Does Galatians 3 Teach That the Church Is Israel?

Does Galatians 3 teach that the church is the true spiritual Israel? This is one of the passages people most frequently bring up when I discuss Israel’s future. It doesn’t matter where in the Bible we are exploring. People will immediately appeal to Galatians 3, saying that Israel cannot have a distinct future because Paul’s language is too clear to allow for an ongoing distinction between Israel and the church.

I understand why people find this convincing. It is a simple argument, and many respected commentators and theologians make it. But I think we need to slow down and examine what the text actually says, along with the assumptions we bring to it.

In Galatians 3:7–9, Paul identifies those who exercise faith as sons of Abraham. Verse 29 similarly says, “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” There is no disagreement here: Gentile believers are Abraham’s offspring.

The disputed step comes next. Since Israel is called Abraham’s offspring in the Old Testament, some conclude that believers who receive that designation must be Israel. Others appeal to verse 16, arguing that Christ is the singular seed and that everyone incorporated into Him therefore constitutes true Israel. Verse 28 is then used to argue that distinctions between Jew and Gentile have disappeared.

As an example of this kind of argumentation, note the comments by George Eldon Ladd.

If Abraham is the father of a spiritual people, and if all believers are sons of Abraham, his offspring, then it follows that they are Israel, spiritually speaking.

Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” 24.

Anthony Hoekema likewise sees the church identified as true Israel in this passage. He notes the following:

“What is unmistakably clear here is that all New Testament believers, all who belong to Christ, all who have been clothed with Christ (v. 27), are Abraham’s seed—not in the physical sense, to be sure, but in a spiritual sense. Again we see the identification of the New Testament church as the true Israel, and of its members as the true heirs of the promise made to Abraham.”

Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 198–99.

These are influential theologians whose arguments deserve consideration. My concern is whether the conclusion follows from the language Paul actually uses. Is it true that the church has to be equated with spiritual Israel from Galatians 3? I would offer six observations.

1. The Burden of Proof Matters

The Old Testament establishes an expectation that God will fulfill His promises to the nation of Israel (there are truly too many passages to list but consider Deut 4:25-30; Deut 30; Hos 3:4-5; Amos 9:11-15; Zech 14, etc.). Someone arguing that national Israel no longer has significance in God’s program needs to demonstrate when and why that changed.

The church is not a nation in the same sense that Israel is a nation, with land and borders. Even after the church begins, Paul continues to distinguish Israel and Gentiles. Part of the controversy in Galatians concerns whether Gentile believers need to undergo circumcision.

Galatians 3 could, theoretically, provide evidence for a change in Israel’s identity or significance. That is precisely what we are discussing. But we should recognize where the burden of proof rests. The Old Testament’s expectation of Israel’s future is clear, and the claim that this expectation has changed needs to be demonstrated rather than assumed.

2. Shared Language Does Not Establish a Shared Identity

Consider the logic: Israel is called Abraham’s offspring, and NT believers are called Abraham’s offspring; therefore, NT believers are Israel.

That conclusion is not logically necessary. Two groups can share a description without becoming the same group.

For example, Jesus is called son of man, and Ezekiel is also called son of man. Nobody concludes that Jesus is Ezekiel! The expression “sons of God” likewise applies to different groups, including believers and angels. Context determines how the language functions.

There is a related problem when we take the meaning of a word in one passage and force that meaning into every other occurrence. We recognize this easily in ordinary communication. A bank holds your money, but a bank shot in basketball involves the backboard. The meaning of one contextual use does not determine the other.

The same care is necessary with “sons,” “seed,” and “offspring.” Calling believers Abraham’s offspring does not automatically tell us how every Old Testament reference to Abraham’s offspring should be understood. We need to examine each context.

3. Scripture Uses Abraham’s “Seed” in Several Ways

There are at least four categories to consider when Scripture speaks of Abraham’s offspring.

First, there are his physical descendants through Israel. Genesis 13:15 connects Abraham’s offspring with the land promise, and Psalm 105:6 identifies Abraham’s offspring as the children of Jacob. References to physical descent can include both faithful and unfaithful Israelites.

John 8:37 is especially helpful. Speaking to unbelieving Jews who oppose Him, Jesus explicitly acknowledges that they are Abraham’s offspring. Jesus recognizes their physical descent even while confronting their unbelief. We cannot import a definition that includes only believers into that statement.

