Anyone who has read my series on why the *obsession* with eschatology is a waste of time will recall that one of the big issues is what “Israel” means in the epistles — and especially Paul’s works. This issue is central to any view of eschatology. One perspective (the one from which a rapture derives) says that Israel and the Church are distinct entities. Others say that Israel (this side of the cross) refers to anyone who believes in Christ, Jew or Gentile.1
This issue is one of the more difficult interpretive problems in biblical studies in my opinion, and so any view of eschatology (read: any popular novelist, preacher, or non-scholarly writer who thinks their view of eschatology is self-evidently “biblical” ought to be ignored). This truly is a thorny issue for exegesis.
Prof. Larry Hurtado (retired, Edinburgh) has posted a couple of times recently on this issue in relation to his review of N.T. Wright’s past work and his new book Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Here are links to his thoughts (he is at odds with Wright) in their order of appearance:
Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Part 1 (Hurtado reviewed an advance copy of the work)
Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Part 2
Paul and Israel’s Salvation: In Dialogue with Tom Wright
“Israel” and the People of God: Wright and Response
I’m with Hurtado on this one (which does not mean I’m with people like John Hagee and Joel Rosenberg). While there is a lot in the NT to suggest that the Church has displaced Israel (and I’m not even sure that’s the right word), I can’t help doubt that the “replacement theologians” have taken that data too far and pressed it beyond what it can sustain. In short, can we really say that none of Paul’s references to “Israel” that have some sort of eschatological flavor ever refer to (or include) national/ethnic Israel? Hurtado puts it this way:
But my problems with Wright’s particular view stem in part from his accompanying notion that this one family/people of Abraham/God must be homogenous, and that for Paul the historic special significance of ethnic “Israel” as a people is now dissolved in God’s plans.
Ditto.
- This is now the domain of “replacement” theologians, a term which, to me, smacks of leftist politics. Yes, I know that’s an over-reaction, but why not just call them what we used to: amillennialists? And please don’t post comments telling me about dispensationalism. I taught the subject, along with covenant theology, a dozen semesters on the college level. ↩
Hey Mike, have you read Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s PhD dissertation on this very verse in Galatians, titled ‘Israelology’? Here is an excerpt (also if you can give your thoughts on his exegesis)…
—
The Israel of God of Galatians 6:16
The purpose of this section is to present a dispensational view of Galatians 6:16, the only passage produced by all Covenant Theologians as evidence that the Church is the spiritual Israel, or that Gentile believers become spiritual Jews. The verse does not prove their case. The passage reads:
‘Now may peace be on all those who live by this principle, and may mercy be on the Israel of God.’
The Book of Galatians is concerned with Gentiles who were attempting to attain salvation through the law. The ones deceiving them were Judaizers, who were Jews demanding adherence to the Law of Moses. To them, a Gentile had to convert to Judaism before he qualified for salvation through Christ. In verse 15, Paul states that the important thing for salvation is faith, resulting in the new man. He also mentions two elements: circumcision and uncircumcision. This refers to two groups of people: Jews and Gentiles, two groups already mentioned by these very terms in 2:7–9:
‘In fact, they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised. For the one who worked through Peter by making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me by sending me to the gentiles. So when James, Cephas, and John (who were reputed to be leaders) recognized the grace that had been given me, they gave Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcised.’
In verse 16, Paul then pronounces a blessing on members of the two groups who would follow this rule of salvation through faith alone. The first group is the them, the uncircumcision, the Gentile Christians to and of whom he had devoted most of the epistle. The second group is the Israel of God. These are the circumcision, the Jewish believers who, in contrast with the Judaizers, followed the rule of salvation by grace through faith alone. Covenant Theologians must ignore the primary meaning of kai which separates the two groups in the verse in order to make them both the same group.
In a recent work, Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, former professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary, has done a detailed study of Galatians 6:16. In his introduction, Johnson makes the following observation:
“In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there remains persistent support for the contention that the term Israel may refer properly to Gentile believers in the present age … the primary support is found in Galatians 6:16 … I cannot help but think that dogmatic considerations loom large in the interpretation of Galatians 6:16. The tenacity with which this application of ‘the Israel of God’ to the church is held in spite of a mass of evidence to the contrary leads one to think that the supporters of the view believe their eschatological system, usually an amillennial scheme, hangs on the reference of the term to the people of God, composed of both believing Jews and Gentiles. Amillennialism does not hang on this interpretation, but the view does appear to have a treasured place in amillennial exegesis. In speaking of the view that the term refers to ethnic Israel, a sense that the term Israel has in every other of its more than sixty-five uses in the New Testament and in its fifteen uses in Paul, in tones almost emotional William Hendriksen, the respected Reformed commentator, writes, ‘I refuse to accept that explanation.’ … What I am leading up to is expressed neatly by D. W. B. Robinson in an article written about twenty years ago: ‘The glib citing of Gal. 6:16 to support the view that the church is the new Israel should be vigorously challenged. There is weighty support for a limited interpretation.’ We can say more than this, in my opinion. There is more than weighty support for a more limited interpretation. There is overwhelming support for such. In fact, the least likely view among several alternatives is the view that ‘the Israel of God’ is the church.”
Johnson presents three views concerning this verse. Only the first insists that the Israel of God is the Church as a whole while the other two limit it to Jewish believers. The first view is described as follows:
“The first is the claim that ‘the Israel of God’ is simply a term descriptive of the believing church of the present age … The Israel of God is the body who shall walk by the rule of the new creation, and they include believing people from the two ethnic bodies of Jews and Gentiles.”
