Who is the Israel of God?

Contents

Introduction

In recent years, a renewed form of Catholic supersessionism has gained traction, claiming that the "true Israel" is not historic or "ethnic" Israel—the Jewish people—but rather the Church. Despite the recent Magisterium's consistent avoidance of applying the terms "new" and "true Israel" to the Church because of their supersessionist overtones—and despite its insistence that "the gifts and the call of God [to the Jewish people] are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29, Nostra Aetate 4)—some Catholic voices continue to appropriate Israel's name and identity for the Church, using "new" or "true" Israel language not only to express fulfillment but also to deny or erase Israel's ongoing role in salvation history.

Perhaps the single most important text invoked in this debate is St. Paul's final blessing in Galatians 6:16:

And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Gal 6:16, ESV-CE)

This blessing raises a series of interpretive questions: Is Paul blessing one group or two? Are "all who walk by this rule" the same as "the Israel of God," or are they distinct groups? Who is this "Israel of God"? Is it "ethnic" Israel (the Jewish people), a subset of Israel, or the entire Church? Is Paul redefining Israel as the Church?

Four major interpretations have been proposed regarding the identity of the "Israel of God":

1. Ethnic Israel as a whole (the Jewish people)
2. The Church (Jews and Gentiles together)
3. Jewish believers (the faithful remnant of Israel)
4. Eschatological Israel (the future fullness of Israel)

Why Does This Matter?

If the second option is correct—if the "Israel of God" simply means "the Church"—then Galatians 6:16 becomes the cornerstone of supersessionist theology. It would mean that the "true Israel" is no longer the Jewish people but the Christian Church, leading to the radical conclusion that Jews could truly belong to Israel not by virtue of their Jewish ancestry but only by becoming Christians.

This article offers a biblically and historically grounded exploration of these interpretations and argues for a reading that is both exegetically sound and fully consonant with Catholic teaching.

Approaching the Question

The best interpretation of the "Israel of God" must take into consideration the following factors:

1. What does Paul normally mean by"Israel"?
2. The Greek text of Galatians 6:16: its grammar, structure, and rhetorical context
3. First‑century Jewish context
4. The earliest translations of the text
5. The Church Fathers and early Christian interpretation
6. Modern translations
7. Modern commentators
8. Magisterial usage and Catholic rejection of supersessionism

After considering these factors, we will assess the strengths and limitations of the four major interpretive options listed above.

Note that this article focuses narrowly on the identity of the "Israel of God" in Galatians and in Pauline theology. It does not attempt to address the broader theological question of the Church as "new" or "true" Israel—a topic that will be treated elsewhere.

1. What Does Paul Normally Mean by "Israel"?

The expression "Israel of God" appears only once in the entire Bible—Galatians 6:16. Nowhere else in St. Paul, the New Testament, or Scripture as a whole does this phrase occur. This immediately places the interpretation "Israel of God = the Church" at a disadvantage, for it is poor exegetical practice to redefine a consistently used term on the basis of a single, ambiguous occurrence.

In every other Pauline use of Israel, the term refers to ethnic, historical Israel, never to the Church. There is no clear case where Paul uses "Israel" to mean "all believers" or "the Christian community." Of the roughly 77 occurrences of the terms Israel and Israelite in the New Testament, all—with only two exceptions—unambiguously refer to the Jewish people.

One of these exceptions is Galatians 6:16—the focus of this article.

The other is Romans 9:6: "Not all who are of Israel are Israel" (NABRE). Here a close reading indicates that Paul is not expanding Israel to include Gentiles, nor is he redefining Israel as the Church. Rather, he is articulating a remnant theology drawn directly from the Hebrew prophets. Paul's point is that physical descent alone does not guarantee participation in God's promises; only the faithful remnant—the "remnant chosen by grace" (Rom 11:5)—truly embodies Israel's calling. This is precisely the pattern found throughout the prophets, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, and Zephaniah: even when the nation fails, God preserves a faithful remnant of Israel who remain loyal to the covenant (Isa 10:20–22; Jer 23:3; Mic 2:12; Zeph 3:12–13).

Paul stands squarely within this tradition. When he speaks of:

• "not all Israel is Israel" (Rom 9:6)
• "a remnant chosen by grace" (Rom 11:5)
• "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16)

…he is not redefining Israel. He is reaffirming the prophetic distinction between:

• Israel according to the flesh—the whole nation, and
• Israel according to the Spirit—the faithful remnant within Israel who trust and obey God.

In short, Paul's consistent usage of "Israel," together with the New Testament's overwhelmingly ethnic use of the term, and the fact that the only non-ethnic uses refer to a remnant within Israel, weighs heavily against the interpretation that "Israel of God" means the Church.

2. The Greek Text and Its Structure

Paul's blessing in Galatians 6:16 reads:

καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπ' αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος,
καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.

And as for all who walk by this rule, peace be upon them and mercy,
and upon the Israel of God.^[1]

The central grammatical issue concerns the function of the final kai introducing "upon the Israel of God." Does this kai distinguish two groups ("all who walk by this rule" and "the Israel of God"), or identify them as one and the same?

Most specifically, should the final kai be understood as:

• simple conjunction ("and") → two groups
• adverbial ("also") → two groups
• epexegetical ("that is," "namely") → one group
• ascensive ("even," "indeed") → one group, rhetorically emphasized

In practice, the epexegetical and ascensive readings are similar, with both collapsing the two phrases into a single referent. Thus the interpretive issue reduces to three options:^[2]

1. "And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, AND upon the Israel of God." (ESV) → peace and mercy extended equally to two groups
2. "May peace come to all those who follow this standard, AND [ALSO] mercy to the Israel of God!" (HCSB/CSB) → two groups; peace extended to the first; mercy is added to the second
3. "Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, [THAT IS/EVEN] upon the Israel of God." (RSV) → peace and mercy extended to one group

Three observations frame the discussion:

a) What does the final kai most naturally mean?

The grammar strongly favors "and" (or "also"), not "even."

Why?

• The continuative/copulative use of kai ("and") is by far the most common function in the NT, representing the overwhelming majority of occurrences.
• The epexegetical and ascensive use of kai is marked, context-dependent, and rare in the New Testament. It requires clear indicators (e.g., structural parallelism or explanatory redundancy), which Galatians 6:16 lacks.^[3]
• If Paul had wanted to equate the two groups, he had simpler options. He could have used οἵτινές εἰσιν ("who are"), or simply omitted the kai. Either would have unambiguously identified "all who walk by this rule" with the "Israel of God."
• The structure "upon them … and upon X" is a parallel blessing, not an identification.

