Subliminal Theology

Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God  Galatians 6:16 (NIV translation)

Even– By now you must realize that you and I are victims of the translators’ theological persuasion.  When we read the text in any language but the original, we must rely on the clinical honesty of the interpreters.  Unfortunately, the bias of commitments to theological positions often causes our translations to contain hidden messages, sometimes in the smallest of words.  That is the case with this verse.  The tiny Greek word kai, uniformly translated as “and,” is here modified to read “even.” Why?  Because the translators don’t want you to believe what Paul is really saying.

John Parsons makes the point very clear.  In his article on Israel, he notes that the translators of the New International Version inserted their theological bias when they came to this verse. These men believe that the church replaced Israel, that the current age of the church has taken precedence over the past age of Israel as the means God uses to reach the world.  According to this theological position, Israel’s apostasy resulted in God giving up on them and substituting the Gentiles in their place.  As a result, texts are altered in tiny ways to promote this idea.  John says:

“An example of this sort of disingenuous methodology is found in the translation given to the Greek word kai (‘and’) in Galatians 6:16 (‘as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God’), which incidentally is the only place in the entire New Testament where the word Israel is not explicitly used to refer to ethnic Israel. [Replacement] theologians conclude that the kai before the term ‘Israel of God’ is best translated ‘even’ (as the NIV translates), however most Greek scholars have noted that this would be an anomalous usage and is without grammatical warrant found in the context itself (i.e., the argument against the Judaizers). Indeed, the plain reading is simply that Paul uses ‘and’ to pronounce a blessing on believing Gentiles and believing Jews in the church, not to equate national Israel with the Church.”

Translation substitutes like this are so subtle that they barely raise an eyebrow.  We don’t realize that we are being gently pushed to accept the idea that the church has taken the place of God’s election of Israel.  It’s subliminal theology.  Unfortunately, this isn’t the only example.  Throughout the history of translations, from the King James to The Message, more than the text has often been presented in the choice of words.  There is tremendous risk in attaching yourself to a particular translation. Always dig deeper.  You are going to be held accountable for proper obedience.  How can you know what God really says if you are going to rely on a translation that incorporates theological conspiracy?

Don’t take my word for it either.  I have a personal bias as well (but I am quite sure you realize that).  My efforts are simply to get you to think more deeply about what you are reading, to question the implications of the translation, to seek the truth.  God’s Word will stand any amount of scrutiny.  What you find might challenge your long-held assumptions; but what would you rather have, the truth or a comfortable complacency?

Topical Index: translation bias, and, kai, even, Galatians 6:16

 

Subscribe
Notify of
18 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Craig

I’m not even sure where to start with my comment, but here goes. First of all, “even” is a legitimate translation for kai. One can find this definition in Thayer II.1.b: equivalent to even; and, II.1.c: before a comparative it augments the gradation, even, still. Now, one may argue that this is not a good translation for Galatians 6:16, but this still doesn’t help much in determining the meaning of this verse in its context. Also, note that this translation of “even” here is in the NIV 1984 and not in the current NIV. Moreover, none of the other translations I found upon quick search render it “even” here.

So, the question is really: What does “Israel of God” mean in this context?

Daniel Kraemer

John Parsons says, “. . .which incidentally is the only place in the entire New Testament where the word Israel is not explicitly used to refer to ethnic Israel.”
I disagree, Rom 9:6 says, Not, however, that God’s Word has failed. For not all those of Israel are Israel,

The very purpose of this verse is to draw a distinction between different kinds of, “Israel”, living at the time within the region of Israel. Therefore, NOT all citizens of Israel are ethnic Israelites. First, there were many foreigners. In the context at hand, is a Roman or Canaanite, etc. an Israel of God?

Secondly, NOT even all “practicing” Jews were the “Israel of God”. (I can’t imagine that the High Priest Caiaphas was a member of Paul’s, the Israel of God.)

I think we have got this backwards. Paul is talking about the, “household of faith” (vs 10). Who is included in this household? It is comprised of two groups. The association Paul is making is between the true faithful of the nations and of the true faithful of region of Israel. Only those two groups are what Paul would call, “the Israel of God”. So, I would agree there is nothing wrong with using “even” here, not because it is better, but because there is no fight to be had here. Both words (and/even) work because the Israel of God is not referring to either group by themselves but (and/even) both.

Craig

Daniel,

I don’t necessarily disagree with you here, but let me add a bit more. To perhaps clarify, in my initial comment I didn’t mean to imply that “even” is not a valid translation for this verse, but that one would have to interpret “the Israel of God” in a way that would exclude “even” as a possibility. That said, there is a difference in using “and” or “even” here.

