The Restoration of Israel in the New Testament

[Guest shiloh357]

The meaning of

[nebula]

"And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace (be) upon them and mercy, even upon the Israel of God."

I still say that the "even then" indicates the second part being separate from thr first part.

If they were the same, Paul should have said, "who are".

[Guest shiloh357]

"And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace (be) upon them and mercy, even upon the Israel of God."

I still say that the "even then" indicates the second part being separate from thr first part.

If they were the same, Paul should have said, "who are".

Precisely, the grammatical structure does not allow for the "Israel of God" and the previous mentioned "as many as walk by this rule," to be the same people.

Futhermore, context and word meaning is found in the given context. Eph. 2 and Gal 6 are not addressing the same issue. Galatians six is not discussion about the Church.

If Paul had said "peace upon as many who walk by this rule and the Israel of God, his Church" or something of similar ilk, then Horizon would be correct.

Galatians 6:16 is not sufficient to prove that the Church is Israel.

[EricH]

The discussion regarding Galatians 6:16 is actually a very interesting one. Here is the passage:

And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Galatians 6:16 NASB

I have bolded the word "and" above because it it the heart of grammatical discussion. The greek word that is translated "and" is the greek work "kai"

Horizon is essentially arguing for an "epexegetical" understanding of "kai". It is grammatically acceptable to do this. For this "and" to be understood in an "epexegetical" sense means that the information that comes after it is essentially a further explanation of something that has been stated earlier. In this case, the phrase, "Israel of God" would be a further unpacking of "them". According to this understanding, the passage is saying that peace and mercy should be upon those who walk by this rule, who are the Israel of God. Basically it would be a statement that all those who obey 6:15 are now considered to be the "Israel of God".

This understanding does not violate any grammatical rules. However, to arrive at this position one should have good contextual reasons for doing so (which means looking at all of Paul's writings to see if this was his understanding).

The difficulty in understanding the phrase "Israel of God" is that it has no attestation either in the text or in extra-biblical literature. When we look to Paul's other writings, we do not see Israel ever "replaced by the church." Rather we see his understanding to be that we have a body made up of Jewish and Gentile believers, but that for the most part the "nation of Israel" according to the flesh, is not a part of that body. In Romans, Paul bemoans this and appeals to the fact that one day his kinsmen according to the flesh will accept their messiah (Romans 11:26).

It is also equally OK from a grammatical perspective to understand "kai" in its normal sense as a simple conjunction (Shiloh's position). That is, Paul is describing 2 different groups (Those who are obeying 6:15, and the Israel of God). The question then arises as to who the "Israel of God" are if they are not the current group of Jews and Gentiles who believe?.

If we look at all of Paul's writings, my take is that the "Israel of God" is the same as the "all Israel" in Romans 11:26. Paul is basically not only wishing mercy and peace on the group of believers that existed at the time he wrote the letter (Jew and Gentile), but is making a "hope statement" as well that is in line with Romans 11:26. He looks forward to the day when the nation of Israel will be among those who walk by the rule he stated in v 15. That they will trust in Jesus for their salvation, and not obedience to the law. This is his blessing on that group as well.

Thus according to this understanding, the Israel of God, is the nation of Israel that will receive Jesus as their Messiah that is predicted in Romans 11:26. Paul is thus blessing the current believers, and the saved nation that will exist as a result of the fulfillment of Romans 11:26

and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob."

Romans 11:26 NASB

The bottom line is that neither position necessarily has the grammatical high-ground. The deciding factors are contextual issues. There are good exegetes on both sides of the understanding of this passage

[Smalcald]

Romans,

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved,[g] as it is written:

[EricH]

Those who reject Horizon's interpretation do need to be ready to asnwer a fair objection. Why would Paul, who has spent an entire letter battling the distinctions between Jewish believers and Gentil believers, now introduce a statment that appears on the surface to reintroduce the controversy.

My answer is that Paul introduces it for the very reason of stopping an equally dangerous way of thinking. If it was wrong to put up barriers between Jewish and Gentile believers in the church, it is equally wrong to assume that because those barriers have been torn down that all of God's promises to the nation of Israel are now void.