While an epexegetical reading is possible, it is widely regarded as strained or less natural here—especially given Paul's usage of "Israel" elsewhere and the rarity of such marked kai in similar constructions.^[4] The simple conjunctive meaning—"and" (or its possible mild adverbial nuance, "also")—is therefore the default and syntactically preferable reading.

A few translations bring out this adverbial shading, as in the NRSV and HCSB/CSB: "May peace come to all those who follow this standard, AND [ALSO] mercy to the Israel of God!" This suggests a distribution of the blessings—peace upon all who walk by the rule, and mercy (also or especially) upon the Israel of God—while still clearly distinguishing two groups rather than identifying them as one. This aligns most closely with the Greek, and with the structural and rhetorical observations that follow.

b) Paul's benedictions follow a recognizable pattern.

When "mercy" and "peace" appear together in New Testament greetings or blessings, the order is consistent: mercy precedes peace (1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; 2 John 3; Jude 2). Paul follows this pattern elsewhere.

But in Galatians 6:16, the order is reversed:

• peace upon those who follow this rule,
• and mercy … upon the Israel of God.^[5]

This reversal is unlikely to be stylistic randomness. In Greek rhetorical convention, a shift in the order of paired blessing‑terms often signals a shift in addressees.

• "Peace" is Paul's standard blessing for the churches.
• "Mercy," by contrast, is the term Paul associates with Israel's eschatological restoration (Rom 9:15–16; 11:30–32).

Thus the unusual order — peace first, then mercy — naturally suggests that Paul may be introducing a distinct emphasis or blessing directed toward a second group. The structure aligns with the conjunctive or adverbial reading of kai:

"peace … and mercy … and upon the Israel of God."

This supports the interpretation that Paul is blessing:

• all who walk by this rule (Jewish and Gentile believers together),
• and the Israel of God (the faithful Jewish remnant).

c) Rhetorical context: Why would Paul add a special blessing for Jewish believers?

Throughout Galatians, Paul has been sharply critical of the Judaizers, who insisted that Gentiles must be circumcised and become Jews. By adding a final blessing upon the "Israel of God," Paul may be affirming that there is a faithful Jewish remnant who follow Christ without attempting to Judaize the Gentiles.

Thus, Paul distinguishes between:

• unbelieving Jews, who oppose his mission (6:12)
• Judaizers, Jewish believers who compel Gentiles to be circumcised
• faithful Jewish believers, who embrace Christ without abandoning their Judaism (the "Israel of God") and without compelling Gentiles to become Jews
• Gentile believers, who are fully included in Christ without becoming Jews and without replacing Israel.

In short, the grammar, structure, and rhetorical context all point toward Paul blessing two groups:

1. Peace upon "all who walk by this rule"
   → all believers—Jewish and Gentile—who embrace the "rule" (κανών) of the new creation: justification by faith, life in the Spirit, freedom from the law as boundary‑marker, and cruciform discipleship.

2. Mercy upon "the Israel of God"
   → the faithful remnant of Israel—Jewish believers in Christ who do not abandon their Judaism and do not require Gentiles to be circumcised.

3. First-Century Jewish Context

Although the exact phrase "Israel of God" appears nowhere else in Second Temple Jewish literature, the concept behind it—a faithful, covenant‑true Israel within Israel—is deeply rooted not only in the Hebrew prophets (see above), but also in the Judaism of Paul's time. Paul's distinction between Israel as a whole and the faithful remnant fits naturally within this environment.

a) Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls)

The Qumran community consistently distinguished between:

• the nation of Israel as a whole, and
• the faithful remnant whom God regards as His true people.

Key texts:

• 1QS (Rule of the Community) 8.20–9.11: The community describes itself as the chosen, holy group within Israel that God has preserved to keep the covenant faithfully—functioning as the true remnant.

• CD (Damascus Document) 3.12–20: Israel is divided between the unfaithful majority and "those who remained steadfast" — the remnant preserved by God.

• 1QpHab (Habakkuk Pesher) 2.1–10; 5.1–5: The faithful are those who obey the Teacher of Righteousness, while traitors and the wicked face condemnation.

Relevance: Qumran provides a clear Jewish parallel to Paul's idea of a faithful Israel within Israel. The terminology differs, but the conceptual structure is identical.

b) Philo of Alexandria

Philo distinguishes between:

• Israel by birth, and
• Israel in truth, defined by virtue and obedience.

Key passages:

• Philo, On the Migration of Abraham 89–93: Philo contrasts those who are Israelites "in name only" with those who are Israelites "in truth," characterized by their moral life.

• Philo, On Dreams 1.215–218: Israel is the one who "sees God," and thus the true Israelite is the one who lives according to reason and virtue.

Relevance: Philo's moral‑spiritual distinction between nominal and true Israel parallels Paul's distinction between Israel "according to the flesh" (1 Cor 10:18) and Israel "according to the Spirit."

c) Josephus

Josephus does not use explicit remnant terminology, but he repeatedly distinguishes:

• the nation as a whole, and
• the faithful few who remain loyal to God and the Law.

Key passages:

• Josephus, Antiquities 10: God preserves the righteous amid national judgment and apostasy, as seen in his retelling of the Babylonian exile: while the people face captivity for covenant unfaithfulness, God protects and elevates faithful individuals like Daniel and his companions.

• Josephus, War 2.152–153: Josephus contrasts the corrupt or faltering majority with the 'philosophical' few who remain faithful under persecution, as in his description of the Essenes' unbreakable piety and endurance during the war with Rome.

Relevance: Josephus reflects the same Jewish assumption: covenant fidelity is not coextensive with national membership.

Conclusion

While the phrase "Israel of God" is unique to Paul, the idea of a faithful, covenant‑true Israel within Israel is thoroughly Second Temple Jewish. Qumran, Philo, and Josephus all assume that not all Israel is Israel—only the faithful remnant truly embodies Israel's calling. Just as Second Temple literature does not expand "Israel" to include the Gentiles but rather narrows it to the faithful within Israel, so Paul's "Israel of God" does not redefine Israel as the Church. Instead, it identifies the faithful remnant of Israel who live out Israel's vocation in the age of the Messiah.

4. The Earliest Translations

The earliest translations are invaluable because they reflect how ancient Christian communities—often close to the Greek linguistic world—understood Paul.

a) Latin Vulgate (St. Jerome, 4th century)

St. Jerome's Vulgate reads:

Et quicumque hanc regulam secuti fuerint, pax super illos, et misericordia, et super Israel Dei. ("and upon the Israel of God")

Two observations:

1. Jerome keeps the final et as a simple "and."

He does not render it as etiam ("even") or id est ("that is"), which would be the normal Latin equivalents for an epexegetical kai.

