Question on How Paul used term Spiritual Israel
- Thread starter Dachaser
- Start date
- Status
What text do you have in mind?
Galatians 6:16
Gal.6:16, "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God."
Now then, this text doesn't contain the expression to which you refer. In fact, I'm not sure there is any text/any translation where Paul uses anything like "spiritual Israel."
1Cor.10:18 contains a contrasting expression: "Israel after the flesh," which seems to have reference in the context to the religion of the non-Christian Jews of the time, eating of those sacrifices and partaking of that altar, even the one in the Temple at Jerusalem. Naturally, an ethnic connection is not hard to establish historically; but the main idea is clearly religious in this alternative expression--flesh vs. spirit.
I happen to think Gal.6:16 has an expression in "the Israel of God," which essentially does present a legitimate counterpart to "Israel after the flesh," which Paul (if he'd been minded to) could have expressed differently as: Israel after the Spirit, i.e. "spiritual Israel." Assuming I am correct in my analysis, then barring a contextual reason for interpreting the notion primarily ethnically (and only secondarily religiously), I'm inclined for the sake of consistency to interpret this expression in a fundamentally religious manner.
The book of Galatians I believe to be written to a predominately Gentile church. Both in Gal. (notably the prev. v15) and elsewhere (esp. Eph.2:13-22) Paul's emphasis is on Christian unity, and the elimination of divisions between all who are one in Christ Jesus, one "new creation." It does not seem likely to me to think Paul is distinguishing between "those who walk according to this rule," and "the Israel of God." But the latter term is an ideal expansion--referring to the faithful church--expanding on the previous description (the obedient ones) in terms of the ancient promises of God, the very claim of which inheritance is the substance of the debate laid out in the letter.
It is consistent therefore, in my judgment, to understand that Paul is referring religiously to the whole church--both Jews and Gentiles--under this term: "Israel of God." Christ is Israel-reduced-to-One, he the Vine; and all that are His and God's are either in the Vine due to birth or grafted in where others faithless were broken off.
Now then, this text doesn't contain the expression to which you refer. In fact, I'm not sure there is any text/any translation where Paul uses anything like "spiritual Israel."
1Cor.10:18 contains a contrasting expression: "Israel after the flesh," which seems to have reference in the context to the religion of the non-Christian Jews of the time, eating of those sacrifices and partaking of that altar, even the one in the Temple at Jerusalem. Naturally, an ethnic connection is not hard to establish historically; but the main idea is clearly religious in this alternative expression--flesh vs. spirit.
I happen to think Gal.6:16 has an expression in "the Israel of God," which essentially does present a legitimate counterpart to "Israel after the flesh," which Paul (if he'd been minded to) could have expressed differently as: Israel after the Spirit, i.e. "spiritual Israel." Assuming I am correct in my analysis, then barring a contextual reason for interpreting the notion primarily ethnically (and only secondarily religiously), I'm inclined for the sake of consistency to interpret this expression in a fundamentally religious manner.
The book of Galatians I believe to be written to a predominately Gentile church. Both in Gal. (notably the prev. v15) and elsewhere (esp. Eph.2:13-22) Paul's emphasis is on Christian unity, and the elimination of divisions between all who are one in Christ Jesus, one "new creation." It does not seem likely to me to think Paul is distinguishing between "those who walk according to this rule," and "the Israel of God." But the latter term is an ideal expansion--referring to the faithful church--expanding on the previous description (the obedient ones) in terms of the ancient promises of God, the very claim of which inheritance is the substance of the debate laid out in the letter.
It is consistent therefore, in my judgment, to understand that Paul is referring religiously to the whole church--both Jews and Gentiles--under this term: "Israel of God." Christ is Israel-reduced-to-One, he the Vine; and all that are His and God's are either in the Vine due to birth or grafted in where others faithless were broken off.
Could Paul be referring to the spiritual Israel of both then those of us now saved by Messiah, and especially those who are now Jews saved by Messiah and now to be seen as real heirs of Abraham.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
What are you getting at? Those who believe in Christ, Jew or Gentiles, inherit the promises of Israel, the Old Testament nation church. All kinds of believers are now, thus Israel. Jews do not receive privilege now.
Last edited:
David,
You are bound to interpret the words as fits best with your theological understanding. It's clear to me you have a set of views, and you read various texts in whatever way tends to bolster them. I can't discern any objective rules you follow consistently, yielding results from texts, that then produce your views.
It's not that I don't understand that I also bring my views along when I examine a text. I am aware that I may resist the meaning of a text flowing from using the rules I mean to keep, because the conclusion I am finding is at odds with something I already think. If I don't find a mistake in my work, then either my rules must be rewritten (if I will keep consistent), or else I'm going to have to change my original opinion. The last possibility shows that, at least in principle, God's Word can change my mind.
I gave you contextual and Pauline data, and a rationale for why those things bring me to my to my interpretation of those words. Your original question made me think you wanted either confirmation of your idea, or a textual and reasoned alternative. Anymore, I don't think you are interested in my alternative (but perhaps someone else'). What I think you want is for me (or someone else) to bring our two proposals now on the table--ref. the meaning of "Israel of God-- into a harmony, or an amalgam.
Well, I don't think that's workable. You may be right, or I may be; or neither of us, but I don't think combining our options will make anything but inedible hash. You want a reading of Gal.6:16 that makes especially (if you cannot have exclusively) formerly ethno-religious Jews uppermost in Paul's mind when he uses the term, "Israel of God." It's the Jewishness of Messiah that you want to preserve.
Whereas, I am convinced that the great significance of Israelite-separatism is absolutely a thing of the past. The purpose for it has been fulfilled in Christ completely. I don't think there's any especially about the term, for one particular subset of the human race which now (more than ever) needs to abandon all vestiges of genetic-pride, and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the rest of us as sinners saved by grace.
Paul says to a mainly Gentile church of Christian Philippians, "WE are the circumcision," i.e. the "real heirs of Abraham" (Php.3:3; Gal.3:9; Rom.4:11-12). I can't reconcile that with any "especially" in Gal.6:16.
Both Jews and Gentiles are the same spiritually now before God in the Church, but I still see Paul showing to us that only the Jews who received Jesus as the promised messiah showed themselves to be true Israel of God.
Not saying that national Israel has any more tie into plan of God, but just that Paul seems to make a case for saved Jews as being also part of new Israel.
I appreciate your feedback, as I am still in the process of forming my new theology regarding many issues/doctrines, as the very concept of there not being national Israel still in plan of God was totally foreign to me, but I do now see that the only hope for any Jew/Gentile is by receiving Jesus as their Messiah, and not based upon any ethnic or racial things. Also, I am still trying to get a handle on many things discussed here upon this board, as you and many others awe me at times with how much of the scriptures and theology that you know, as I had to wander through the maize of first Pentecostalism and then Free Will Baptists to get to a more reformed viewpoint on salvation.
Continue to "poke and prod" me brother in areas of theology.
- Status