Second, Abraham has physical descendants outside the line of covenant promise. These include the children of Keturah and descendants such as Esau. Physical descent from Abraham does not, by itself, establish participation in the promised line.

Third, Christ Himself is Abraham’s seed. This is Paul’s point in Galatians 3:16. I think Genesis 22:17–18 also presents an interplay between the many descendants and an individual descendant who represents them. God promises descendants as numerous as the stars and the sand, while also speaking of an offspring who will possess the gate of his enemies. I understand the latter as a reference to an individual who represents the larger group. The individual and corporate uses fit together within the promise.

Fourth, there is a spiritual offspring, including Gentiles who share Abraham’s faith. Galatians 3 and Romans 4 describe this relationship.

All these uses need to be acknowledged. Christ is Abraham’s seed, and believers are Abraham’s offspring through faith. But neither truth eliminates the other uses of the language. Context is king.

4. Abraham Is Uniquely Suited to Be the Father of Believers, both Jew and Gentile

Have you ever wondered why Gentile believers are called sons of Abraham rather than sons of Isaac or Jacob? Abraham’s experience helps explain why Paul focuses on him.

Abraham believed God, and his faith was counted as righteousness before he was circumcised. Paul makes this point explicitly in Romans 4:9–11. Circumcision subsequently served as a sign and seal of the righteousness Abraham already possessed by faith.

That sequence is why Abraham fits so well with Gentiles. Abraham knew life both before and after circumcision. As Paul explains, this makes him the father of those who believe without being circumcised. His relationship to believers therefore includes both Jews and Gentiles.

This fits naturally with Galatians 3. Abraham is the example of trusting God, and those who share his faith are his children. Nothing in that relationship requires the disappearance of distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. Their shared faith explains their relationship to Abraham.

5. Christ’s Representation of Israel Guarantees Its Promises

Another argument runs like this: Jesus is the true Israel, believers are incorporated into Him, and therefore national Israel no longer has significance.

I agree that Jesus represents Israel. Amen and amen. But the conclusion about national Israel no longer having relevance does not automatically follow from that premise.

Why should Christ’s representation of Israel eliminate Israel’s future? His role as Israel’s representative can instead guarantee that the promises given to the nation will be fulfilled. That is a logically consistent way of understanding the relationship, and I think it also accounts for the Old and New Testament passages that anticipate Israel’s future.

The question cannot be settled simply by asserting that Christ is the true Israel. We must also establish what His representation means for the people He represents. Whatever explanation we adopt needs to account for the promises God has already communicated.

6. Galatians 3:28 Can’t Erase Functional Distinction

One of the most quoted verses people use to show there is no special role of the Jew is found in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

People sometimes offhandedly quote this verse as though it settles the entire discussion. But if “neither Jew nor Greek” eliminates every functional distinction between Jews and Gentiles, what happens to “no male and female”?

Many who use the first expression to erase distinctions between Israel and Gentiles rightly defend distinctions between men and women. They affirm male headship and differing responsibilities within marriage. Yet their argument about Israel uses the same reasoning others employ to deny those distinctions between men and women.

We need to be consistent. If unity in Christ allows for differing roles between men and women, it can also allow for distinctions between Jews and Gentiles.

Isn’t that what we should be striving for in our approach to Scripture? We cannot simply change our interpretive approach when we move from one theological discussion to another.

Paul’s emphasis is our common standing in Christ. Whether someone is Jewish or Gentile, male or female, salvation only comes through faith in Christ. There are not two ways of salvation, one for Jews and another for Gentiles. Everyone comes to God through Christ. However, that shared access does not erase every distinction in God’s program. One would be hard pressed to have that argument stick.

Final Thoughts

I love Galatians, and I see no difficulty in understanding chapter 3 alongside the Old Testament’s promises. Zechariah 12–14 anticipates Israel’s mourning over the One they pierced, God’s mercy toward the nation, and the Messiah’s reign from Jerusalem. Those expectations deserve to be taken seriously. The New Testament itself further supports an expectation of a unique future for Israel (cf. Matt 19:28; Acts 1:5; 3:19-21; Rom 9–11, etc.).

Given the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, we should seek an interpretation that brings the Old and New Testaments together in harmony. Galatians 3 gives us every reason to celebrate Gentile participation in Abraham’s blessing (cf. Gen 12:3). But we are not to misuse this passage to apply it beyond its intended use. I do not think Galatians 3 gives us a reason to abandon the promises God made to Israel.

Interested in Watching/Listening to a Discussion on This?