What About the Gentiles? - Part II

Some say the Covenants and the Savior were for Israel only. This series explores one of the Bible's biggest themes: how God called Israel to reclaim all people through Jesus Christ. Along the way, we'll ask what that means for the covenants, the law, the Gentiles, and Israel itself.

---

I've seen it thrown at Christians many times in the past, by a very small but vocal minority, that the Biblical covenants were made with Israel only. The conclusion we are supposed to reach form this is: therefore Gentiles are rejected unless they become Jews first in order to become Christians. (Or, to be more precise, unless they become like the people who are making these kinds of accusations.) And so we end up hearing questions like, "Is Jesus the Messiah of the Gentiles?" and "Are the Gentiles even called?"

In the last post, we went over the backstory to see why the world needed reclamation in the first place. We found the Bible story is all one big loop. And it turns out, we owe quite a bit of thanks to God for what He accomplished through Israel to bring Jesus Christ to us, and through Jesus to draw us back to Him. He wanted it so badly that He was willing to die for it.
In this post, we are going to look at the Bible verses throughout the Old Testament and the New which predict the reclamation of the Gentiles.

The challenge we set for ourselves is, we have to do this post without relying on Paul. And so we shall.

The next section is going to be verse-heavy. I am going to try to make this as easy for everyone as possible. I will put a few lists of verses for you to check out later on. Don't feel obligated to read these now (unless you really want to). This is a handy place to keep these for when you're ready. After that, I have chosen a few select verses which really emphasize the points we are trying to get at.

FOUNDATIONS

Let's get started with the Old Testament first.

OLD TESTAMENT

Here are two lists of verses about the inclusion of the Gentiles:

Universal worship for the nations:
GEN. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14.
PSA. 22:27-28; 67:2-7; 72:17; 86:9; 96:3, 7-10; 98:2-3; 102:15; 117:1.
ISA. 2:2-4; 11:10; 25:6-8; 40:5, 22; 42:1-4; 45:22-23; 49:6; 52:10; 60:1-3; 62:2; 66:18-19.
JER. 4:2; 16:19; 3:17.
DAN. 7:14.
MIC. 4:1-3.
HAB. 2:14.
ZEP. 2:11; 3:9-10.
ZEC. 8:20-23; 9:9-10; 14:16.
HOS. 2:23
MAL. 1:11.

Inclusion of Gentiles into redemption:
GEN. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14.
DEU. 32:43.
ISA. 11:10-12; 19:23-25; 42:6; 49:6; 56:3-8; 66:19-21.
JER. 12:14-17.
AMO. 9:11-12.
ZEC. 2:11.
ZEP. 3:9-10.

And now, I have chosen some interesting selections for you.

(GEN. 12:3b) [speaking of Abraham] And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

(GEN. 22:18) [speaking of Abraham] In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.

(PSA. 67:1-7) 1 God be merciful to us and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us, Selah. 2 That Your way may be known on earth, Your salvation among all nations. 3  Let the peoples praise You, O God; let all the peoples praise You. 4 Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You shall judge the people righteously, and govern the nations on earth. Selah. 5 Let the peoples praise You, O God; let all the peoples praise You. 6 Then the earth shall yield her increase; God, our own God, shall bless us. 7 God shall bless us, and all the ends of the earth shall fear Him.

(ISA. 19:23-25) 23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will serve with the Assyrians. 24 In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria—a blessing in the midst of the land, 25 whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.”

(ISA. 42:1,6) [speaking of Jesus (MAT. 12:17; LUK. 2:32)] 1 “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; ... 6 He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness, and will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, as a light to the Gentiles.

(AMO. 9:11-12) 11 “On that day I will raise up the  tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; 12 that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” says the Lord who does this thing.

(ZEC. 2:10-11) 10 “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the Lord. 11 “Many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you.

(ZEP. 3:9) “For then I will restore to the peoples a pure language, that they all may call on the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one accord.

This is perhaps my favorite selection of all:

(ISA. 49:6) [speaking of the Jesus and the Apostles (ACT. 13:47)] Indeed He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’

Does that sound to you like the Gentiles are not saved? Doesn't sound like that to me.
The prooftexts from the first post were not by any means the only material we have on this subject. Reading the Bible did get us a bigger picture after all. The reclamation and salvation of the Gentiles was prophesied in the Old Testament. They were to become His people and be called by His name. It was to happen through the Messiah. The prophets and writers expected it. They waited and hoped for it.
What are people going to do now, rip out Isaiah, Zechariah, the Psalms, and Abraham from their Bibles?

Now, let's look at this from the New Testament.

NEW TESTAMENT

Here is a list of verses about the inclusion of the Gentiles:

MAT. 5:14-16; 8:11–12; 12:18–21; 21:43; 26:28; 28:19.
MAR. 11:17; 14:24.
LUK. 2:32; 3:6; 24:47.
JON. 1:29; 3:16-17; 4:42; 8:12; 95; 10:16; 12:32.
ACT. 1:8; 10–11 (all); 15 (all); 21:25; 28:28.
I PET. 2:9–10.
REV. 5:9; 7:9; 14:16; 15:4; 22:2.

And now, I have chosen some interesting selections for you.

(MAT. 2:28)  For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

(MAT. 28:19) [Jesus giving commission to the Apostles] Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

(LUK. 2:29-32) [Simeon speaking about Jesus] 29 “Now, Lord, You are letting Your bond-servant depart in peace, according to Your word; 30 for my eyes have seen Your salvation, 31 which You have prepared in the presence of all the peoples: 32 A light for revelation for the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel.”

(LUK. 24:45-47) [Jesus, after His resurrection, to the Apostles] 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “So it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

(ACT. 10:34-35, 42-45) [Peter to Cornelius] 34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him. ... 42 And He ordered us to preach to the people, and to testify solemnly that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify of Him, that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had also been poured out on the Gentiles.

(I JON. 4: 14) And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.

(REV. 5:9) And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the scroll and to break its seals; for You were slaughtered, and You purchased people for God with Your blood from every tribe, language, people, and nation.

