Israel of God" refers to "an especially important part" of the Church who are singled out for "a special blessing." (p. 399).
4. Strangely enough the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible has on the word "Israel" in Galatians 6:16 a cross-reference note pointing to Romans 4:12, which indicates the traditional interpretation of "the Israel of God." This cross-reference was however omitted by the editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible published in 1967.
5. This tendency in Dispensationalism seems to have come to full bloom in the so-called "Messianic Judaism" movement of the past thirty years, which is clearly sectarian in nature. Many people, including some prominent missionaries to the Jews, have expressed migivings about the whole direction of this movement. Fred Klett (a Jewish evangelist associated with the Presbyterian Church in America) addressed the problem in a conference paper presented at the 19th annual North America conference of the Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism, March 11-13, 2002. He wrote: "Traditional Dispensationalism teaches that during the present age Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus are all part of the church. The distinction between the church and Israel is essentially theoretical and of little practical consequence in the present dispensation. As Messianic Judaism struggled for its distinct identity, it departed from some elements of Dispensationalism but kept others. Messianic Judaism retained the Dispensational church-Israel distinction, but what was only theoretical in older Dispensationalism is brought into the present. Messianic Judaism has immanentized the eschaton, or in plainer English, what is future for Dispensationalists, a separate millennial plan for Israel, Messianic Judaism has brought into immediate reality. In the present situation, they believe, God has a separate plan, additional promises, and unique covenant obligations for Jewish believers. This confusion of epochs is used by Fischer to justify Gentiles converting to Messianic Judaism. He argues that, since this will be done during the 'millennium,' why not now?" ("The Centrality of Messiah and the Theological Direction of the Messianic Movement," Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism Bulletin 68, May 2002). Klett's phrase "immanentized the eschaton" is very apt, but he does not seem to realize that this confusion has for a long time been normal in popular Dispensationalism. In 1970, Hal Lindsey's book The Late Great Planet Earth showed it clearly enough. "Messianic Judaism" is more of an outgrowth than a cause of this confusion. The great majority of people involved in "Messianic Judaism" are not Jewish--they are mostly Gentile charismatics, who apparently have become so carried away with their end-times fantasies about the Jews that they have begun to play the part themselves. One well-informed source, Stan Telchin of the "Jews for Jesus" ministry, estimates that between eighty and ninety percent of the people involved in "Messianic Judaism" are Gentiles, and he complains that for all its emphasis on Jewishness the movement has failed to attract Jews. He tells of one Jewish woman who was repelled by the spectacle of Gentiles "worshipping the symbols of Judaism," searching their family histories for Jewish ancestors, and trying to observe the ritual commandments of the Torah like Orthodox Jews. She left this "Messianic" scene "filled to overflowing by the wanabees and the Pharisees" and joined an ordinary Christian church where Christ was the center of attention, not Judaism (Messianic Judaism is Not Christianity [Grand Rapids: Chosen, 2004], p. 82).
6. Circa AD 160. English translation from the Dialogue with Trypho xi, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 1 (Eerdmans, repr. 1987), p. 200.
7. Circa AD 395. English translation from The Commentary and Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle to the Galatians and Ephesians, translated by the Rev. Gross Alexander, in volume 13 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff. Chrysostom is very unfairly called "anti-semitic" in some recent books, on the basis of certain remarks he made in a series of eight sermons against Judaizers. But any reader of these sermons may easily see that they are not wanton attacks upon an ethnic group, but religious polemics. These polemical sermons, moreover, were not gratuitous, because many half-heathen "Christians" under his pastoral care were haunting the synagogue services for religious reasons (see Discourses against Judaizing Christians translated by Paul W. Harkins in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 68 [Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1979]). His strong words against the Jews for their rejection of Christ are indeed insulting by modern standards, but scarcely more so than the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.
8. English translation from Lectures on Galatians, 1519, in volume 27 of Luther's Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (Saint Louis: Concordia, 1964), p. 406. Luther has also been called "anti-semitic" by some modern writers, without warrant. His tracts against the Jews certainly were immoderate, but they had nothing to do with ethnic hatred, and they were no more splenetic than his writings against Catholics and Anabaptists. Some of his harshest words were written against monks (in his later writings he even used the word for "monk" as a term of abuse)--yet he himself had been a monk. It should also be borne in mind that Luther's indignation had been fired by the publication of the Toledot Yeshu, a collection of derogatory stories about Christ, Mary, and the apostles that circulated among Jews during the Middle Ages. One Jewish historian maintains that such stories were necessary "for polemical purposes." For example, it was "necessary for the Jews to insist on the illegitimacy of Jesus as against the Davidic descent claimed by the Christian Church" (see the article "Jesus of Nazareth" in the Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 7, p. 170).