2. The structure is parallel:

• pax super illos
• et misericordia, et super Israel Dei

This shows Jerome understood Paul to be blessing two groups, not identifying one group with the other.

Implication: The Vulgate supports the reading: "peace upon those who follow this rule, and mercy upon the Israel of God."

b) Syriac Peshitta (4th–5th century)

The Peshitta Syriac text (transliterated) reads:

w'kol d'nahwun b'd'namosa hanna, shayna 'alawhon w'raḥma, w'al Israel d'Alaha.

Two observations:

1. The Syriac w- ("and") is used twice, not once.

The Peshitta does not use af ("even") or d'eyn ("that is"), which would be the normal Syriac ways to express epexegetical force.

2. The blessing is clearly distributed:

• shayna 'alawhon — peace upon them
• w'raḥma w'al Israel d'Alaha — and mercy upon the Israel of God

The Syriac translator heard two groups, not one.

Implication: The Peshitta also supports the conjunctive reading and the "two groups" interpretation.

c) Sahidic Coptic (3rd–early 4th century)

The Sahidic Coptic version—one of the earliest New Testament translations in any language—reads:

ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡⲁⲩⲱⲛⲉ ⲛⲧⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩϫⲉ, ⲛⲁⲩ ⲙⲛ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲓⲥ, ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡⲓ ⲡⲓⲥⲣⲁⲏⲗ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉ Ⲫⲛⲟⲩϯ.

Two observations:

1. The Sahidic uses the standard conjunctive particle (ⲛⲁⲩ / ⲙⲛ / ⲟⲩⲟϩ equivalents) to render "and." There is no attempt to express "even" or "that is."

2. The structure mirrors the Greek:

• peace upon them
• and mercy, and upon the Israel of God

Implication: The earliest Coptic witness preserves kai as a simple conjunction.

d) Bohairic Coptic (4th–5th century origins; standardized 9th century)

The Bohairic Coptic version reads:

ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲉⲡⲁⲩⲱⲛⲉ ⲛⲧⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩϫⲉ, ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲙⲛ ⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲓⲥ, ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲉⲡⲓ ⲡⲓⲥⲣⲁⲏⲗ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉ Ⲫⲛⲟⲩϯ.

Two observations:

1. The Bohairic uses ⲟⲩⲟϩ ("and") for each kai. No epexegetical or ascensive rendering is attempted.

2. The blessing is clearly divided into two coordinated parts.

Implication: The Bohairic, like the Sahidic, preserves the conjunctive sense.

Conclusion

Across the earliest and most authoritative ancient versions—Latin, Syriac, and both major Coptic dialects—the final kai is consistently rendered as "and."

None of these translations:

• omit the conjunction,
• render it as "even,"
• or translate it as "that is."

The extant ancient translations consistently reflect a two-group reading.

Table: Ancient Translations of Galatians 6:16 and the Final kai

Summary:

Every ancient translation—without exception—preserves the final kai as "and." None treat it as epexegetical or ascensive. None omit it. This is a remarkably unified ancient witness supporting the conjunctive, two-group interpretation.

5. The Church Fathers and Early Christian Interpretation

Patristic interpretation of Galatians 6:16 is rare, and few of the Fathers comment on the verse. What can be said with confidence is the following: many early Fathers do not refer to Galatians 6:16 at all, yet assert almost by fiat that the Church is the "true" or "spiritual" Israel. Among those who do mention the verse, their comments rarely engage in detailed exegesis of the grammar, Paul’s consistent use of "Israel," or the first-century Jewish context; instead, they tend to invoke the phrase as a springboard to confirm — again almost by fiat — that the "Israel of God" refers to the Church.

The earliest explicit identification of the Church as "spiritual Israel" appears in the mid‑second century, and this interpretation develops not through biblical exegesis but rather in a context of growing Christian–Jewish conflict. As the Church increasingly defined itself over against the Synagogue, later Greek and Latin commentators tended to read the "Israel of God" through a supersessionist lens, interpreting it spiritually and ecclesially rather than as a Jewish‑Christian subgroup. These readings are historically important, but they reflect post‑apostolic theological trajectories, not Paul's own first-century Jewish context.

In what follows, we trace this trajectory from Justin to Augustine, noting how the name "Israel" is gradually spiritualized, transferred, and in some cases taken away from the Jewish people altogether, with Galatians 6:16 functioning increasingly as a key proof text in this development.

a) Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century, Greek)

While not commenting on Galatians 6:16, Justin is the first major extant Christian writer to explicitly redefine "Israel" in spiritual terms, identifying Christians as "the true spiritual Israel"—yet without denying that the Jews are the original claimants to the name.

• Dialogue with Trypho 11: "The true spiritual Israel" (τὸ γένος τοῦτο… Ἰσραὴλ πνευματικόν) are those "who have been led to God through this crucified Christ."

• Dialogue with Trypho 123: The Lord speaks "concerning another Israel" (περὶ ἄλλου Ἰσραὴλ)—namely, the Christians. Since "God blesses this people, and calls them Israel, and declares them to be His inheritance," Trypho is deceiving himself "as if you alone were Israel." Both Jews and Christians are Israel, but in a different sense: "As therefore from the one man Jacob, who was surnamed Israel, all your nation has been called Jacob and Israel; so we from Christ, who begat us unto God, like Jacob, and Israel, and Judah, and Joseph, and David, are called and are the true sons of God, and keep the commandments of Christ."

• Dialogue with Trypho 135: Christians are the "true Israelite race" (Ἰσραηλιτικὸν τὸ ἀληθινόν ἐσμεν γένος), in contrast to Jews who reject Christ. Thus, "there are two seeds of Judah, and two races, as there are two houses of Jacob: the one begotten by blood and flesh, the other by faith and the Spirit."

Justin does not cite Galatians 6:16, but he establishes the earliest clear precedent for redefining Israel in spiritual terms—identifying Christians as the true spiritual Israel while relegating Jews to Israel "according to the flesh." He still allows Jews to retain the name Israel, but only in a diminished, carnal sense; this dual usage becomes the starting point for later Fathers who will move further.

b) Irenaeus (late 2nd century, Greek)

Irenaeus also does not comment on Gal 6:16 directly, but he follows Justin's trajectory:

• Against Heresies 4.21.3: The Church is the heir of the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Just as Jacob received the rights of the firstborn that Esau despised, so the younger nation—Christians—received Christ, the first-begotten, that the elder nation—the Jews—rejected: "But in Christ every blessing [is summed up], and therefore the latter people [the Church] has snatched away the blessings of the former [the Jews] from the Father, just as Jacob took away the blessing of this Esau.

