In Galatians 6:16,
Paul actually addresses the Church as “the Israel of God.”[1]
The New International Version seems
to provide an accurate rendering of the verse:
“Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is
a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel
of God (Galatians 6:15-16).”
Witherington reminds
us that, “Many interpreters . . . have understood the final καὶ here
to mean ‘that is’ in which case the text reads ‘peace upon them and mercy, that
is upon the Israel of God.’ In other words, Israel here refers to all
Christians, both Jews and Gentiles united in Christ, both the author and his
audience, and others.”[2]
Hans K. LaRondelle, likewise, believes that the term “Israel of God” refers to
the Church.[3]
This is also the general Reformed understanding of the term “the Israel of
God.”
However, both
Jeffrey Khoo and S. Lewis Johnson disagree with this interpretation of “the Israel
of God” in Galatians 6:16.[4]
Johnson, a dispensationalist, is severely critical of such an interpretation. Shrewdly evading the actual arguments brought forth by LaRondelle in
his book The Israel of God in Prophecy:
Principles of Prophetic Interpretation, Johnson acknowledges that “the
apostle [Paul] makes no attempt whatsoever to deny that there is a legitimate
distinction of race between Gentile and Jewish believers in the church.”[5]
But Reformed
theologians do not deny that there is a “legitimate” racial distinction within
the church; this is apparently a straw man. What they do emphasize is that believing
Jews and Gentiles share a common eschatological future, a joint ecclesiological
reality, and equal spiritual blessings and status in Christ Jesus. Which
Reformed theologian would “deny sexual differences within the church? Or the
social differences in Paul’s day? Is it not plain that Paul is not speaking of
national or ethnic difference in Christ, but of spiritual status?”[6] Here, Johnson is actually, albeit tacitly, admitting that, with respect
to spiritual status and blessings, there are no differences between Jewish and
Gentile believers. In fact, Johnson affirms that in terms of spiritual status,
“there is no difference in Christ.”[7]
Surely, Reformed interpreters of Scripture do not teach that Gentile or Jewish
believers undergo an ethnic or sexual transformation upon regeneration. During
conversion, Gentiles neither have Jewish genes spliced into their genomes, nor
do they become hermaphrodites. Johnson’s polemic against LaRondelle is clearly
unconvincing.
Johnson continues
his critique of LaRondelle,
“That the professor [LaRondelle] overlooked Paul’s careful language is
seen in his equation of terms that differ. He correctly cites Paul’s statement
that “‘there is neither Jew nor Greek’ in Christ” (cf. Gal. 3:28) but then a
couple of pages later modifies this to “‘there is neither Jew nor Greek’ within the Church” (italics mine), as
if the terms Christ and church are identical. This approach
fails to see that Paul does not say there is neither Jew nor Greek within the church. He [Paul] speaks of
those who are “in Christ.” For LaRondelle, however, inasmuch as there is
neither Jew nor Greek within the church and in Christ, there can be no
distinction between them in the church.”[8]
Notice that
Johnson here assumes an a priori
distinction between Israel
and the Church, which cannot be found within the text of Galatians 6:16. The bone
of contention, however, is not
whether there is any racial or genetic “distinction” between Jews and Gentiles
in a physical or biological sense. LaRondelle, for certain, is not saying that
there can be “no distinction between them in the church” in a physicochemical
sense. Indeed, no sane man will deny that there is a biological distinction between Jews and Gentiles within or
without the Church. LaRondelle and Reformed theologians are stating, together
with the apostle Paul, that there is no distinction in the spiritual destiny of
ethnic Jews and Gentiles within the Church.[9]
Reformed exegetes
believe that the New Covenant blessings of Jeremiah 31:31-34 are being
fulfilled in the Church
of Christ .[10]
Believing Israelites and Gentiles share a common spiritual destiny in Christ
Jesus, and there is no longer any distinction between them in the New Covenant
perspective. The New Covenant promises are not only for the ethnic Jews or for
any particular nation in a geo-political sense. The covenant blessings are
being fulfilled in the Church age, and do not await a future eschatological
fulfillment in a Jewish remnant (cf. Rom. 11:26). The Church, which is the seed
of Abraham, consists of the elect from “all nations” (Matt. 28:19) and all
races.