(REV. 21:24-26) 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. 25 In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; 26 and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it;

The New Testament did not invent this. What was predicted in the Old is fulfilled in the New. At the exact same time as God set His mind to reject the Gentiles and build Israel, God planned and promised salvation, forgiveness, justice, and regathering for all the peoples of the earth, both Jew and Gentile. That promise has been fulfilled. By Sabbaths and meats? No. In the person of Jesus Christ by faith. Before He died, while it was yet in the Old Covenant period, He told His Apostles to go to the Jews only. After His death and the coming of the New Covenant, the orders He gave them were very different. He sent the Apostles to spread the good news to the ends of the earth - starting at Jerusalem. Because it was time. "To the Jew first, and then to the Gentile." And even to us. As Jesus said, "for many."

CIRCLING BACK

Everything in these two posts tell the same story. What was predicted in Eden has come to pass. What was broken at Babel is now healed. The Gentiles who were disinherited are now reclaimed. He who was not our God is again our God. We who were not His people are again His people. Jesus is the Savior of all mankind, everyone who believes in Him, to the glory of God the Father, so the entire earth can be filled with the knowledge of God (HAB. 2:14).

How can anyone look at this and still wonder if the Gentiles are included in the New Covenant? Because the Jesus never says the exact phrase "The New Covenant hereby includes the Gentiles"?? Did Jesus not say His blood is the New Covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins? Did Jesus Himself not say that He has cleansed the Gentiles? And did Peter not say the Gentiles who believe in Him have remission of sins? How can that happen without His blood, which is the blood of the New Covenant? It is a miserable, desperate argument to dismiss a thing only because it isn't worded a certain way.

But this is where the Gentile needs an extra helping of humility and thankfulness. God was not required do any of this. We certainly did not get here on our own. Thank God we were reclaimed from that hopeless condition ...by the Messiah who came through Israel from Abraham. Glad you are saved by faith in the Messiah? Consider thanking a Jew for Israel's part in the coming of the Messiah.

PAUL

Notice something. We have now gone from Abraham, through Moses, the Psalms, Isaiah, Amos, Zechariah, the Gospels, Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation... without needing Paul. 

Only after establishing all of this would we need to mention Paul. Paul didn't invent the inclusion of the Gentiles. He plainly says as much (GAL. 3:8). Notice that the narrative about Cornelius, the first Gentile to receive the Holy Spirit, technically begins in the same chapter of Acts where Saul is converted (ACT. 9). You can't blame that on Paul! By now, we've long since demonstrated the point: Paul did not invent Gentile inclusion. All he did was read his scriptures. He is one witness among many to a plan that runs from Eden to the New Jerusalem.

I ask, do some people reject Paul because he preached something contrary to the Bible, or does the Bible itself teach something contrary to these people's own narrative and agenda? Hopefully you can plainly see the answer for yourself. So, which should we reject?

(II PET. 3:16) as also in all [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Now, let's include Paul into the mix --

In Jesus, the blessings promised to and through Abraham have come. Abraham is the father of us all (ROM. 4:13-16), spiritually speaking, through our joining to Jesus (GAL.3:14), the rightful heir of the promises and the one through whom all the promises come. Gentiles are no longer required to join the physical nation of Israel in order to join the covenant. Instead, we all - Jew and Gentile - join Jesus, the true Israel of God. Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches (JON. 15:5; ROM. 11:17-24). Gentiles are grafted into this "olive tree", as Paul metaphorically puts it. The two peoples are made one (EPH. 2:14-18). In Him, we are no longer what we were, but a new creation (GAL. 6:15; II COR. 5:17; REV. 21:5). We are born again (JON. 3: 3-8; I PET. 1:22-23; II COR. 5:16-17; TIT. 3:5).

Remember this from the last post? All mankind → Abraham → Isaac.  Abraham → Messiah → All mankind.
Now, read Galatians 3:7-9.

It all fits together.

CONCLUSION

What have we seen about Jesus saving the Gentiles?

1. The Old Testament promises it (the list of prophetic passages).
2. Jesus announces it and commands it (the Gospels).
3. Luke records it happening (Acts, especially Cornelius and the Jerusalem Council).
4. Peter and John affirm it (1 Peter 2; I John 4).
5. Revelation shows its consummation (especially the vision of every nation worshiping God).
6. Paul preaches it (reframing everything in the light of Christ).

Were the Covenants (plural) made with Israel? Yes.
Is Jesus the Savior of the Gentiles? Yes.
Is the New Covenant extended to the Gentiles? Yes.
Do we need Paul to demonstrate this? No.

I put six verses in the first post to build the case against Gentile inclusion. There is so much more to this than just, "Here is a verse about the Covenants being made with Israel, so how can the Gentiles be saved?" For the people who say the Gentiles are not reclaimed, or that Jesus is not the Savior of the Gentiles, I say try reading the whole Bible. It explains everything.

Does any of this mean Israel is now rejected the way the Gentiles once were? No!! Israel is not at all rejected. The two have been made one. Of course we still need Israel. Israel is not abandoned now that the Gentiles are reclaimed. Israel was the first one invited into the New Covenant. Gentile inclusion does not lessen what was done through Israel, it fills it up. And, by the way, believing Jews don't need to stop being who they are in order to join.

But that is for another article.

I leave you with a prayer, dear reader and beloved by God. I pray the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ looks on you with mercy and love and opens your heart to the wonderful story of salvation, which is for all peoples, and was thousands of years in the making. And that in this salvation, achieved and secured by Jesus Christ for all of us who believe, you find true rest.

(PSA. 40:9-10) 9 I have proclaimed the good news of righteousness in the great assembly; indeed, I do not restrain my lips, O Lord, You Yourself know. 10 I have not hidden Your righteousness within my heart; I have declared Your faithfulness and Your salvation; I have not concealed Your lovingkindness and Your truth from the great assembly.

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:
Once And Future Kingdom - Part I
Once And Future Kingdom - Part II
Just What Do You Mean 'Gospel'?
What Is The Gospel?
'Born Again' and the Kingdom of God
Gennao: Just What Does It Mean?
Two Trees - Two Covenants
My Opinion Is God's Truth

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

What About the Gentiles? - Part I

Some say the Covenants and the Savior were for Israel only. This series explores one of the Bible's biggest themes: how God called Israel to reclaim all people through Jesus Christ. Along the way, we'll ask what that means for the Covenants, the law, the Gentiles, and Israel itself.