Again, this is not an interpretation of Gal 6:16 but part of the emerging supersessionist framework in which the Church displaces Israel's role as the primary heir of the promises. Notably, however, Irenaeus never calls the Church "Israel," nor does he identify it with Paul's "Israel of God"; his supersessionism operates through the transfer of blessing, not through the renaming of the Church as Israel. Like Justin, he asserts the Church’s privileged status without exegeting Galatians 6:16. Irenaeus thus represents an intermediate stage in the developing trajectory: he intensifies Justin's typological contrast between Jews and Christians, but he stops short of redefining "Israel" itself.

c) Tertullian (early 3rd century, Latin)

Tertullian also does not comment on Gal 6:16, but he explicitly identifies the Church as the heir of Israel's promises:

• Against the Jews 1: The "two nations" in Rebecca's womb—Esau and Jacob (Gen 25:23)—are not Edom and Israel, but Jews and Christians. The Jews, because they are older in historical origin, correspond to Esau, the "greater" who must serve the "less," while Christians correspond to Jacob, the younger who overcomes the elder. This inversion requires Tertullian to detach Jacob from Israel entirely, assigning Israel's lineage to Esau and reserving Jacob's blessing for the Gentile Church.

• Against the Jews 3: Physical circumcision was given to Israel only as a temporary "sign," marking them for judgment when their sins would exclude them from Jerusalem, while a new spiritual circumcision and a new law have now been given to the obedient Gentiles. Drawing on prophetic texts, Tertullian claims that the Gentiles—"a people whom I knew not"—have become God's people by accepting this new covenant, whereas Israel, though once known and exalted by God, has forfeited its status through idolatry.

Tertullian likewise does not invoke Galatians 6:16; he simply declares the transfer of Israel’s inheritance to the Church through typological reinterpretation. His typology exemplifies an early Latin supersessionism willing to rewrite Israel's own ancestral narrative in order to secure Christian priority. The result is a radical and theologically aggressive reconfiguration of the biblical story: the people historically descended from Jacob become Esau, and the Gentiles become Jacob. Yet despite asserting that Christians have been made God's people who inherit Israel's promises, he does not call the Church "Israel" or identify it with Paul's "Israel of God." He goes further than Irenaeus in narrative inversion, but still stops short of renaming the Church as Israel.

d) John Chrysostom (late 4th century, Greek)

While earlier Fathers spiritualize Israel thematically, later ones engage Pauline texts more directly. Chrysostom is the earliest extant Greek commentator on Galatians 6:16, and the first to apply the verse directly to the Church's exclusive claim to the name "Israel."

• Homilies on Galatians (6:16): Those who follow the "new and heavenly rule of life" of the new creation "may properly be called by the name of Israel." By contrast, the Jews—though born from Israel and bearing his name—have fallen away from both the kinship and the name. Only those who keep this rule, turn from the old ways, and seek the things of grace can be "truly Israelites."

While Chrysostom cites Galatians 6:16, he does not seriously engage the grammar, Paul’s consistent ethnic use of “Israel,” or the first-century Jewish context. He does not distinguish a Jewish‑Christian subgroup but simply declares the “Israel of God” to be the Church — the faithful in Christ — treating the verse almost as a proof-text that requires no further exegetical defense. More than that, he strips the Jewish people of both the identity and the name, insisting that they no longer possess even the right to call themselves Israel. In Chrysostom's hands, "Israel" becomes a title transferred wholesale to the Christian community, with Galatians 6:16 serving as a key proof-text for this transfer—a move that reflects the fully developed supersessionist theology of the late fourth century rather than Paul's original context.

e) Theodoret of Cyrus (5th century, Greek)

Theodoret comments briefly but clearly on Galatians 6:16.

• Commentary on Galatians 6:16 (PG 82.613–616): Paul "calls those who are regulated by this canon 'the Israel of God'—those who have the new creation and who have put off the old man with his deeds, not those who boast in circumcision or uncircumcision, but those who are renewed according to the image of the Creator." In other words, "Israel of God" refers to those transformed by grace, not to those defined by Jewish identity markers.

Theodoret offers an unambiguously spiritual reading without substantial argumentation: the "Israel of God" is the community renewed in Christ. He does not distinguish a Jewish‑Christian remnant, nor does he preserve any ethnic sense of Israel. His interpretation follows Chrysostom in applying the name Israel directly to Christians. His reference to Galatians 6:16 serves more as confirmation of an already-held ecclesial reading than as careful exegesis of the text’s grammar, Pauline usage, or historical setting

f) Jerome (late 4th–early 5th century, Latin)

Despite Jerome's accurate Latin translation of Galatians 6:16 identifying the "Israel of God" as a separate group, his Commentary on Galatians is not only supersessionist but openly hostile toward Judaism.

• Commentary on Galatians 6:16: [Paul] "says 'Israel of God' to distinguish it from the Israel that ceased to belong to God. For they call themselves Jews but are not, and they lie since they come from the synagogue of Satan. You should not be surprised that the fleshly Israel mimics the spiritual Israel, but the former lacks both peace and mercy."

Even more than his contemporaries, Jerome reads Galatians 6:16 through a starkly adversarial lens: "fleshly Israel" has forfeited its identity and now belongs to the devil, while the Church alone constitutes the true, spiritual Israel. His interpretation reflects a fully developed supersessionism in which the Jewish people are not merely displaced but morally disqualified from the name "Israel."

g) Augustine (late 4th–early 5th century, Latin)

Augustine's view of Israel—at times relying on Gal 6:16—reveals a fully-formed supersessionism.

• Commentary on Galatians 63: Augustine identifies the Israel of God with "those who are truly being prepared for the vision of God"—Christians, and not "those who are called by this name [Israel] and yet because of their carnal blindness refuse to see the Lord, whose grace they spurn in their desire to be enslaved by temporal things."

• Exposition on the Psalms 68.39 (Vulgate Ps 67): Citing Gal 6:16 alongside Rom 9:6, 8, Augustine identifies the "Israel of God" as Christians—the "sons of the promise," in contrast to the Jews—who are "Israel according to the flesh" (1 Cor 10:18).

