The “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16: An Exegetical Analysis

J. Neil Daniels

Nota Bene: A "Deep Dive" audio overview of this article is available here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RF_r2LP50fvEVwbAEG9H7PvnJbVvDdtN/view?usp=drivesdk

Introduction and Statement of the Problem

Among the more debated interpretive cruxes in Pauline theology is the phrase “the Israel of God” (τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ) found in Galatians 6:16. Though the verse occurs within the brief benediction that concludes Paul’s epistle, its theological implications extend far beyond the literary periphery. The core interpretive question—whether “Israel” here refers to the whole church, to believing Jews within the church, or to national Israel viewed eschatologically—has generated sustained scholarly controversy. The ramifications of each reading are profound, touching on matters of ecclesiology, covenant continuity, and eschatology.

Among the most influential recent contributions to this debate are Jonathan Pratt’s exegetical analysis in the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal and S. Lewis Johnson’s theological case study published in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost. Pratt provides a grammatical and contextual argument in favor of interpreting “the Israel of God” as believing ethnic Jews within the Galatian assemblies, emphasizing the syntactical function of the Greek particle kai and the limitations of the genitive construction.¹ Johnson likewise maintains that the phrase refers to believing Jews, but extends his argument into eschatological territory, situating the text within a broader Pauline expectation of Israel’s future restoration.²

While both authors affirm the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, they challenge the hermeneutical assumption, common in supersessionist and covenantal traditions, that Paul here redefines “Israel” to include Gentile believers. Instead, they argue that Paul preserves a specific role and identity for ethnic Israel, even within the inclusive framework of the gospel. This essay seeks to synthesize and assess the contributions of Pratt and Johnson in order to present a comprehensive interpretation of Galatians 6:16 that is both textually grounded and theologically coherent.

Contextual and Canonical Setting of Galatians 6:16

Galatians 6:16 appears at the close of Paul’s epistle to the churches of Galatia, functioning as a benediction: “And as many as will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” The immediate literary context is Galatians 6:15, where Paul declares that “neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” This juxtaposition forms a rhetorical climax to a major Pauline theme running throughout the letter, namely, that justification and covenantal inclusion are grounded not in the works of the Mosaic Law, but in faith in Christ and the regenerative power of the Spirit (cf. Gal 2:16; 3:2–3; 5:6). In this light, Galatians 6:16 serves as a summarizing pronouncement of blessing, but the ambiguity of the phrase “the Israel of God” introduces interpretive tension into an otherwise doxological conclusion.

The broader context of Galatians addresses the ethnic and covenantal dynamics between Jews and Gentiles in the early Christian communities. Paul is responding to the Judaizers, who were compelling Gentile believers to adopt Jewish practices, particularly circumcision, as a condition of full covenantal inclusion. Against this backdrop, Paul emphasizes that all who are “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:26) belong to Abraham’s seed and are heirs according to promise (Gal 3:29). These theological affirmations of unity do not, however, necessitate the erasure of ethnic distinctions, a point Pratt highlights when noting Paul’s simultaneous affirmation of Jewish identity and Christian unity.³

Johnson likewise notes that Paul nowhere in Galatians abolishes the category of ethnic Israel. Rather, Paul distinguishes between the physical seed of Abraham and those who walk in the faith of Abraham, preserving ethnic terminology even while subverting ethnic exclusivity.⁴ The phrase “Israel of God,” then, must be interpreted in light of Paul’s dual commitments to Jewish continuity and Gentile inclusion, as well as in relation to his broader usage of “Israel” elsewhere, most notably in Romans 9–11. These chapters indicate that Paul maintained a distinction between national Israel and the church, even as he affirmed the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God through faith.⁵

Thus, any attempt to define “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 must take seriously the rhetorical structure of the epistle, the redemptive-historical moment addressed by Paul, and the delicate balance he maintains between continuity with Israel’s heritage and the eschatological novelty of the new creation in Christ.

Grammatical and Syntactical Analysis

The interpretation of Galatians 6:16 hinges in no small measure on the grammatical construction of the verse, particularly the function of the Greek particle καί (kai) and the genitive phrase τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ (“the Israel of God”). Both Pratt and Johnson give sustained attention to these syntactical elements, recognizing that divergent theological conclusions often rest upon subtle grammatical judgments.