Johnson’s aforementioned
argument begs the question: Are not those who are “in Christ” also the ones that constitute the invisible, universal Church? This is not because “as if the
terms Christ and church are identical.”[11]
Physicochemical distinctions notwithstanding, how can there be any spiritual
distinction between Jews and Gentiles within the Church of Jesus Christ?
Johnson’s dispensational ecclesiology is apparently clouding his understanding
of LaRondelle’s line of reasoning. The terms “Christ” and “Church” are
obviously not identical, but the
phrases “to be in Christ” and “to be within the invisible Church of Christ”
must mean the same thing: to be saved.
Concluding his
critique of LaRondelle’s reasoning, Johnson writes, “Finally, to sum up his
position, Professor LaRondelle affirms that since the church is the seed of
Abraham and Israel is the
seed of Abraham, the two entities, the church and Israel , are the same. The result is
a textbook example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle.”[12]
In order to answer
his arguments, we have to reflect upon Johnson’s definition and usage of the
terms “Church” and “Israel .”
Firstly, by the term “Church,” is Johnson referring to the Reformed
understanding of an invisible, universal Church? Reformed theologians
understand “Church” to mean all the elect (Gal. 3:7, 9, 16, 26-29), including
Old Testament believers.[13]
This is not the classic or revised dispensational understanding of the term
“Church.”[14]
Secondly, Johnson
does not define clearly what he means by “Israel .” Does this term refer to
spiritual Israel , or to
national, ethnic Israel ?
If “Israel ” means all biological
Jews by genealogical descent, “Israel ”
cannot be Abraham’s seed. Only a remnant of ethnic Israelites has believed in
Christ throughout all redemptive history.
What LaRondelle
really taught is this: the “Israel of God” has been expanded to include both
Jews and Gentiles. The Church is the true, spiritual Israel . From the New Covenant
perspective, the “Israel of God” is not limited to earthly, national Israel ,
but embraces all believers irrespective of nationality or ethnicity. Johnson’s
polemic is, therefore, a “textbook example” of a red-herring. He subtly blurs
the definition of key terms, namely, the “Church” and “Israel .” As part of his
diversionary maneuver, he attempts to introduce the dispensational
understanding of Israel
and the Church. In the process, he weakens the thrust of LaRondelle’s polemic
considerably.
LaRondelle
correctly observes:
“Dispensational theologians grant that Paul, by the term “the Israel of
God”, meant believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. Because of their dispensational
concern to keep Israel
and the Church separate, however, they insist that Paul must have had Jewish Christians in mind as a distinct class within
the Church. But to single out Jewish believers within the Church as “the Israel of God” is a concept that is
in basic conflict with Paul’s message to the Galatians. He declares
categorically that “there is neither Jew nor Greek” within the Church, and that
the Church as a whole – all who belong to Christ – is the seed of Abraham, the
heir of Israel ’s
covenant promise (3:26-29).”[15]
Jeffrey Khoo’s Reliance
on Johnson’s Paper
Relying heavily
upon Johnson’s paper, Jeffrey Khoo likewise applies an a priori hermeneutical distinction between Israel and the Church in his
interpretation of Galatians 6:16. In contrast to the general Reformed
understanding of this verse, Khoo believes that,
“The ‘Israel of God’ here [in Galatians 6:16] refers to saved
Israelites who lived according to faith like their father Abraham (cf. 3:6-7).
Paul was perhaps hoping that some of the Judaizers might see the error of their
message and turn to Christ alone for their salvation. For a study on the term,
“The Israel of God,” read S. Lewis Johnson’s paper on “Paul and ‘The Israel of
God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, edited by Stanley D.
Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 181-196.”[16]
With regard to
ecclesiology, Reformed theologians do not accept the dispensational Israel/Church
distinction. Conversely, there is indeed a marked distinction between Reformed
theology and dispensationalism. By rejecting the general, Reformed
understanding of Galatians 6:16, Khoo evidently finds himself in agreement with
dispensational exegetes.
Both Khoo and
Johnson are sympathetic to the following interpretations of the term “Israel of
God” in Galatians 6:16: (1) The “Israel of God” refers “to believing ethnic
Israelites in the Christian Church,”[17]
and (2) The “Israel of God” refers “to the Israel that shall turn to the Lord
in the future in the events that surround the second advent of our Lord.”[18]
In either case, the “Israel of God” refers to elect Jews, and not the Church.