• Exposition on Psalm 76.1-3 (Vulgate Ps 75): Augustine argues that the Jews no longer deserve the names "Jew," "Israel," or "Zion," because by rejecting Christ they forfeited their kingship, their lineage, and their identity. Those who call themselves Jews "are not," since they renounced their own king and thus severed themselves from Judah; the true Judah is the Church, the true Israel is the guileless believer, and the true Zion is the Christian community in which God now dwells. In Augustine's reading, every biblical title once applied to Israel now belongs exclusively to the Church, while the Jews retain only the empty shell of the name "in the flesh."

When Augustine cites Gal 6:16, he does not exegete the Greek structure, Paul’s normal use of "Israel," or the Jewish context; he invokes the phrase to identify Christians as the sons of the promise and the true Israel. Augustine thus represents the most forceful Latin articulation of the spiritual/ecclesial reading: he does not merely claim that the Church inherits Israel's promises, but that the Church is Israel, while the Jewish people have been stripped of the very names that once defined them. His interpretation is a fully developed supersessionism in which the biblical vocabulary of Israel, Judah, and Zion is transferred wholesale to the Christian community and denied to the Jews altogether.

Conclusion

Taken together, the patristic witnesses show a clear trajectory: the early Fathers (Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian) do not refer to Galatians 6:16 at all, yet declare almost by theological fiat that the Church is the true or spiritual Israel. Among the later Fathers who do mention the verse (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Augustine), their comments rarely involve serious exegesis of the grammar, Paul’s consistent ethnic use of "Israel," or the first-century Jewish context; instead, they presuppose the increasingly established supersessionist view and treat Galatians 6:16 as a springboard to reaffirm — again by fiat — that the "Israel of God" is the Church.

From Justin's dual usage of "Israel" (Jews according to the flesh, Christians as the true spiritual Israel), through Irenaeus's and Tertullian's increasingly aggressive transfer of Israel's blessings and story to the Church, the trajectory culminates in Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, and Augustine, who apply the name "Israel" itself to Christians and deny it—either implicitly or explicitly—to the Jews. By the late fourth and early fifth centuries, Galatians 6:16 is firmly read as a charter text for identifying the Church alone as the "Israel of God."

In this process, the visible community of Jewish believers in Jesus effectively disappears from view. The Fathers who comment on Gal 6:16 either ignore the possibility of a Jewish‑Christian remnant or collapse it into the undifferentiated category of "spiritual Israel," now equated with the predominantly Gentile Church. The result is that Paul's own Jewish‑remnant logic is largely eclipsed by a spiritualizing and ecclesial reading that leaves little conceptual space for a distinct community of Jewish believers within the one body of Christ.

The modern Catholic Magisterium has responded to this legacy by decisively rejecting supersessionism in its classical form. Documents such as Nostra Aetate and subsequent teaching insist that "the gifts and the call of God [to the Jewish people] are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29) and avoid calling the Church the "new" or "true" Israel precisely because of the supersessionist overtones that developed in the patristic and medieval periods. While the Fathers remain important as historical witnesses to early Christian reception of Paul, their readings of Gal 6:16 are not treated as normative for Catholic doctrine.

In light of this magisterial teaching, the patristic identification of the Church as "the Israel of God" cannot be treated as authoritative Tradition (with a capital "T"). It reflects the polemical context of early Jewish–Christian conflict and a spiritual ecclesiology that tends to erase Israel's ongoing role in salvation history rather than preserve Paul's own distinction between Israel as a whole and the faithful remnant within it. While the Fathers provide invaluable insight into the history of interpretation, their readings of Galatians 6:16 do not override Paul's first-century context and the Church's contemporary rejection of supersessionism. For Catholics, Scripture and the Magisterium—not the polemically shaped patristic exegesis of late antiquity—provides the normative framework for understanding Israel's ongoing covenantal identity and for interpreting Paul's blessing upon "the Israel of God."

6. Modern Translations

Having surveyed the earliest Christian interpretations, we now turn to how modern translators render Paul's words — a crucial indicator of how the Greek is understood today. Significantly, no major modern translation in any major language explicitly renders the final kai as "that is" or "even." The only major English version that comes close is the NLT, which paraphrases the verse as "they are the new people of God"—a clear interpretive expansion rather than a translation.

A small handful of English versions omit the conjunction entirely (RSV, NIC, REB, NLT), thereby implying an epexegetical/ascensive sense. But every other major translation preserves the kai with a straightforward "and."

This is significant because:

• kai overwhelmingly means "and" in Paul
• the earliest translations (Vulgate, Peshitta) render it as "and"
• the omission of kai is an interpretive decision, not a linguistic one
• the natural reading of the Greek favors coordination, not identification

Thus, the translation evidence strongly supports the conjunctive reading.

Survey of Major Translations in Major Languages

English

Translate kai as "and":
ESV, NRSV, NABRE, KJV, NKJV, NASB, Douay-Rheims, NJB, CSB, NET, LEB

Omit kai (implying epexegetical/ascensive):
RSV, NIV, REB, NLT

French

Translate "and":

• LSG: et
• BFC: ainsi que
• TOB: ainsi que
• Jérusalem: et

Omit: None of the major French translations omit the conjunction.

Italian

Translate "and":

• CEI: e
• Nuova Riveduta: e
• Nuova Diodati: e
• La Bibbia della Gioia: e

Omit: None of the major Italian translations omit the conjunction.

German

Translate "and":

• Lutherbibel: und
• Einheitsübersetzung: und
• Schlachter: und
• Elberfelder: und

Omit: None of the major German translations omit the conjunction.

Spanish

Translate "and":

• Reina-Valera (all major revisions): y
• Biblia de Jerusalén: y
• NVI (Spanish): y
• DHH: y

Omit: None of the major Spanish translations omit the conjunction.

Arabic

Translate "and":

• Van Dyck: وَعَلَى إِسْرَائِيلَ ٱللّٰهِ (explicit wa- = "and")
• Smith & Van Dyke: same
• Arabic Bible (KJV-style): وَعَلَى
• New Arabic Version (NAV): وَعَلَى

Omit: None of the major Arabic translations omit the conjunction.

Summary of Translation Evidence

Across all major languages:

• English: only RSV, NIV, REB, and NLT omit kai
• French, Italian, German, Spanish, Arabic: all major translations include the equivalent of "and"

This means: The overwhelming majority of global Bible translations treat the final kai as a simple conjunction.

This aligns with:

• the natural Greek reading,
• the earliest translations (Vulgate, Peshitta),
• Paul's normal usage of kai ,
• the two‑part benediction structure ("peace… and mercy… and upon the Israel of God")

Together, these factors strongly support the interpretation that Paul is blessing two groups, not redefining Israel as the Church.

