Acts 15:21 - More Law Later?

Did the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 give Gentile Christians a "starter pack" of laws, with the rest to be learned in synagogue later on? That's what many claim Acts 15:21 means. Or have we completely misunderstood what the Jerusalem Council was actually deciding?

---

Today, I want to go over Acts 15. More specifically, I want to focus on verse 21. To start off, let's see verse 21 so we can refresh our memories:

(ACT. 15:21) For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

I was recently on social media - an unfortunate habit I keep telling myself I should break. The algorithm still thinks I’m SDA, so it subjected me to an article about some portion of Old Covenant law. Upon scanning the comments as I do (which is why the algorithm still thinks I’m SDA), I was surprised by how many people relied on Acts 15:21 to claim that Gentile converts were only given a few starter rules at first but then would learn the rest of the law later by attending synagogue.
One elaborated, “The Gentiles were converting to a sect of Judaism, so of course they would attend synagogue and learn Torah. How else would you interpret it?” Ah! That is the key question. How else could it, or should it, be interpreted? Because what Gentiles were joining and how they were joining it is precisely what was under consideration at the Council of Jerusalem.

If you've read this blog at all, then you know we mention Acts 15 frequently. Acts chapters 15 & 21 are some of my personal favorite material in the entire Bible. But one thing we've never really done is thoroughly investigate this interpretation of verse 21. Let's go together and see a different way to understand this verse. Fair warning: we're going to dig deep!

CHOOSE A SIDE

There were two opposing sides at the Jerusalem Council:

The first was converts from the Pharisees who claimed Gentiles must be circumcised and take up Torah law. Let's call them "Team Pharisee". Their position was that Gentiles are required to become Jews in order to be Christians.

The second was Paul, Barnabas, and Peter - who preached to the Gentiles and personally witnessed them coming to the faith and receiving the Holy Spirit without any law involved - along with James. Let's call them "Team Apostle". Their position was that Gentiles are not required to become Jews in order to become Christians.

I realize Sabbatarians will object, saying I've misunderstood the position of both teams. They believe the Apostles were all for the law, and that Team Pharisee was either A) only trying to bind circumcision on the Gentiles, or B) only trying to bind Pharisaical traditions rather than Torah law on the Gentiles, or C) only trying to bind a portion of the law - which Sabbatarians don't personally think is necessary and which they call "the Law of Moses" - on the Gentiles. They really should pick one. These explanations are very different from each other.
I simply reject all of those, and for several reasons; not the least of which is that's not what Luke wrote. I will go over this more in another post but I think by the end of this post you will better understand my reasoning.

What is the position of Sabbatarianism? That Gentiles should take up Torah law. Which team does that come closest to, by a simple reading of Acts 15? Team Pharisee.

In the letter the Council crafted to be sent out to all the churches, the very introduction reads:

(ACT. 15:24) “Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment.” 

The position of Team Pharisee was rejected outright. No such command was ever given in the first place to require the Gentile converts to be like the proselytes to Judaism in being circumcised and in keeping the law. Requiring Gentile converts to keep the law was a novelty being introduced by Team Pharisee. It was not a natural requirement from the beginning. James reaffirms this several years later (ACT. 21:25). And this reaffirmation is very bad for the "more law later" claim.

You can imagine what a difficult thing it is to take the words of the Council, which were immediately against teaching the Gentiles to keep the law, and turn them into full support of teaching the Gentiles to keep the law. That is how verse 21 is being used. An unclear verse is being interpreted in a way that completely changes several clear, key details of the chapter in the first place. But Sabbatarianism must do this. They have to have the law or they cannot have the Sabbath, and without a Sabbath there is no Sabbatarianism.

To understand why the Council decided as they did, we have to understand the background.

TWO POINTS

What do we emphasize here at ABD? Context, context, context. And what was the context of the chapter? You might say to me, "What should be expected of Gentiles now that they are called." And you would be correct. "But wait! There's more!"
The other underlying context was that Gentiles had been included at all.