The basis for the first view is:
“The list of names supporting this view is impressive, although the bases of the interpretation are few and feeble, namely, the claim that the kai … before the term ‘the Israel of God’ is an explicative or appositional kai; … and the claim that if one sees the term ‘the Israel of God’ a believing ethnic Israel, they would be included in the preceding clause, ‘And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them.'”
Johnson rejects this view on three grounds. The first is for grammatical and syntactical reasons for which there are two. The first is that this view must resort to a secondary or lesser meaning of kai:
“It is necessary to begin this part of the discussion with a reminder of a basic, but often neglected, hermeneutical principle. It is this: in the absence of compelling exegetical and theological considerations, we should avoid the rarer grammatical usages when the common ones make good sense. Because the latter usage serves well the view that the term ‘the Israel of God’ is the church, the dogmatic concern overcame grammatical usage. An extremely rare usage has been made to replace the common usage, even in spite of the fact that the common and frequent usage of and makes perfectly good sense in Galatians 6:16.”
Second, Johnson points out that if Paul’s intention was to identify the ‘them’ as being the ‘Israel of God’, then the best way of showing this was to eliminate the kai altogether. As shown earlier, this was exactly what Hendriksen wanted to do by leaving kai untranslated. The very presence of the kai argues against the ‘them’ being the ‘Israel of God’. As Johnson notes, ‘Paul, however, did not eliminate the kai.’
The second ground for rejecting this view is for exegetical considerations, which deals with context and usage. Concerning usage, Johnson states:
“From the standpoint of biblical usage this view stands condemned. There is no instance in biblical literature of the term Israel being used in the sense of the church, or the people of God as composed of both believing ethnic Jews and Gentiles. Nor, on the other hand, as one might expect if there were such usage, does the phrase ta ethné (KJV, ‘the Gentiles’) ever mean the non-Christian world specifically, but only the non-Jewish peoples, although such are generally non-Christians. Thus, the usage of the term Israel stands overwhelmingly opposed to the first view. The usage of the terms Israel and the church in the early chapters of the book of Acts is in complete harmony, for Israel exists there alongside the newly formed church, and the two entities are kept separate in terminology.”
For those who would cite Romans 9:6 as evidence, Johnson shows that this verse is no support for such a view for the distinction is between Jews who believe and Jews who do not:
“Paul is here speaking only of a division within ethnic Israel. Some of them are believers and thus truly Israel, whereas others, though ethnically Israelites, are not truly Israel, since they are not elect and believing … No Gentiles are found in the statement at all.”
Even many Covenant Theologians have agreed with this view of Romans 9:6 and do not use it to support their view of Galatians 6:16. As for context, Johnson observes:
“On the contrary, the apostle is concerned with correcting the gospel preached to the Galatians by the Judaizers, particularly their false contention that it was necessary to be circumcised to be saved and to observe as Christians certain requirements of the law of Moses in order to remain in divine favor … The apostle makes no attempt whatsoever to deny that there is a legitimate distinction of race between Gentile and Jewish believers in the church … There is a remnant of Jewish believers in the church according to the election of grace … This approach fails to see that Paul does not say there is neither Jew nor Greek within the church. He speaks of those who are ‘in Christ’ … But Paul also says there is neither male nor female, nor slave nor free man in Christ. Would he then 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? In that sense there is no difference in Christ.”
The third ground for rejecting this view is theological:
“… there is no historical evidence that the term Israel was identified with the church before A.D. 160. Further, at that date there was no characterization of the church as ‘the Israel of God.’ In other words, for more than a century after Paul there was no evidence of the identification.”
Johnson’s summary concerning the rejection of the first view is:
“To conclude the discussion of the first interpretation, it seems clear that there is little evidence—grammatical, exegetical, or theological—that supports it. On the other hand, there is sound historical evidence against the identification of Israel with believing or unbelieving Gentiles. The grammatical usage of kai is not favorable to the view, nor is the Pauline or New Testament usage of Israel … Finally, the Pauline teaching in Galatians contains a recognition of national distinctions in the one people of God.”
The second view is that the Israel of God is the believing Jewish remnant within the Church. This is Johnson’s own view and is the common dispensational view. Johnson describes this view as follows:
“The second of the important interpretations of Galatians 6:16 and ‘the Israel of God’ is the view that the words refer simply to believing ethnic Israelites in the Christian church. Does not Paul speak of himself as an Israelite (cf. Rom. 11:1)? And does not the apostle also speak of ‘a remnant according to God’s gracious choice’ (cf. 11:5), words that plainly in the context refer to believing Israelites? What more fitting thing could Paul write, it is said, in a work so strongly attacking Jewish professing believers, the Judaizers, than to make it most plain that he was not attacking the true believing Jews? Judaizers are anathematized, but the remnant according to the election of grace are ‘the Israel of God.’ … Perhaps this expression, ‘the Israel of God,’ is to be contrasted with his expression in 1 Corinthians 10:18, ‘Israel after the flesh’ (KJV), as the true, believing Israel versus the unbelieving element, just as in Romans 9:6 the apostle distinguishes two Israels, one elect and believing, the other unbelieving, but both ethnic Israelites (cf. vv. 7–13).”
Johnson supports this view on the same three grounds that he rejected the first view. On grammatical and syntactical grounds, Johnson states that ‘there are no grammatical, or syntactical considerations that would be contrary’ to this view and, furthermore, the ‘common sense of kai as continuative, or conjunctive is followed.’ In other words, it uses the primary meaning of kai.