7. Modern Commentators: Four Major Interpretive Camps

While modern translations overwhelmingly preserve the conjunctive force of kai, modern commentators are far more divided. Their interpretations reflect not only linguistic judgments but also broader theological frameworks. Rather than a single consensus, the field has coalesced around four major interpretive camps, each shaped by distinct methodological tendencies. This diversity itself is significant: it shows that modern scholarship cannot be treated as a stable guide to Paul's meaning, especially when many readings are influenced by theological or supersessionist assumptions rather than by Paul's first‑century Jewish context.

1. The "Ethnic Israel" Reading ("Israel of God" = Ethnic Israel as a Whole)

Representative scholars:

• W. D. Davies ("Paul and the People of Israel", 1977)
• James D. G. Dunn (The Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC, 1993)

Summary of the view: This reading takes the final kai as a simple conjunction ("and"), resulting in two distinct groups being blessed:

• "All who walk by this rule" = believers in Christ (Jews and Gentiles who accept justification by faith).
• "The Israel of God" = ethnic/national Israel as a whole (the Jewish people, believing and unbelieving alike), still beloved for the sake of the patriarchs (cf. Rom 11:28–29).

Methodological tendencies:

• Emphasis on Paul's affirmation of Israel's ongoing covenant status and belovedness (Rom 11:28–29).
• Rejection of supersessionism and the idea that the Church replaces Israel.
• Interpretation of "Israel of God" as a continuation of Paul's ethnic use of "Israel" elsewhere, without the need for a faithful-remnant qualifier.

Assessment: This is a minority view in scholarship. It is occasionally noted as a grammatical possibility, but it is widely regarded as contextually weak: the verse blesses those who "walk by this rule" (the new creation in Christ), making a direct blessing on unbelieving ethnic Israel unlikely in a letter opposing Judaizers and emphasizing faith in Christ. Most commentators find it exegetically strained and lacking support from early translations, Paul's remnant theology (Rom 9–11), or the rhetorical flow of Galatians.

2. The Ecclesial / Supersessionist Reading ("Israel of God" = the Church)

Representative scholars:

• J. B. Lightfoot (Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, 1874)
• Dahl ("Der Name Israel," 1950)
• Richard N. Longenecker (Galatians, WBC, 1990)
• Andreas J. Köstenberger ("The Identity of the Israel of God in Galatians 6:16," 2001)
• N.T. Wright (Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians, 2004)
• Thomas R. Schreiner (Galatians, ZECNT, 2010)
• Douglas Moo (The Epistle to the Galatians, BECNT, 2013).

Summary of the view: This camp takes kai as epexegetical ("even") or ascensive, collapsing the two groups into one referent: "peace and mercy upon all who follow this rule, even upon the Israel of God." "Israel of God" thus refers to the Church—Jews and Gentiles together—as the renewed people of God.

Methodological tendencies:

• Shaped by theological traditions emphasizing the Church as fulfillment of Israel's promises.
• Draws on Paul's focus on unity in Christ and the new creation (Gal 6:15).
• Prioritizes the letter's polemic against division over Paul's ethnic use of "Israel" elsewhere.

Assessment: This reading is historically influential and defended by several major commentators, especially in evangelical circles. However, it faces challenges from the rarity of epexegetical kai in Paul, his consistent ethnic use of "Israel," and the two-group structure suggested by the benediction pattern and context.

3. The Jewish Believer / Remnant Israel Reading ("Israel of God" = Jewish Christians)

Representative scholars:

• Ernest De Witt Burton (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC, 1921)
• Gottlob Schrenk ("Der Segenwunsch nach der Kampfepistel," 1950)
• Peter Richardson (Israel in the Apostolic Church, 1969)
• Hans Dieter Betz (Galatians, Hermeneia, 1979)
• Martinus C. de Boer (Galatians, NTL, 2011)
• Jonathan Pratt ("The 'Israel of God' in Galatians 6:16," 2018)
• Craig S. Keener (Galatians: A Commentary, Baker Academic, 2019)
• Albert Vanhoye and Peter Williamson (Galatians, CCSS, 2019)

Summary of the view: This camp understands the final kai as a simple conjunction ("and"), resulting in two distinct groups being blessed:

1. "All who walk by this rule" = Jewish and Gentile believers who accept justification by faith and the new creation in Christ.
2. "The Israel of God" = the faithful Jewish remnant (Jewish believers in Christ who embrace Paul's gospel without requiring Gentiles to be circumcised or adopt the Law as a boundary marker).

Methodological tendencies:

• Strong attention to Paul's consistent ethnic use of "Israel" throughout his letters (always referring to Jews unless explicitly qualified).
• Emphasis on Paul's remnant theology drawn from the prophets and Romans 9–11 ("not all Israel is Israel," "remnant chosen by grace").
• Sensitivity to the rhetorical context of Galatians (Paul's polemic against Judaizers who impose circumcision on Gentiles).
• Avoidance of supersessionist assumptions; focus on historical and Second Temple Jewish parallels (e.g., faithful remnant within Israel in Qumran, Philo, etc.).
• Greater weight on the plain grammatical reading of kai as continuative rather than epexegetical.

Assessment: This reading has gained significant support in recent decades, particularly among commentators who prioritize Paul's Jewish context, his use of "Israel" elsewhere, and the remnant motif in Romans. It is widely regarded as grammatically natural and contextually coherent with the letter's argument against division and boundary markers. While it is a strong and increasingly common position in critical scholarship, it is not a consensus view—the field remains divided, with the ecclesial reading retaining substantial defenders.

4. The Eschatological Israel Reading ("Israel of God" = future redeemed Israel)

Representative scholars:

• Franz Mussner (Galaterbrief, 1977)
• F. F. Bruce (The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC, 1982)
• S. Lewis Johnson ("Paul and 'the Israel of God'," 2009)

Summary of the view: Paul blesses the present Church—"those who follow this rule" with God's peace, and then adds a prayer for Israel's eschatological salvation — the "Israel of God" and future "all Israel" of Rom 11:26 who still stand in need of God's mercy.^[6]

Methodological tendencies:

• Emphasis on Paul's apocalyptic horizon
• Strong intertextual connection to Romans 9–11
• Recognition that Paul expects a future turning of Israel to Christ

Assessment: A minority view, but exegetically plausible. It preserves the distinction between Israel and the Church but projects the referent into the future. This view is an extension of the first view ("Israel of God" = ethnic Israel) and can co-exist with the third view ("Israel of God" = Jewish believers).

Summary of Modern Scholarship

Across modern scholarship, three points stand out:

1. There is no consensus. The field remains divided among four major interpretive camps, with no single view commanding broad agreement.