---

BIG ideas to discuss. Guessing this will have to be a two-parter. I wonder if I can even do this topic justice, and if not then why bother? But I think I have to at least try to write about this. I've touched on this topic in the past but never really went into any depth on it. Time to weigh in, it seems. I go where the Spirit leads. Now, on to the set up!

I've seen it thrown at Christians many times in the past, by a very small but vocal minority, that the Biblical covenants were made with Israel only. The conclusion we are supposed to reach form this is: therefore Gentiles are rejected unless they become Jews first in order to become Christians.
(Or, to be more precise, unless they become like the people who are making these kinds of accusations.) And so we end up hearing questions like, "Is Jesus the Messiah of the Gentiles?" and "Are the Gentiles even called?"

I strongly disagree with these people.
...mostly.

It should be obvious that this entire "Jesus isn't the Messiah of the Gentiles" line is patently ridiculous on its face from a reading of the Bible, or church history with its 2,000 years of miracles and faith. But apparently a person can believe anything if they want it badly enough.

Looks like our work is cut out for us. In this series, we go through the Bible.
Let's start where they get it right. The two great covenants were made with Israel. It's true!

PLURAL

Here are some fundamental verses which we cannot simply ignore. This calls for humility on the part of the Gentiles. Swallow your pride with me, and read on.

(JER. 31: 31) Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...

Notice with whom God intended to make the Covenant. The author of Hebrews does not modify it.

(HEB. 8: 7-8) 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...

Paul confirms the covenants were made with Israel. Gentiles aren't mentioned.

(ROM. 9: 3-5) For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants [plural], the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

Notice, "the covenants" is plural. The covenants are Israel's. Contrast that with the Gentiles.

(EPH. 2: 11-12) 11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants [plural] of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Again, covenants is plural. Strangers to the covenants.

Now, of course the New Covenant was going to be made with Israel because it replaces the Old Covenant. But there's more.

JESUS' MISSION

Let us not overlook what Jesus said about His own mission:

(MAT. 15:14) But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

That whole interaction there is quite telling. Easy to misunderstand, but telling.
The same thing happens when Jesus sent out the twelve on their first missionary journey:

(MAT. 10:5-6) 5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Not sent to Gentiles. Ouch.

By now I bet you're wondering what are the implications for the Gentiles? The verses above build a terrible case for us Gentiles. Let's not fool ourselves.

CONVENIENCE

Do we Gentiles have no place in the New Covenant? Are we without a Savior? Are we hopelessly and eternally lost?

No!

We are included. We are saved. We are reclaimed.

Didn't I just built up a case that the Gentiles are not included? Yes. But those verses are not the whole Bible. All I've given you so far are one-sided proof-texts. In the Protestant Bible, which is smaller than others, there are 66 books by 40 authors. I bet we can find more on this subject if we actually look.

I bet there are some who are already guessing I am about to rely entirely on Paul. There are some who reject Paul and call him a false Apostle because he says things they don't like ...until he starts saying things they do like. No, I am not at all basing this only on Paul. Not even close. And this very thing, dear reader, is what this post is really about:

Gentiles are reclaimed and we don't need Paul to demonstrate it.

That doesn't mean I will avoid citing Paul, though. I am not ashamed of Paul at all. I accept Paul. The other Apostles accepted Paul. The early church accepted Paul. I see no reason at all to avoid Paul. I think calling Paul a false Apostle is merely an act of convenience rather than a solid position. It's an attempt to eliminate the biggest rival. I won't go along with it.
That said, I am not going to rely on Paul in this post.

Even worse are the "Red Letter Christians"; the ones who only accept the parts of the New Testament that are direct quotes of Jesus (except for the Sheet Vision, the calling of Saul, quotes in Revelation, etc etc). So, we can agree enough with the Apostles to believe they followed and accurately quoted Jesus, but we think they are unreliable about everything else? <sarcasm>Makes perfect sense.</sarcasm>

I couldn't disagree more with a theology that rests on 'if I can't get my way, then I will rip content from the New Testament until it no longer says what I don't like.'

To start building a case, I think we must see how the Gentiles got into this mess in the first place. Understanding the start of the story is necessary if you want to understand the finish.

THREE STRIKES

How did the Gentiles come to this low state to begin with? Cut off from the Living God. Disinherited. Hopeless. Cursed.

I went over this already in "Once and Future King - Part I" and "Once and Future King - Part II". So, I will summarize. This is critical to the whole idea. Please, don't take this lightly.

All mankind rejected God three times: 1) the Garden of Eden, 2) the Great Flood, and 3) the Tower of Babel. Bear in mind there were no "Jews" or "Gentiles" yet. All peoples bear some responsibility for what happened then. At that point, God let us have it our way. We did not want God as our God? So be it. We can have our lesser spirit beings and our wood and stone idols, and our knowledge of good and evil, and everything that comes with it, including disinheritance from God. So, God chose to do what He did several times in the Old Testament: He started again through one person. Immediately after Babel begins the story of Abraham.

Abraham was called for several reasons: 1) to be the progenitor of God's chosen people, Israel, 2) to provide a way for the coming of the Messiah, 3) to initiate the eventual reclamation of the nations, and 4) because of 1-3, to bring blessings to all people.
Yes, reclamation and blessing. Read the commission God gave to Abram:

(GEN. 12:3) I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

All the families. In order for all families to be blessed, all families have to participate. That means the nations would be reclaimed. That means Gentiles.

Think about that. So here God is, separating Abraham so He can create Israel as His called and chosen inheritance in the whole world, because the world rejected Him, but before He even gets through the initial conversation, He is talking about the reclamation of the nations. Undoing that rejection was part of the rejection.
I mean, seriously ... that's amazing!

The Old Covenant had certain terms (laws) that were intended to keep Israel distinct from the Gentiles, and to keep Israel from following the Gentiles down the path toward idolatry and disinheritance. It's not that Gentiles weren't allowed near Israel, but the repeated warning was about the Gentiles' idolatry. Don't do what the Gentiles do and you won't get what the Gentiles got.
...but they did.

Once Messiah comes - more specifically, once Messiah dies - the goal is reached, the reason for Abraham being called out and Israel separated is fulfilled, the wound that happened at Babel is healed, the rejection is undone, and the distinctions made within the law between Israel and Gentile are no longer necessary (GAL. 3:19-24).

