True Israel or Natural Israel?

[the rookie]

At stake: whether that political entity in Palestine called "Israel" is truly of God. If the Church=Israel, then that means the other one is no holier than China or Pakistan.

Hmmm. One would imagine that the political entity in Palestine would be "of God" in the same manner that the "Chaldeans" were "of God" or Cyrus the Persian was "of God"; and that the manner in which that political entity is "of God" is a part of a drama and a context that is entirely different than this conversation.

I understand that there is zeal to refute dispensational idealism related to the political entity in Palestine - but "reactionary theology" isn't always the most objective or dispassionate theology. One must take care in such arguments that he does not attack one agenda by accidentally substituting another.

There is a mystery related to the "Israel" that Paul was speaking of in Romans 9-11, but in our zeal to refute modern ideas about the modern political entity we must take care not to craft a carefully refined system that so casually tosses aside Paul's ethnic brethren, of whom the entire conversation centers within those three chapters.

[IPet2_9]

Hmmm. One would imagine that the political entity in Palestine would be "of God" in the same manner that the "Chaldeans" were "of God" or Cyrus the Persian was "of God"; and that the manner in which that political entity is "of God" is a part of a drama and a context that is entirely different than this conversation.

I cannot disagree there. Actually, I would say all nations are of God, in the sense that "All things work together for good." Was "modern" Israel established by God? Sure! It just wasn't established by God any MORE than any other nation.

There is a mystery related to the "Israel" that Paul was speaking of in Romans 9-11, but in our zeal to refute modern ideas about the modern political entity we must take care not to craft a carefully refined system that so casually tosses aside Paul's ethnic brethren, of whom the entire conversation centers within those three chapters.

It is possible that God has a sovereign will for some kind of ethnic brethen--just not any MORE of one than for any other ethnicity. It's a popular phrase, "God has not turned His back on Israel." As opposed to who? Who HAS He turned His back on? If anyone actually had the audacity to say God turned His back on blacks, or Arabs--I guarantee you would be getting a report from me in your mod mailbox.

Also, it has never really been defined just what ethnicity we are talking about here: children of Abraham? Of Judah? Of David? Anyone of Middle Eastern descent? How do we arrive at the conclusion that just because someone espouses a Jewish religion and resides in Palestine, which is controlled politically by a Zionist party of Judaism, that therefore they must have 100% patrilineal lineage dating back 2700 years?!?? That is a HUGE leap of faith to make.

God may very well have a special will for those people (i.e. who have 100% patrlineal lineage going all the way back to Judah), but only God knows who those people are. I can safely venture a guess, though: they are just as much in Diaspora now as any time before.

[John146]

It's quite simple when one understands the context of Second Temple Judaism and it's relationship with the Gentiles, particularly the Gentile "God-fearers" who could never attain to true joining with the "Commonwealth of Israel" despite their faith / conversions through ritual baptism in water / circumcision / etc.

But now Paul is saying that they can draw near and become a part of "the household of God" because a dividing wall has been torn down and what was two (distinct) has become one (joined). One does not necessarily have to mean the other, grammatically or contextually, so I'm puzzled by the insistence that it must. It seems fairly straightforward to me, unless one continues to insist that one must equal another for reasons I can't quite grasp.

Perhaps you could enlighten me on why "Christian" must equal "Israel" rather than a new entity known as the "one new man". What's at stake here?

What's at stake is that if it's true that Christians, or the church, are never called Israel then my understanding, that many of the promises that you attribute to the nation of Israel are actually fulfilled in true Israel, would be flawed.

Since you are denying that Christians as a whole (an individual Christian is part of the true or spiritual Israel, not true Israel itself) can be called Israel, I thought I'd show you in Ephesians 2 where I believe we are called Israel. I showed you where I see a contrast between Gentile believers once being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and now no more being strangers and foreigners from the household of God. My question for you then is: why do those two verses not relate directly together? In other words, what is the difference between being an alien from the commonwealth of Israel and being a stranger and foreigner from the household of God?

Eric

[wpm]

Got it - in other words, rather than saying "Israel" = "Christian" (as Dave Taylor noted) it would be more helpful to say that, for the sake of discussion, "Israel" = "believer" or "saint".

In my mind, I was doing that - and that the term "Christian" helped clarify the conversation. But for the sake of discussion, I'll shift gears.

So yes, it is confusing to state that in the NT (or OT, but that goes without saying) "Israel" = "believer".

