An article about the occasion of Galatians that sheds light on the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16.

Galatians is a letter with sharp edges. It addresses fundamental doctrinal issues. Yet behind Paul’s forceful rhetoric lies a very human, very concrete social situation. It’s a situation that sheds light on the theological debates about justification, circumcision, and Paul’s relationship to the law. My academic study, published as Chapter 16 in the book Paul in His Jewish and Graeco-Roman Context, offers a fresh account of this concrete situation.

I argue that the crisis in Galatia needs to be understood in light of early Christian missionary practices, hospitality, and the dynamics of table fellowship.

This new angle helps illuminate a passage at the end of the letter that has long been contested: Paul’s blessing of “as many as will conform to this rule … and mercy also upon the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). My analysis of Galatians suggests that this verse, often assumed to refer primarily to Paul’s gentile recipients, may instead point to Jewish Christian missionaries—and to the larger Jewish people they represent. In doing so, the article opens up a different way to understand Paul’s pastoral purpose in writing the conclusion of Galatians.

Article and link: Windsor, Lionel J. “‘As Many as Will Conform to This Rule’ (Galatians 6:16): Missionary Hospitality, Table Fellowship, and the Occasion of Galatians.” Pages 323–40 in Paul in His Jewish and Graeco-Roman Context: Theological, Ecclesial, Social, and Political Perspectives. Norwest NSW, Australia: AUCD Press, 2025.

Below is an overview of the study’s key findings and why they matter for pastors, teachers, and hearers of Scripture.

1. The question behind the letter: What was actually happening in Galatia?

The “occasion” of Galatians—the real-world events prompting Paul’s letter—has always been a central yet fiercely disputed question. Most modern explanations focus almost exclusively on the theological content of what Paul’s opponents were teaching: Were they insisting on circumcision for salvation? Were they promoting Torah observance more broadly? Were they explicitly denying justification by faith alone? These are all important questions. However, when it comes to the occasion of Galatians, we also need to examine what Paul says about the specific circumstances he and his readers were facing.

My article agrees with the majority scholarly view on a key point: Paul’s opponents (the “agitators”) were Jewish-Christian missionaries, linked in some way to Jerusalem. They were not pagans, nor were they generic troublemakers; they were proclaiming a gospel that highlighted the importance of Jewish covenantal commitments. But my article argues that scholars have often overlooked something equally important:

Paul’s opponents were not only preaching; they were acting. Their social behaviour—especially at meals—was in Paul’s mind integral to the “gospel” they were proclaiming.

This is the fresh insight the study brings to the table (pun intended). The crisis in Galatia was not just doctrinal but also deeply social. And to understand that social dimension, we must pay attention to two interlocking first-century practices:

Jewish concerns about table fellowship—what counted as appropriate dining with gentiles.
Christian concerns about hospitality for travelling missionaries—how visiting teachers should be welcomed, hosted, evaluated, and supported.

I show that both issues are woven through Galatians, appearing most clearly in the letter’s opening, middle, and especially its conclusion.

2. Table fellowship: Identity, purity, and outreach

Jewish table fellowship in the ancient Mediterranean world was not a trivial matter. It was a key boundary marker—one that helped define who belonged to the people of God. Yet we need to be careful about sweeping statements in this area. Jewish sources reveal a spectrum of practice:

Some Jews refused all meals with gentiles.
Many were cautious, especially regarding idolatry or impurity.
Others, like the teachers in the Letter of Aristeas, were willing to dine with gentiles if food was prepared in line with Torah norms.

This last point matters enormously. It shows that Jewish-gentile table fellowship was conceivable—but heavily conditioned. The entire meal had to be (their version of) “kosher”. Gentile hosts needed to adjust their table to Jewish sensibilities. This arrangement could easily become a form of moral pressure or social expectation, especially when those gentiles are in a more vulnerable position.

Now apply this to Galatia.

Jewish Christian missionaries arriving in a gentile region would naturally face questions: Can we eat with these new believers? Are their meals ritually safe? Do their households meet Jewish halakhic standards?

If the missionaries refused table fellowship—or withdrew from it (as Peter had done in Antioch)—the social impact on gentile hosts would be powerful. The hosts, who had already forsaken their prior pagan social associations and support networks, would feel pressure to adjust their practices in order to be included in their new, Jewish-centred network. This, I argue, is exactly what Paul means when he repeatedly accuses Jewish people of “compelling” gentiles to adopt Jewish customs (Gal. 2:3, 14; 6:12).