Acts 15 is really the culmination of events beginning in Acts 10, and 11:1-18. You can see this in Acts 15:3 & 7-9.

The discussion in Acts 15 was essentially about two things: 1) the Gentiles having been called in the first place, same as Jews, and 2) what should be required of the Gentiles so Gentiles and Jews can live together. Many people miss point #1.

When James speaks, he begins by reiterating that Peter told a back story about how God, at the very start of Israel, "visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name". (Referring to the calling of Abraham and the creation of Israel.) Then, James goes on to cite Amos 9, where God promises to bring the Gentiles back in. Notice, James never emphasizes Sinai here. James' points were not legal; they were were all historical, regarding the rejection and prophesied reclamation of the Gentiles. God called Abraham from the Gentiles to create the nation of Israel, and from that time forward He predicted the Gentiles would be reclaimed. That had finally happened in their time. (For more, see "What About the Gentiles?".)

James finishes it up with verse 21.

My point here is that we cannot understand verse 21 unless we read it with context point #1 in mind.
Discussion on Gentile conversion. → Peter talks about Israel called from the Gentiles. → James talks about the reclamation of the Gentiles. → Verse 21.

What Sabbatarians are doing is diving into Acts 15, taking verse 21 without any context, then explaining the verse, and really the entire chapter, in light of their own doctrines. They are not taking verse 21 in the context of the discussion it comes out of. This is the very definition of eisegesis: "the process of interpreting a text by imposing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into it, rather than drawing meaning from the text itself."

If verse 21 suddenly becomes "Gentiles will now attend synagogue and learn Torah," then it interrupts the flow of the conversation. But if verse 21 continues James' appeal to what Israel has long heard in the scriptures, then it fits seamlessly.

VERSE 21

Now that we have the context in mind, we can move on to verse 21.

(ACT. 15:21) For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

In light of the context, verse 21 is a way of saying all those present should be well familiar with the idea of Gentile inclusion, since the scriptures they had been hearing all their lives had already established the place of the Gentiles in God's plan. They all sat in synagogue and had it read to them their whole lives.

The Gentiles are included in their own right, and you all should know this.

Look at the first half of the verse: "For Moses has had throughout many generations..." Guess what that is not doing... speaking about the future! I ask you, had Gentile Christians been going to synagogue and listening about Moses for many generations? No. Who had? Israel! James is talking about the Jews, who for many generations went to synagogue and listened about Moses. The Greek Interlinear reads, "from generations of old". The Greek is ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων - “from generations of old / ancient times.” The word ἀρχαίων (archaiōn) points to the exceedingly distant past. Nothing in this indicates future. Very much the opposite.

James talks about Israel and the past; Sabbatarians conclude Gentiles and the future.

Now, let's think about this plan to send Gentiles to synagogue to learn Christianity.
Remember, the Gospel was to go to all the earth. How could Gentiles go to synagogue in Gentile lands where there were no synagogues? But it also begs for difficulty in Diaspora areas where there were synagogues. It ignores what we read elsewhere (JON. 9:22; 12:42). If even the rulers of Israel could not mention Jesus, what sense would it make to plan on sending Gentile converts to synagogue?
It runs headlong into even basic issues. How are Gentiles going to learn the spirit of the law in a synagogue?
And, if we are going to claim this was all about being against traditions of the Pharisees, then don't forget that is part of what you learn in a synagogue. I remind you that synagogue attendance itself is a tradition of the Pharisees (for more, see "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII"). How can we be against traditions of the Pharisees and very much for traditions of the Pharisees at the same time?
The Sabbatarian explanation of verse 21 is, in a nutshell, "Let's risk sending Gentiles to synagogue so they can learn everything we here claim we are against."

Now, on to context point #2.

WHAT TO DO?