The particle kai is especially contested. In the phrase “peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God,” kai is typically translated “and,” but the conjunction admits a range of semantic values. It may be used conjunctively (“and”), explicatively (“even”), or adjunctively (“also”). Each reading yields a distinct interpretation. If kai is conjunctive, it suggests that Paul is addressing two distinct groups: those who walk by “this rule” and the “Israel of God.” If explicative, kai equates the two groups, meaning that the Israel of God is the same as those walking by the rule. If adjunctive, it suggests an additional group receiving the same blessing.⁶

Pratt gives priority to the conjunctive reading. He argues that kai here most naturally joins two separate referents: the broader group of believers who walk according to Paul’s rule of the new creation, and a more narrowly defined group, specifically, the believing Jewish remnant within the Galatian churches.⁷ He rejects the explicative reading, favored by those who interpret “Israel of God” as a redefinition of Israel to mean the church, on the grounds that such usage would be syntactically awkward. “If Paul meant to equate the church with Israel,” Pratt writes, “he would simply have omitted kai altogether.”⁸

S. Lewis Johnson agrees, noting that nowhere else in Paul’s corpus does Israel refer unambiguously to Gentile believers or to the church as a whole.⁹ He stresses that “if kai were explicative, Paul would likely have employed a clearer construction,” and that its usage here supports a reference to a distinct subset of believers.¹⁰

Equally important is the genitive construction τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ. The genitive “of God” could be either possessive or qualitative, implying either God’s ownership of this Israel or a description of its spiritual character. In either case, the genitive limits the referent “Israel,” and thus does not naturally lend itself to a universalizing or metaphorical redefinition. Pratt argues that the genitive construction most plausibly denotes believing ethnic Jews who belong to God in Christ, thereby distinguishing them from unbelieving ethnic Israel as well as from the Gentile believers addressed earlier in the verse.¹¹

Taken together, the grammatical and syntactical evidence supports the interpretation that “the Israel of God” refers not to the church as a whole, but to Jewish Christians specifically, i.e., those within ethnic Israel who have embraced the gospel and are thereby recipients of divine peace and mercy in a distinct covenantal sense. This reading preserves the semantic integrity of kai, honors the force of the genitive, and comports with Paul’s usage of “Israel” elsewhere in his writings.

Theological Options and Interpretive Traditions

The interpretive history of Galatians 6:16 reflects a broader theological debate regarding the relationship between Israel and the Church. At the heart of this debate is whether Paul envisions the Church as a continuation, fulfillment, or replacement of Old Testament Israel—or whether a distinction between ethnic Israel and the predominantly Gentile Church is preserved within the eschatological framework of the New Covenant.

The traditional Reformed position, especially within covenant theology, has often understood “the Israel of God” as a reference to the Church as the true Israel, now expanded to include Gentiles. This interpretation finds support in passages such as Galatians 3:29, where Paul writes that “if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.” Proponents argue that this language reflects a redefinition of covenant identity around union with Christ, thereby dissolving ethnic boundaries. The explicative reading of kai (“even”) facilitates this reading, equating the Church with Israel.¹²

Pratt and Johnson both challenge this interpretation, not on theological grounds alone, but on the basis of exegetical precision. Pratt contends that such a view imposes a theological conclusion upon the text rather than deriving one from it. He argues that the covenantal unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ does not entail the semantic erasure of ethnic Israel. Instead, “Israel” retains its ethnic valence, even when the remnant within it participates in the blessings of the New Covenant.¹³ This remnant, he insists, is precisely what Paul means by the “Israel of God.”