2. The ecclesial/supersessionist reading ("Israel of God" = the Church) is still defended by several major commentators, but it is increasingly contested. Even among its proponents, the grammatical challenges of an epexegetical kai and the contextual difficulties are often acknowledged.

3. The remnant-Israel reading ("Israel of God" = Jewish believers / faithful remnant) has gained significant ground in recent decades. It is widely regarded as aligning well with Paul's ethnic use of "Israel" elsewhere, Second Temple Jewish parallels, the natural reading of the kai, and the rhetorical context of Galatians.

Conclusion

Modern scholarship does not provide a settled case for equating "Israel of God" with the Church.

While the ecclesial reading continues to be defended, it persists largely due to theological inheritance and traditional assumptions rather than overwhelming exegetical strength. Contemporary exegesis shows a clear trend toward readings that respect Paul's consistent ethnic use of "Israel" and his remnant theology—whether identifying "Israel of God" with Jewish believers in Christ, the faithful remnant of Israel, or (less commonly) a future eschatological restoration.

This diversity underscores the importance of interpreting Galatians 6:16 within Paul's own Jewish context and in continuity with post-Vatican II Catholic teaching, rather than through supersessionist lenses.

8. Magisterial Silence and Rejection of Supersessionism

Given this diversity of scholarly opinion, it is essential to consider how the Catholic Church itself has understood Israel's identity in light of St. Paul. One of the most striking features of the history of interpretation is the complete silence of the Catholic Magisterium on the use of the phrase "Israel of God" as a title for the Church. Despite the widespread patristic and medieval tendency to speak of the Church as "spiritual Israel," no ecumenical council, papal encyclical, catechism, or magisterial document—before or after Vatican II—ever applies Paul's phrase to the Church. This silence is theologically significant.

a) Pre-Vatican II Magisterial Restraint

Even in eras when supersessionist theology was culturally dominant, the Magisterium consistently avoided transferring Israel's biblical titles directly to the Church. The Church spoke of herself as:

• populus Dei (the people of God),
• novus populus Dei (the new people of God),
• the heir to the promises,
• the continuation of God's saving plan,

but never as "the Israel of God."

This restraint shows that the patristic spiritualizing interpretation—though influential—was never elevated to binding doctrine. The Magisterium did not canonize the Fathers' supersessionist readings, nor did it treat them as authoritative Tradition.

b) Vatican II's Explicit Rejection of Supersessionism

Vatican II made explicit what earlier magisterial silence already implied: the Church does not replace Israel.

• Nostra Aetate 4 affirms that the Jewish people "remain most dear to God" and that God "does not repent of the gifts and the call He makes" (Rom 11:29).
• Lumen Gentium 16 teaches that Israel "according to the flesh" remains beloved "for the sake of the patriarchs."
• Dei Verbum 14–16 affirms the enduring validity of the Old Covenant and Israel's Scriptures.

Post‑conciliar teaching reinforces this trajectory:

• John Paul II: "The covenant with the Jewish people has never been revoked." (Mainz, 1980)
• Benedict XVI: "The covenant between God and Israel is indestructible because of the continuity of God's election." ("Grace and Vocation Without Remorse"; also multiple addresses)
• Francis: "We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for "the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29)…. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant." (Evangelii Gaudium 247, 249)
• Pontifical Biblical Commission (2001): explicitly rejects the idea that the Church replaces Israel, affirms the ongoing validity of God's covenant with Israel, and warns against supersessionist readings of Paul.

Notably, none of these documents ever call the Church "the Israel of God."^[7]

c) Theological Implications for Galatians 6:16

This magisterial silence—combined with explicit rejection of supersessionism—has direct implications for interpreting Galatians 6:16:

1. The patristic reading of "Israel of God" as the Church reflects post‑apostolic polemical contexts, not Paul's first‑century Jewish worldview.
2. Because the Magisterium has never adopted this reading, it cannot be considered authoritative Tradition.
3. Vatican II and subsequent teaching affirm the ongoing identity and vocation of Israel, making a supersessionist reading of Gal 6:16 incompatible with contemporary Catholic doctrine.
4. The magisterial trajectory aligns far more naturally with the interpretation that "Israel of God" refers to the faithful remnant of Israel, not the Church as a whole.

Conclusion

The unanimous silence of the Magisterium—before and after Vatican II—on identifying the Church as "the Israel of God," combined with the Church's explicit rejection of supersessionism, strongly supports the conclusion that Paul's phrase in Galatians 6:16 does not redefine Israel as the Church. Instead, it coheres with the biblical and Second Temple Jewish pattern of a faithful remnant within Israel, a reading fully consonant with Catholic teaching today.

Evaluating the Four Major Interpretive Options

Having surveyed Paul's consistent use of "Israel" and remnant theology of Romans 9–11, the grammar, structure, and rhetorical context of Galatians 6:16, the Second Temple Jewish background, the earliest translations, patristic interpretation, modern translations and commentaries, and Catholic magisterial teaching on Israel, we can now evaluate the four major interpretations of the phrase "the Israel of God."

Option 1 — "Israel of God" = Ethnic Israel as a Whole

This view sees Paul blessing:

• the Church, and
• the Jewish people as a whole (believing and unbelieving).

Strengths

• Strongly anti‑supersessionist
• Honors Israel's ongoing covenant identity
• Resonates with Paul's affirmation that Israel remains beloved (Rom 11:28–29)
• Explains why the "Israel of God" stands in particular need of God's mercy

Weaknesses

• Difficult to reconcile with the polemical anti‑Judaizing context of Galatians
• "Israel of God" is an unusual phrase for unbelieving Israel
• Does not explain why Paul associates mercy specifically with this group
• Lacks support from early translations or modern commentators

Verdict

A theologically sympathetic view, but exegetically weak and unlikely in the rhetorical context of Galatians.

Option 2 — "Israel of God" = The Church (Supersessionist Reading)

This view takes kai as epexegetical ("even"):

"peace and mercy be upon them, even upon the Israel of God."

Strengths

• Emphasizes unity in Christ
• Historically influential
• Fits later patristic and medieval supersessionist theology

Weaknesses

• Not supported by Paul's consistent usage of "Israel" elsewhere
• Ignores Paul's remnant theology (Rom 9–11)
• Requires a less natural reading of kai
• Contradicted by all earliest translations (Vulgate, Peshitta, Coptic)
• Reflects post‑apostolic supersessionist presuppositions, not Paul's context
• Supported by only a small minority of modern translations across major languages
• In tension with Vatican II and post‑conciliar magisterial teaching rejecting supersessionism

Verdict

Historically influential but exegetically implausible and theologically incompatible with contemporary Catholic teaching.