On exegetical grounds Johnson states:
“Exegetically the view is sound, since ‘Israel’ has its uniform Pauline ethnic sense. And further, the apostle achieves a very striking climactic conclusion. Drawing near the end of his ‘battle-epistle’ with its harsh and forceful attack on the Judaists and its omission of the customary words of thanksgiving, Paul tempers his language with a special blessing for those faithful believing Israelites who, understanding the grace of God and its exclusion of any human works as the ground of redemption, had not succumbed to the subtle blandishments of the deceptive Judaizers. They, not the false men from Jerusalem, are ‘the Israel of God,’ or, as he calls them elsewhere, ‘the remnant according to the election of grace’ (cf. Rom. 11:5).”
As for theological grounds, Johnson states:
“And theologically the view is sound in its maintenance of the two elements within the one people of God, Gentiles and ethnic Jews. Romans 11 spells out the details of the relationship between the two entities from Abraham’s day to the present age and on to the fulfillment in the future of the great unconditional covenantal promises made to the patriarchs. ”
The third view agrees with the second, that the Israel of God must refer to Jewish believers and not the Church as a whole but sees this Jewish remnant as still future:
“The third of the interpretations is the view that the expression ‘the Israel of God’ is used eschatologically and refers to the Israel that shall turn to the Lord in the future in the events that surround the second advent of our Lord. Paul would then be thinking along the lines of his well-known prophecy of the salvation of ‘all Israel’ in Romans 11:25–27. The third view … takes the term ‘the Israel of God’ to refer to ethnic Israel but locates their blessing in the future.”
Johnson has no major objections to the third view for ‘grammatically and syntactically this last option is sound.’ Theologically, this view is also sound for:
“… the view harmonizes with the important Pauline teaching that there are two kinds of Israelites, a believing one and an unbelieving one.”
The only real problem is exegetical since ‘… the eschatological perspective … has not been one of the major emphases of the Galatian epistle as a whole.’ However, Johnson allows for the exegetical possibility of this view for the wider context did mention the Abrahamic Covenant and the Kingdom of God.
The second view is probably the best. While the third is biblically acceptable, the first view is not. Johnson concludes:
“If there is an interpretation that totters on a tenuous foundation, it is the view that Paul equates the term ‘the Israel of God’ with the believing church of Jews and Gentiles. To support it, the general usage of the term Israel in Paul, in the New Testament, and in the Scriptures as a whole is ignored. The grammatical and syntactical usage of the conjunction kai is strained and distorted—and the rare and uncommon sense accepted when the usual sense is unsatisfactory—only because it does not harmonize with the presuppositions of the exegete. And to compound matters, in the special context of Galatians and the general context of the Pauline teaching, especially as highlighted in Romans 11, Paul’s primary passages on God’s dealings with Israel and the Gentiles, are downplayed. … the doctrine that the church of Gentile and Jews is the Israel of God rests on an illusion. It is a classic case of tendentious exegesis.”
For Dispensational Israelology, the conclusion is that the Church is never called, and is not, a ‘spiritual Israel’ or a ‘new Israel.’
His conclusions are too categorical in the other direction (the word “never” in the last sentence is simply indefensible). To be honest, Fruchtenbaum’s work is years behind the discussion. At any rate, one verse does not resolve the issues.
There’s a false dichotomy in this analysis. Neither of the assessed options are correct. I can’t fault someone for coming to different conclusions than me, but you didn’t even include the full data set of options.
It’s not my material. And the post is also not a thesis or a journal article. It’s a post with links, designed only to introduce people to why there’s a conversation. When I want to write for journals or publication, I’ll write for journals and publication. Blog posts don’t need detailed nuances that provide exhaustive coverage (consider the genre).
My question to the replacement theologian centers on “As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.”(Ro 11:28) — Obviously the church cannot be the “enemies of the Gospel” but that means ethnic Israel is “beloved for the sake of their forefathers.” It’s quite clear. Also read the ICC commentary on Romans by C. E. B. Cranfield, he is hardly a raving dispensationalist and exegesis of Romans 9-11 convinced him:
Taken as a whole, knowing what we do about several passages indicating the church is authentic Israel at least now while knowing Romans 11(“God has not rejected the Jews and they will be grafted back in”), we have to reconsider some things traditions have offered up.
Are the hyper Calvinists right? Not reasonable.
Dispensationalists right? Not reasonable.
Supercessionists right? Partially, not totally, they’ve chosen to ignore this critical Romans 11 passage among others.
What are we left with? I’m asking.
1) Hagee’s view – unreasonable to me, God would be eternally showing favoritism to Jews based on genetics which is a form of weird hyper Calvinism. “You’re in, you’re out, screw you buddy”. That is not Christ.
2) Christ centered universalism – This one needs to be considered.
Romans 11 ends with a hallelujah chorus by Paul after he laments the end of his people the Jews and he does state, “God has locked us all up in disobedience so He can show mercy to us all”
3) I’m up for more alternatives.
What’s missing in this whole debate is the fundamental question of identity. Do we know who we’re talking about here (historically)?
Hallmarks of Abraham’s promise was that his flesh-and-blood descendants would be ‘God’s people’ receiving his favour and blessing [Gen 12:2]. Moreover, they were to become not one people, but many: I will make my covenant between you and I, and will multiply you greatly.’ Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, ‘Behold, my covenant is with you, and you will be the father of a ˻multitude of nations˼. [Gen 17:2-7] (Paul references this promise in [Rom 11:25] “For I would not have you ignorant of this mystery, brothers, lest you be wise in your own conceits; that a partial blindness has befallen Israel, until the ˻multitude of nations˼ is come.“.