Remember those verses above where Jesus' mission was to Israel only? Well, yeah. None of those goals were reached yet. What time was it? The Old Covenant didn't end when He was born, it ended when He died. Of course His ministry before He died was to Israel only. It was the Old Covenant period!
A large part of what He came to do was to personally represent all Israel, as the True Israel, and fulfill Israel's end of the covenant because the Israelites wouldn't do it on their own. They wouldn't keep their end of the bargain, so God kept it for them. He is the law-keeper. He is the Covenant-keeper. Once it was fulfilled, then the Old Covenant could end. Was He supposed to confirm a New Covenant that wasn't even inaugurated yet?

He fulfilled it all. He died. The Old Covenant dissolved. In comes the New Covenant.

...but it wasn't revealed that the Gentiles were part of the plan for several more years. That means the New Covenant was ratified with Israel, precisely as scripture says. And that means Israel continues to have a special place in the New Covenant. The question becomes ... what do you mean by "Israel"? 

ABRAHAM AND ISAAC

Before we finish off, consider the puzzle that is Abraham.

Abraham was not an Israelite. Israel was Abraham's grandson. How can Abraham be a descendant of his own grandson? Yet he was not exactly a Gentile, either. Abraham was a special case. Called out of the nations, but never called a Gentile. He is a special hybrid. Like Noah, Abraham had one foot on either side. No other person can quite be said to have these qualities, not even Isaac.
Have you ever wondered why it is Abraham and then Isaac and then Israel? Why is Isaac in the middle like that?
Isaac has the very special role to play in that he mirrors where the Messiah comes in. He was the beloved son, the son of promise, born miraculously, symbolically sacrificed, through whom the promises and inheritance flowed.   Abraham → Isaac.     Abraham → Messiah.

To put that another way: All mankind → Abraham → Isaac.     Abraham → Messiah → All mankind.

It all fits together. It's all a circle. The end is pictured in the beginning.

Do you see how this is all a loop? The rejection at Babel and the healing at Calvary are connected. All people had a hand in rejecting God at the start, and all people had a hand in rejecting the Messiah at the finish. The finish loses context without the beginning. The finish corrects and heals the beginning. And now you understand why the Messiah is not for Israel only. The healing was not all about Israel alone. All peoples had a hand in causing the problem in the first place, so the solution is also about all peoples.

CONCLUSION

To recap -
It wasn't just the Gentiles who rejected God, it was all peoples. As a result, God called out one man, Abraham, in order to build Israel, His special covenant people. Israel was built specifically in order to bring about the Messiah. The Messiah is the means to heal the rejection that led to the calling of Abraham. It all comes around. If you know the overarching story in the Bible, then you know the Gentiles are going to be reclaimed.

(JON. 12:32) And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.

To think the Messiah came for Israel alone is to completely misunderstand the entire Bible.

People tend to think Jesus Christ came to save them from their personal sins. Sure. He did. But there's a whole lot more to it than just that. He came to save you from a much larger issue. Great and awesome is our God!

All of that was buildup, backstory if you will, a setting of the stage to what I really wanted to get into. In the next post, we are going to see how the reclamation of the Gentiles was predicted in multiple verses throughout the Old Testament and the New. No Paul necessary.

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:
Common Legalist Arguments - Part VII
E Pluribus Unum
'Born Again' and the Kingdom of God
Gennao: Just What Does It Mean?
Two Trees - Two Covenants

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Confusing the Covenants

Some say, “I don’t need Herbert Armstrong. I’ve proven things for myself.” I hear you. But did you really? How did you, when your studies are in the church he started, using material he authored, with conclusions he passed down?
Before you appeal to me that it isn’t that simple, I want you to know that I get it. I was in the Church of God, too, for most of my life. I propose it’s even more complicated than you may realize. I thought I had proven things for myself, too. But had I? How did I, when my studies were in the church he started, using material he authored, with conclusions he passed down? When I challenged myself, that's when I realized I hadn't truly proven anything at all.

To "prove", one must honestly look at the evidence against one's own position. Otherwise it's just propaganda. Your minister isn't going to do that for you. There are aspects of this discussion that are most definitely not in the interest of the COG leadership to promote, aspects which you may not have investigated or considered as part of your studies. If you will stay with me, we’ll see one of those today.

But talking about how complicated the matter is would be the opposite of where I want to take this article. It’s really quite simple when you think about it. So let's focus on what's simple. Today, I would like to talk about covenants.

Why covenants? Because I think you will find that the topic of covenants is absolutely key to any discussion that starts with the phrase “God tells us to…”. No such thing should ever come out of our mouths unless we understand the nature of covenants, especially the Biblical covenants.

Bible Covenants

What is a covenant? It is a contract, a binding agreement. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, a covenant holds a deeper quality to it than just that. There is a spiritual element to a covenant which mere contracts lack. God is present in a covenant; God is a party to it and active participant in it. I could agree to pay you to mow my lawn, but is God in that agreement? Only in an academic sense. ( <--Not a covenant. ) I could agree to marry you, but is God in that agreement? Absolutely, yes. ( <--Covenant. )

In the Old Testament several covenants have been identified. Marriage is a covenant in which God is present. God made a covenant with Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, and others. God also made a covenant with Israel at Sinai, and this is commonly referred to as the “Old Covenant”. The Old Covenant is one of the two “Great Covenants” of the Christian Bible; the “New Covenant” being the other.

Some people have only ever heard of the two Great Covenants, but as I pointed out there are others.

The covenant God made with Noah, called the Noachide Covenant, for example is seen by the Jews as containing the minimum necessary requirements of righteousness for a Gentile. The requirements for Gentile Christians in Acts 15: 20 and Acts 21: 25 come straight from the Noahide covenant. (You can find them in Leviticus as well.) We are not bound to Noah's covenant, but these were listed in Acts because these would be the minimum requirements for a Gentile in the eyes of the Jews of that time, and would allow the Jewish converts and Gentile converts to come together in peace without undue offense. It was a matter of avoiding undue offense, not reintroducing a terminated covenant.

