He then pronounces a blessing on two groups who would follow this rule of salvation through faith alone. In a recent work, Dr. In his introduction, Johnson makes the following observation: In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there remains persistent support for the contention that the term Israel may refer properly to Gentile believers in the present age. I cannot help but think that dogmatic considerations loom large in the interpretation of Galatians 6: Amillennialism does not hang on this interpretation, but the view does appear to have a treasured place in amillennial exegesis.

What I am leading up to is expressed neatly by D. Robinson in an article written about twenty years ago: There is weighty support for a limited interpretation. There is more than weighty support for a more limited interpretation. There is overwhelming support for such. Baker, , p. Johnson presents three views concerning this verse. The first view is described as follows: The Israel of God is the body who shall walk by the rule of the new creation, and they include believing people from the two ethnic bodies of Jews and Gentiles [Ibid.

The list of names supporting this view is impressive, although the bases of the interpretation are few and feeble, namely, the claim that the kai.


  1. Jesus, Israel and the Gentiles.
  2. Gentile - Wikipedia.
  3. A, Jews, gentiles, JEW and GENTILE, Abraham,;
  4. True Israel of God?
  5. Jew's Views!

Johnson rejects this view on three grounds. The first is for grammatical and syntactical reasons for which there are two [Ibid. The first is that this view must resort to a secondary or lesser meaning of kai: It is necessary to begin this part of the discussion with a reminder of a basic, but often neglected, hermeneutical principle.

An extremely rare usage has been made to replace the common usage, even in spite of the fact that the common and frequent usage of and kai makes perfectly good sense in Galatians 6: As shown earlier, this was exactly what Hendriksen wanted to do by leaving kai untranslated. The second ground for rejecting this view is for exegetical considerations, which deals with context and usage.

Concerning usage, Johnson states: From the standpoint of biblical usage this view stands condemned. There is no instance in biblical literature of the term Israel being used in the sense of the church, or the people of God as composed of both believing ethnic Jews and Gentiles. Thus, the usage of the term Israel stands overwhelmingly opposed to the first view. The usage of the terms Israel and the church in the early chapters of the book of Acts is in complete harmony, for Israel exists there alongside the newly formed church, and the two entities are kept separate in terminology [Ibid.

For those who would cite Romans 9: Paul is here speaking only of a division within ethnic Israel. Some of them are believers and thus truly Israel, whereas others, though ethnically Israelites, are not truly Israel, since they are not elect and believing. No Gentiles are found in the statement at all [Ibid. Even many Covenant Theologians have agreed with this view of Romans 9: As for context, Johnson observes: On the contrary, the apostle is concerned with correcting the gospel preached to the Galatians by the Judaizers, particularly their false contention that it was necessary to be circumcised to be saved and to observe as Christians certain requirements of the law of Moses in order to remain in divine favor.

Who Are the Gentiles?

The apostle makes no attempt whatsoever to deny that there is a legitimate distinction of race between Gentile and Jewish believers in the church. There is a remnant of Jewish believers in the church according to the election of grace. This approach fails to see that Paul does not say there is neither Jew nor Greek within the church.


  1. Cartas a un escéptico en materia de religión [Annotated] (Spanish Edition).
  2. .
  3. Ephesians - Who Are the Gentiles?: Berean Bible Church.
  4. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer.
  5. !
  6. Batman Incorporated Vol. 1: Demon Star (The New 52).
  7. JESUS, ISRAEL AND THE GENTILES.

But Paul also says there is neither male nor female, nor slave nor free man in Christ. Would he then deny sexual differences within the church? Is it not plain that Paul is not speaking of national or ethnic differences in Christ, but of spiritual status? The Messiah knew very well where these lost sheep were, and correctly stated that the northern ten lost tribes were "not of this fold": The "fold" that Yeshua referred to were, of course, the southern tribes of Judah that comprised of Judah, Benjamin and some of Levi.