Yet, we simply and unquestioningly believe we know who these people are today. Faith (in God) is suppose to be the identifier of the recipients of this promise (Jacob had faith, Esau did not) “Know therefore, that those of faith are the descendants of Abraham” [Gal 3:7].
Despite this, the people who call themselves ‘Israeli’ today are largely atheistic, or are rejecters of Christ (who Christian’s believe to be YHWH in human flesh). Are these the people identified in [Exo 6:7] with “I will take you to be my people, and I shall be your Elohim, and you will know that I am YHWH your Elohim …”
Clearly either God was wrong, or ineffective with his foresight, if for the bulk of history a people who rejected Him were considered His, and indeed, exhibited none of the faith of Abraham, or our recognition of His people was defective, and we were looking at Esau, rather than Jacob, as the inheritor of the promise.
Given that John Hyrcanus forcibly converted the Idumeans to Jews, and integrated this entire nation into the tiny House of Judah, (with Judah’s king Herod being of Idumean rather than David), and given that an entire Khazar people have also converted into this House, I have no problem believing that we have been blind to God’s actual people since at least since the fall of the Hasmonean, if not before when the House of Israel departed to be sifted through the nations.
So the question shouldn’t be about God’s commitment to ‘church’, which is an artificial theological construct, or even about God’s commitment to Israel, but whether or not out sense of history matches the promises so clearly evident in the bible.
You’re missing the focus of the issue – the term in view is “Israel” – not Jews, Judah, etc. How is *Paul* thinking about Israel? If, in Gal 3, the Gentile believers (along with Jewish believers) inherit the Abrahamic covenant – and Gal 3 is explicit on that point (“if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise”; Gal 3:29) then is Paul redefining “Israel” to be those in Christ (believers, the Church). OR does he still use that term *when talking eschatologically* about ethnic/political Israel.
The debate isn’t over whether Paul saw Jews in his day or knew they were God’s people. The point is what Paul means (or could mean) by “Israel”.
I’m not missing the focus here. I simply don’t believe it is the focus. I simply suppose that Paul understood ‘Israel’ the way YHWH spoke about it previously. His understanding aligned with the scripture he was familiar with.
I’m also supposing that we project onto Paul our understandings crediting him with views he didn’t possess. For example, you use the word gentile (with a capital G)? Why? Because you see the Greek word ἔθνος? What does ἔθνος actually mean though?
It appears all over the place in the LXX yet it is never translated ‘Gentiles’ with a capital G. It is translate ‘nations’ (which is what it meant in Greek). Speaking of Israel: οὐκ ἐποίησεν οὕτως παντὶ ἔθνει καὶ τὰ κρίματα αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐδήλωσεν αὐτοῖς. [Ps 147:9]. Speaking of the covenant with Israel: καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ τίθημί σοι διαθήκην ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ σου ποιήσω ἔνδοξα ἃ οὐ γέγονεν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ καὶ ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει καὶ ὄψεται πᾶς ὁ λαός ἐν οἷς εἶ σύ τὰ ἔργα κυρίου ὅτι θαυμαστά ἐστιν ἃ ἐγὼ ποιήσω σοι [Ex 34:10]
The writers of the LXX used the word frequently according to it’s meaning. The same word also appears thousands of times in the Oxyrhynchus and Tebtunis Papyri (representing 60 million words of secular Greek literature from Homer through to 1453 AD.) Never once is ἔθνος taken to mean ‘Gentiles’?
So why do you take it that way? Because you’ve been trained to do it, and you do it unquestionably. If think this is of no importance consider the situations where the New Testament quotes the Old Testaments, and the translation of the New Testament into English differs or contradicts the translation of the Old, though we have both texts?
[Isa 9:1] speaks of ‘Galilee of the nations’ meaning the nations of the House of Joseph (whose regions was around Galilee) so Israelites, yet [Matt 4:15] completely contradicts this when ἔθνος is imparted ‘special (false)’ meaning.
Of course Galatians is correct. Who does Paul say received the promises ([Rom 9:4])?
To whom did Jesus say he came ([Matt 15:;25])
To whom did Jesus send his apostles ([Matt 10:6])
Where were the dispersed ‘House of Israel’ believed to be ([John 7:35])
Where were the Greek speaking Leuco-Syrians found ([1 Peter 1:1])
Amongst what nations was this House prophesied to be sifted [Isa 30:28][Amos 9:9]; doesn’t Daniel say Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome [Dan 8:21]?
They were Christ’s and they were Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise, because as the bible itself suggests, the Galatians were Leuco-Syrians, and so Israelites.
Still doubt this? Galatians was written to exiles. Consider the Greek Γαλατίας: like most descriptions, this word has a root and a suffix (Galah-tikos). What do they mean?
Galah (from גָּלָה or Γαλα) means ‘exile’.
Tikos (from -τικός) means ‘having the character of’.
The division Paul is addressing is the same one all Israelites were worrying about, the same one Ezekiel worried about in [Eze 37:16], and the same one asked about in [Acts 1:6].
The question isn’t about what Paul meant by ‘Israel’ since his use matched that of his predecessors and Jesus, but about what we mean by it?
Galatians 3:28
“There is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
– enough said.
Shalom Shalom Linda,
“There is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
At one point, for the first ten years of being born again, that was more than enough and nothing more needed to be said about being a jew or a gentile in Messiah. And I was content with that and for the most part being a jew meant nothing to me ,…
…until the Ruach of YHWH brought this scripture to my attention, ever so playfully;
Rom 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?…RESURRECTION LIFE…which is what I understood in that flash of time i.e. that what ever the so called “church” had is death, compared to when us, the torah-guarding tribe of Judah has collectively(?)accepted Yahshua finally as our Messiah !!