Option 3 — "Israel of God" = Jewish Believers (the Faithful Remnant)

This view sees Paul blessing:

• all believers (Jewish and Gentile), and
• the faithful Jewish remnant within the Church.

Strengths

• Fits Paul's consistent use of "Israel" (always ethnic unless qualified)
• Aligns with Paul's remnant theology (Rom 9:6; 11:5)
• Matches the grammar (simple kai)
• Fits the rhetorical context: Paul distinguishes faithful Jewish believers from Judaizers
• Coheres with Second Temple Jewish parallels (Qumran, Philo, Josephus)
• Supported by earliest translations (Vulgate, Peshitta, Coptic, etc.)
• Supported by several major modern commentators, especially those attentive to Paul's Jewish context and remnant theology
• Avoids supersessionism
• Consistent with magisterial teaching affirming Israel's ongoing identity (NA 4; LG 16)

Weaknesses

• Requires explaining why Paul gives a distinct blessing to Jewish believers — though this is easily accounted for by the polemical context of Galatians.

Verdict

The strongest contextual, grammatical, historical, and theological reading.

Option 4 — "Israel of God" = Eschatological Israel (the Future Fullness)

This view sees Paul blessing:

• believers now, and
• the Israel that will one day be saved (Rom 11:26).

Strengths

• Integrates Galatians with Paul's eschatological hope in Romans 11
• Avoids collapsing Israel into the Church
• Highlights Paul's expectation of Israel's future restoration
• Explains why the "Israel of God" stands in particular need of God's mercy
• Theologically consonant with Catholic teaching on Israel's ongoing vocation

Weaknesses

• Galatians 6:16 contains no explicit eschatological markers
• More theological than textual
• Less supported by modern commentators

Verdict

A theologically rich and compatible horizon, but not the primary referent in Galatians 6:16. It can, however, coexist with Option 3 as part of Paul's broader theology.

Conclusion: Who Is the "Israel of God"?

When the evidence is taken together, the interpretation that emerges as the most coherent and historically grounded is Option 3:

"The Israel of God" refers to the faithful Jewish remnant — Jewish believers in Christ — whom Paul blesses alongside Gentile believers.

This reading:

• preserves Paul's Jewish identity and his lifelong concern for Israel
• coheres with Paul's remnant theology (Rom 9:6; 11:5)
• fits the natural Greek reading of kai
• reflects the Second Temple Jewish distinction between Israel and the faithful within Israel
• aligns with the earliest Christian translators
• honors Israel's ongoing covenantal vocation
• avoids collapsing Israel into the Church
• resonates with Catholic teaching on the irrevocable covenant

Far from redefining Israel as the Church, Paul ends Galatians by blessing two distinct but united groups:

Paul blesses the whole Church — and within it, the faithful remnant of Israel. This interpretation preserves the integrity of Israel, honors Jewish believers, and maintains Paul's argument against the Judaizers. It is exegetically responsible, historically grounded, and theologically consonant with the Church's affirmation that God's covenant with Israel remains irrevocable.

Endnotes

1. Among major modern English translations, the NRSV most closely follows the Greek word order: "As for those who will follow this rule—peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." ↩
2. Cf. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Galatians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 400-1. ↩
3. The epexegetical use of καί is documented but far less frequent than the copulative sense and requires specific contextual support. See BDAG, s.v. καί, 1c (pp. 494–495); BDF §§442–453 (esp. §453); Robertson, Grammar, 1180 (limited examples of epexegetical καί). Galatians 6:16 lacks obvious indicators (e.g., apposition or redundancy) for this rarer sense. ↩
4. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., "Paul and 'The Israel of God'," The Master's Seminary Journal 20, no. 1 (Spring 2009): 45, 48, 54, describes the appositional/epexegetical use of καί as "strained and distorted," involving "the rare and uncommon sense" when "the usual sense is perfectly clear and natural." ↩
5. Scholars have noted possible parallels to Paul's blessing in Pss 85:10 ("Mercy and faithfulness will meet; righteousness and peace will kiss each other"); 125:5 & 128:6 ("Peace be on Israel!"); Ezra 3:11 ("for his mercy endures forever toward Israel"; Isa 54:10 ("but my mercy shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed"); Tob 7:12 ("May the Lord of heaven… grant you mercy and peace"); and several Second Temple texts (11QPs^a 23.11, Psalms of Solomon 8:27-8; 9:19; 11:9; 17:45). Particularly noteworthy is the affinity with the 19^th benediction of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer: "Bestow peace, happiness, and blessing, grace, loving-kindness, and mercy upon us and upon all Israel thy People. . ." As Richardson observes, "'Peace.. .and mercy' are found in the reverse order, as in Galatians, and this is followed by a reference to two groups—'us and all Israel. 'Us' refers to the worshippers present, and 'all Israel' to the Jewish worshipping community wherever it may be located" (Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, 78-79). However, none of these parallels is decisive in clearly identifying Paul's "Israel of God." See Dunn, Galatians (1993), 344; Beale, "Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God" (1999). ↩
6. See Brian Collins, "Who Is the 'Israel of God' in Galatians 6:16?" 2020. ↩
7. Although the designation of the Church as the "new Israel" finds precedent in authoritative Catholic sources (Lumen Gentium 9, Ad Gentes 5, CCC 877) —this terminology has largely receded from use in contemporary magisterial documents, likely due to risks of supersessionist misinterpretations that could imply the abrogation of God's covenant with the Jewish people. Regarding the expression "true Israel" (verus Israel) as applied to the Church, though common in patristic, medieval, and Tridentine-era discourse, it remains extremely rare—if not altogether absent—in formal magisterial documents. ↩

Dr. André Villeneuve is Associate Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Languages at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan. He obtained his Ph.D. from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and his Licentiate in Sacred Scripture from the Pontifical Biblical Commission in Rome. He is the author of Divine Marriage from Eden to the End of Days (2021), and Sirach (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture). He is the director of Catholics for Israel, and on the Board of Directors of the Association of Hebrew Catholics.

• Matt Fradd's 'Catechism' on Christian Zionism: A Point-by-Point Response
• Carrie Prejean Boller and “Catholics for Catholics” Do Not Speak for Catholics on Zionism
• The Church Fathers and the Future Restoration of Israel
• Catholics, Zion, and God's Irrevocable Covenant
• Not Abolished: God's Unbroken Promises to Israel in the New Testament
• Load more articles from this author