The Messiah was chosen by the Father to give his life for those who were his brothers and sisters, and to redeem them for his Father! It is important to understand that the Messiah had to be a lawful redeemer for Israel. It was required by law that Yeshua had to be a kinsman of the seed of Abraham in order to redeem Israel for his Father; and the New Testament clearly demonstrates in the gospels that the Messiah's genealogy was indeed that of the physical seed of Abraham.

The word "redeem" is No. The price or payment that was necessary to "buy back" His bride was the blood of His anointed one -- Yeshua the Messiah. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins Hebrews 9: This is the same people that Yeshua "bought back" for his Father with his own blood.

The Church in the wilderness was, of course, composed of Israelites; therefore the Church that Yeshua purchased would also have to be composed of Israelites. According to the law of kinsman redemption, Yeshua could only "buy back" a bride for his Father from his own "next of kin" or the seed-line of Abraham. Regardless of what many people think, that seed-line is a physical seed-line -- as we shall see. The apostle Peter, in his own heart, looked on these lost Israelites as being "unclean.

Peter finally proclaimed, starting in verse 34 of Acts But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. Then, in verse Read the entire chapter of Acts 10 to understand the context and story flow. Isn't it just possible that Cornelius was someone of these twelve tribes? For THIS hope's sake I am accused by the Jews. I realize many people will argue that it does not say anywhere in the New Testament that Cornelius was an Israelite. But using logic and common sense, and what we just read in Acts There is much evidence in history that the ruling and upper classes of the Roman people were descended from the Israelites.

In a letter written by the 1st-century B. British king Cassibellaunus to the Roman emperor Caius Julius Caesar, we find some fascinating references to a common bond between the two nations: Cassibelaun, king of the Britains, to Caius Julius Caesar. We cannot but wonder, Caesar, at the avarice of the Roman people, since their insatiable thirst after money cannot let us alone whom the dangers of the ocean have placed in a manner out of the world; but they must have the presumption to covet our substance, which we have hitherto enjoyed in quiet.

Neither is this indeed sufficient: That is what you should have demanded of us, and not slavery: And so much have we been accustomed to liberty, that we are perfectly ignorant what is to submit to slavery. And if even the gods themselves should attempt to deprive us of our liberty, we would to the ut most of our power resist them in defense of it.

Know then, Caesar, that we are ready to fight for that and our kingdom if, as you threaten, you shall attempt to invade Britain Historia Britonum , Bk. The reference in this letter to Aeneas provides support that the ancient British royal line stemmed from Troy -- as did the early rulers of Rome.

The tradition that the Trojan leaders stemmed from the royal tribe of Judah is upheld by competent research and the Apocrypha record. Notice the following excerpt Originally the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula were settled Neolithic -- or agricultural Mediterranean peoples, but starting about B. In the 9th-century B. It can be shown that the Nordic Peoples were directly descended from various of the northern ten tribes of Israel.

The great Indo-European invasions of Europe took place in four main waves, and there were a number of sub-waves. Each sub-wave was a smaller tribe from one of the four major migrations. Leaving their ancestral homeland in the Caucasus, the CELTS 1 ; the Germans 2 ; the Balts 3 and the Slavs 4 settled different regions of Europe, often giving their names to those regions.

The Latini were a sub-group of the Celts, who were, in turn, part of the larger Nordic classification. The Nordics in general, and the Celts in particular, were descended from the northern ten tribes of Israel who, at one time, settled the Caucasus region of Europe. If there is any book in the New Testament that proves who the Gentiles really are, it is the book of Romans. When you study this book, it sure seems like Paul is addressing a group of fellow Israelites!

Starting in Romans 1: Moving now to Roman 2: WHO were these Gentiles? According to Jeremiah I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. These verses alone should prove who the Gentiles are! Now look at Romans 4: What does this statement mean? Further, in Hebrews It sure seems like Paul is trying to tell us something! Paul certainly stressed the fact that this seed was a physical seed-line, Please pay close attention to verse 4, in which Paul says the adoption , the glory, the covenants, giving of the law, service of God, and the promises all belong to Israel.