Such compulsion was not necessarily verbal (or physical) coercion. It was the social force of shared meals withheld.

3. Missionary hospitality: Peace, discernment, and support

My article also highlights early Christian expectations about receiving travelling missionaries. Jesus’ instructions to the Twelve and the Seventy-two (Matt 10; Luke 10) assume that apostles will depend on local hospitality. The key sign of welcome is the greeting of “peace” (Shalom).

But the New Testament and other early Christian sources also warn that not every preacher should be received indiscriminately. 2 John, 3 John, and the Didache call Christians to discern which missionaries should and should not be hosted. Hospitality, in other words, was not just kindness; it was an endorsement.

My claim is that Galatians belongs fully within this discourse of missionary hospitality. Paul is not only arguing theologically; he is at the very same time equipping his readers to decide:

Which missionaries should they host?
Which missionaries should they refuse hospitality to?
Which missionaries should they support materially?
And how should table fellowship signal the truth of the gospel?

This lens reorients how we read the entire letter.

4. Reading Galatians through this lens

The Antioch incident (Gal 2:11–14)

This well-known episode becomes a paradigm case. Peter had been eating with gentile believers. But “fearing those from the circumcision,” he withdrew. Paul calls this hypocrisy, not heresy. The issue was not Peter’s preaching but his behaviour. This behaviour sent a loud and clear signal to gentiles that they must become more Jewish to enjoy full fellowship with the eschatological community of God’s people.

I emphasise that this withdrawal was a form of missionary behaviour. Peter was not merely visiting Antioch socially; he was acting in a missionary capacity. His social withdrawal therefore “preached” a powerful message about justification by law rather than by faith in Christ. This message was being heard loud and clear by the gentile hosts, whether Peter realised he was sending the message or not.

Paul’s remembrance of his time in Galatia (Gal 4:12–20)

Paul reminds the Galatians that when he first came to them, they received him with extraordinary hospitality—“as an angel of God.” This makes sense if Paul came as a travelling missionary, dependent on his hosts’ generosity.

The agitators, by contrast, are “excluding” the Galatians (4:17). This likely refers to a withdrawal of table fellowship—replicating in Galatia what happened earlier in Antioch.

Galatians 5 and 6

Paul’s references to persecution, boasting, and material support for teachers as the letter comes to a close (6:6–10) take on clearer significance when read in the context of missionary hospitality.

Paul, among other things, is forming the Galatians into a community capable of discerning faithful missionaries from rival ones based on:

their fearlessness in persecution,
their eschatological “new creation” outlook, which sees justification by faith in Christ (not law-keeping) as fundamental, and therefore
their table fellowship practices.

5. Re-reading Galatians 6:11–16: Paul’s practical guide to receiving missionaries

My article’s most provocative contribution is its reinterpretation of the purpose of Paul’s concluding blessing.

The conventional view

Most interpreters assume (without arguing for it):

“As many as will conform to this rule” = gentile believers who follow Paul’s teaching.
“The Israel of God” = either
(a) the church (Jews + gentiles),
or (b) Jewish Christians within the church,
or (c) ethnic Israel more broadly.

The problem is that these debates rarely ask the prior question:
Is Paul even talking about the gentile Galatians here?

I argue: no, not primarily.

A fresh reading: “As many as”—who?

Paul has just used the phrase “as many as (ὅσοι) want to make a good showing in the flesh” to describe the agitators (6:12). So when he uses the same phrase two verses later—“as many as (ὅσοι) will conform to this rule” (6:16)—we should expect a parallel contrast.

On this reading:

the agitators are “as many as want to make a good showing in the flesh” (v. 12),
by direct contrast, faithful Jewish missionaries (like Paul) are “as many as will conform to this rule” (v. 16).

The “rule” (κανών) is not a doctrinal summary but a principle for table fellowship derived from the new creation reality: circumcision and uncircumcision mean nothing; what matters is the new creation (6:15).

Thus the first half of the verse reads something like:

“and as many [of the Jewish missionaries] as will conform to this rule [of table fellowship], [let your greeting of] peace [be] upon them” (Gal 6:16a)

And here “peace” is not just a spiritual wish but a Jewish greeting of welcome (Shalom!)—a standard reciprocal signal of accepting missionaries into one’s home. See the Greek equivalent in 2 John 10–11. See also the reciprocal greeting of Shalom in Matt 10:12–13; Luke 10:5–6).

Paul is therefore giving the Galatians instruction on which missionaries to host.