In his essay “Paul
and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” Johnson
makes a classic argumentum ad numerum.[19]
Johnson comments “that the weight of contemporary scholarship is opposed to the
prevailing interpretation of amillennial interpreters that “the Israel of God”
refers to the church, composed of both Jewish and Gentile believers, although
the subjective nature of this comment is recognized by the author.”[20]
Even if all of “contemporary
scholarship” is agreeable with Johnson, it does not necessarily prove that his
view is true. Johnson, however, acknowledges earlier in his essay that a good
number of reputable scholars adhere to the “amillennial” interpretation.[21]
He further agrees that “the list of names supporting this [amillennial] view is
impressive.”[22]
Although I am
avoiding the logical fallacy of an argumentum
ad antiquitatem,[23]
it is true that the amillennial interpretation is supported by an “impressive”
list of theologians and exegetes. Having even the support of certain
Anti-Nicene and Nicene Fathers,[24]
from Clement of Rome to Augustine, the amillennial interpretation must have
its strengths. It must be emphasized that, although traditional interpretations
are not always correct, the understanding of Galatians 6:16 by the Reformers
(e.g. John Calvin, Martin Luther) and faithful exegetes of Scripture must not be
frivolously substituted with “contemporary scholarship.” Furthermore, the Word
of God has always been inerrant, infallible and unchanging. Why would
“contemporary scholarship” be in anyway superior to the “prevailing”
interpretations of older or more antiquated exegetes? I am sure Johnson is not
insinuating that contemporary scholars are superior to John Calvin, Martin
Luther or J. B. Lightfoot.
Problems with
the Dispensational Understanding of “the Israel of God”
What are the
exegetical problems inherent in Khoo and Johnson’s interpretation of the
“Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16? We shall begin by examining the preceding
verse, namely, Galatians 6:15.
It should be
remembered that “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.”[25] Who are those who walk according to “this rule” in verse 16? In verse
15, Paul writes, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing,
nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” Hendricksen explains that,
“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.
. . . Upon those – all those and only those – who are governed by this
rule peace and mercy are pronounced.”[26]
In view of the
Gospel age, Paul’s rule states that there must be no distinction between Jew
and Gentile, or between the circumcision and the uncircumcision. The only
phenomenon that can establish a person as one of God’s people is for him to be
a “new creature” via regeneration. In other words, the clause “as many as walk
according to this rule” in verse 16 refers to all of the elect, that is, the
invisible, universal church.
The perennial
contention between exegetes concerns the usage of the word kai in the last phrase of Galatians 6:16 “kai upon the Israel of God.” Johnson admits that “there are several
well-recognized senses of kai in the
New Testament. First and most commonly, kai
has the continuative or copulative sense of and.
Second, kai frequently has the
adjunctive sense of also. Third, kai occasionally has the ascensive sense
of even, which shades off into an
explicative sense of namely.”[27]
In Galatians 6:16,
Khoo and Johnson reject the explicative or epexegetical sense of kai, preferring to understand the term “Israel
of God” to “mean “the Jews,” or “all such Jews as would in the future be
converted to Christ.”[28] They favor the continuative or copulative sense of kai, although they might appreciate that kai is also “only slightly ascensive” in Galatians 6:16.[29]
Even if one accepts the copulative sense of kai,
“the question still remains as to what “Israel ” refers to.”[30]
According to Khoo
and Johnson, “the Israel of God” refers to Jewish believers in Paul’s day, or to
those Israelites who are allegedly saved at the Messiah’s return (in the sense
of Romans 11:26). These interpretations have their difficulties.
Firstly, the expression “Israel of God” cannot refer to Jews as a distinct, ethnic community, apart from the Gentiles. Ronald Fung reminds us that,
“The specifying phrase “of God” makes it unlikely that the reference is
to [ethnic] Israel as such (or even the eschatological Israel in the sense of
Rom. 11:26), and Paul “can hardly have meant to bless the whole of Israel . . .
, irrespective of whether or not they held to the canon of the cross of
Christ.’”[31]
The rule
instituted by Paul in verse 15 - which states that for one to be counted
amongst God’s people, he must experience a new creation - must be extended to
verse 16. Paul cannot be pronouncing his benediction of “peace and mercy” upon
the Jews irrespective of their belief or unbelief. This understanding
contradicts the entire thrust of Paul’s epistle, as well as the rule he has
just established in verse 15.