…at this point sister and Dr.Michael Heiser, my dear brother T. Weismann et al, I want to apologize for us killing our Messiah and using the gentiles for doing our dirty work Sorry, Oooops !!, we didn’t know what we were doing, OY !! So like Shaul said in Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Rom 7:25 Thanks be to YHWH through Yahushua the Messiah our Saviour…
So sister Galatians 3:28 is absolutely true – enough said…and Romans11:15 is absolutely true – enough said.
Zec 8:23 Thus saith YHWH of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that Elohim is with you.
Joh 4:22 You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
….but the hour is coming when we all will understand that the Ruach/the Spirit of the Torah (Isa.8:20) and the Truth/ the letter of the Torah (Psalm 119:142) are echad, are one and the same.
– Enough said
Shalom Shalom James 1:1, Isaiah 26:3, Rev.12:17, Ezk.37, Isa.11:11 Jer.23:7+8,Isa.11:13
Seeing as there is no word such as “church” in scripture and being a Jew myself, that tribe in which the entirety of salvation comes John 4:22, in which is stated explicitly you do not know what you worship!!
There has only and ever been and ever will be Kol Israel, all twelve tribes and their companions as stated very clearly in (et al) Ezekiel 37,Isaiah 11:13,Hos 1:11,ISAIAH 49:6…IT IS A LIGHT THING..
The Israel of El = Kol Israel, all twelve tribes and their companions Eze.37
John 4:22 You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
So there were no gatherings of Christians? When Gentile believers gathered they had no name for the assembly? Seriously? ekklesia – it did mean something, and its use in the Septuagint matters for what they were thinking.
Of course there was an assembly, but we cannot simply suppose that Paul was constructing a new theology of ecclesiology if the assembly he was speaking about was one of exiled (and uncircumcised) Israelites. Nor can we simply suppose that his use of ἐκκλησία contained meaning about Israelite vs non-Israelite since more often than not the ἐκκλησία in the LXX meant the assembly of Israel. Making suppositions about this is where false dichotomies between ‘church’ and ‘Israel’ are being introduced in Christian theology. Surely you more than most, value imparting correct meaning on words from the original language, and no more – so why not live by that standard here?
The word ἐκκλησία simply means assembly. If we impart to this word novel meaning ‘church’ we’re being lazy. If we want to resolve ethnic questions about ἐκκλησία – we have to address this historically, not semantically.
Theologically, Isaiah said of the House of Israel (but not necessarily Judah) their eyes would be blind and their ears dull [Isa 6:10]. There eyes would be covered and they would be as drunk [Isa 29:9-10] as in a deep sleep.
Even blind, though YHWH would lead them in a path they did not know (meaning the way would be straight, and unfamiliar) [Isa 42:16-19].
The House of Israel was to go the way of the uncircumcised [Eze 28:10], forgetting the way of their youth [Isa 54:4], forgetting YHWH [Jer 23:27] and be called by a new name (other than Israel) [Isa 62:2] that YHWH’s name be profaned no more [Eze 20:9,14,22,39][Jer 7:10-14,30].
How can an adulterous bride forget she is adulterous? If she’s made a virgin [Jer 31:4], given a new name [Isa 62:2], made to forget the shame of her youth [Isa 49:15][Eze 39:26], and her husband dies [Rom 7:2-3] she’ll be freed from the confines of adultery.
There is no false dichotomy between ‘church’ and ‘Israel’ if Israelites are the ἐκκλησία. This is why Paul said “For I would not have you ignorant of this mystery, brothers, lest you be wise in your own conceits; that a partial blindness has befallen Israel, until the ˻multitude of nations˼ is come.” referencing [Gen 17:4-5][Gen 48:19].
So, you’re suggesting Paul didn’t view his ministry as a fulfillment of the reclamation of the disinherited nations?
No.
Of his own ministry Paul said this( recorded through the eyes of a Greek scribe): “Ὑμῖν γὰρ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μὲν εἰμι ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος τὴν διακονίαν μου δοξάζω εἴ πως παραζηλώσω μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ σώσω τινὰς ἐξ αὐτῶν ” [Rom 11:13-14]
More or less, and taking ἐθνῶν at face value, I take this to say in English “Now I am speaking to you tribes. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the nations, I magnify my ministry somehow to make my fellow Judeans jealous, and thus save some of them.”
So the historical question is which ‘tribes/peoples/nations’ is Paul speaking to?
Since he was speaking to tribes/peoples contained in the Roman Empire, lets look for clues in the same letter – Romans.
[Romans 4:1] – Paul and his audience shared a forefather in Abraham.
[Romans 9:10] – Paul and his audience shared a forefather in Isaac.
[Romans 1:13] – Paul considered his audience kin, kinsmen according to the flesh [Rom 9:3], brethren of a common ancestor (and related by blood)
[Romans 7:1] – Paul’s audience was aware of the Law
[Romans 7:4] – Paul’s audience needed to know that they were no longer bound by the Law.
[Romans 8:12-15] – Paul’s audience at some point historically received the Spirit of Slavery
[Romans 8:29] – Paul’s Messiah was the firstborn of the brethen being addressed.