S. Lewis Johnson situates the phrase within a broader Pauline eschatology, wherein a future for national Israel is still anticipated. In Romans 11, Paul speaks of the eventual salvation of “all Israel,” referring not to the Church but to ethnic Israel in a corporate, redemptive-historical sense. This future hope presupposes that the term “Israel” retains a national and ethnic identity distinct from the Gentile-dominated Church. Johnson thus views “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 as referring to the present believing Jewish remnant, a group that both confirms God's faithfulness to Israel and anticipates her future restoration.¹⁴

Moreover, Johnson identifies a significant theological inconsistency in collapsing Israel into the Church. If Paul intended to redefine Israel to include Gentiles, one must account for why he consistently uses “Israel” elsewhere to refer to ethnic Jews, including those in unbelief (e.g., Rom 9:3–5; 10:1; 11:1). It would be linguistically and theologically discordant for Paul to suddenly reverse this established usage without any contextual signal.¹⁵ This concern is amplified by the fact that the term “Israel” occurs over seventy times in the New Testament and never unambiguously refers to Gentiles or to the Church as a whole.¹⁶

Thus, both Pratt and Johnson maintain that the theological unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ (Gal 3:28) must not be confused with the semantic redefinition of Israel. Instead, the Israel of God should be seen as believing ethnic Jews who are recipients of divine peace and mercy in Christ, a distinct group within the broader New Covenant community.

Johnson’s Eschatological Considerations

A distinctive strength of S. Lewis Johnson’s treatment of Galatians 6:16 lies in his integration of Pauline eschatology into the interpretive framework. Whereas some interpreters restrict their analysis to the linguistic or literary dimensions of the phrase “Israel of God,” Johnson situates the term within the broader trajectory of Paul’s theology of Israel, particularly as developed in Romans 9–11. For Johnson, Galatians 6:16 must be read in continuity with these chapters, wherein Paul envisions not only a present remnant of believing Jews but also a future national restoration of Israel in fulfillment of divine promise.¹⁷

Central to Johnson’s argument is Romans 11:25–26: “a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved.” He insists that “Israel” in this context cannot mean the Church, since Paul consistently distinguishes between Israel and the Gentiles throughout Romans 9–11. Therefore, “all Israel” in Romans 11:26 refers to a future collective turning of the Jewish people to faith in Christ, a redemptive event that will climax God’s covenantal dealings with the nation.¹⁸

This eschatological perspective reinforces Johnson’s reading of “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16. While he affirms that the phrase refers to believing Jews in the present age, he also sees it as indicative of Paul’s continued recognition of Israel’s identity and destiny within redemptive history. In Johnson’s words, “There is no evidence that Paul ever calls the Church ‘Israel’ or that he identifies Gentile Christians as Israelites,” and to do so in Galatians 6:16 would mark a sharp departure from his theological consistency elsewhere.¹⁹

Further strengthening his case, Johnson appeals to the prophetic tradition, in which the future restoration of Israel is a recurring motif (e.g., Isa 60; Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 36–37). The apostolic expectation of Israel’s salvation is not, in his view, superseded by the Church’s formation but rather suspended until the divinely appointed time. By maintaining the ethnic and national distinctiveness of Israel even in the Church age, Johnson preserves the integrity of Old Testament prophecy and the trustworthiness of God’s covenantal promises.²⁰

This eschatological dimension, though less emphasized by Pratt, complements his grammatical and historical analysis. Both scholars affirm the current inclusion of Jewish believers in the Church while denying that their presence exhausts or nullifies the future role of Israel as a people. Thus, Johnson’s eschatological considerations lend further support to the reading of “Israel of God” as a phrase denoting believing ethnic Jews who, though presently a remnant, remain heirs to promises that extend beyond the present dispensation.

Pratt’s Liturgical and Lexical Insights

In addition to his detailed grammatical analysis, Jonathan Pratt contributes a distinctive line of argument by situating Paul’s language in Galatians 6:16 within Jewish liturgical and lexical traditions. For Pratt, the phrase “peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” echoes the vocabulary and form of Jewish benedictions, particularly those found in the Shemoneh Esreh, the Eighteen Benedictions recited daily in Jewish synagogue worship.²¹ This liturgical context, he argues, reinforces the likelihood that Paul’s benediction is directed specifically toward believing Jews.