9. English translation from Lectures on Galatians, 1535, in volume 27 of Luther's Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (Saint Louis: Concordia, 1964), p. 142.
10. John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries, vol. XXI, trans. by William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprint ed. 1979), p. 186.
11. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprint ed. 1995), pp. 246-7.
12. Hendriksen is referring to the commentators who maintain that in Galatians 6:16 Paul is echoing one petition recited in the traditional synagogue liturgy known as the Shemoneh Esreh, which consists of a series of petitions. The precise wording of the final petition as it was recited in the early part of the first century is unknown, but a later recension reads:
"Grant peace, welfare, blessing, grace, loving-kindness and mercy unto us and unto all Israel, thy people. Bless us, O our Father, even all of us together, with the light of thy countenance; for by the light of thy countenance thou hast given us, O Lord our God, the Law of life, loving-kindness and righteousness, blessing, mercy, life and peace; and may it be good in thy sight to bless thy people Israel at all times and in every hour with thy peace. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who blessest thy people Israel with peace." (English translation from the Authorized Daily Prayer Book, tr. S. Singer [1890], p. 54.)
Raymond T. Stamm in the Interpreter's Bible (volume 10, p. 591) asserts that one ancient form of the petition has the expression "mercy upon us, and upon thy people Israel," and on the basis of this verbal resemblance he argues thus:
"This means that when an individual or a group of persons were at worship, they would extend their prayers to include the same blessings upon all the rest of the Israelites who were not present at the service. So Paul, who had invoked 'anathema' upon all who preached a different gospel, now prays for his fellow countrymen who have not yet accepted Christ (Note the similar change of attitude in Rom. 11 as compared with Rom. 2.) This interpretation means that Paul is praying for both peace and mercy upon both the church and the Jewish nation."
But Stamm's logic is fuzzy, to say the least. Obviously the word "Israel" denoted Jews in the synagogue liturgy, and the word would have been strongly associated with Jews and Judaism in Paul's mind, but even if, in addition to this, Paul's benediction resembles a petition used in the synagogue liturgy, that does not carry any necessary implications for the meaning of the phrase "Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16. He could very well be adapting the terminology of the petition and using it in the same way that it was used in the synagogue, as a way of referring to the totality of Christians. The mere fact that the wording resembles a petition from the synagogue liturgy does not mean that it must continue to refer to Jews. So the verbal parallel (which is not exact, in any case) has no such implications as Stamm draws from it.
Hendriksen is right. Paul cannot be pronouncing a blessing upon two different groups of people here. The blessing is upon "as many as shall walk by this rule," who are the true "Israel of God," as distinguished from Israel kata sarka "Israel according to the flesh" (see the Greek text in 1 Corinthians 10:18). —M.D.M.
13. O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Phillipsburgh, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 2000), p. 49.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
From first to last, the Kingdom of God on earth, its inception, progress, conduct, and consummation in glory, is the one theme of Old Testament prophecy. To this end were the covenants with Christ, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David. To this end was the choice of the one national ‘Israel,’ the ‘choice forever,’ as a prophetic, priestly, kingly nation, a messianic and mediatortal nation, the one national ‘Servantof Jehovah,’ and national Son of God, standing between God and mankind, and bringing salvation to a lost world; a people from whom should come the one personal ‘Israel,’ Prophet, Priest, and King, the one Mediator and true Messiah, Seed of the Woman, Seed of Abraham, Seed of David, Son of Man and Son of God, in whom all nations should bless themselves—Jesus Christ. Identified with Him, individually, and called by His name, stands Israel collectively, in His whole Messianic work and kingdom. Neither acts without the other. The Pentateuch prophecies refer chiefly to the people. The Messianic Psalms emphasize the King, the Kingdom, and the Priest. Isaiah dwells upon the prophetic character of Israel; Ezekiel displays the priestly; Daniel reveals the kingly; Zechariah blends all in one. Old Testament prophecy knows no other subjects of discourse than Israel, Messiah, and the nations. As to the kingdom, Israel had it, under the Old Testament, in its outward form; the Gentiles have it under the New Testament in its inward form; in the age to come, Jews and Gentiles together, shall have it, both forms in one, one kingdom of Messiah, spiritual, visible and glorious, with Israel still the central people, the prelude of the New Jerusalem and the nations walking in its light forever”(Nathaniel West, The Thousand Years in Both Testaments, pp. 4-5).
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
I believe there is a difference between Israel and the Church.
First View: The Church is Israel
One view has been that the Church is the “new” Israel, a continuation of the concept of Israel which began in the Old Testament. In this view, the Church is the refinement and higher development of the concept of Israel. All of the promises made to Israel in the Scriptures find their fulfillment in the Church. Thus, the prophecies relating to the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are “spiritualized” into promises of blessing to the Church. The prophecies of condemnation and judgment, though, are retained literally by the Jewish nation of Israel.
This view is sometimes called Replacement Theology, because the Church is seen to replace Israel in God’s economy. One of the problems with the view, among others, is the continuing existence of the Jewish people, especially with regard to the revival of the new modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned to extinction, and there is no divinely ordained future for the Jewish nation, how does one account for the supernatural survival of the Jewish people since the establishment of the Church, for almost 2,000 years against all odds? Furthermore, how does one account for Israel’s resurgence among the family of nations as an independent nation, victorious in several wars and flourishing economically?
Second View: Israel and the Church are Different
The other view, we believe, is clearly taught in the New Testament, but it has been suppressed throughout most of Church history. This view is that the Church is completely different and distinct from Israel, and the two should not be confused. In fact, the Church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the Day of Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection from the dead, and will continue until it is taken to Heaven at the Rapture return of the Lord (Eph. 1:9-11). None of the curses or blessings pronounced upon Israel refer directly to the Church. The Church enters into the Abrahamic and New Covenants, for instance, only by divine application, not by original interpretation (Matt 26:28).
This leaves all the covenants, promises, and warnings to Israel intact. Israel, the natural Jewish nation, is still Israel. To be sure, Israel has been side-lined during these past 1,900 years of the Diaspora. The Church has taken center stage in the Lord’s affairs as the Gospel has spread throughout the world. Nevertheless, God has carefully preserved the Jewish people, even in unbelief, through every kind of distress and persecution. Sometimes, the professing Church itself (I speak to our shame) has been a cause of these persecutions to the Jews.
Not only has God preserved the Jewish nation, but He has also kept His promise to save a remnant of Israel in every generation. The remnant of Israel in this age are the Jewish believers in Christ who have joined the Gentile believers, and form the Church, the Body of Christ (Rom. 11:5). In this respect, then, a part of Israel (the believing remnant) intersects with the Church during the Church Age. But this does not make Israel the Church, or vice versa.
In the future, both God’s warnings and promises to Israel will come to pass. After the Lord is finished with the Church Age, and has taken the Church to Heaven in the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:16-18), God will restore Israel to center stage on the world’s divine theater. First comes the devastating “Time of Jacob’s Trouble” (Jer. 30:7) also known as the Great Tribulation. This is a dreadful period of seven years, which begins relatively lightly during the first half, but intensifies into full focus during the latter half. During this time the world is judged for rejecting Christ, but, more specifically, Israel is judged, purged and prepared through the fiery trials of the Great Tribulation for the Second Coming of the Messiah. This is the bad news.
The good news is that, when Christ does return to the earth at the end of the Tribulation, Israel will be ready, willing, and eager to receive Him, and proclaim, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23:39). As the stumbling of Israel brought blessing to the world at Christ’s First Coming, the reception of Israel to Christ at His Second Advent will be like “life from the dead” (Rom. 11:15). The remnant of Israel which survives the Tribulation (some one-third of the Jewish people who enter the Tribulation), will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on the same earth and the same capital city, Jerusalem, that rejected Him centuries before. Israel will be the head of the nations, and no longer the tail, and all nations will send representatives to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Isa. 2:2-3; Micah 4:1). The Church will return with Christ, and will rule with Him for a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-5). He Himself told His disciples that they would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel in the restoration (Matt. 19:28). Thus, Israel has not been forgotten in God’s plan. While the Jewish nation still has a dark period facing it, there is a glorious finale to Israel’s long history.
http://www.levitt.com/essays/israel-church.html
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Betty Louise
Advanced Member
Member # 7175
|
posted
The people of Israel, from Abraham till now.
Betty
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Posts: 5051 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
Who are the Israel of Yahweh?
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