According to
Hendricksen,
“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 upon those, “who are of faith” (3:9); that all those, and only
those, “who belong to Christ” are “heirs according to 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” (3:23). 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
[ethnic Jews] who do not (or: do not yet) walk by that rule? I refuse to accept
that explanation.”[32]
Can “the Israel of God,”
then, refer to believing Jews in
Paul’s day? If kai is to be
understood in the continuative or copulative sense, it should be rendered as and. This translation has inherent
problems. Based on this rendering, Paul would be pronouncing his apostolic
benediction in verse 16 upon “as many as,” that is, all those who adhere to the
rule in verse 15. He would subsequently be extending his blessing to another
category of people, namely, the elect or believing Jews in verse 16b. The
discerning reader can quickly recognize the problems in such a rendering.
Firstly, the “as many as (hosoi)”
includes all the elect. It is,
therefore, unnecessary for Paul to mention the elect Jews again in a separate
phrase within verse 16. Secondly, for Paul to mention the believing Jews as a
separate category of elect people in his benediction would mean that he has
violated his own rule in verse 15.
In his commentary
on Galatians 6:16, Witherington concludes with these observations:
“Finally, if I am right that Paul distinguishes between the Mosaic Law
and the Law of God now expressed in and as the law of Christ, we must expect a
transfer of the term Israel
to Jew and Gentile united in Christ. As Weima says it “is difficult to believe
. . . that in a letter where Paul has been breaking down the distinctions that
separate Jewish and Gentile Christians and stressing the equality of both
groups, that he in the closing would give a peace benediction addressed to
believing Jews as a separate group within the church” much less to
non-Christian Jews whom he nowhere really discusses in this letter.”[33]
Likewise, Fung
concurs with Witherington’s comments:
“The view that v. 16 refers to, respectively, “the Gentiles who believe
the gospel and the Jewish Christians who recognize the unimportance of
circumcision” faces the objection that “whoever” (hosoi) would naturally include Jewish as well as Gentile
Christians; moreover, particularly in the light of v. 15, it is improbable that
Paul, with his concern for the unity of the church . . . , would here single
out Jewish Christians as a separate group within his churches.”[34]
Also, to interpret
the expression “Israel of God” to mean the “all Israel” of Romans 11:26 creates
similar difficulties. Johnson admits that this interpretation “takes the term
“the Israel of God” to refer to ethnic Israel but locates their blessing
in the future.”[35] Israelites,
as well as Gentiles, saved in the past, present and future constitute the
elect, and are therefore included in the “as many as (hosoi).” Furthermore, there is little probability that Paul would
isolate a group of Jewish elect in his apostolic benediction, thus
contradicting his rule established in verse 15.
In his exegesis of
verse 16, Fung perceives that,
“Perhaps the least unsatisfactory view is to suppose that in the two
parts of his benediction Paul is thinking first of those of his readers who
qualify under the hosoi and passes
from there on to the new Israel, the new people of God – both Jews and Gentiles
being included in each instance.”[36]
The most
satisfactory interpretation is, perhaps, that “the Israel of God” refers to the
Church. This is the so-called amillennial interpretation. As Clowney has
stated, “The church is the λαός
(laos, 2 Cor 6:16), the true Israel as over against Israel of the flesh (Rom
9:6, 7, 24-26; cf. 1 Cor 10:18; 12:2); the people of the new covenant (2 Cor
3:3-18); the sons of Abraham (Gal 3:7); the circumcision (Phil 3:3); the
children of the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal 4:21-31); no longer strangers or aliens
but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God (Eph 2:12,
19).”[37]
The amillennial
interpretation involves understanding the Greek conjunction kai in the explicative sense. The kai is taken to be epexegetical of “as
many as walk according to this rule.”[38]
This interpretation satisfies both the context and syntax of Galatians 6:16.