Pratt observes that the Shemoneh Esreh includes a “Blessing of Peace” (ברכת שלום), which petitions God to extend peace upon Israel. The parallel structure, invoking peace upon Israel with covenantal undertones, strongly resembles Paul’s wording in Galatians 6:16. While Pratt acknowledges that it is difficult to prove direct dependence, he maintains that the Jewish flavor of Paul’s language cannot be easily dismissed. Rather, it suggests a liturgical resonance intended to signal Paul’s blessing upon his Jewish brethren in the faith.²²

Moreover, Pratt underscores the significance of Paul’s word choice in referring to “Israel.” Throughout his letters, Paul consistently uses “Israel” in reference to ethnic Jews, whether believing or unbelieving. Nowhere does he unambiguously apply the term to Gentiles. Thus, Paul’s decision to use “Israel” rather than “church” (ekklēsia) or “body of Christ” (sōma Christou) in Galatians 6:16 is deliberate and theologically loaded.²³ Had he intended to refer to the Church as a whole, especially after asserting the centrality of the “new creation” (Gal 6:15), Paul would have naturally employed one of his standard ecclesiological terms. That he does not do so argues against the interpretation that identifies “Israel of God” with the entire Church.

Additionally, Pratt critiques the notion, sometimes advanced by covenant theologians, that Paul uses “Israel” here metaphorically. He contends that such a metaphorical redefinition of Israel introduces conceptual ambiguity and theological incoherence. If “Israel” can be spiritually redefined to include Gentiles without contextual clarification, it renders Paul’s consistent ethnic usage elsewhere confusing. As Pratt explains, “It would be very strange for Paul to use the term ‘Israel’ in this unique metaphorical way in only one location without any hint that he intended a shift in meaning.”²⁴

In Pratt’s view, the most coherent explanation is that “the Israel of God” refers to believing Jews who, while included in the new creation, retain their covenantal identity as the faithful remnant of Israel. This preserves both the ethnic specificity of the term and the theological trajectory of redemptive history, which anticipates a future restoration of Israel in concert with the fullness of the Gentiles (Rom 11:25–26).

Synthesis and Evaluation

A composite reading of Jonathan Pratt’s and S. Lewis Johnson’s analyses yields a coherent and theologically robust interpretation of Galatians 6:16, one that respects both the grammatical contours of the text and the canonical scope of Paul’s theology. Both scholars converge on the view that “the Israel of God” refers to believing Jews within the church, not to the church as a redefined Israel. This reading is exegetically warranted, theologically cautious, and hermeneutically consistent.

Grammatically, the use of kai is most naturally read as a simple conjunction, not an explicative or appositional particle. This supports the distinction between “as many as walk according to this rule” (i.e., the whole believing community) and “the Israel of God” (a particular group within it).²⁵ The genitive construction tou Israēl tou Theou further narrows the referent to those within Israel who truly belong to God, thus excluding unbelieving Jews while simultaneously distinguishing these Jewish Christians from Gentile believers.²⁶ Neither Paul’s grammar nor his lexical habits support a metaphorical or ecclesiological redefinition of Israel at this juncture.

Canonically, this interpretation aligns with Paul’s treatment of Israel in Romans 9–11. There, Paul affirms both the present remnant of Jewish believers and the future eschatological salvation of “all Israel” (Rom 11:26). Nowhere does he suggest that the term “Israel” has been redefined to include Gentiles, nor does he conflate Israel and the church. Rather, Paul envisions a divinely orchestrated redemptive plan in which Israel’s temporary hardening gives way to restoration, precisely because God’s covenantal promises remain irrevocable (Rom 11:28–29).²⁷ Johnson’s insistence on maintaining this canonical coherence strengthens the exegetical case for distinguishing “the Israel of God” from the Gentile-inclusive body of Christ.

Pratt’s contribution, particularly his liturgical and lexical observations, adds further weight to this reading. The resonance with Jewish benedictions, coupled with the unbroken ethnic usage of “Israel” in Paul’s letters, supports the conclusion that Paul intended a blessing upon Jewish believers specifically. Such a reading is neither divisive nor contrary to the gospel’s unity, for it merely affirms that within the one people of God, historical and redemptive distinctions may still be acknowledged without compromising the equality of grace.