There were/are some who would use “even” here for ‘replacement theology’, with the Gentile “church” replacing the Jews. This is wrong, of course. However, “even” can be used epexegetically, such that “the Israel of God” is a further explanation for ‘the new creation’ (v. 15), i.e., ‘those who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon those’. This ‘new creation’ are not the ‘physical [only] circumcision group’ but all those with circumcised hearts, to include Jew and Gentile—one group with no differentiation (as in Ephesians’ ‘one new man’ [2:15]).

There are some who wish to interpret “the Israel of God” to mean the non-judaizing Jewish Christians as a separate group from Gentile Christians [thus rendering kai here as “and”]. To counter this—and to provide one exegete’s conclusion—I’ll quote from Richard Longenecker’s commentary on Galatians (Word Biblical Commentary [Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990], pp 298-299):

…Yet all of the views that take “the Israel of God” to refer to Jews and not Gentiles, while supportable by reference to Paul’s usage (or nonusage) of terms and expressions, fail to take seriously enough the context of the Galatian letter itself. For in a letter where Paul is concerned to treat as indifferent the distinctions that separate Jewish and Gentile Christians and to argue for the equality of Gentile believers with Jewish believers, it is difficult to see him at the very end of that letter pronouncing a benediction (or benedictions) that would serve to separate groups within his churches—whether he means by “the Israel of God” a believing Jewish remnant within the broader Church of both Jews and Gentiles, a nonjudaizing group of Jewish Christians in Galatia, or an eschatological Israel that is to be saved at the time of Christ’s return. Certain elements within Paul’s other letters may be used to support one or the other of these views, but Galatians itself cannot easily be used in such a manner.

Rather, it seems better to argue that here Paul is using a self-designation of his Jewish-Christian opponents in Galatia—one that they used to identify their type of fulfilled Judaism vis-à-vis the official Judaism of their national compatriots…Furthermore, this was a self-designation that they must have included in their message to Paul’s Gentile converts, assuring them that by observing the God-given Jewish laws they would become fully “the Israel of God.” The phrase itself is not found in the extant writings of Second Temple Judaism or later Rabbinic Judaism, and does not appear elsewhere in Paul’s letters. So it may be postulated that it arose amongst the Judaizers and became part of their message to Paul’s Galatian converts. If that be the case, then Paul here climaxes his whole response to the Judaizing threat in something of an ad hominem manner, implying in quite telling fashion that what the Judaizers were claiming to offer his converts they already have “in Christ” by faith: that they are truly children of Abraham together with all Jews who believe [in the Messiah], and so properly can be called “the Israel of God” together with all Jews who believe.

Longenecker prefers “even” for his translation here.

The always excellent F. F. Bruce (The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], pp 274-275)—who exegetes this verse using “and” instead of “even”—offers other insights:

W. D. Davies (‘Paul and the People of Israel’, 10) thinks that the Israel of God ‘may refer to the Jewish people as a whole’. It may, provided we bear in mind Paul’s observation that ‘not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel’ (Rom. 9:6). If ὁ Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα [Israel according to the flesh] (1 Cor. 10:18) denotes the empirical Israel, ὁ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ [the Israel of God] may denote the Israel seen by God as the true Israel. So Marius Victorinus, the earliest Latin commentator on Paul, comments on the phrase: ‘not “on Israel” in the sense of any and every Jew, but “on the Lord’s Israel”; for Israel is truly the Lord’s if it follows the Lord, not expecting its salvation from any other source’.

E. D. Burton (Galatians, 357f.) construes the sentence so as to have ‘peace’ invoked on ‘them’ (i.e. ‘those who keep in line with this rule’) and ‘mercy’ on the Israel of God. The order ‘peace and mercy’, if the two are taken closely together, is illogical, he says, ‘placing effect first and cause afterwards’ (the logical order is ‘mercy and peace’ or ‘grace [charis] and peace’). P. Richardson (Israel in the Apostolic Church [Cambridge, 1969], 81–84) follows Burton’s construction, placing the comma after ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς [upon them/those], not after καὶ ἔλεος [and mercy]. In Burton’s opinion, καὶ ἔλεος is an afterthought, with καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ [and upon the Israel of God] a second afterthought.

But the reference to the Israel of God need not be an afterthought. If Paul knew the additional (19th) benediction to the Eighteen Benedictions, he would have been familiar with a prayer which asks God for ‘peace . . . and mercy on us and on all Israel thy people’ (šālôm . . . wᵉraḥᵃmı̂m ʿālênû wᵉ ʿal kol Yisérāʾēl ʿammeḵā). If so, the words ‘and on the Israel of God’ would have come readily from his tongue.