[Romans 11:25] – Paul’s kinsmen were Israelites, blind to the covenant promise that the sons of Abraham would become not merely a nation, but a company or multitude of nations [Gen 17:4-5][Gen 48:19]. The fulling of this multitude (“ .. πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ“) was not yet been complete. Notice this reference in Romans is nearly exactly from Abraham’s promise in [Gen 48:19] “καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ἀλλὰ εἶπεν οἶδα τέκνον οἶδα καὶ οὗτος ἔσται εἰς λαόν καὶ οὗτος ὑψωθήσεται ἀλλὰ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὁ νεώτερος μείζων αὐτοῦ ἔσται καὶ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἔσται εἰς πλῆθος ἐθνῶν“.
Admittedly, to this point I have been cryptic. I haven’t answered your question, though anyone who can read the bible verses above can infer the argument.
Let’s let Paul himself be more direct about the tribes he was sent to.
Paul quotes Hosea in [Rom 9:24-26] “… even us whom he has called, not from the Judeans only but also out of nations? As indeed he says in Hosea,
‘Those who were “not my people” I shall call “my people,” and her who was “not beloved” I shall call “beloved.”’
‘And in the very place where it was said to them, “You are “not my people,” there they will be called “sons of the living God.”’
Paul is either speaking about the people Hosea was speaking about, or he isn’t. If he isn’t – he’s mining scripture for his own purpose.
If he is, however, we need to find out who Hosea was speaking about and either heed Hosea, or ignore him.
Paul’s nations – Hosea’s ‘not my people‘ are identified in [Hos 1:10]. Hosea’s ‘no mercy‘ later to become ἀγαπάω (same as רָחַם in the LXX), also Paul’s ‘beloved‘ are identified in [Hos 1:6,11] and [Hos 2:1].
So who do I believe Paul was minster to? The same people Hosea was minster to.
Shalom MSH, Really Shalom!!
What’s with the histrionics? Of course, they were called something. But as a Jew, referring to all those earliest of Jewish Hebrews (one of twelve tribes)the primal followers of the Lamb, I can tell you they were definitely not called or called themselves “the church”!!
As I posted previously, it has ever and only and ever will be all about Y’israel, all twelve tribes and their companions Eze.37 Heb 8:8 ect. ect ect. Our Messiah, yours and mine, is not an ethnically cleansed Cosmic Christos cracker with cheese. He is a blood and guts Rev.12:11, ISRAEL ONLY(as in Matt. 15:24 ONLY) restoring the tabernacle of David,Jew, baby! The Lion Of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, the only one worthy to open the seven seals.
Just Sayin..especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
Nayt
Nu, Micha’el( my younger brother’s name)
Shabbat Shalom, brother
(Matt.10:37+12:8,12:50 hmm?) !!
In the Name of the Master of Shabbat
Asking a question to probe what you think isn’t histrionics. It’s called discourse. I honestly can’t identify with much of what you’re saying here (it’s foreign to my ear) – Christos cracker??
Of course, harmless as a dove…
The Christos cracker with cheese was a tarried comment and a crack about the way Messiah is perceived Christies crackers/cracker/ processed leavened whitebread as opposed to give us this day our daily matzot the unleavened bread of sincerity and
truth Matthew 6:11.
Both pierced (making them salvific), but, obviously the one being Pharisaical (Jew and Gentile alike)in nature to it’s very core and the other representing Our Dear Sweet Jewish Rabbi, the Lamb Rev 6:16.
The cheese is just that, “the cheese” ,whatever it takes to make this Christos/Christies Cracker look like a Jew or something, but not really?
If that’s not understandable either, it is galling, absolutely galling to see Our Beautiful Torah-Guarding Jewish Hebrew Rabbi, the King of Israel Eze.37:22, the One who is the same yesterday,today and forever treated with such bitter scurrilousness Psalm 2:4.
You know Michael (Dr.Heiser), as a Jew (one tribe of Twelve/two nations Eze 37;22) on Yom Din /Judgement Day, I will be assayed according, to mention a few; John 4:22, Zechariah 8:23, Hosea 11:12, Mat 5:9, Matt 6:33, Acts 1:6 ,Isaiah 11:13, Romans 3:2 chiefly, because unto us are committed the oracles/words of YHWH Elohim. No Pressure ?…(Please bear with me, because I think you may be a person who can appreciate what I am going to convey)
What I am trying to get at is that the Reality of Judgement Day, of late, I am surprisingly, finding somewhat comforting.
Because, as a Jewish follower of the Lamb for some time now,He has brought me to the place that I can say as a Jew with my whole heart/being that, as it says in John 4:22 I really do know what I worship!! To say otherwise, I would be lying, really, and bring myself under the more unpleasant side of Ha Dayan Emet.
Conversely I can say to others including my Jewish brothers and sisters, you do not know what you worship…I have no interest in fighting with anyone, striving yes in the Proverbs 28:4,28:9,1John4:3 sense, otherwise to let people as we are instructed in Rev.22:11.
Ta MarYah Yahshua Rev22:20
I know that I’m right and you will be doing yourself a potential diservice
Just one point here. Galilee of the nations means Galilee of the nations(ethne/goyim). Solomon gave parts of that region to Hiram:
http://biblehub.com/1_kings/9-11.htm
You’re kind of missing the point.
It’s true that Solomon gave 20 towns from Zebulun and Asher to Hiram, king of Tyre, but he gave him merely 20 towns surrounding Tyre.
He didn’t give the regions belonging to Asher, Naphtali or Zebulun, nations of the House of Joseph; nor did he give him towns “beyond the river Jordan” which belonged to Manasseh, also a nation of the House of Joseph.
Look this wasn’t an argument about Solomon’s generosity. It was an argument about the word ἔθνος has been given meaning it didn’t possess in Greek. Since you don’t like the example I gave – I’ve give you a clearer one.