Having established that the Gentiles were included in their own right as the Jews were, as it was foretold, let's move on to the second context point. The big question becomes - what should be done with the Gentiles now that we have to live together?

Here is another critical idea to understand the debate:
It is not that Gentiles were called to become Jews, as the proselytes did, but that they were called in the same way as the Jews - meaning, in their own right - and had received the Holy Spirit without first having to join the nation of Israel as was required in the Old Covenant. In the Old Covenant, Gentiles had to join the nation of Israel. And joining Israel required what? Circumcision and the law. That is why Team Pharisee was so adamant about circumcision and the law - they felt Gentiles were joining Israel. Team Apostle disagreed. They were not joining the nation of Israel, they were joining something else.

If you don't understand that paragraph, then read it again a few times until you do. It is absolutely, positively critical that you understand it.
Peter, Paul, and Barnabas witnessed the Gentiles being accepted by God into the New Covenant in a completely different way than Gentiles were accepted into Old Covenant. This was huge! This is the beating heart of the chapter (actually, of this section of Acts). And Team Pharisee did not understand it. They were trying to require the Old Covenant terms in the New Covenant.

Recall from the intro to this post how one person online said, "The Gentiles were converting to a sect of Judaism, so they naturally would be expected to attend synagogue and learn Torah." This is precisely the opinion of Team Pharisee! This quote misses what was really happening.

The quote is partly correct. Today, Christianity is seen as a very separate religion from Judaism, but back then it was not. Gentiles actually were converting to a sect of Judaism. But this is more nuanced than it seems.
The contention that needed to be resolved was - were Gentiles to become Israelites in the way of the Old Covenant, or were the prophecies about Gentile reclamation and the undeniable giving of the Holy Spirit indicating that becoming Israelites first was no longer required? To put that another way, would this sect of Judaism require Gentiles to become Jews in order to be Christians? The answer was no.
Yes, Gentiles were joining a sect of Judaism, but they were joining a sect that was fundamentally different than any other sect, and they were joining it in a way never seen before.

Gentiles were there to stay. The two nations had to become one. Jew and Gentile had to live together now. This wouldn't be a problem if Gentiles had to join Israel as the proselytes did. Team Pharisee's solution was rather practical. But if they were not to be proselytes, then how do the two live together in peace? What should be expected of Gentiles?

It was the decision of the Holy Spirit and the Council that the Gentiles were required only to keep the points from the law that all Gentiles were required to observe while in Israel: the laws required of resident aliens in Israel from Leviticus 17-18. (These are said to originate in the Noachide Laws. The Noachide Laws had always been the bare minimum of what would be expected of a Gentile in Israel, to consider them righteous. But that's for another day.)

Sabbatarians read Exodus 12:49 and conclude, "There was one law for the native and the stranger, so that must mean the law always applied to everyone." Not so. The Old Covenant was not imposed upon the nations generally. Torah law purposefully distinguished between Israelites and the nations, even excluding Gentiles in certain places - like with Passover. Only in particular situations were Gentiles brought under Israel's covenant obligations - like when a Gentile intended to worship God with Israel. If a Gentile wanted to join the Old Covenant, then one law applied for all. Only then must Gentiles be circumcised and keep the law. Otherwise, that was not required of them. The laws that consistently applied to Gentiles in Israel, whether they were joining Israel or not, were the laws of resident aliens from Leviticus 17-18.
Everyone at the Council knew this. So, that is what they decided would continue to be required. Why, because more law would come later? No. Because Gentiles were not joining Israel. That was how the law had always worked.

This decision not only goes against Team Pharisee, but it also answers the quote at the start of this section. No, they were not joining a sect of Judaism in the same way a proselyte joins Israel. The Gentiles were to remain a distinct people, and be reclaimed in their own right, by faith in Jesus Christ rather than joining with physical Israel. And the opposite is also true. The Jews could retain their laws and customs, and yet be Christian (ACT. 21:20-21). The Gentiles did not have to become Jews, and the Jews did not have to become Gentiles (ACT. 21:25).