The covenant God made with Abraham is another example. This was a very one-sided covenant. God promised to bless the world through Abraham’s seed. God swore this oath upon His own name and did everything required. All Abraham had to do was believe. His faith was counted to him as righteousness. He took God on His word and his life reflected that (after some fits and starts). We learn from Paul that this promised seed was Jesus of Nazareth. Since the covenant needed to be transferred, an outward sign was stipulated - circumcision. The covenant was transferred to Abraham’s son, Isaac, and then to Isaac’s son, Jacob, and so forth. We are not bound to this covenant. The terms were fulfilled in Jesus. But it can be transferred to us in a way. We can inherit the promise made to Abraham and inherited by Jesus by becoming one with Jesus through faith.

So we’ve seen basically what a covenant is and we’ve seen some examples. Let us now ask – what is the nature of covenants?

The Nature of Covenants

I am not going to get in-depth here. We're keeping it simple today. But I want to explore three things which are key to covenants.

> A covenant needs at least two participants (eg. God and David).

The participants - which in legalese are called “parties” - in a covenant are key. If you are party to a covenant then its terms are legally binding on you, but if you are not party to a covenant then its terms have no legal binding on you. A total stranger cannot enter into an agreement to purchase an automobile and then expect me to be bound by the terms of their agreement. The citizens of the United States of America, while in the United States, are not bound by laws passed in Canada. We simply aren't party to the agreement.

> A covenant needs to have terms (eg. laws and blessings and cursings).

Terms are that which is promised and expected in the covenant. For example, if you keep the laws then I will bless you. Or for another example, if you give to me your lawnmower then I will pay to you so much money for it. The covenant must state what terms are expected from all parties. If it’s not stated, then it cannot be expected (unless it's clearly implied). But if it is stated, then it must be performed as stated.

If the parties do not perform those terms, then they are in breach of the contract. Covenants can include terms for breach, called penalties. For example, if you do not keep the laws then I will curse you. Or for another example, if you do not pay your bills on time then you will be charged a late fee.

The terms of a covenant do not transfer to other covenants. The terms of a covenant are exclusive to that covenant. It is not correct that terms transfer to other covenants automatically unless otherwise stated. No. Terms do not transfer at all unless otherwise stated. Can you imagine taking out a life insurance policy and being forced into coverage that isn’t in your agreement simply because those are the terms that another policy had? I’m fairly sure you would feel robbed if that happened. And rightfully so.

> A covenant needs to have some description of termination (eg. the death of a spouse).

Termination is when a covenant is satisfied and ends. Once the termination point is reached, the covenant dissolves. There is no covenant any longer after termination, and no one is bound by a covenant that doesn’t exist.

Termination of a covenant can be by fulfillment of its terms. For example, if you make all of your mortgage payments to the bank, then they will sign over the deed to your house to you at the termination of the contract. Termination of a covenant can be time-specific. For example, “so long as you both shall live”. Death is a well-known termination limit for covenants in the Bible (see Romans 7: 1-4 or I Corinthians 7: 39).

When a person dies, the covenants they entered into and the terms of those covenants have no further hold. Spouses are bound by their marriage covenant so long as they both live. If one spouse dies then the covenant terminates, and the other is free to enter into a new covenant or not. But if they do, then they are not at all obligated or expected to operate as if they were still in the previous marriage. That would be absurd.

Covenants are obviously more complicated matters than just this, but this is about all we need for our purposes here.

Let us turn our attention now and see how these things apply to Old Covenant.

Who are the parties of the Old Covenant?

The Old Covenant is a covenant agreement between God and the Israelites alone.

(DEU. 5: 2-3) 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive.

The Old Covenant began at Sinai when Moses received Ten Commandments from God and all Israel agreed to keep the law (EXO. 24: 3-8). It was then sealed in the blood of animals. There was a stipulation that the covenant also included the descendants of Israel (DEU. 29: 14).

Gentiles were excluded from that Covenant (EPH. 2: 11-13). The Jews were separate, set apart, a special people, peculiar. Mixing between Jew and Gentile was strictly forbidden by law (ACT. 10: 28). If a Gentile wished to participate in the Old Covenant, then they had to become a member of the nation of Israel through marriage or circumcision. For example, Exodus 12: 43-49 specifically forbade Gentiles from participating in Passover unless they agreed to become an Israelite. If those terms were to continue on into the New Covenant, then the Gentiles are still forbidden to participate in Passover. But if they don't continue on, then the Gentiles are under no obligation to participate. Pay close attention to Acts 15 and Acts 21. The Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit declared that the Old Covenant law did not apply to Gentiles in the New Covenant (and this is about the law - see Acts 15: 5). In fact, let's look at Acts 21.

(ACT. 21: 20-21, 25) 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law ; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.

What James and the Jewish converts in Jerusalem were concerned about was that Paul was teaching the Jews not to observe the law. None of them expected the Gentiles to keep the law. That had already been decided against decades before, as recorded in Acts 15. James comes straight out and says as much, plainly.
The law didn't apply to Gentiles in the Old Covenant, and it doesn't apply to Gentiles in the New Covenant. We simply aren't party to that covenant!

Because of this, many have invented elaborate scenarios to paint us all as physical descendants of Israel, and thus get us into the Covenant through a “back door” so to speak (JON. 10: 1).
A very popular “back door” is called British-Israelism, or Anglo-Israelism, which states that many are physically descended from the mythical “lost ten tribes of Israel” without their knowledge - and it is absolutely false. Not only is the genesis of this theory known and it is proven to be a farce, but the pseudo-history it is based on is a sham (for more, we recommend "A Foundation of Sand part XI" on Silenced.co). In addition, modern DNA testing has put a definite end to all possibility of the theory being valid (for more, we recommend dnarefutesbi.com).

There are also some who twist Paul’s words from places like Galatians 3: 7, claiming that all Christians are “Spiritual Israel” (a phrase not found in the Bible), and therefore the Old Covenant pertains to us. But this is also false. If all Christians are “Spiritual Israel” then it is only the New Covenant that makes them so. Once the move to the Old Covenant begins, they cease being "Spiritual Israel". This thinking defeats itself.

There are countless other ways that people dream up to circumvent the simplicity of the situation. I couldn't possibly go over them all here. AsBereansDid has articles covering many of them.

So, we see the parties of the Old Covenant were God and those who were physically Israelites only.

If you are not an Israelite by verifiable descent, then there is nothing in the Old Covenant that is binding on you. You are simply not a party to this covenant.  If you see something in the Old Covenant and are wondering “Is this something God commands me to do?”, you should start by asking yourself, “Am I physically an Israelite?” If the answer is ‘no’, then nothing in the Old Covenant is binding on you. In fact, the covenant itself excludes you from it.

