Q. You and I don’t agree on the meaning of ‘Israel of God’ in Gal. 6, not least because in Rom. 9 Paul is not talking about Jew and Gentile united in Christ. He is talking about Israel i.e. Jews, and when he says not all Israel is ‘Israel’ (the word true is not in the text), at most he is still talking only about Jews, presumably seeing himself and other Jewish Christians as the descendants of the righteous remnant. Are we really to believe that Paul uses the term Israel in one way in Galatians, a more Christian way, and then changes his mind and uses it another way in Romans later on? I don’t think that dog will hunt, as we say in the South. The subsequent argument in Rom. 10-11 that Jews who have rejected Christ have been broken off from the people of God but can be grafted back in, coupled with the argument that there is a full number of Gentiles to come in followed by, and on the same basis, a full number of Jews ‘when the Redeemer returns from heavenly Zion and turns away the impiety of Jacob (a term never used of the church, but only of Jews) means that when Paul says Israel, he doesn’t mean church. You do not mention the ascensive meaning of the term kai as a possibility in Gal. 6— ‘mercy and peace…. even on the Israel of God’. And they would need that mercy for persecuting not only Paul but some of Paul’s audience in Galatia. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
A. We can’t get into Rom 9—11 here! As I said in answer to a previous question, Paul distinguishes two meanings of ‘Israel’ in Rom 9.6, and returns to that towards the end of the argument in ch 11, completely consonant with what he says in Rom 2.25-29 where ‘the Jew’ is the person – whether Jewish or Gentile – who has heart-circumcision. So I would make it clear that I am NOT saying P uses ‘Israel’ in one way in Gal and another way in Rom. Obviously Rom is much fuller but there is deep consistency: all who believe in Jesus are Abraham’s family. That’s the point.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In