The repentant sinner (whether Israeli or Gentile) is thus supernaturally grafted into Christ’s mystical body – the Church. Galatians 6:15-16 says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule (namely, a non-physical, non-racial spiritual new birth experience), peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

Q. 1 What is Paul speaking of in this reading?
Q. 2 Who is he specifically speaking to?

A. 1 The whole focus of this passage is the subject of circumcision, and whether it has any bearing upon the issue of salvation.
A. 2 He is speaking to Gentile believers in Galatia.

Whilst this epistle was inspired of the Holy Spirit for the edification and instruction of the Church of Jesus Christ generally, it was initially and principally written to the Galatian Gentile believers. The verses that actually precede Paul’s reference to “the Israel of God” makes it clear that his counsel was primarily directed to those Galatian saints who were experiencing hostility from certain Jews for not being physically circumcised. Paul was thus specifically addressing the issue of circumcision, warning the Galatian Gentile believers against the mistaken crusade of these misguided Judadizers who were attempting to put them under bondage by compelling them to be circumcised.

Paul says of such, in Galatians 6:12-13, “As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh (speaking of the Jews), they constrain you (Galatian Gentile believers) to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised (namely the Jews) keep the law; but desire to have you (Gentiles) circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.”

From these introductory comments on his teaching on “the Israel of God” we can clearly identify Paul’s audience. His recipients are indeed uncircumcised Gentiles. Paul indeed declares, “they constrain you to be circumcised” (v12); and repeats, they “desire to have you circumcised”(v13). Paul then explains (in verse 15) that ones natural Jewish ancestry or physical appearance has absolutely nothing to do with his standing before God, rather it is his spiritual birthright only. He says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” Those that would argue that a man’s natural race carries any merit or virtue before God when it comes to salvation or that it in any way adds anything to a man’s spiritual status are severely censured by this passage. The reading declares, “And as many as walk according to this rule” (what rule?) – the non-racial new birth experience, – then “peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Only the second birth can create “a new creature,” nothing else.

One’s birthplace, birthdate, stock, colour or surname can never produce “a new creature”. Christ made it clear in John 3:6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Those alone who walk according to this rule are exclusively assured of the “peace” and “mercy” Paul speaks of. To suppose a Christ-rejecting Jew or Gentile (however righteous his good works) can walk in the “peace” and “mercy” of God is a delusion and a blatant distortion of Christ’s teaching. Sadly, the Christ-rejecting Jew to this day still foolishly puts his trust in “the works of the law.”Such a person is deceived of the devil and therefore outside of God’s “peace” and “mercy.” Paul exposed such people in Galatians 2:16, saying, “a man is not justified by the works of the law … for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

The vast bulk of Israelites since the Cross (as Gentiles) have rejected Christ’s one all-sufficient sacrifice for sin and are therefore bound for a Christless hell and eternal punishment. Christ (the Prince of Peace and the source of all mercy) gave no spiritual hope for the unregenerate man regardless of how distinguished his nationality or honourable his upbringing. Any way, no one in Scripture outside of the new-born child of God is presented as being qualified to enjoy the “peace” and “mercy” of God. Every Jew and Gentile that is not born again is on the broad-road to hell. Jesus made it clear in John 3:3,“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

[the rookie]

The repentant sinner (whether Israeli or Gentile) is thus supernaturally grafted into Christ’s mystical body – the Church. Galatians 6:15-16 says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule (namely, a non-physical, non-racial spiritual new birth experience), peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

Q. 1 What is Paul speaking of in this reading?
Q. 2 Who is he specifically speaking to?

A. 1 The whole focus of this passage is the subject of circumcision, and whether it has any bearing upon the issue of salvation.
A. 2 He is speaking to Gentile believers in Galatia.

Whilst this epistle was inspired of the Holy Spirit for the edification and instruction of the Church of Jesus Christ generally, it was initially and principally written to the Galatian Gentile believers. The verses that actually precede Paul’s reference to “the Israel of God” makes it clear that his counsel was primarily directed to those Galatian saints who were experiencing hostility from certain Jews for not being physically circumcised. Paul was thus specifically addressing the issue of circumcision, warning the Galatian Gentile believers against the mistaken crusade of these misguided Judadizers who were attempting to put them under bondage by compelling them to be circumcised.

Paul says of such, in Galatians 6:12-13, “As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh(speaking of the Jews),they constrain you(Galatian Gentile believers)to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised(namely the Jews)keep the law; but desire to have you (Gentiles) circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.”

From these introductory comments on his teaching on “the Israel of God” we can clearly identify Paul’s audience. His recipients are indeed uncircumcised Gentiles.

No, I disagree - you are overstating Paul's premise in a manner that, if your premise was true, would have exempted the Galatian Jews of that congregation from the circumcision as well in a manner that violated Moses - as Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 as well as the false charge that Paul was "preaching against Moses" that James presents in Acts 21. Remember what was said in Acts 15:21 - "For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

You can't remove the letter from the setting of the book of Acts. The Galatian congregations were mixed congregations that came about because of the receptive exhuberance of the God-fearers that were hearing a different "twist" on the Hebrew faith related to their participation in it. But there were still those of Israel that were receptive as well - the Galatian churches were by no means "Gentile-only" in their makeup. So naturally there was confusion as to how the two groups were to walk out their Hebrew faith.

Paul is settling the confusion that has arisen in his absence prior to the Jerusalem council (when a simple letter from James would have settled the matter). Paul is speaking primarily of Gentiles in this reading, but is primarily speaking to the entire congregation (both Jew and Gentile) to establish how the Gentiles would participate in the Hebraic faith - under the banner of faith (with the Abrahamic covenant as the backdrop as superior to the Mosaic).

To say that Paul was obliterating all ethnic distinctions between the two is, contextually, a rather odd statement when one familiarizes themselves with the actual storyline and the dynamics involved. It is to transpose modern Reformation assumptions into a cultural mileu that do not mix.

Paul is speaking to both groups within the Galatian congregations - which is why Paul can stand blameless before his Jewish accusers when he says:

And as many as walk according to this rule (namely, a non-physical, non-racial spiritual new birth experience), peace be on THEM, and mercy....

AND upon the Israel of God. It baffles me how a clear grammatical distinction can be so misunderstood and turned around from it's original context - where Paul is speaking peace to two seperate entities, not one.

[the rookie]

What's at stake is that if it's true that Christians, or the church, are never called Israel then my understanding, that many of the promises that you attribute to the nation of Israel are actually fulfilled in true Israel, would be flawed.

Since you are denying that Christians as a whole (an individual Christian is part of the true or spiritual Israel, not true Israel itself) can be called Israel, I thought I'd show you in Ephesians 2 where I believe we are called Israel. I showed you where I see a contrast between Gentile believers once being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and now no more being strangers and foreigners from the household of God. My question for you then is: why do those two verses not relate directly together? In other words, what is the difference between being an alien from the commonwealth of Israel and being a stranger and foreigner from the household of God?

Eric

I refer you to my earlier answers.

[wpm]

No, I disagree - you are overstating Paul's premise in a manner that, if your premise was true, would have exempted the Galatian Jews of that congregation from the circumcision as well in a manner that violated Moses - as Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 as well as the false charge that Paul was "preaching against Moses" that James presents in Acts 21. Remember what was said in Acts 15:21 - "For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

You can't remove the letter from the setting of the book of Acts. The Galatian congregations were mixed congregations that came about because of the receptive exhuberance of the God-fearers that were hearing a different "twist" on the Hebrew faith related to their participation in it. But there were still those of Israel that were receptive as well - the Galatian churches were by no means "Gentile-only" in their makeup. So naturally there was confusion as to how the two groups were to walk out their Hebrew faith.

Paul is settling the confusion that has arisen in his absence prior to the Jerusalem council (when a simple letter from James would have settled the matter). Paul is speaking primarily of Gentiles in this reading, but is primarily speaking to the entire congregation (both Jew and Gentile) to establish how the Gentiles would participate in the Hebraic faith - under the banner of faith (with the Abrahamic covenant as the backdrop as superior to the Mosaic).

To say that Paul was obliterating all ethnic distinctions between the two is, contextually, a rather odd statement when one familiarizes themselves with the actual storyline and the dynamics involved. It is to transpose modern Reformation assumptions into a cultural mileu that do not mix.

Paul is speaking to both groups within the Galatian congregations - which is why Paul can stand blameless before his Jewish accusers when he says:

And as many as walk according to this rule (namely, a non-physical, non-racial spiritual new birth experience), peace be on THEM, and mercy....

AND upon the Israel of God. It baffles me how a clear grammatical distinction can be so misunderstood and turned around from it's original context - where Paul is speaking peace to two seperate entities, not one.