What promise did God give Abraham? [Gen 12:2]
What “great name” did God give Abraham’s descendants [Isa 32:28]?
Who inherited this great name and this blessing [Gen 48:16][Gen 48:19].
So now read the Messianic promise of [Amos 9:11-12].
Who were the nations mentioned in [Amos 9:12] ‘called by my name’? Now read the corrupted New Testament translation of this prophecy in [Acts 15:16-17].
Was it Paul and Barnabas who was corrupting Amos, or was it later NT translators? If it was later NT translators, could it have been because they imparted their own meaning to the Greek word ἔθνος that the word did not contain?
The [Isa 32:28] quote should have been [Gen 32:28].
I disagree with “it” only being about Israel (“it has ever and only and ever will be all about Y’israel, all twelve tribes and their companions”); however you are defining “it” (do you mean “everything”, “salvation”, theology or what???). Now, I’m dispensational for a reason; IMHO there was a “secret” (musterion) and now (right now even…) “there is no Jew or Greek (and I know the distinction between “Greek” and “nation”)…” and He (God) “made the two (Jew and “nation” (if you wish)) into one”. Presently “hardness (or “stubbornness”) in part has happened to Israel” and so it is patently obvious that there’s a little bit-o-Israel still around today (I get that). But it’s not ALL about Israel as Paul so eloquently says.
The biblical basis for the position you disagree with was provided.
Is the basis of your ‘disagreement’ with that position, the bible, sentiment, or something else?
I actually haven’t disagreed with anything, but I did ask a question. Argumentation is not necessarily arguing, which it appears is what you want. Can you answer the question?
My interest is not in argumentation. My interest is in understanding scripture clearly, not according to some hermeneutic tradition but authorial intent. However, when more than one exegesis exists for a given text, argumentation is unavoidable.
Even so, if argumentation ultimately results in clarity and agreement – that is indeed a blessing.
With respect to your question, I don’t fully understand what you’re asking (because the ‘it‘ you reference is ambiguous. If the question you’re asking me to respond to is “ ..do you mean “everything”, “salvation”, theology or what???” I’ll do my best to respond, given what I think you’re asking.
If you find a letter that Joe wrote to Mary in which he said some things; makes some promises (I promise to pay of your debt); perhaps gave advice (I think less wine might be a good approach to avoid doing things you may regret), is it good exegesis to read that letter as though it were written to just anybody?
Does this letter which you’ve found (Joe wrote to Mary) apply equally well to Betty? Clearly some things are universally true such (less wine being one good approach for avoiding doing things one may regret), but if that is not the reason Betty does these things, clearly we have to read the letter in context (meaning as though it were written to Mary, not Betty).
This is the heart of my criticism above. Paul’s letter’s were written to someone. To understand what Paul was writing about, we must understand who Paul was writing to and in which context.
The argument above about semantics was designed to show that some Christian hermeneutics are corrupted simply because the exegesis itself has dealt falsely with underlying meaning of some Greek words. This causes us to misunderstand Paul’s message, and who Paul was writing to.
This hermeneutic corruption is easy to detect in at least two ways:
1. If Christian usage of a Greek word instils meaning upon that word not found in its secular usage, its meaning is being corrupted.
For example, the most obvious place to find out ἐκκλησία’s common meaning is to see where it was used the most; in discussions about Democracy. In discussions about Democracy ἐκκλησία means nothing more than ‘assembly’, ‘congregation’. In Athens where the entire assembly (ἐκκλησία) was not represented because only 500 were franchised to represent the democratic voice the word is not ἐκκλησία but Δῆμος (Demos) from whence we get the word .Democracy’.
2. If Christian usage of a Greek word in theological settings instils meaning upon that word not found in other similar theological settings its meaning is being corrupted.
We have much of the underlying text of old covenant scripture in the Dead Sea scrolls. We also have its translation into Greek in the LXX. From this we can see how theological ideas were translated from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek. By translating from the Hebrew/Aramiaic into English directly we can also gauge how it was intended to be understood; and gauge theological meaning against secular Greek meaning. Thus we have some type of baseline against which we can see if translation of Greek into English is honest (error detection).
If we translate from Hebrew into English, and from Hebrew into Greek, and the hermeneutic produces common meaning, translation from Greek into English should not vary. Except that in some cases it appears to (which begs explanation). Here are some examples, compare:
[Heb 2:12] cites [Ps 22:22]
[Matt 4:15] cites [Isa 9:1-2] (and [Isa 42:7])
[Matt 2:18] cites [Isa 42:1]
[Acts 4:25] cites [Ps 2:1]
[Acts 15:17] cites [Amos 9:12]
[Rom 15:11] cites [Ps 117:1]
[Rom 15:12] cites [Isa 11:10] etc.
So, will reading the context of the letter change our views of “salvation”, “theology”, indeed “everything”? Quite possibly, but that’s not a bad thing if it makes the author’s words clearer.
Speaking of error detection:
[Matt 2:18] cites [Isa 42:1]
should have read:
[Matt 12:18] cites [Isa 42:1]
Well, Mr. Wiesmann, if you don’t know what was said about “it” I certainly don’t. Your companion in this debate (NTS) made the statement not me. It just seems to me that you’re trying to shove 5 pounds of stuff into a 1 pound theological bag. I have just read your response to MSH (his on April 5; yours on April 11) regarding the audience of Paul’s epistle to the Romans. You’ve run fast and loose on the translation of 11: 13 (inserting “tribes” for the Greek toi/j e;qnesin in some theological “end-around” to make the verse say Paul is addressing someone other than whom he is very particular to address (i.e. – the nations). You further muddied the waters by using 4:1 (a very difficult textual morass) to say his “audience” were all Jews.