What were the terms of the Old Covenant?

The terms of the Old Covenant were the laws, and its physical blessings for obedience and physical cursings for disobedience. But the foundation of the terms of the Old Covenant was the Ten Commandments.

(EXO. 34: 28) So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

(DEU. 4: 13) So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

(DEU. 5: 1-21) … 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive. 4 The LORD talked with you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 5 I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up the mountain. He said… [lists the Ten Commandments].
(DEU. 9: 9) When I went up into the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water.

(DEU. 9: 11) And it came to pass, at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.

(DEU. 9: 15) So I turned and came down from the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire; and the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands.

The Jews have identified a list of 613 in total laws covering all aspects of Jewish life. Violate any law of the Covenant, even a little, and you’ve breeched the Covenant.

(JAS. 2: 10) For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

One cannot stumble in any point of the whole body of law. Any stumble is a breach.
The terms cannot be divided up so that some can be ejected and others kept. Because there is only one covenant and it cannot be divided up, the terms of the covenant cannot be divided up. One cannot keep parts of the law, ignore other parts of the law, and excuse away parts of the law, yet claim that to be keeping the law. That's not keeping the law; that's violating it! That is what it means to be in breach. To keep it all and stumble in any point is to violate the covenant just as much as anyone who doesn’t keep any of it.
And what does one receive for a breach? Not a blessing for keeping 40% of the law, nor a throne for the hearty attempt and good intentions, but a penalty (DEU. 27: 26; GAL. 3: 10)!

So, we see that the Ten Commandments and all of the rest of the law are a single indivisible unit which are the terms of the Old Covenant. It's an all or nothing proposal. These terms of the Old Covenant do not automatically pass forward into the completely separate New Covenant, or any other covenant for that matter. No covenant behaves that way. In the COG we were always told that the law passed forward into the New Covenant unless otherwise stated, therefore Gentiles had to keep the holy days and etc. That is the opposite of how covenants work. It is a clear violation of reality to assume that any term arbitrarily passes from one covenant to another. 

If you see something in the Old Covenant and are wondering “Is this something God commands me to do?”, you should start by asking yourself, “Is this expressly a term of the New Covenant to which I am a party?” If the answer is ‘no’ then this thing is not binding on you. It is simply not a term of your covenant.

What is the termination of the Old Covenant?

Death is the termination of the Old Covenant. And the Old Covenant has been terminated.

(HEB. 8: 13) In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

How can we say that the Old Covenant was terminated? It was ended when God became incarnate in order to suffer death. God experienced death. Since God was the main party to the Old Covenant, His death terminated that Covenant for all involved. If His death did not terminate the Covenant, then He is not our High Priest, the Gentiles are not cleansed, there is no uniting of Jew and Gentile, and the Church cannot be the Bride of Christ who is still legally married to Israel. 
He will never die again, so there can be no similar termination of the New Covenant.

Let’s take a look at Romans 7: 1-4 and notice some things.

(ROM. 7: 1-6) 1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.  5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

Paul is using marriage as an analogy to the Old Covenant and its laws. Just as when a husband dies and the wife is freed, when we die we are freed. What Paul is saying is that we die with Christ through baptism. We are delivered from the law because the covenant dissolves. When we die with Him, any hold the Old Covenant may have had on us is terminated, and the law - which are the terms of the Covenant – is no longer binding on us. It is impossible.

God died and we die. The Covenant is doubly terminated. Terminated on both sides.

If you see something in the Old Covenant and are wondering “Is this something God commands me to do?”, you should start by asking yourself, “Is this covenant even binding anymore?” If the answer is ‘no’ then the answer is no. Christ died and you died with Him in baptism. The Old Covenant is abrogated. It’s terminated. It has vanished.

Paul Contrasts The Two Great Covenants

Now that we have seen some basics which are necessary to understand to whom God was speaking in the Old Covenant, and why it is not true that the law carries forward into the New Covenant unless otherwise stated, and that the Old Covenant has vanished away, I feel it is a disservice to leave Galatians 4: 21-31 out of this post.

(GAL. 4: 21-31) 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written: “Rejoice, O barren, you who do not bear! Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children than she who has a husband.”
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

So many people search for ways to carry forward the Covenant from Sinai. Beloved of God, this is not proper. Do you not hear the law? Cast out the covenant from Sinai! This is the clear and unambiguous teaching of the Apostle Paul. If you cast out the Covenant, then you cast out the terms of the covenant. This is simply how covenants work.

I know someone out there is thinking, "But we see the Apostles keeping the law in the New Covenant period." Yes. They were Jews. Jews were once party to the Old Covenant. The law had become part of their national identity. For 1,400+ years, Israel had done these things. One cannot expect them to simply stop one fine day; most especially not while the Temple still stood. Do you suppose James had Paul shave his had and be bathed (ACT. 21: 23-24) because it was legally mandatory? Or do you suppose Paul had Timothy circumcised (ACT. 16: 3) because he was commanded by law? There is apparently nothing wrong with Jews continuing on with these things as customs. Adding Gentiles into the mix is where the ground gives way.
Someone else is thinking, "But Paul said 'Let us keep the Feast' to the Gentiles." Yes. But there is more than one way to understand this statement. The COG interpretation doesn't have a lock on the meaning. Please see this article "Were Gentiles In Corinth Observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread?"

There are several differences between the Old and the New Covenants. AsBereansDid has a few articles dealing with this. Try our article "Old Covenant vs New Covenant". Perhaps we will have more like this in the future. The topic is very important. I also suggest you check out our FAQ page in the section "Covenants" for some wonderful and quick examples.

Conclusion

Covenants can really be boiled down to three main components: who is a party to the covenant, what are the terms, and how is it terminated. The only parties to the Old Covenant were God and the physical Israelites. The terms of the Old Covenant were the Ten Commandments, and 600+ other laws - all gone when the Covenant was terminated. The termination of the Old Covenant was Jesus' death. We die with Him in baptism, so it terminates for our part as well. Any possible legal hold the law might have on us is gone.

