As part of his closing benediction to this letter, Paul says: “As many who walk by this rule, peace be upon them and mercy and [or “that is] upon the Israel of God.” This turns out to be a particularly hard verse to interpret, and it has given rise to two different basic views. R.H. Cole says, “A strong case can be made for both views.” Martyn concurs when he states, “Arguments have been advanced for each of these readings, but no satisfactory consensus has emerged.”
So what are the basic problems with this verse, and what are the two different view that are vying with one another? Let's start with the second question first. It all boils down to the fact that some commentators see two different groups being described in this verse: those who “walk by this rule” and the “Israel of God.” But others feel that the two phrases describe the same group of believers.
As to why it is not easy to sort out these two issues, we must deal with questions of context, punctuation and translation simultaneously. But to make it clearer, let me try to describe each of these issues separately.
Context
Starting with the first part of this verse, the phrase “this rule” obviously points to something Paul had previously said. The controversy centers around exactly what that reference is to. Answers range from close contexts to more distant ones:
Bruce: “The kanos [rule] is apparently the principle just laid down [v. 15] about the 'new creation': the reference then is to members of the new humanity who are guided by this principle, in contrast to those who maintain the continuing validity of circumcision and similar legal requirements.”
Martyn and Guthrie similarly go slightly further afield in Galatians, pointing to the fact that the same word for “walk” appears in 5:25 as in 6:16a, thus meaning “to lead one's life by.”
Ciampa cites additional passages within Galatians such as 3:7,26,29; 4:5-7, etc. as the pertinent context for Paul's thoughts in 6:16. Based on these verses, he concludes that “it seems most likely that the reference to the 'Israel of God' in 6:16 is a reference to the church as the eschatologically restored people of God, which now clearly includes both Jews and Gentiles.”
And Martyn appeals to Galatians 3:15-29 to settle this question in the same way.
Briggs capsulizes the above opinions in saying: “This rule has been summarized in v. 15 but is in fact the standards of Christian faith and behavior Paul has advanced throughout the letter.”
Brauch also points to 6:15 as the context for 6:16a. But he deduces that the “new creation” in that earlier verse contains both Jews and Greeks, as evidenced by Paul's writings in Galatians 3:28 and II Corinthians 5:17. And this creation “is established by grace and through faith. That is the 'rule' (or principle) to which Paul refers in this saying.”
Mikolaski uses additional writings of Paul in order to paraphrase 6:16 as follows: “If one should speak of religious rules, then let a benediction rest on those who live by the principle of new life in Christ. These are the true Israel of God, heirs to Abram (cf. 3:14; Phil. 3:3).” John Stott similarly goes back to Galatians 3:29 and Philippians 3:3 in order to explain 6:16.
Ridderbos: “This rule comprehends everything he has said. It points to the new norm and measure. The cross of Christ forms its point of departure, and the new creature forms its realization. Everything must be measured by its standard.”
But what about the rest of v. 16 with its unique phrase “Israel of God”? Here too there are varying views regarding its origin:
Guthrie explains, “The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament so there are no parallels to which to appeal for a decision.” His personal feeling is that there is only one group to which Paul refers in Galatians 6:16, the Church. So to explain the strange reference to Israel at the end of Galatians, he says, “No doubt Paul introduces this reference to Israel not only because he is echoing it from the Psalm [Ps. 125:5, which says 'peace shall be upon Israel'], but also because he wants to assure the Galatians that they will not forfeit the benefits of being part of the true Israel by refusing circumcision.”
Ridderbos (and others) cites the standard Jewish benediction Shemoneh Esre which Paul may have been aware of. It reads in part: “Grant peace, salvation, and blessing; grant favor, grace, and mercy to us and to all Israel, thy people.” But Paul gives it new meaning since, as in Romans 9:7, Israel designates the new Israel; “its scope goes out to include in the widest sense all believers whatsoever, the new people of God.”
Translation
Most issues in the Bible regarding word definitions involve words that are rare. But in this case, a large part of problem of interpretation involves the extremely common Greek word kai, usually translated as “and.” But as a number of scholars point out, it can equally be translated as “i.e.,” “that is (to say),” or “in other words.” Thus, if the kai coming right after “mercy” in the last part of v. 16 is meant to mean “and,” then Paul had two separate groups in mind. But if it is translated as “even” or “that is” as in NIV, then there is only one group of people receiving this blessing.