I think you need to look at this a little closer or you fall into the Dispensational trap. You are attempting to create two peoples of God in this reading, despite the fact that Paul's whole import in this reading that there is only one people of God. You seem to make much of the words “and upon” in the passage and present this as an argument as if there is indeed salvation outside of the new birth and “a new creature.” This weak argument is quickly nullified by taking a closer look at the original. The Greek words translated “and upon” (kai epi) are found together in a few other places in the New Testament. In these, rather than suggesting a distinction in subjects these cases show an enlargement of the one topic being discussed. Anyone familiar with the meaning of the Greek word kai will know it can also be interpreted “even.” The coupling together of these words simply adds greater depth to what has already been outlined. It is therefore reasonable to interpret the same as “even on.”

Galatians 6:16 says, “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on (epi) them, and mercy, even on (kai epi) the Israel of God.”

This would seem to fairly represent the meaning of the original. It is important we notice the sequence of the words – “on ... even on”(or epi ... kai epi). In both cases the word “on” (epi) refers to the same unitary people. The concluding comments reference the “Israel of God” connect therefore to all those who have experienced the new birth (who are the focus of this passage) and serve to add description to the regenerate.

This is supported by Christ’s words in Matthew 21:5, which similarly reads, “Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon (epi) an ass, and (kai epi) a colt the foal of an ass.”

The same idea is presented here (surrounded by the exact same key Greek words) as Galatians 6:16: “on ... even on” (epi ... kai epi). No one would be as naïve as to argue that the “ass” and the “colt” mentioned above are two different beasts. No, it is obvious that this is speaking of the one same animal. It literally reads, “on an ass, even on a colt the foal of an ass” The “even on” simply adds further detail upon the description already given on the matter. In this case, not only is it an ass, but it is “a colt the foal of an ass.” This verse assists us in our understanding of Galatians 6:16, and illustrates the real import of this much debated text.

The same occurs in Revelation 14:6, which reads, “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto (epi) them that dwell on the earth, and (kai epi) to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.”

The same formation of Greek words is found here in the same sequence, in order to present the same idea. No sensible Bible student would suggest that that there are two different companies in view in this reading. Even though the word kai is translated “and” (like Galatians 6:16), it doesn’t negate the fact that those that are said to “dwell on the earth” are in fact those of “every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.” The Greek words kai epi are simply used here, like Matthew 21:5 and Galatians 6:16, to enlarge upon the information already given about the singular subject in view.They are not therefore two distinct peoples, they are the same. We see the exact same pattern as we have in Revelation 14:6: “on ... even on” (epi ... kai epi). This passage simply states, “unto them that dwell on the earth, even on every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.”

Dispensationalists are keen to create an ethnic division within the body of Christ. However, this is forbidden in the New Testament and is prohibited in the actual text before us. Any schism that existed has been done away “in Christ Jesus” and His substitutionary atonement on the Cross. Those who have experienced the new birth and have become “a new creature” are those that are identified here as “the Israel of God.” This is a spiritual community where “circumcision” or “uncircumcision” means nothing. One’s race or physical condition carries no special favour with God in our age. Paul has gone out of his way to make this clear in the preface to his comments on “the Israel of God.” He carefully and plainly demolishes such an mistaken notion.

[Bing]

the Jewish church to which David and Abraham and Joseph and Hezekiah and Isaiah all belonged.

And to which the Pharisees and the hypocrites already did not.

This is correct; but the tree that some Pharisees (such as Paul) would be grafted back into.

[the rookie]

I think you need to look at this a little closer or you fall into the Dispensational trap. You are attempting to create two peoples of God in this reading, despite the fact that Paul's whole import in this reading that there is only one people of God. You seem to make much of the words “and upon” in the passage and present this as an argument as if there is indeed salvation outside of the new birth and “a new creature.” [SIZE=3][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black]

You, on the other hand, seem to be reading a lot into my statement that I did not say, and making assumptions on what is meant if there are, in fact, two subjects in view here grammatically. That Paul could have two objects in view ("them" and "the Israel of God") does not mean that Paul, or I, "create two peoples" related to salvation and how one enters into the kingdom.

To rebut the dispensational viewpoint, it seems as if you have changed the intent of the very passage itself. Paul was not looking to "remove ethnic distinction" and speak of "one entity" nor was he even speaking of salvation at all - in the "modern Protestant" sense of salvation as we understand it.

He was speaking about post-salvation religious practice, and the nature of the relationship of a Gentile to what was still a Hebrew faith. Paul was answering questions that all were still wrestling with 20 years after the resurrection of Christ with forcefulness - but again, not on how someone becomes saved, but on how one walks out that salvation before God. You have changed the very nature and subject of the conversation here in your attempt to avoid dispensational error.

I say it again, and perhaps you can explain it in context to the internal crisis of that day - your spin on the passage - that Paul is trying to establish one spiritual people - actually reverses what Paul was trying to accomplish here. Rather than freeing the Gentiles from Mosaic expressions of the Hebraic faith, you in turn have Paul freeing Jews from those very same observances as well, thus having Paul in this letter exceed the boundaries established by the apostles in the Jerusalem council and, in fact, be guilty of the Jewish charges against him in Acts 21. In that, I believe you go too far.

No, there are not "two peoples" in view here related to salvation and how one comes into the kingdom - but there were still "two peoples" in terms of how two different groups expressed that faith on a daily basis before God and men....or why did Paul have Timothy circumcised?

Galatians 6:16 says, “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on (epi) them, and mercy, even on (kai epi) the Israel of God.”

[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]This would seem to fairly represent the meaning of the original.

Yes, I agree, minus your commentary, which I feel is colored by your zeal to rebut dispensational arguments - by which you also throw out the baby with the bath water and render the discussion and issues of Paul's day ancillary and meaningless; this makes it nearly impossible to truly grasp the meaning of the passage in relationship to the real issues at hand. Your commentary afterwards was topical rather than exegetical, by which you imagine that in presenting a concept you have exegeted the passage itself. A topical study of salvation and the family of God is quite different than an exegetical analysis of the passage in question, as you know.

I don't care what dispensationalists try to do or what they believe about this passage. In hermeneutics, we approach scriptural exegesis as a science that cannot be tainted by or colored with the viewpoints of others - our job is not to answer their mistakes, it is to interpret scripture. As such, our first concern must be context, historical setting, and grammar - for if you inject into the conversation what others believe you will spend your time answering arguments rather than interpreting passages, IMO.

[the rookie]

I cannot disagree there. Actually, I would say all nations are of God, in the sense that "All things work together for good." Was "modern" Israel established by God? Sure! It just wasn't established by God any MORE than any other nation.

It is possible that God has a sovereign will for some kind of ethnic brethen--just not any MORE of one than for any other ethnicity. It's a popular phrase, "God has not turned His back on Israel." As opposed to who? Who HAS He turned His back on? If anyone actually had the audacity to say God turned His back on blacks, or Arabs--I guarantee you would be getting a report from me in your mod mailbox.

Also, it has never really been defined just what ethnicity we are talking about here: children of Abraham? Of Judah? Of David? Anyone of Middle Eastern descent? How do we arrive at the conclusion that just because someone espouses a Jewish religion and resides in Palestine, which is controlled politically by a Zionist party of Judaism, that therefore they must have 100% patrilineal lineage dating back 2700 years?!?? That is a HUGE leap of faith to make.

God may very well have a special will for those people (i.e. who have 100% patrlineal lineage going all the way back to Judah), but only God knows who those people are. I can safely venture a guess, though: they are just as much in Diaspora now as any time before.

You haven't said anything here that I disagree with; but I always want to caution that the fantastic or the unbelievable - or even the seemingly impossible - is no grounds to dismiss scriptural promises; any more than cramming "fully God" into "fully man". Once that one happens, what is it to God to find and gather a dispersed people again?

[Nihil Obstat]

The repentant sinner (whether Israeli or Gentile) is thus supernaturally grafted into Christ’s mystical body – the Church. Galatians 6:15-16 says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule (namely, a non-physical, non-racial spiritual new birth experience), peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

Q. 1 What is Paul speaking of in this reading?
Q. 2 Who is he specifically speaking to?

A. 1 The whole focus of this passage is the subject of circumcision, and whether it has any bearing upon the issue of salvation.
A. 2 He is speaking to Gentile believers in Galatia.

Whilst this epistle was inspired of the Holy Spirit for the edification and instruction of the Church of Jesus Christ generally, it was initially and principally written to the Galatian Gentile believers. The verses that actually precede Paul’s reference to “the Israel of God” makes it clear that his counsel was primarily directed to those Galatian saints who were experiencing hostility from certain Jews for not being physically circumcised. Paul was thus specifically addressing the issue of circumcision, warning the Galatian Gentile believers against the mistaken crusade of these misguided Judadizers who were attempting to put them under bondage by compelling them to be circumcised.

Paul says of such, in Galatians 6:12-13, “As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh (speaking of the Jews), they constrain you (Galatian Gentile believers) to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised (namely the Jews) keep the law; but desire to have you (Gentiles) circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.”

From these introductory comments on his teaching on “the Israel of God” we can clearly identify Paul’s audience. His recipients are indeed uncircumcised Gentiles. Paul indeed declares, “they constrain you to be circumcised” (v12); and repeats, they “desire to have you circumcised”(v13). Paul then explains (in verse 15) that ones natural Jewish ancestry or physical appearance has absolutely nothing to do with his standing before God, rather it is his spiritual birthright only. He says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” Those that would argue that a man’s natural race carries any merit or virtue before God when it comes to salvation or that it in any way adds anything to a man’s spiritual status are severely censured by this passage. The reading declares, “And as many as walk according to this rule” (what rule?) – the non-racial new birth experience, – then “peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Only the second birth can create “a new creature,” nothing else.

One’s birthplace, birthdate, stock, colour or surname can never produce “a new creature”. Christ made it clear in John 3:6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Those alone who walk according to this rule are exclusively assured of the “peace” and “mercy” Paul speaks of. To suppose a Christ-rejecting Jew or Gentile (however righteous his good works) can walk in the “peace” and “mercy” of God is a delusion and a blatant distortion of Christ’s teaching. Sadly, the Christ-rejecting Jew to this day still foolishly puts his trust in “the works of the law.”Such a person is deceived of the devil and therefore outside of God’s “peace” and “mercy.” Paul exposed such people in Galatians 2:16, saying, “a man is not justified by the works of the law … for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

The vast bulk of Israelites since the Cross (as Gentiles) have rejected Christ’s one all-sufficient sacrifice for sin and are therefore bound for a Christless hell and eternal punishment. Christ (the Prince of Peace and the source of all mercy) gave no spiritual hope for the unregenerate man regardless of how distinguished his nationality or honourable his upbringing. Any way, no one in Scripture outside of the new-born child of God is presented as being qualified to enjoy the “peace” and “mercy” of God. Every Jew and Gentile that is not born again is on the broad-road to hell. Jesus made it clear in John 3:3,“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Great stuff here, but what is missing in your Q & A you ironically go into pretty heavily, and that is this: Q. Who is Paul warning the Galatians against? A. Circumcised Jews attempting to gain Gentile converts by way of circumcision in order that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.

After giving this closing passage some more thought (as I used to agree with how the rookie sees this to mean, yet simultaneously acknowledging your concerns as well), I've come to a new conclusion that 6:12-16 is but another of many places in this letter where Paul calls these Jews who have been preaching another gospel accursed (1:6-12; 2:15-21; 3:1-5; 3:10-14; 4:8-12; 4:15-18; 4:28-30; 5:1-16).

It is Paul and other Jews who put no salvific stock in circumcision that is "the Israel of God"; he is not talking about Gentiles at all, nor do I any more believe this verse to be highlighting the two groups within the church (though I still believe them to be there). By distinguishing "the Israel of God" within all of natural Israel (as he does in Rom. 9:6-13; 11:7; etc.), Paul in essence calls those Jews who preach circumcision "accursed"; apart from the "peace and mercy" of God, and therefore cut off.

Again, the Israel of God are Jews distinguished not from their fellow Gentile brethren, but from unsaved and blinded Israel who "pervert the gospel of Christ", who "seek to please men", who separate Jews from Gentiles, seeking and preaching justification and righteousness by the law, teaching perfection by the flesh, persecuting those born of the Spirit, who "have fallen from grace", who "hindered [them] from obeying the truth", called 'the leaven in the lump', who trouble them, and sow to the flesh, desiring to boast in the Gentiles' flesh. This same principle, when applied to Phil. 3:2-3 for example, brings much clarification to this whole discussion on Rom. 9-11.

- Lk.11

[the rookie]

Great stuff here, but what is missing in your Q & A you ironically go into pretty heavily, and that is this: Q. Who is Paul warning the Galatians against? A. Circumcised Jews attempting to gain Gentile converts by way of circumcision in order that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.