Now, does that mean there is nothing for us in the Old Covenant? Of course not! 
Even though we are not party to the terms of the abrogated Old Covenant, we have much to learn from it (I COR. 10: 11; II TIM. 3: 6). We do not need to be bound to the shadows in order to grasp the reality which cast the shadow - Jesus Christ. We do not need to sacrifice a lamb, smear its blood on our doorposts, and roast it with horseradish in order to grasp the Spiritual reality it pointed to. We don't need to avoid leaven in order to grasp the Spiritual reality it pointed to. We don't need to sacrifice a goat and sprinkle blood on the alter in order to grasp the Spiritual reality it pointed to. We don't need to travel to Jerusalem nor build a succot from Palestinian flora in order to grasp the Spiritual reality it pointed to. And we don't need to sit idle one day each week in order to grasp the Spiritual reality it pointed to. We do not need the anti-type (eg. physical rest on a week day) in order to possess the fulfillment which is pointed to (eg. true Spiritual rest in Jesus Christ who gives us rest).
The people who have the symbolism do not necessarily have the Spiritual reality, and the people who have the Spiritual reality do not necessarily have the symbolism. The people who do have the Spiritual reality can still benefit from understanding the symbolism - but the symbolism is simply not mandatory once the Spiritual reality has come (I COR. 3: 10). They are not mandatory because the terms of that abrogated Covenant do not apply.

Too many people read through the Old Testament but forget all about these points. They conclude “God tells us to…” when God told us "no such thing" (ACT. 21: 25). They see "keep My commandments" and start looking in the Old Covenant for those commandments - which is entirely the wrong place to start looking! The New Covenant, the valid covenant, has its own terms to keep (JON. 13: 34-35, 15: 17; I JON. 3: 23, 4: 21; II JON. 1: 5-6; ROM. 13: 8-10; GAL. 5: 14; EPH. 5: 2; COL. 3: 14; I TIM. 1: 5; JAS. 2: 8). Look there.

See, the matter is not all that complicated at heart. The truth is, people have gotten their covenants conflated. Confusion of the covenants is one of the most fundamental mistakes that we at AsBereansDid have identified that leads people into Old Covenant legalism. It prevents well-intentioned people from simply stepping into the New Covenant.

So I ask again, did you prove it to yourself? Did  you really? Or could there be a critical detail or three that you may have overlooked?



For somewhat of a Part II, please see our article Parties to the Covenants.

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; ) Acts 17:11
************

WHAT COVENANT ARE WE BOUND TO?

MY COMMENTS ARE IN CAPS &/OR [BRACKETS]:

WHAT COVENANT ARE WE BOUND T0?

An Illustration From Marriage (NIV)

Rom. 7:1 Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?

2 For example, by law a married woman [THE CHURCH] is bound to her husband [PHYSICAL JESUS] as long as he is alive, but if her husband [PHYSICAL JESUS] dies, she is released from the [OLD COVENANT/PHYSICAL ] law of marriage.

3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband [physical Jesus] is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband [PHYSICAL JESUS] dies, she is released from that [O.C./PHYSICAL] law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man [SPIRIT JESUS].

4 So, my brothers, you also died to the [O.C.] law through the [PHYSICAL] body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead [SPIRIT JESUS], in order that we might bear fruit to God.

5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the [O.C.] law [the motions of sins, which were by the law (Authorized Version)] were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.

6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

THE OLD COVENANT REVEALED SIN:

Struggling With Sin

7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

YET WE REALIZE, BY IT, WE BORE FRUIT FOR DEATH:

8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.

9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

WE KNOW THE O.C. WAS TEMPORARY, FADING AWAY:

2 Co. 3:7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was,

8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

9 If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!

10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory.

11 And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold.

13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away.

14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts.

16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

WE KNOW IT'S PURPOSE WAS TO LEAD US TO CHRIST:

Gal.3:21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.

22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

WE KNOW WE CAN'T INHERIT THE KINGDOM UNDER THE O.C.

Hagar and Sarah

Gal. 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.

23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.

25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

27 For it is written:"Be glad, O barren woman [GENTILES - CHILDREN BY FAITH, who bears no children,break forth and cry aloud,you who have no labor pains;because more are the children of the desolate womanthan of her [ISRAEL] who has a husband [JESUS]."

28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.

29 At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now.

30 But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."

31 Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

WE KNOW THAT BY KEEPING THE O.C., WE ALIENATE OURSELVES FROM CHRIST JESUS. BUT BY THE N.C. WE BEAR FRUIT TO GOD:

Freedom in Christ

Gal.5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.

6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

The US & Britain; In Prophesy? Pt.1 of 2

By CW (Contributing Writer)

I can barely imagine how the world must have looked to other kids my age as I was growing up. What I saw, I saw through a dark cloud of gloom. I saw, hanging over everyone’s head, the indiscriminate annihilation of virtually everyone in a grizzly blood bath by invading armies, followed by the burning, searing, element-melting nuclear holocaust that Herbert Armstrong so vividly described. On top of the tension of my Old Covenant authoritarian home, and the “us against all the outsiders” paranoia; this specter haunted my every waking moment. From Herbert’s perspective, most of the prophecies about Israel’s destruction were both, for the end times, and talking about my home, the USA. I was taught that we were Manasseh, the birthright tribe of the lost house of Israel, and the British Commonwealth was the tribe of Ephraim. I was taught Herbert’s hybrid version of British Israelism.

The theory of British Israelism goes way back before the times of King Henry VIII. Most experts on British Israelism agree, the theory was promoted by theologians to justify the break of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church.

“In its simplest form, British-Israelism claims that the British people are the descendants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, deported, initially, by Tiglath Pilezer III, king of Assyria, when he launched an invasion of the Kingdom of Israel in 740 B.C.E., and later by the successor of Shalmaneser V, Sargon II, who destroyed its capital city, Samaria, in 721 B.C.E.” Excerpt from JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EMPIRE

What early proponents used for justification of authority, mutated in America, and Herbert, among others, connected prophesies of Israel’s demise, and applied them to the current time. Herbert continued promoting the idea that the British throne is of the line of King David of Judah. He cited ancient Irish legends as fact, and referred to non-existent annals of written history, as in this excerpt from United States and the British Commonwealth in Prophecy (henceforth ‘USBP’); “Then, in 569 B.C. (date of Jeremiah's transplanting), an elderly, white-haired patriarch, sometimes referred to as a "saint," came to Ireland. With him was the princess daughter of an eastern king and a companion called "Simon Brach," spelled in different histories as Breck, Berech, Brach, or Berach. The princess had a Hebrew name Tephi -- a pet name -- her full name being TEA-TEPHI.”