F. Mussner (Galaterbrief, 417 n. 59) probably indicates the true sense when he identifies the Israel of God here with πᾶς Ἰσραήλ [all Israel] of Rom. 11:26. For all his demoting of the law and the customs, Paul held good hope of the ultimate blessing of Israel. They were not all keeping in line with ‘this rule’ yet, but the fact that some Israelites were doing so was in his eyes a pledge that this remnant would increase until, with the ingathering of the full tale (πλήρωμα [“fullness”]) of Gentiles, ‘all Israel will be saved’. The invocation of blessing on the Israel of God has probably an eschatological perspective.

One can find the Eighteen [plus one] Benedictions here: tzion dot org/articles/EighteenBenedictions dot htm

Laurita Hayes

“Indeed, the plain reading is simply that Paul uses ‘and’ to pronounce a blessing on believing Gentiles and believing Jews in the church, not to equate national Israel with the Church”. “Believing Gentiles and believing Jews” ARE the true “Israel of God”. Yeshua said that He could raise up stones, if necessary, that followed Him. He was and is the reason the Jews were created a nation, which they have been given an extra 2000 years of grace to recognize(!), but His followers have also been given those same 2000 years to recognize that they don’t get to leave their brothers behind with spurious replacement theories or by denying that what was given to the Jew first then applies to the Gentile, too. (After all, Abraham was not told that he was to be the father of the “people of the Book”: he was told that he was to be the genetic source of the (singular) “SEED”, which is Yeshua.) He traveled on that hope and faith just fine, even without the ceremonial law instituted at Sinai, but what Jew (or Muslim, for that matter) today is traveling on an identity that actually DOES what “righteous” Abraham did? Both of them identify with later rituals that have no intrinsic value to salvation, as does most any average Christian, too, who ALSO claims Abraham as their father. I have noticed that none of them seem to actually think doing or believing what Abraham did or believed is good enough today. He also placed all his hope in Yeshua, as we are instructed to do today, but I have noticed that neither Jew or Muslim today gives that level of credence to the promised Messiah, even though salvation through Him is, and always has been, from Eden on, the only hope of all mankind. Wonder why? But, I digress.

Has Yeshua fulfilled all those pictures of Him (ceremonial law), given late in the game of the Abrahamic covenant (at Sinai 400+ years later), to help them recognize Him when He came? Yes. But there was an entire law in place from the beginning, that was given to Adam and his posterity, and that Abraham followed, that mankind was never supposed to forget (fail to follow). The Jews were reminded of that law at Sinai, but that law of conduct was never a Jewish exclusive: it applied then, before then, as well as now, to all of mankind. The Jews were merely vectors or repositories of what works for everybody, regardless of genetics or profession. I think we do them a disservice (and they do us a disservice the same way, too) if all agree that that law applies only to the Jews. Laws are simply summations of what works in reality. For everybody.

Couldn’t we establish a paradigm that is totally genetics- as well as history-blind through which to read the Good Word that was clearly written for all: not ‘just’ Jew (Tanakh) OR Christian (Brit Kadashah)?

Brett Weiner B.B.( brother Brett)

Thank you. And a good word, and replies. I continued Teach as I have been. That Israel is multifaceted. Geographical, is time orientated. It is a people group. The sons of Jacob. Who became Israel comaduster sons of Israel. And Israel that God is creating, the Jewish people and the people from the Gentile Nations. As Paul declares in the book of Ephesians as the one new man. Not too complex when you look at it. I continue to share this with others, and they tell their pastors, and Pastor seek me out, and we look at it in the scriptures, and they say…. I never saw that before. Ugh. I think the Lord for posts like this. This is the time that the blinders are coming off the eyes of. Only Israel of all people. While we’re here, can anyone explained simply how the children of Israel coffee place by the same children of God, Is it part of replacement theology? You can email me if you would like.
bweiner312@gmail.com

George Kraemer

I don’t think we can have one law for all. From time immemorial (Abraham), there has always been a proviso for two identities, separate but equal; Jews and gentiles (non-Jews). One or the other, not two smooshing into one at any point so we have Torah for Jews and new covenant (Testament) for Gentiles and Jews (by choice) working together as one, just like any good marriage of opposites. In the messianic age, Jews and gentiles will live in peace and harmony. All Jews will adhere to the 613 commandments and the non-Jews will follow the 7 Noahide laws for all humanity.

No two people could be more opposite than me and my wife Penny of 50+ years now. Nothing about us makes sense but it does work beautifully. How? Easy. We communicate our differences and agree (or disagree) within the boundaries of a loving relationship that is renewed every day so I guess we do have one law (Guardia Angel) in essence which is; we are both entitled to our duty (law) such as we see it while not infringing but supporting the other’s. So we have the same objective but we get there somewhat separately at times, e.g. she believes in going to heaven when she dies and I don’t.