After giving this closing passage some more thought (as I used to agree with how the rookie sees this to mean, yet simultaneously acknowledging your concerns as well), I've come to a new conclusion that 6:12-16 is but another of many places in this letter where Paul calls these Jews who have been preaching another gospel accursed (1:6-12; 2:15-21; 3:1-5; 3:10-14; 4:8-12; 4:15-18; 4:28-30; 5:1-16).

It is Paul and other Jews who put no salvific stock in circumcision that is "the Israel of God"; he is not talking about Gentiles at all, nor do I any more believe this verse to be highlighting the two groups within the church (though I still believe them to be there). By distinguishing "the Israel of God" within all of natural Israel (as he does in Rom. 9:6-13; 11:7; etc.), Paul in essence calls those Jews who preach circumcision "accursed"; apart from the "peace and mercy" of God, and therefore cut off.

Again, the Israel of God are Jews distinguished not from their fellow Gentile brethren, but from unsaved and blinded Israel who "pervert the gospel of Christ", who "seek to please men", who separate Jews from Gentiles, seeking and preaching justification and righteousness by the law, teaching perfection by the flesh, persecuting those born of the Spirit, who "have fallen from grace", who "hindered [them] from obeying the truth", called 'the leaven in the lump', who trouble them, and sow to the flesh, desiring to boast in the Gentiles' flesh. This same principle, when applied to Phil. 3:2-3 for example, brings much clarification to this whole discussion on Rom. 9-11.

- Lk.11

This is a good post. What exactly have I said that is different than this? You seemed to make a contrast with my post that I can't figure out, since I didn't really define what I believed Paul was speaking about in terms of the "Israel of God"; I just wanted to point out the context and grammatical flow seems to establish two objects in Paul's thinking, not one. That doesn't create two peoples related to salvation; it just identifies two groups that existed at that time in church history, whether we like that point or not.

It would be like me talking about the Lutherans down the road who observe the sacrements in a radically different manner than I do, but get saved the same way and are part of the same family of God.

[Nihil Obstat]

This is a good post. What exactly have I said that is different than this? You seemed to make a contrast with my post that I can't figure out, since I didn't really define what I believed Paul was speaking about in terms of the "Israel of God"; I just wanted to point out the context and grammatical flow seems to establish two objects in Paul's thinking, not one. That doesn't create two peoples related to salvation; it just identifies two groups that existed at that time in church history, whether we like that point or not.

It would be like me talking about the Lutherans down the road who observe the sacrements in a radically different manner than I do, but get saved the same way and are part of the same family of God.

No, totally. I still agree with what you're saying about that, but I also agree with wpm that Gal. 6:16 doesn't mean "and" as if Paul was speaking of the saved Gentiles when he said "as many as walk according to this rule", but then the saved Jews when he said "and the Israel of God", but rather "even" to mean those previously mentioned. Yes, I definitely still see what you see, just no longer in this particular verse; that's all.

This is fun!

[the rookie]

No, totally. I still agree with what you're saying about that, but I also agree with wpm that Gal. 6:16 doesn't mean "and" as if Paul was speaking of the saved Gentiles when he said "as many as walk according to this rule", but then the saved Jews when he said "and the Israel of God", but rather "even" to mean those previously mentioned. Yes, I definitely still see what you see, just no longer in this particular verse; that's all.

This is fun!

I agree that "even" is a better translation, but it still seems to be a phrase that creates a subtle distinction rather than identifying the Gentiles as the "Israel of God", as seems to be the argument here. Thus I am left again not sure what you are agreeing with or disagreeing with, to be honest.

[Nihil Obstat]

I agree that "even" is a better translation, but it still seems to be a phrase that creates a subtle distinction rather than identifying the Gentiles as the "Israel of God", as seems to be the argument here. Thus I am left again not sure what you are agreeing with or disagreeing with, to be honest.

Oh. Well, I'm not saying that "the Israel of God" includes Gentiles; I agree with you that it doesn't. What I'm saying is that I no longer believe that Gal. 6:16 is distinguishing between Jews and Gentiles within the church (though I do agree that there is a distinction), but rather a distinction between Jews and Jews within Israel; the elect and the rest who are blind (cp. Rom. 11:7). But if you still see a "subtle", even (kai epi - j/k) a "clear" distinction made between saved Jews and saved Gentiles in this verse, then I wouldn't give too much energy debating that, since I already agree with that anyway from other Scriptures.