If the Gentiles are non-Israelites which many Christians of today assume they are , then this verse is not logical and makes no sense at all because this excludes non-Israelites! According to Strong's Concordance , the word "adoption" No. However -- this definition of "adoption" is not yet complete! We must allow the Bible to complete this definition for us.

Adoption has not yet occurred for us since it is something that we are waiting for -- and it has to do with the resurrection according to this verse. The redemption of our bodies means the resurrection! More importantly, adoption only applies to Israelites according to Romans 9: Then, under the new covenant, since Yeshua the Messiah "bought back" and redeemed the Israelites for his Father, they are now called the sons of the living God. And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, You are not My people, there they will be called sons of the living God.

And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, You are not My people, there it shall be said to them, You are the sons of the living God. Modern churches believe and teach the opposite! Therefore -- according to this scenario -- this caused the Abrahamic covenant to be annulled, which in turn caused YEHOVAH to disregard Israel since the Israelites were the "people of the covenant.

For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying Right here Paul carefully stresses the fact that he was also a racial Israelite of the seed of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin. Please understand what Paul said! Read and believe Hebrews 6: The people that rejected the Messiah were no other people than the two southern tribes of the House of Judah. They simply refused to believe that Yeshua was the Messiah, and what his death accomplished for both of the houses of Israel.

He does not -- and could not -- change the covenant that He Himself swore to uphold, and apply it to a different people other than Israelites! As a result, according to Paul, some of the branches were broken off. Paul correctly says that these branches that were broken off were at one time part of the olive tree. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.

The Israel of God, the term "Israel" in the New Testament

The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. The northern ten lost tribes that were put away in punishment -- broken off -- and the southern tribes once again make up the olive tree! It is quite common for churches these days to teach that the "Gentiles" -- through belief in Yeshua -- are the people grafted into the olive tree. This is very true -- however, it is extremely important to realize who these Gentiles were. Modern churches refuse to understand this truth!

For through him we both have access by one spirit to the Father. Let's understand exactly what these verses are saying. The word "aliens" in verse 12 is No. What Paul is saying to the Ephesian Gentiles is that they were at one time part of the commonwealth of Israel, to later become "estranged" -- which is what the word "aliens" means Ephesians 2: Therefore, they no longer shared in the promises that were made to Israel through the Abrahamic covenant.

Now who are the "afar off" and the "near" in verse 17 that peace was preached to? Read this verse carefully: The "near" were the Israelites at Jerusalem and Judea. The "far off" were the northern ten tribes scattered through all the countries of the then known world. Believing Gentiles are only the spiritual seed of Abraham, not the physical seed as well.

Paul is describing a purely Jewish phenomenon within the nation of Israel. He is contrasting Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe. He is saying that there is a subset of true Israel within the whole of Israel. Physical birth alone could provide only biological life. Paul is setting up the argument which he will further develop in Romans 11, that Jewish believers in Jesus comprise the current remnant of Israel. He asks and partially answers, completely in the affirmative, whether in this present age there is any advantage to being Jewish. The remainder of the list of advantages await chapter 9.


  1. Navigation menu.
  2. La princesa (Spanish Edition).
  3. ?
  4. Lehrqualitätsmanagement in der Schule (German Edition).
  5. MRI for Orthopaedic Surgeons.

The answer to this question awaits his exposition in chapters In the first 5 verses of Romans 9, Paul continues to answer the question posed in 3: Paul has already answered that there are many privileges, but has only listed one. Now he enumerates them. Yet with all these ongoing privileges, the majority of Jews did not respond. Paul calls the unbelieving Jewish people his family 9: Yet Jewish unbelief should not be entirely unexpected. He returns to the point he made in chapter 2: Physical and spiritual descent are both necessary for membership in true, authentic Israel 9: Following an illustration of the insufficiency of physical descent from Abraham alone by citing the choice of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau 9: He asks whether God has rejected His people, Israel.

The question is phrased in such a grammatical fashion as to illicit an immediate emphatic negative answer. For I myself, an Israelite, am exhibit A. In all, Paul provides four temporal reasons why Israel as a nation has not been divinely rejected: Paul uses the olive tree see figure 2 to magnificently illustrate his point Rom There are three types of branches, two of which are natural, one of which is unnatural. The natural branches both represent ethnic Israel, one branch of which is the believing remnant, the other, the unbelieving majority.