Now, you point out the places in chapters 9-11 that are undoubtedly addressing Paul’s “kinsmen according to the flesh” and that I agree with you in, but the other so-called witnesses to your point are not thorough regarding the addressees. You fail to use the most obvious verse on the planet, “To all those who are in Rome, loved by God, marked out as saints” (1:7). It’s both/ and not either/ or.
And, BTW, why is it that you want to remain “cryptic” in your argumentation? Some mysterious theological point you want to show and you’re just waiting for us to get to the right point to lob it at us? Lay out what you want to say and get down to it will you? I get it that you want Paul’s audience to be Jewish/ Israelitish, so I’m guessing (and you won’t say it directly…) that “it” is all about Israel/ Jewishness/ etc., etc. and that the “traditional” understanding of the term “nation” is just so much theological smoke and mirrors. Got any good, reasoned theological works you can point us poor suckers to since we’ve missed all this for years?
roberterasmus, hold your peace. This is civil discussion. No one is doing anything of the sort you suggest.
If you Read [Rev 11:9] in Greek (or [Rev 7:9]) you’ll discover that there is a relationship between φυλῶν and ἔθνος. A φυλῶν (clan) is specific example of an ἔθνος (nation), but ἔθνος (nation) is itself still φυλῶν (clan).
My usage was well within the semantic scope of the word, but you don’t need to take my word for it. Check out Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon
Please note, I did not say Paul’s audience were all Jews. The very first point made was to show how Israelites and Jews were historically distinct. Not all Jews were Israelites, and not all Israelites were Jews. If you’re going to reject my position, at least understand it.
With respect to being cryptic, you’ll also note that while I was reserved in drawing inferences for the reader, I was not reserved in allowing the reader to draw inferences themselves (by providing all quotes I drew upon).
So though I may have been cryptic, my argument was not. There needs to be no elaboration on my part, where the bible speaks well enough for itself. If you inferred Paul’s audience were Israelites rather than heathens, you came to that conclusion because reading the biblical quotes he used in context, (but that I provided).
My role then was simply to make clear the premises. You arrived at the conclusion yourself.
All right, I’m sorry for being sarcastic…I found myself regretting the post as soon as I sent it. I’m still waiting for that full and reasoned (printed? PDF? anything?) theological work on your position on all this. As to the Jew versus Israelite distinction, I’ll revisit your work above and see if it holds water…
Also, you’ve introduced the word “heathen” into the discussion. Any reason why I should not wonder whether that English word holds peril for me?
BTW, I love when “the Bible speaks for itself”, and your argument (whatever the final conclusion is for us) is still cryptic. The Bible speaks for itself over a long period of time with a lot of authors, editors and redactors. It is not a simplistic corpus and theology is a science AND and art (the most fun one on the planet IMHO). Truly I love reasoned arguments, and I love open and honest communication about the Scriptures.
I’ve lost what this was about – partly because I took no position in the original post. The language is a problem. That’s the point of the post. I never said letting the Bible speaks for itself means everything in it is put forth with equal clarity. (Frankly, I don’t know anyone who’d think that).
@ T.Weismann, you certainly don’t have to disclose, but out of curiosity, do you speak Greek, or do you have a degree in Biblical Greek? Because you did a lot of class room here, and I personally don’t think we can properly interpret/instruct the Bible oit of concordance/lexicons. Often times, grammer is just critical to understanding the text and only people who have put in the time and have the credentials should instruct others on language.
You’ve cross referenced a lot of scripture and I think that alone made your point very well. I hope you know that the new covenant, the message, wasn’t made with the children of Israel or the lost Israelite tribes of the nations only, but to all of His creation who believe on Him and follow His teachings.
Blessings
Lazarescu, I’m glad you judge arguments by the veracity of the premises and integrity of the logic. The influence of credentials or lack of credentials on my part would have only served to foster fallacious thinking.
With respect to who I believe the new covenant message was sent, I believe scripture (at face value); specifically:
* Jeremiah [Jer 31:31-33] “Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah …”
* the Angel Gabr’el [Luke 1:30-33] “And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
* Mariam [Luke 1:54-55] “… He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”
* Sakkariah [Luke 1:68-79] “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David … to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, ..”
* Simeon [Luke 2:25] “a light for revelation to the nations [Gen 28:3], and for glory to your people Israel.”
* and of course, the Messiah Himself [Matt 15:24] “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
… and all the prophets of old.
T. Weismann, thank you for taking the time to explain your view. As I hold the same view it was very encouraging to read. It is sad how fairly clear scripture has been muddied by tradition and it is also frustrating to see that your explanation suffers from the same tradition. Do you have a blog?
P. Koszo, thank you. Unfortunately, I have no blog.
T. Weismann,
Who are you? Time flies ?
The reason I’m writing you, is that someone named Linda August 29, 2015
Galatians 3:28
“There is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
– enough said.
..sent this ‘- enough said’ declaration, to a post I made March 31st 2014, a few days ago (for some reason), I was so surprised!
But she got me rereading the thread and I was reminded how taken I was by your stepping in (if that’s what you were doing ?). I just wanted to say thanks!!.. And Shalom, James 1:1 style…
How are you?
Nayt
hey brother so all this is real deep, all i want to know is as the bible says, those who believe and put their faith in Jesus are grafted in as the seeds of abraham right? if im understanding everything correctly, if israel is Gods people, then we become part of israel spirtually correct?