The church-as-Israel reading, while motivated by a laudable emphasis on covenantal continuity and unity, falters both lexically and contextually. It demands a semantic shift that Paul does not signal, introduces unnecessary ambiguity into Pauline usage, and severs Galatians 6:16 from its canonical moorings in Romans 9–11. It also risks marginalizing the eschatological hope that Paul reserves for ethnic Israel, a hope rooted in God’s irrevocable call and covenant faithfulness.²⁸

Conclusion

The phrase “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 presents an exegetical challenge with broad theological implications. Competing interpretations have either read the term inclusively—as a designation for the entire Church—or restrictively—as a reference to believing ethnic Jews within the body of Christ. Upon a close examination of the grammatical structure, historical setting, and Pauline theological context, the latter view emerges as the most compelling.

As demonstrated by Jonathan Pratt and S. Lewis Johnson, both the syntax and the lexical patterns employed by Paul suggest that kai introduces a distinct group in apposition to the broader category of believers who walk by the “rule” of the new creation.²⁹ The genitive construction further reinforces the specificity of this group, aligning with Paul’s usage of “Israel” throughout his letters to denote ethnic Jews, whether believing or not.³⁰ The blessing of peace and mercy, therefore, is extended to all who embrace the new creation and, in a particular way, to Jewish believers, i.e., the faithful remnant within Israel who participate in the blessings of the New Covenant.

Johnson’s eschatological framework anchors this interpretation in the broader arc of Pauline theology. Galatians 6:16 does not signal the replacement of Israel but rather anticipates, in embryonic form, the fuller development of Israel’s future in Romans 11. In this light, the “Israel of God” is not a redefinition of Israel but a recognition of the remnant’s inclusion in God’s present purposes, pointing forward to a consummate fulfillment that upholds both the unity of the Church and the distinctiveness of Israel’s role in redemptive history.³¹

Pratt’s liturgical and lexical insights complement this reading, underscoring the coherence of the ethnic-Jew interpretation with Jewish benedictory traditions and Pauline usage. The theological unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ is not threatened by this distinction but enriched by it, reflecting the multi-faceted character of God’s redemptive economy.

In sum, Galatians 6:16 does not collapse Israel into the Church, nor does it ignore Israel’s distinct identity. Rather, it affirms that in the present age, Jewish believers, as those who are truly “of God,” receive Paul’s apostolic blessing within the one body of Christ, and that their inclusion prefigures the eschatological hope that “all Israel will be saved.”

Endnotes

1. Jonathan Pratt, “The ‘Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 23 (2018): 59.

2. Ibid., 62.

3. Ibid., 68.

4. Ibid., 69.

5. Ibid., 68.

6. S. Lewis Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 187.

7. Pratt, “The ‘Israel of God’,” 68.

8. Ibid.

9. Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’,” 188.

10. Ibid.

11. Pratt, “The ‘Israel of God’,” 69.

12. Ibid., 69–70.

13. Ibid., 75.

14. Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’,” 190–92.

15. Ibid., 188–89.

16. Ibid., 186.

17. Ibid., 191.

18. Ibid., 192.

19. Ibid., 193.

20. Ibid., 194.

21. Pratt, “The ‘Israel of God’,” 72.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid., 70.

24. Ibid., 71.

25. Ibid., 68–69.

26. Ibid., 69.

27. Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’,” 191.

28. Ibid., 195.

29. Pratt, “The ‘Israel of God’,” 68.

30. Ibid., 69–70.

31. Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’,” 190–91.

Bibliography and Further Study

Beale, G. K. “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6,16b.” Biblica 80.2 (1999): 204–223.

Eastman, Susan Grove. “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re‑reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9–11.” New Testament Studies 56.3 (July 2010): 367–395.

Filtvedt, Ole Jakob. “God’s Israel in Galatians 6.16: An Overview and Assessment of the Key Arguments.” Currents in Biblical Research 15.1 (2016): 123–140.

Johnson, S. Lewis. “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case‑Study.” In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer, 181–196. Chicago: Moody, 1986.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. “The Identity of the Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16.” Faith & Mission 19 (Fall 2001): 3–24.

Pratt, Jonathan. “The ‘Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 23 (2018): 59–75.

Titrud, Kermit. “The Function of Καί in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2 Peter.” In Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, edited by David Alan Black, 242–258. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.