The unbelieving Jewish branches are broken off see figure 3. The believing Jewish branches remain. The believing Jewish and Gentile branches adhere to the tree by means of faith in Messiah. He warns the Gentile branches not to boast against the Jewish branches that were cut off through their unbelief. The tree is certainly roomy enough for every branch. Gentiles have been saved in order to provoke unbelieving Jews to jealousy Rom. The olive tree of Rom. These blessings are relationship with God, salvation through Messiah and union with Him through the Spirit.

Paul is sharing that believing Gentiles have been raised to the spiritual status of believing Israel and now share in many but not all of their privileges. Together, believing Jews and believing Gentiles are members of a newly created community which transcends yet does not eradicate their national or historical distinctions, nor their social and sexual distinctions Gal.

After again noting that the church is mysteriously a new creation of God composed of believing ethnic Jews and Gentiles see also Eph. Dispensationalism, as with all theological systems, attempts to categorize and systematize the revelation of God. Theologians generally hate tensions, antinomies and, above all, squishy facts that do not seem to neatly fit into one categorical box or another.

The remnant of Israel is a prime example of this unfortunate pattern.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

This section, perhaps the most controversial, must begin with a disclaimer. What I am proposing is a revisitation of a particular poorly developed area within Dispensationalism, not Dispensationalism as a system.

These views should in no way be interpreted as advocating Progressive Dispensationalism. The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. It was reassuring to discover that Fruchtenbaum had arrived at many of the following conclusions ahead of this author, often choosing the same texts from which to study. Two classic, decades-long DTS textbooks will suffice for examination: These particular works were chosen, not on the basis of being the most contemporary presentations of dispensational systematics, but on the basis of sustained influence as well as continued, widespread usage both within and without the classroom setting.

After the day of Pentecost and until the rapture we find the church…but no spiritual Israel. After the rapture we find no church, but a true or spiritual Israel again. Pentecost is denying the very existence of a present remnant, proposing no true Israel in this dispensation whatsoever, contra Paul Rom.

It would seem certain from their writings that these apostles understood themselves to be the remnant. In the body of Christ all national distinctions disappear. All Jews who are saved are not saved into a national relationship, but into a relationship to Christ in that body of believers…There is no continuing remnant of Israel with whom God is particularly dealing today…Because that nation is now blinded, God can not have a remnant within the nation. Jewish believers neither lose ethnicity nor nationality. The whole point of what Paul argues in Romans 11 is to demonstrate that a contemporary remnant currently is manifesting itself, as usual.

Without a remnant, there is no Israel of God Gal 6: When God again deals with the nation Israel, salvation will be offered on the basis of the blood of Christ. When has God ceased dealing with Israel? One would get the impression from reading Things to Come that within the current church age, there are currently no Jews getting saved. As long as the church is on the earth there are none saved to a special Jewish relationship. All who are saved are saved to a position in the body of Christ.

Pentecost creates a false dichotomy. He is confusing believing Gentiles with the Church. Jewish believers are like the tiny Whos in Whoville in Dr. Even if one yields to the preponderance of evidence of God working with Israel through the remnant, the question then arises as to whether God is still working with Israel outside of the remnant. To teach that within the present dispensation God is only dealing with the church is declaring that God only works with one group of His people at a time.

Ephesians 2:17-18

Biblically, why should we limit God to working with one group at a time? Does God only conduct with one hand? Is His arm too short? Is He not ambidextrous? Even a poor conductor can conduct different sections of his orchestra using two hands simultaneously. If the woodwind section is currently playing more loudly than is the string section, the conductor is still equally conducting both sections. And, of course, it is also no indication that they have ceased playing altogether.

Unbelieving Israel is neither set aside nor on the back burner in this dispensation. God has been steadily working his way, orchestrating lives, generations and historical events to the crescendo level that is presently beginning to break out.