Dear reader, I want to reiterate the most important thing of all: the nature of what is being joined has changed. And it had changed for everyone; even the Jews.

We join the Body of Christ (aka "Spiritual Israel") through faith in Christ, not the nation of Israel (aka "Physical Israel") through laws and rituals and symbolism.
And that is what Peter's claim was all about when he said, "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they." (v.11) There was now a Spiritual Israel, and both Jew and Gentile were being brought into it in their own right.
This is a very deep and groundbreaking point for the Council to realize, and easy for a reader to miss.

Notice, at no point does James say the Gentiles would learn more Mosaic law later or attend synagogue. Don't you now see why not?

ONE CHURCH, TWO PEOPLES

Sabbatarians side with Team Pharisee not only because they need the law to get a weekly Sabbath, but because they believe all Christians must behave in one way. They do not accept that there was one church with two distinct peoples who were allowed to retain their individual characteristics yet be one church. James spells this out in Acts 21 - the Jewish converts were zealous for the law but the Gentiles were taught no such thing.

That the Jews were allowed to retain their Old Covenant traditions and remain Hebrew was the whole reason they needed to impose anything on the Gentiles in the first place, else the Jewish converts would not be offended by what the Gentiles did.

The Council's decision only makes sense in a church where Gentiles were not required to join Israel. Otherwise, we have to try to make sense of it, and the "starter pack of laws" is the result. This is a solution for conditions that did not exist in the first place.

That, dear reader - the insistence that everyone in the early church did everything in the same way - is the true source of the confusion here.

SHOW US THE PROOF

I ask, in what source, biblical or otherwise, do we see evidence of that it was regular practice for Gentile converts to Christianity to attend synagogue? Answer: none.

If Acts 15:21 means that Gentile Christians would eventually learn the Mosaic law by attending synagogue, one would expect to find evidence somewhere in the historical record, or this interpretation mentioned in a commentary or an epistle - especially from the early church. The Christian church has been reading Acts for nearly two thousand years. We should find evidence somewhere. So, when does this explanation actually appear?

I have searched for an early Christian commentary that matches the claim we are examining today. I have not found a single one.

In his Commentary, in the section on Acts 15, John Calvin comes close to this, but he clearly thought only Jews would learn more later, not Gentiles. And this was because he felt it would take a while for the Old Covenant traditions to die off.
The earliest discussions that I have been able to locate of anything resembling modern Sabbatarian claims appear in the early 1800s, most notably from J. K. L. Gieseler (1818–1820). The idea that Gentiles could continue learning Torah at synagogue first appears in twentieth-century commentaries.

For an interpretation that many today call "obvious" and "original", it is remarkably difficult to locate in the older literature.

Later in Acts, Paul frequently encounters Gentiles in the synagogues, but he goes there to preach Jesus, not to further instruct those who had already accepted Him. The audience were Jews, proselytes, and God-fearing Gentiles hearing the gospel for the first time. They were desperate for more ...until certain ones realized what was really going on. Then, they tried to ruin Paul.

Acts never describes such a practice of sending Gentiles to learn the law. The Epistles never mention or command it. The earliest Christian writings never discuss it. The interpretation depends upon a historical practice for which no evidence has been produced. Show us some credible sources to back up this claim.

When I produce evidence from the early church for my claims, I hear those are all lies told by liars. Hey, believe what you want, but at least I produced something.

Now, that said, I have found evidence of Jewish converts to Christianity keeping a Sabbath, and some may have been attending synagogue (remember, there is no law about going to church/synagogue on Sabbath). However, the indications are they would also attend Christian church on Sunday. But I have found nothing that says it was a regular practice to send Gentile converts to synagogue.
Instead, what we are told is the early church met in private homes. That is the evidence we have. Not synagogues.