Punctuation
Closely related to the above issue is how to punctuate the sentence. Keep in mind that the original Greek had no punctuation the way we do today. In the quote from Galatians 6:16 with which I began this post, I purposely left out a key comma because there is a controversy as to where one should put it. If you place it after “mercy” you end up saying that blessings of peace and mercy are given to one group, which can be defined as either those following “this rule” or as the “Israel of God.” On the other hand, placing a comma after “them” results in a sentence in which a blessing of peace is given to those following the rule while a blessing of mercy rests on the Israel of God. Most evangelical scholars whose writings I have consulted go with the first option except for those of a dispensational leaning who follow their distinctive theological approach to Scripture stressing God's relationship with the nation of Israel while downplaying somewhat the present mainly Gentile dispensation.
Additional Arguments
A number of scholars subscribe to the interpretation that the blessings in this verse apply to only one group. They include L. Morris, B. Witherington, G.W. Hansen, J.L Martyn, and W.B.Hunter, just to name a few besides those already quoted above.
Silva points out the most obvious reason in favor of this view: “[S]ince the letter as a whole focuses on the unity of God's people, it is difficult to believe that at the very end of the document he would introduce an ethnic distinction.”
In a similar vein, Coad states, “that it is only a faithful remnant of the natural Israel is surely out of harmony with the letter...”
One the other hand are those who see two separate groups in Galatians 6:16.
John Walvoord advances as an argument for this viewpoint the fact that “everywhere else in the Scriptures the term Israel is applied only to those who are the natural seed of Abraham and Isaac, never to Gentiles.” In rebuttal, refer back to the arguments advanced in the “Context” section above in relation to the interpretation of this phrase.
Additionally, Martyn says, “Gal 6:16, I Cor 10:18, and Rom 9:6[-7] are not to be put on a single level, but they do show Paul's creativity in coining arresting – and differentiating – expressions having to do with Israel.” One could also appeal to the phrases found in I Peter such as “a holy priesthood” (2:5) and “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people” (2:9) which take descriptions originally applied to the Jewish people and transfer them to the church instead. Similarly, we could cite the Letter of James addressed “to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion.” Although dispensationalists insist that those designations merely prove that those two letters were written to ethnic Jews, that is not the scholarly consensus on the subject by any means.
The only other real argument advanced in favor of two separate groups concerns the two blessings that are given: peace and mercy. It has been said that when Paul uses these two words together elsewhere in his writings, “peace”always comes after “mercy.” And therefore there must be some significance to the observation that at the end of Galatians he should suddenly reverse the usual order. That is explained by them saying that Paul gives a blessing of peace on the believers (the first group) plus a blessing of mercy on the non-believing Jews (the second group). This makes sense, according to those who reason in this fashion, since it is the latter group who needs God's mercy, not the believers who already possess it.
There are at least two ways to counter this second argument. In the first place, Morris points to several NT passages where the blessing of mercy is given to believers. The second argument is related to a fact I have pointed out in several other places when discussing the literary structure of the NT Epistles, especially those of Paul. He generally begins his letters by pronouncing a blessing on the recipients of “grace and peace” in that order. However, whenever “peace” appears at the end of his epistles in conjunction with “grace,” that order is always reversed. Thus, “grace and peace....peace and grace.”
So first note that Galatians ends with a three-fold blessing of peace, mercy, and grace (6:16-18). Now look at those occasions when “mercy” appears at the start of a letter by Paul. At the beginning of the Pastoral Epistles I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus (variant reading) as well as in II John, we find it as part of the triad “grace, mercy, and peace.” Yes, mercy does precede peace in all those cases, however that is only when it is part of an opening benediction, not part of the letter's conclusion. So what we in fact have is a complete reversal of that triad in these letters at the end of Galatians, as completely predicted by Paul's usage elsewhere. Thus, “grace, mercy and peace....peace, mercy, and peace."
There is one final issue regarding those who see two groups of people represented in Paul's blessing. Even among those who feel that way, there is no unity as to who constitutes the second group, “the Israel of God.” D.K. Campbell says that the phrase refers to believing Jews at the time of Paul's writing, as do Ryrie and Walvoord. The problem with this interpretation is pointed out by Hoekema and others in that those particular Jews are already included in the phrase “those who follow this rule.” Therefore, it makes no sense to break these believers out as a separate category.
A more consistent interpretation, if one should still feel that two different groups of people are in mind, is to treat the second group as “those Israelites who will come to their senses and receive Christ, but have not yet done so.” (P.E. Leonard) F.F. Bruce agrees with this basic approach but tends to limit this group more to the remnant of believing Jews in the eschatological future.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments