READING TIME: 4-7 MINUTES
January 28, 2020
Galatians 6:16, Part 3
TEN ARGUMENTS WHY THE NASB AND THE NKJV ARE CORRECT IN HOW THEY TRANSLATED GALATIANS 6:16 (In other words, these are 10 reasons why Galatians 6:16 doesn’t support Replacement theology).
(1) Sorry for the grammar lesson, but the most common use of the Greek word kai (that we see in Galatians 6:16) is “and.”
(2) The use of kai that would translate it as “even” is fairly rare in the NT. The NIV and NLT have based their translations on a very rare use of this Greek word. Here’s an important quote from Dr. S. Lewis Johnson (Greek, Hebrew, and Theology professor at Dallas Theological Seminary from 1950-1972). “It is necessary to begin this part of the discussion with a basic but often neglected hermeneutical principle. It is this: in the absence of compelling exegetical and theological considerations, we should avoid the rare grammatical usages when the common ones make good sense. An extremely rare use has been made to replace the common usage, even though the common and frequent usage makes perfectly good sense in Galatians 6:16.” In other words, when you are trying to figure out the meaning of a biblical passage, a common rule of hermeneutics (the art and science of how to interpret the Bible) is you don’t assume a Greek word has a rare usage unless evidence is abundant. There is no reason to not translate it kai in Galatians 6:16 as “and” as we saw in the NASB and NKJV. So, the replacement theological system is not built on the most common use of the word kai but a very rare use.
(3) Paul had wanted to say that the church is the Israel of God or the church is the new Israel, or the church has taken Israel’s place permanently, Paul would have simply left out the word kai. If Paul had done that, this verse would support Replacement Theology. Since Paul didn’t leave out the word, this verse doesn’t support Replacement Theology. According to Jesus’s own words in Matthew 4:4 and 5:18, individual words, individual letters (“jot” or “yod” is the smallest Hebrew letter) and the strokes (called a “tittle,” which make a distinction between similar-looking Hebrew letters) are all important.
(4) When replacement theologians read the word “Israel” they don’t want it to mean Israel, but they want it to read Gentile church. Please read this next part very carefully. Do you know what “Israel” means in the NT? It means “Israel”! “Israel” is used 15 times in Paul’s writings and it always means “Israel.” It is used 72 other times in the NT and it always means “Israel.” By now it should be clear that if Israel always means Israel, Galatians 6:16 is not the one exception in the entire Bible.
(5) Israel is not equated with the church until A.D. 160. No church father ever equated Israel with the church until a Justin Martyr in his extended dialogue with a man (called Dialogue With Trypho).
(6) Why would Paul introduce a major theological point in the conclusion of a letter? If Paul had wanted to make a theological point like this, he likely would have done it in chapters 3 & 4. Here’s the way Paul structured Galatians: chapters 1-2, an autobiographical section; chapters 3-4 a doctrinal section, chapters 5 and 6 the application or practical section. Paul wouldn’t mention a major doctrinal point in the conclusion and the practical part of the epistle. Paul very commonly began his epistles with a doctrinal section (Romans 1-11; Ephesians 1-3; Galatians 1-4; and Colossians 1-2), and then he concluded with a practical section (Romans 12-16; Ephesians 4-6; Galatians 5-6; and Colossians 3-4).
Romans 1-11; Ephesians 1-3; Galatians 1-4; and Colossians 1-2 Romans 12-16; Ephesians 4-6; Galatians 5-6; and Colossians 3-4
Relationship Responsibility
Doctrine Deed
Orthodoxy Orthopraxy
Knowledge Wisdom
Belief Behavior
Position Practice
Privileges Responsibility
(7) There is a twofold repetition of the preposition “upon.” Look again at Galatians 6:16 in the NASB or NKJV. Do you see “upon” twice? Where would Paul have written “upon” twice if he was making the church and Israel the same group? I hope it’s clear that he says “upon” twice because he’s addressing two groups. He’s addressing the church and then he addresses a group within the church.
(8) Paul designates two groups elsewhere. To recap, “the Israel of God” is a second group Paul is addressing within the church that consists of Jews. He addresses these two same groups in other places in his writings. Look at Galatians 6:15. “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (NASB). He also addressed two groups in Galatians 2:7: “But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised” (NASB). So, addressing these two same groups is not unusual for Paul.
By now you might be asking, “Who cares if Paul is addressing one or two groups in Galatians 6:16?” If God can annul His promises to Israel what do you think He can do to your promises? If God won’t be faithful to keep His promises to Israel, maybe He won’t be faithful to keep His promises for us! Indeed, God is always faithful (read 2 Timothy 2:13). So, the question of what this key verse means is very important because it pertains to God’s character.
(9) Paul singles out believing Jews elsewhere. Paul very commonly singles out believing Jews for special recognition. See Romans 2:28-29. In these verses, Paul in effect said that God isn’t just pleased with Jewish people in general, but especially Jewish people who believe in His Son, Messiah Yeshua. In Romans 9:6 Paul wrote the same thing.
(10) Why would he single out Jews within the Galatians churches for special recognition? In the conclusion of Paul’s letter, he wanted to stress his love for Jewish believers, possibly because in this particular epistle (Galatians) he waged an aggressive war against the abuse of those who taught legalism and who were trying to put people under the Mosaic Law. God never gave the Mosaic Law as a way to reach heaven, but to show us that we’re law-breakers and to reveal how sinful we are.
He didn’t want to come across as disliking Jewish people, so he especially recognized them at the end. He didn’t want people to think in his aggressive condemnation of legalism that he hates Jewish people or the institutions of Judaism. So, Paul counterbalanced what he had just written against legalism with an affectionate mentioning of Jewish believers. He was certainly not trying to develop a doctrine that the church is now Israel.
I think you can understand how vital it is to get our doctrines from the Bible, and not attempt to make the Bible fit our pre-formed theology. We don’t ever want to manipulate the Bible to fit our preconceived view.
For the covenant theology position that equates Israel here with the church, see the following works:
Lightfoot, J. B. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974, 225.
Thomas R. Schreiner, “The Church As the New Israel and the Future of Ethnic Israel in Paul,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 3:3 (April 1983): 17-38.