Funny thing is no legitimate scholar can find these annals. You can read more about this at the following link; JEREMIAH IN IRELAND--FACT OR FABRICATION?

I have such vivid memories of the voice of HWA booming through the house. This would have been the early sixties. He always spoke with such authority, and over the years his arguments became familiar. Quoting the Hebrew made him sound like the wise sage as he presented his argument that both, Gen. 12:2 and Gen. 48:19 say, “many nations” in a prophesy that he said “could only be fulfilled by the USA, and Britain.” When making his case about the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh He pointed out ad nauseam the Hebrew word ‘gowy’ in the first, but did not bother to mention that gowy is not used in the latter, rather; ‘am and male maw-lay, as we will see below.

God promised Abraham; Gen 12:2 “I will make you into a great nation (H1471 gowy; nation)”, and 17:4 “You will be the father of many nations” (H1471). 17:6 “I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you.” OK, But what’s the connection to the USA? Herbert believed that what Jacob told his children, were prophesies of what kind of nations they would become in the last days, before the return of Jesus, and thus, believed the promises to Abraham needed to have a physical manifestation before that time. He would ask, “How could God leave the most blessed nation on earth out of prophesy?”

Herbert’s ‘proof’ started with (KJV) Gen 49:1 “And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, “Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.” To Herbert, any time the term, “the last days,” was used, it meant; “The time just before Jesus’ return.” The word translated, “the last days,” is (H319 achariyth; the last, or end, hence the future). It doesn’t say; “end times or days.” It’s an idiom for the future, and an example of Herbert jumping to conclusions.

Thus, Herbert decided that the following applied to the “end times;” (KJV) Gen 48:19 This is where Israel is adopting the sons of Joseph and crosses his hands putting his right hand on the head of the younger son. Joseph objected…; 19 “And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.” Herbert claimed, “This is a description of the British Empire and the US” (as do his disciples today - such as: Ron Weinland, Rod Meredith, Gerald Flurry,David Pack...); but Herbert didn't do his home work.

The verse I just quoted when read from the interlinear (the original Hebrew or Greek) reads: “He shall be a people,”H5971 (‘am; a people, as a congregated unit; spec. a tribe as those of Israel) “and shall become great. But his younger brother shall become greater than he, and his seed shall become the (fullness of the nations.)”(H4392 Male maw-lay; full, filling, fullness).

Herbert said it meant, (his famous); “a nation and a company of nations.” Nothing is said about becoming a separate nation, let alone a group of nations. The next scripture puts this into context; Gen 48:20 (Interlinear) “And he blessed them in that day, saying, in you shall Israel bless, saying, may God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh.” They were blessed to the point that, nations of the day had reason to envy them. Look at a bible map of Israel during its pre-captivity days. Manasseh had two large parcels of land on either side of the Jordan River. They had the birthright, thus, were given a double portion exactly as per Deut 21:17 “… the firstborn by giving him a double share… The right of the firstborn belongs to him.”

Followers of Herbert say, “Either the nations promised to Abraham are here in the world today, or God lied, and God can’t lie,” but read Isa 60:21, it tells of these very things promised to Abraham being fulfilled in a much more amplified way;
21 “Then will all your people be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendor. 22 the least of you will become a thousand, the smallest a mighty nation. I am the LORD; in its time I will do this swiftly.”

That’s an enormous promise that happens when all the people are righteous. This is obviously yet to come. So why believe that the ‘Kings and nations’ promised to Abraham must be present now?

Zech 10:4 From Judah will come the cornerstone, from him the tent peg, from him the battle bow, from him every ruler.” If every ruler comes from Judah, then the Promise to Abraham will be fulfilled, in that; not just rulers come from him, but every ruler. And these rulers come through Jesus, in light of what He said in Rev 3:21; “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne;” and what Gal 3:7 says about those who believe; 7 “Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.

As his disciples do to this day, Herbert relied equally on; text supposed to prove the line of descent of the English royal family from the house of David, and other texts that claimed to reveal the identity of Britain and the United States, as mutually supporting his claim that they are of Israelite origin.

Herbert claimed that the throne of David would be maintained without a break from David’s time, until Jesus returned to claim the throne. His proof was (NIV) 2Sam 7:12 “When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.” Herbert claimed that this could only be King Solomon because of the line:” When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.”

On pg. 21 of the USBP, Herbert speaks of a, “self professed scholar’ who makes some “ridiculous statement” to “reject this important truth.” Herbert could condescend to the “ignorant” while failing to show any scholarship himself. If he had looked at the original language for, “when he does wrong, I will punish him " he would have seen; “When he sins,” is derived from a single word; (H2399 chet: a crime or it’s penalty). Then, “I will punish him,” is derived from the single word; (H3198 yakach),which does mean to correct, but can also mean to convict. So I ask you; who for sin (chet) is convicted (yakach), and is a physical descendant of David whose kingdom will last forever? Who was convicted of crimes he didn’t commit and was punished to death with the rod of men? This seems more consistent with the bibles pivotal message; Jesus, but more proof is needed to confirm the choice of words.

Herbert conveniently avoided a verse that is virtually a duplicate of (NIV) 2Sam 7:12-14; 1Chron16:11-14, v11 “When your days are over and you go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. 14 I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever.” Does God set Solomon over his house forever, or Jesus? The verses in 2Samual and 1Chronicles are talking about the same thing.

Herbert pointed out that when the name Israel is used in scriptures, it doesn’t necessarily mean Judah, he’d say with an exasperated tone, "Israel and Judah were no longer one kingdom after 2Chron 10." He was right about this, therefore when Israel is addressed, it may include Judah, but it definitely means the tribes of the Northern Kingdom (all the other tribes).

How then could he reason around Ho 3:4 “For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or idol”. (This is the situation until when?) 5 “Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the LORD and to his blessings in the last days.” If England is Israel, it should have no king.

Herbert claimed a king of the Davidic line would always rule over at least part of Israel. This verse disagrees, as does the next example; Ez21: 25 "O profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, 26 this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. 27 A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give it.” Both these verses tell us that there will be a long period of time without a king over Israel that only ends when Jesus returns.