So, the claim that James expected Gentile Christians to learn the rest of the law later in synagogue is unsupported by the contexts of Acts 15, or the rest of scripture, or the historical record. All evidence to the contrary is dismissed. It is an assumption read into the evidence, not a conclusion drawn from it.

CONCLUSION

To answer the opening question, "How else would you interpret it?" I would interpret it by not trying to force the New Covenant to be the same as the one it replaced.

The issues before the Council were far deeper and the Council’s decision was far more profound than many people realize: the nature of God's people and how to join the Covenant had fundamentally changed. It was now centered on Jesus Christ.

Both Physical Israel and the Gentiles are joining the Body of Christ, which we commonly call "Spiritual Israel". Gentiles join the Body of Christ directly, without first joining Physical Israel, as was required in the previous Covenant. God had accepted the Gentiles as Gentiles, by faith in Jesus Christ. This was evidenced by the giving of the Holy Spirit. And none of the law was required beforehand.

That is the real news of Acts 15. Acts 15 is the culmination of events starting in Acts 10.
Verse 21 is a reminder to the Jews that they should not be surprised by the reclamation of the Gentiles, since these things were foretold and had been read in synagogue for centuries.

In short, Acts 15:21 does not teach that Gentile converts were given a temporary 'starter pack' and would later pick up the rest of the law in the synagogue. That reading interrupts the flow of James’s argument, contradicts the Council’s explicit rejection of requiring the law, and lacks support in either the New Testament or the historical record. Acts 15:21 is being used to smuggle into the Council's decision something that the Council had just rejected.

Yet, the Sabbatarians continue to say, "Moses being read in the synagogue on Sabbath means the Gentiles would be taught to keep the Sabbath law later on when they attend synagogue with the people who reject Jesus."

Except:

1. It misses the point of Acts 15.
2. It doesn't fit the context of the chapter at all.
3. It is based mainly on things the chapter does not say.
4. It literally undoes the decision of the Council.
5. It sides with those who troubled the Gentiles.
6. Nothing in the chapter says there would be more later.
7. James' reiterates the same decision years later, explicitly denying Gentiles were taught the law.
8. Verse 21 speaks about the past, not the future.
9. Verse 21 speaks of Israel, not the Gentiles.
10. There is no guarantee there would be synagogues in Gentile lands for Gentiles to attend.
11. There is no guarantee Gentile Christians would be allowed in synagogue to begin with.
12. The teachings in synagogue are not what Sabbatarians would agree with.
13. Most of the people who make this claim don't go to synagogue themselves.
14. There is no historical record indicating Gentile converts to Christianity attended synagogue.
15. I can find no record prior to the 1800s of anyone interpreting verse 21 in this way.
16. It fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the New Covenant and the Body of Christ.

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:

The Legalist Dance
Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
Confusing The Covenants
The Plain Truth About Peter's Hypocrisy
Shadows, Nails and the Fall Holy Days
Law of Moses - Law of God - Part I
Law of God - Law of Moses - Part II
Two Trees - Two Covenants
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
Sin Is The Transgression of The Law?

Conversion to Judaism or Christianity? (on the God Cannot Be Contained blog)

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

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 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

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

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VII

A critical look at using the claim, "The law applied to Israel, and since we are Spiritual Israel the law applies to us," as a support for requiring Christians to attend church on Saturday and other Old Testament practices.

---

In my last post in this series, part VI, we went over the idea that the law is eternal like God is. We saw that this does not work. The law had a start and an end. We saw how sin and righteousness both exist apart from the law. Most people who say the law is eternal only believe some 2% of the law is eternal. So, even as they make this claim they don't really believe it. We found what is eternal is actually the nature of God behind the law. Or, you could say, the spirit of the law. God is love, love is in the inspiration for the law, love is over and above the law, and love endures even when the law does not. We found these three things are needed today: faith, love, and God-indwelling. These three bring us to righteousness. Possess these things and you will fulfill the requirements of the law.