[Guest shiloh357]

Those who reject Horizon's interpretation do need to be ready to asnwer a fair objection. Why would Paul, who has spent an entire letter battling the distinctions between Jewish believers and Gentil believers, now introduce a statment that appears on the surface to reintroduce the controversy.

My answer is that Paul introduces it for the very reason of stopping an equally dangerous way of thinking. If it was wrong to put up barriers between Jewish and Gentile believers in the church, it is equally wrong to assume that because those barriers have been torn down that all of God's promises to the nation of Israel are now void.

I think it is important also to remember that the ones Paul is battling in the letter to the Galatians do not represent either the mainline Jewish believers, nor they represent the bulk of the unbelieving Jewish community. The Judaizing sect that had entered the congregation in Galatia, was just that. It was a sect, or in put another way, a cult. These were neither true Jews, nor true believers. One cannot even say that they were all Jewish after the flesh. They represented themselves, and their particular brand of false teachings.

These people had perverted the true meaning of circumcision by requiring it for salvific purposes. I believe it is with that backdrop of false doctrine that Paul's letter to the Galatians should be understood. Paul was addressing a perversion. It does come down to context, which is what I am arguing essentially. How does the context demand that "The Israel of God" be understood as "the Church?"

That having been said, I feel that both of EricH's responses strikes a very much needed balance and biblical viewpoint.

Thanks EricH!!

[Smalcald]

I think part of the intellectual issue for many of us Eric, is the idea of Christ dealing with a nation. Our faith is one of individual salvation; God saves us individually not corporal. So if I happen to be living in country X or am ethnically Y, that has nothing to do with the question of my individual faith, my individual judgement, and my individual salvation.

So I think all of us have always seen the true Church in that light, it is not made up of nation states, or ethnic people, it is made up of individuals who have faith. So now, when we start talking about promises made to an ethnic group living in a nation state, it just does not compute for must of us, even if it is true! I realize that Shilo has been saying that these promises have nothing to do with salvation. For me though, if it has nothing to do with salvation, who cares? We know that Israel and the US and this whole world will be burned up according to scripture, and something brand new will replace it. But I think both are true, I believe the promises to Israel do have to do with salvation. It is part of the mystery of salvation.

[traveller]

Bravo EricH! Well stated and easily understood. Thank you!

[Guest shiloh357]

I think part of the intellectual issue for many of us Eric, is the idea of Christ dealing with a nation. Our faith is one of individual salvation; God saves us individually not corporal. So if I happen to be living in country X or am ethnically Y, that has nothing to do with the question of my individual faith, my individual judgement, and my individual salvation.

So I think all of us have always seen the true Church in that light, it is not made up of nation states, or ethnic people, it is made up of individuals who have faith. So now, when we start talking about promises made to an ethnic group living in a nation state, it just does not compute for must of us, even if it is true! I realize that Shilo has been saying that these promises have nothing to do with salvation. For me though, if it has nothing to do with salvation, who cares? We know that Israel and the US and this whole world will be burned up according to scripture, and something brand new will replace it. But I think both are true, I believe the promises to Israel do have to do with salvation. It is part of the mystery of salvation.

So WHY should you care? Good question; the answer is that because God's integrity regarding His promises to Abraham about the Land, and to Israel about their final restoration to the Land hang in the balance. It goes back to God keeping His Word. It also goes back the truth that even when we are faithless, God is faithful. Israel is a shining example of the faithfulness of God. The restoration of Israel and promises connected with it are not transferrable to someone else. God made an eternal covenant, Abraham and his physical descendents. He promised the Land to Abraham as an eternal possession, forever. He is quite emphatic about this. God cannot go back on His Word, without His Name be reproached.

In Ezekiel 36, God says that the very reason He is restoring Israel is for the sake of His Name, in the eyes of the world. The restoration of Israel is a showcase of God's mercy to the unfaithful. It is a testimony that He can be trusted to keep all the promises He has made. Instead seeing God's workings among the Jews as counter to the Gospel, we should use this showcase of His faithfulness a testimony to augment the gospel to the world. It is one more evidence to the world that God is real, and that He is a merciful faithful God, even to those who don't deserve his mercy or faithfulness.