READING TIME: 3-6 MINUTES
January 24, 2020
What does “the Israel of God” mean in Galatians 6:16?
Part 1
This question will be answered in several parts.
First of all, I want to thank my good friend Dr./Professor/Pastor Andy Woods for his excellent teaching on this verse (see my list of “Sources Used”) and his “The Coming Kingdom” series at Sugarland Bible Church.
Galatians 6:16 is a debatable verse. There has been a theological war since about the 4th century A.D. between two camps. The camp I would place myself is dispensationalism. This means that God has made promises to Israel which have never been fulfilled. Those promises have been placed on hold, not canceled. And today God is dealing with a new man called the church; the church is not a replacement for Israel but is an interruption in God’s program for Israel.
VARIOUS FORMS OF REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY
I should explain that there are several various forms of Replacement Theology. In this article, the term “Replacement Theology” refers to the theological viewpoint mentioned in the section below called “What is Replacement Theology”? For more information about the various forms, see Michael J. Vlach’s journal article “Various Forms of Replacement Theology.” TMSJ 20/1 (Spring 2009) 57-69. Please contact me if you would like me to send you this article.
THE DANGER OF TRYING TO MAKE THE BIBLE FIT OUR PRE-FORMED THEOLOGY
I think if a person simply read the Bible without being tutored or reading any commentaries or theology books, he/she would never come to the wrong conclusion that the church has replaced Israel. I agree with Andrew Robinson that “Replacement theology the church was never identified as Israel until the middle of the second century, with the emergence of allegorical interpretation.”
THE GRAMMATICAL-HISTORICAL METHOD OF BIBLE INTERPRETATION AND THE DANGER OF ALLEGORIZATION
The grammatical-historical method of Bible interpretation is the method that gives each word the same meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, usual, and customary usage. This method of interpretation is based on a proper understanding of grammar, logic, history, geography, archaeology, and theology (systematic, biblical and practical).
“The Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation” is when the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its normal, usual, ordinary meaning unless the facts of the immediate context indicate otherwise. We should approach the words of a Scripture passage in the same basic way that we would any other type of literature (of course the difference is the Bible is fully inspired) or any ordinary conversation.
Without using the grammatical-historical method, all objectivity is lost. “What check would there be on the variety of interpretations which man’s imagination could produce if there were not an objective standard which the literal principle provides?” (Ryrie, 1965, 88). Without using this way of interpretation, the interpreter becomes the final authority of the meaning of the Scripture. In this case, “the interpretation is no longer grounded in fact and the text becomes putty in the hand of the interpreter” (Benware, 21).
A good example of what happens when there is no final authority is the following classic spiritualized interpretation of the four rivers of Genesis 2:10-14: the Pishon, Havilah, Tigris, and the Euphrates represents the body, soul, spirit, and mind (Willis and Master, p. 32). Another name for this improper method of Bible study is allegorizing. Allegorizing is “searching for a hidden or secret meaning underlying but remote from and unrelated in reality to the more obvious meaning of a text. In other words, the literal reading is a sort of code, which needs to be deciphered to determine the more significant and hidden meaning” (Zuck, 29).
INTERCALATION
We could call the church age a parenthesis, breaking up God’s past work and future work with Israel. Some dispensational scholars call it an intercalation which means an interruption. Most Christians embrace something called covenant theology, sometimes called Reformed theology. Many scholars in this camp believe in what’s called Replacement theology, or supersessionism. This viewpoint essential teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan and that He does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. Among the various viewpoints of the relationship between the church and Israel is the church has replaced Israel (Replacement Theology), the church is an expansion of Israel (Covenant Theology), or the church has is completely different and distinct from Israel (Dispensationalism/Premillennialism).
WHAT IS REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY?
Replacement theology is the idea that the church has permanently replaced God’s program with Israel. Israel’s cord has been cut because of her unbelief in the first century and her rejection of her Messiah and so all of God’s promises to Israel that we think have never been fulfilled, interpreted literally, have now been allegorically or spiritually transferred to the church. I don’t agree with this view. It’s interesting, that according to this theological viewpoint, the curses never transfer to the church in this system; only the blessings are transferred. They believe that the church is the new Israel.
On Monday, January 27, 2020, I’ll send “Part 2” about Galatians 6:16.