That’s ok, we just both want to die together in our own good laws.

Laurita Hayes

But George, is “law”, functionally speaking, something that is an arbitrary assignment, or does it represent something real? Do you obey the law of gravity? What would happen if you thought gravity was not for you? “Gravity” is just a description of how reality works. Is love somehow different than gravity in space/time or is it gravity for the Body? Love is love the world around. All the moral law is is a description of how love works. Love works the same for all. So does justice. So does all the other good stuff of God.

George Kraemer

I would prefer a response to my first paragraph. The second is merely a modifier of the first. But thanks regardless.

Laurita Hayes

George, do you read Romans? Romans 3 addresses this extensively. Abraham was promised that he would be “the father of MANY nations”. That does not refer to Arabs only. Who is a Jew? Anyone who’s father is Abraham? Define “Jew”. Who is the “Israel of God”? Does genetics determine who is supposed to love according to the Noahide laws? Did the Gentiles in the early following know this? Where is the precedence for this practice? Jewish law provides for full conversion into Judaism: anyone can become a Jew. Please define “Jew”.

Try imagining a world that ran ONLY on the Noahide laws. It would be brutal! If we lived on a deserted island, just you and I, and were limited to only the Noahide laws to get along, we would not be able to do it. Even pagan lovers know better (and do better) than these so-called “laws”! Love is specific behavior that these laws do not definitely define!

I know it is popular nowadays for both Jews and Christians to look for a way for there to continue to be a distinction between the two groups, but does the Talmud supersede what the Bible has to say about this subject? Is the Body of Christ not only exclusive of Jews but ONLY run on the Noahide laws? Is this Biblical? I know the Noahide laws are popular because they exclude the Sabbath, but they also exclude honoring parents and covetousness which, according to Paul is the “root of all evil”. Are Gentiles going to be admitted to eternity even if they are “full of covetousness”? Would you want to live next to one of these folks? Can you even have a marriage where one person covets all day long but the other can’t? Why were the Israelites expected to have “remembered the Sabbath” well before Sinai if it was not, in fact, an Eden institution honoring Creation?

As you can see, I have a lot of problems with the Talmud! I believe love requires obedience to all Ten Commands and that they apply to everyone. Does that answer your request to address your first paragraph? These Noahide laws are new to the scene and therefore I can not find a whole lot of precedence, historically, as to how earlier people handled the subject. For example, I can find nothing in first century literature about what to do about them, at least among the followers of Yeshua, so I feel I am stumbling in the dark, here. I apologize for being a little flummoxed!

MICHAEL STANLEY

The very concept of Noahide laws grosses me out. I could never understand why anyone would want to obey any laws made from the hide of Noah. Is nothing sacred anymore?

Drew Harmon

Oseh shalom bimromav, hu y’aseh shalom alenu, v’al kol Yisrael!
May he who makes peace in his celestial heights, may he make peace for us and all Israel!

Richard Bridgan

Amen!
“…I can hear what the almighty, Hashem, will speak, for He speaks peace to His people and His devout ones, and they will not revert to folly.. Kindness and Truth have met; Righteousness and Peace have kissed…Hashem, too, will provide what is good..” Tehillim 85

Richard Bridgan

“And when he (Jesus) drew near and saw the city (Jerusalem), he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.” – Luke 19.41-42

Leslee Simler

“Bimeru, bimeru, amen”… I love the version of this song that Rabbi Sacks sings with a mixed group for the 60th anniversary of Israel. You can find it on YouTube.

Avrumi Weinberg has done a version of the Aaronic blessing (Bircat Cohanim – also on YouTube) where he adds:
Adir, Adir bamarom, shokhen bigvura
(Mighty One on high, who dwells in ultimate power)
Ata Shalom, v’Shalom shimkha.
(You are peace and Your Name is ‘peace’)
Yehi, Yehi ratzon shetasim shalom, Aleinu v’al kol amkha.
(May it be Your will that You grant us and all your people with peace)

I cry whenever I sing it because I AM INCLUDED! I AM HIS! Baruch YHVH!

Gayle

I don’t recall if the website John Parsons authors has been posted here before, but there are many excellent teachings there.
hebrew4christians DOT com/Articles/Israel/israel.html

Benny de Brugal

Regularly I use the Bible Gateway site to read the Bible and in that site the version of the NIV does not read “even.” Is there a newest version?

Craig

It’s the NIV 1984 that reads “even”.

Dawn

I looked this verse up in multiple translations. The NLT says “. . . all who live by this principle; they are the new people of God.” There is a footnote that reads “Greek ‘principle, and upon the Israel of God’” but how often do people read footnotes?