“And mercy also upon the Israel of God”

Here, my article adds a further insight into the much-debated question of who the “Israel of God” is in this verse. Re-reading the first half of Galatians 6:16 helps us to re-read the second half of the verse.

Once Paul has spoken about Jewish missionaries who come from outside the community, especially Jerusalem (Gal 6:16a), it is natural for him to extend his thoughts to the wider Jewish people they represent (Gal 6:16b). Thus:

“peace” = concrete hospitality for faithful Jewish missionaries,
“mercy” = a broader eschatological desire for God’s compassion upon Israel as a whole.

This interpretation:

accounts for the shift from “peace” to “mercy,”
explains why Paul introduces Israel at this point,
avoids the linguistic problems that arise from assuming Paul suddenly switches to using the term “Israel” to mean “church,”
aligns with Paul’s later reflections on Israel’s partial hardening and ultimate salvation in Romans 9–11.

Most importantly, it fits the social and missionary context for Galatians that I have demonstrated throughout the letter.

6. Why this matters for interpreting Galatians

A. Galatians is not only a theological treatise. It is also pastoral instruction about missionary relationships

Paul is equipping gentile believers to deal wisely with incoming Jewish missionaries. He is not only confirming important doctrine but also training the church in practical theological discernment, hospitality, and community cohesion that supports and lives out that doctrine.

B. The phrase “Israel of God” is best read in its Jewish missionary context.

Instead of equating “Israel” with the church (or sharply dividing the two), my interpretation takes seriously:

Paul’s continued concern for the Old Testament people of God,
the presence of Jewish missionaries in the narrative,
and the eschatological hope for Israel described in Rom 9–11.

C. Table fellowship is eschatological.

For Paul, sharing meals across ethnic lines is not optional; it is a sign that the new creation has arrived. To withdraw from such fellowship is to deny the gospel’s power and to deny the fundamental doctrine of justification by faith only, whether one explicitly teaches this denial or not.

D. The crisis in Galatia needs to be understood in light of social pressure.

Gentiles were being “compelled” not by doctrinal teaching alone, but by the relational dynamics of Jewish missionary withdrawal. This helps pastors today appreciate how communal habits—hospitality, inclusion, table practices—can subtly distort or proclaim the gospel.

7. Implications for today’s readers and leaders

Here are some takeaways for contemporary ministry:

Christian community is embodied.

The gospel is not only proclaimed from pulpits, but also lived out in concrete, everyday relationships. Things like hospitality and meals matter. When churches unintentionally create tiers of belonging, they may (like Peter) send a message inconsistent with the gospel.

Not all teachers should be welcomed uncritically.

Paul (like Jesus and many other early Christian sources) gives the Galatians criteria for evaluating missionaries based not only on their doctrine but also on their behaviour, courage under pressure, and treatment of others. The church today also needs wise, biblically grounded discernment.

Paul’s concern for Israel is active within his mission to the gentiles.

By blessing faithful Jewish missionaries with peace and invoking mercy for the “Israel of God,” Paul shows that concern for Israel’s eschatological destiny is not peripheral (as in Rom 9–11). It is woven into his ministry, even in a letter addressed to gentiles.

The gospel’s eschatological hope transforms social relationships.

Because the new creation has dawned, believers must live in ways that anticipate the future banquet of all nations. This affects how Christians handle ethnic difference, cultural expectations, and status hierarchies.

Conclusion

My investigation of missionary hospitality and table fellowship sheds light on the social world behind Galatians. Both the crisis at Antioch and the crisis in Galatia are best understood not only as doctrinal disputes but as conflicts over shared meals, communal identity, and the pressures created by visiting missionaries, all of which are integrally related to the key theological issues Paul identifies in the letter.

In this fresh reading, Galatians 6:16 emerges as a climactic pastoral instruction. Paul urges the Galatians to extend peace (= hospitality and support) to Jewish missionaries who embody the “new creation” reality in their table fellowship practices. Then he widens his view to the Israel of God, invoking God’s mercy upon the broader people from whom these missionaries come.

This interpretation does not overturn Paul’s fierce defense of gentile freedom or the gospel centred on justification by faith in Christ. It enriches it. It shows that for Paul, fidelity to the gospel is displayed in hospitality, in courage under pressure, and in the way the church welcomes or rejects those who come in the name of Christ.

Galatians, read this way, calls the church not only to guard the truth of the gospel but also to enact it, especially in our concrete social relationships.