R. C. H. Lenski
adds, “Paul has a special, telling reason for adding this explicative
apposition. It is a last blow at the Judaizers, his final triumph over them and
their contention. As many as shall keep in line with this rule, they and they
alone constitute “the Israel of God” from henceforth, all Judaizers to the
contrary notwithstanding.”[39]
John Calvin, the
great reformer, concurs with this interpretation of the expression “Israel of
God.” In his commentary on Paul’s epistle to the Romans, Calvin writes:
“And so all Israel [Romans
11:26a] Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that
religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God,
according to this meaning - “When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also
shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be
completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from
both . . .” The same manner of speaking we find in Gal. vi.16. The Israel of
God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he
sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the
carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his faith.”[40]
In our brief
discourse on Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, we further reinforce the
understanding that Reformed ecclesiology is, in fact, Pauline ecclesiology. The
Church is the true Israel of God, and is the blessed recipient of all the
promises of the New Covenant. As believers who follow the rule, which states
that “neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new
creature (Gal. 6:15),” we can praise and thank God for including both Jews and
Gentiles in His gracious redemptive plan.
God does not have
two redemptive plans in history, one for ethnic Israel , and one for the Church.
There can be no such Israel/Church distinction under the New Covenant
administration, for “the Old Testament promises are realized in the advent of
the Messiah and the gathering of Messiah’s people, the true Israel of God.
Christ comes as Immanuel, the Lord of the covenant and the Son of the covenant.
He thus completes both the promised work of God and the required response of
his people. As true God he is the Lord who has come; as true man, he is the
head of the covenant, the new and true Adam ,
Israel , Moses,
and David. All promises are complete in him (2 Cor 1:20), for in him dwells the
fullness of the godhead in bodily form (Col
2:9). He is the Amen (Rev 3:14), the Alpha and the Omega (Rev 22:13).”[41]
References
[1] This is the understanding that the καὶ
before the phrase “Israel of God” is an explicative or appositional καὶ. Wuest
translates Galatians 6:16 as follows, “And as many as by this rule are ordering
their conduct, peace be upon them, and mercy, even upon the Israel of God.” See
Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament: An
Expanded Translation (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1961).
[2] Ben Witherington III, Grace In Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians
(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 452. In fact, the
Dispensationalist scholar, Lewis Johnson, acknowledges that “it is well-known
that Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with
Trypho is the first author to claim an identification of the term Israel
with the church. Of the commentators, Chrysostom is one of the earliest to
identify apparently the church with Israel , affirming that those who
keep the rule are “true Israelites.” Others who follow this view include Daniel
C. Arichea, Jr., and Eugene Nida, Ragnar Bring, John Calvin, R. A. Cole, N. A.
Dahl, Donald Guthrie, William Hendricksen, Robert L. Johnson, M. J. Lagrange,
Hans K. LaRondelle, R. C. H. Lenski, J. B. Lightfoot, Martin Luther, Herman
Ridderbos, Henrich Schlier, and John R. W. Stott.” 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,
eds. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986),
183-184, quoting John Chrysostom, Commentary
on the Epistle to the Galatians and Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians of
S. John Chrysostom, new rev. ed. (London: Walter Smith [Late Mosley],
1884), 98.
[3] See Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy:
Principles of Prophetic Interpretation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University Press, 1983), 108-114.
[4] The reason I interact with Lewis Johnson’s
writing in this section is that Khoo uses Johnson’s essay as part of the
seminary course entitled, “Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology” in Far
Eastern Bible College. See Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and
Eschatological Case-Study,” 181-196.
[5] Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and
Eschatological Case-Study,” 190.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Actually, Johnson needs only to read the
rest of the chapter to see LaRondelle’s point. LaRondelle writes, “According to
Hebrews 8-12, the Church of Jesus represents the true fulfillment of Jeremiah’s
predicted new covenant. Far from being an abrogation of Israel ’s new covenant. It is rather
a type and guarantee of the final consummation of the new covenant, when true
Israelites of all ages will join in the wedding supper of the Lamb in the New
Jerusalem (Matthew 8:11, 12; 25:34; Revelation 19:9; 21:1-5).” See LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, 121.
[10] The Pauline perspective of the New Covenant
and the Christian Church is aptly summarized by Ridderbos, “It is on account of
this fulfillment of the prophecy of the New Covenant in the Christian church
that all the privileges of the Old Testament people of God in this spiritual
sense pass over to the church. To it, as the church of Christ ,
the pre-eminent divine word of the covenant applies: “I will be their God, and
they shall be my people. . . . I will receive you, and I will be to you a
father, and you shall be to me sons and daughters” (2 Cor. 6:16ff.). Out of
this fulfillment in Christ the whole nomenclature of all the privileges Israel
as God’s people was permitted to possess recurs with renewed force and
significance in the definition of the essence of the Christian church: being
sons of God (Rom. 8:14ff.; Eph. 1:5); being heirs according to the promise
(Gal. 3:29; 4:7); sharing in the inheritance promised to Abraham (Rom. 8:17;
cf. 4:13; Col. 1:2); being heirs of the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9, 10; 15:50;
Gal. 5:21). For this reason the church may rejoice in the hope of the glory of
God (Rom. 5:2; 8:21; 2 Cor. 3:7ff., 18; Phil. 3:19), the splendor of the
presence of God among his people, once the privilege of Israel (Rom. 9:4). Likewise the worship of
God, at one time the prerogative of Israel (Rom. 9:4), is now the
distinguishing mark of the Christian church as “spiritual worship” (Rom. 12:1),
the service of God by the Spirit (Phil. 3:3), as Paul knows himself to be the leitourgos of Jesus Christ who in the
priestly administration of the gospel has to see to the irreproachableness of
the offerings of the gentiles (Rom. 15:16; cf. Phil. 2:17). In a word, all the
richly variegated designations of Israel as the people of God are
applied to the Christian church, but now in the new setting of the salvation
that has appeared in Christ.” See Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 336-337.
[11] Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and
Eschatological Case-Study,” 190.
[12] Ibid., 190-191.
[13] See Vincent Chia, "Bible Presbyterianism: A Need for Redefinition," chapter 1 for a discussion on the
meaning of “Church.”
[14] See Ibid, chapter 21 for the differences between
classical and revised/normative Dispensationalism.
[15] LaRondelle, The Israel
of God in Prophecy, 110.
[16] Jeffrey Khoo, Galatians (Singapore :
Far Eastern Bible
College , 2000), 45. This
book is used by Far
Eastern Bible
College as lecture notes.
Also available from http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/studyresource/Galatians.pdf;
Internet; accessed 10 November 2005. Relying on Johnson’s essay, Khoo makes no
attempt to provide exegetical arguments for his interpretation of Galatians
6:16 in his commentary on Galatians.
[17] Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and
Eschatological Case-Study,” 185.
[18] Ibid., 186.
[19] This is the fallacy of attempting to prove
something by appealing to numbers, and in this case, the number of
“contemporary” scholars who agree with Johnson’s interpretation of Galatians
6:16.
[20] Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and
Eschatological Case-Study,” 187.
[21] Ibid., 183-184.
[22] Ibid., 184.
[23] This is the fallacy of trying to prove a
point by appealing to antiquity or tradition.
[24] Cf. A
Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, s.v. “Israel of God.”
[25] Hendricksen, Exposition of Galatians, 247.
[26] Ibid., 246.
[27] Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and
Eschatological Case-Study,” 187.
[28] Hendricksen, Exposition of Galatians, 246.
[29] Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and
Eschatological Case-Study,” 193.
[30] Fung, The
Epistle to the Galatians, 310.
[31] Ibid., quoting J. C. O’Neill, The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the
Galatians (London ,
1972), 71.
[32] Hendricksen, Exposition of Galatians, 246-247.
[33] Witherington, Grace In Galatia ,
453, quoting J. A. D. Weima, “Gal. 6:11-18: A Hermeneutical Key to the Galatian
Letter,” Calvin Theological Journal
28 (1993): 105.
[34] Fung, The
Epistle to the Galatians, 310-311, quoting C. H. Pinnock, Truth on Fire: The Message of Galatians
(Grand Rapids, 1972), 89.
[35] Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and
Eschatological Case-Study,” 192.
[36] Fung, The
Epistle to the Galatians, 311.
[37] Edmund Clowney, “Toward a Biblical Doctrine
of the Church,” Westminster Theological Journal 31, no. 1
(1968): 37.
[38] Lightfoot writes, “It [the expression
“Israel of God”] stands here not for the faithful converts from the
circumcision alone, but for the spiritual Israel generally, the whole body of
believers whether Jew or Gentile; and thus καὶ is epexegetic,
i.e. it introduces the same thing under a new aspect, as in Heb. 11:17, etc.”
See J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul 's Epistle to the Galatians (London:
Macmillan, 1896), 225.
[39] Lenski, Commentary
on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul ’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the
Ephesians, and to the Philippians, 321.
[40] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, ed. Henry
Beveridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1998), 437.
[41] Clowney, “Toward a Biblical Doctrine of the
Church,” 49.