This time, I would like to address what I consider to be a very subtle approach that many take to justify their views on continued Old Covenant law-keeping: claiming that the law applied to Israel, and since we are "Spiritual Israel" then the law must apply to us.

A person said as much to me just recently.

ARGUMENT #7
"The law applied to Israel, and since we are Spiritual Israel the law applies to us."

Certain people are what we might call "legalist". When I think of legalism, I think of a person who looks to generate their own righteousness in law-keeping before they look to faith. They often fixate on minutiae, and "major in the minors". Armstrongism is a Sabbatarian system. So, they believe that to gain righteousness and please God we must all "keep" a cherry-picked list of Old Covenant laws, like Sabbath, holy days, tithes, and clean/unclean meats for example - but never all 613. And they rarely keep those laws the way the law says to. But are they keeping the law if they aren't keeping the law?

Let's be blunt here. The Old Covenant is gone. Period. When the Old Covenant goes, the law goes. I go into this in depth in other posts (for example "Review - Written By The Finger of God"). Still, perhaps it would help to very briefly review the Old Covenant.

The world rejected God three times - at Eden, the Flood, and Babel. So, God rejected the world. To salvage mankind, God called for Himself a man named Abraham to be the progenitor of a very small and insignificant (by worldly standards) nation whom He called Israel. Out of all the wide world, Israel would be His portion; His people. This little nation would help do the most wondrous thing of all. From the moment He rejected the Gentiles, He put in motion a plan to reclaim them. That plan was to bring the Messiah, and bringing the Messiah is where Israel comes in. The Old Covenant was made between God and Israel alone (DEU. 5: 3). This Covenant literally excluded the Gentiles (EPH. 2: 11-12). Covenants are contracts. God and Israel alone were parties to that contract. What we call "the law" were the terms of that contract. The laws were specifically designed to fence Israel away from the Gentiles until Messiah could come. He has come! He alone kept the law blamelessly. And when God died, the Old Covenant dissolved. End of laws. End of division. Time for a new covenant with all nations.
Enter Spiritual Israel.

It should be simple to see why the law was brought in, how the situation has changed, and why the law must change with it. Yet some people are absolutely determined to misunderstand that message. Their teachers have failed them.

Don't get me wrong here. I am not advocating a free-for-all now that the Old Covenant law is gone. There is a standard of righteousness in the New Covenant. However, righteousness is not found in trying and failing to keep a few cherry-picked laws from the Old Covenant.

To bind us to some of the law, they have to break into the Old Covenant somehow, as if through a rear window or back door.

BACK DOORS

Let's go over some of these back doors. I discuss all this in depth in other posts, so you can always go to the Categories page to find more. But reviewing this now will help later in this post. You will find that today's common legalist argument never stands alone. It must be paired with another back door, like one of these. Needing so many back doors is evidence that the initial claim is false to begin with.

Some people misunderstand covenants and just assume the laws are separate from the Covenants that create them. That's not possible. A contract and its terms are one. The terms are the contract and the contract is the terms. What is a contract without terms? It is nothing. And what are terms with no agreement to bind parties to them? It is no agreement at all. When the contract ends, its terms by necessity are dissolved.
I speak of the Old Covenant and its laws. People think the Covenant can end but the laws are untouched by this. Understand covenants and you will understand why this cannot be. (See "Confusing the Covenants" and "Parties to the Covenants" for more.)

Some say the New Covenant is the same as the Old, which is completely redundant. This flies in the face of what God Himself said in Jeremiah 31: 31-32. He specifically said they would not be the same. If they are the same, then one isn't necessary, all 613 laws are still in force, and you're still excluded by law. I like to use Passover as an example (EXO. 12: 43, 48-49). If the law has not changed, then Gentiles are still forbidden by law to observe Passover. Saying the Covenants are the same doesn't get you Passover, it gets you excluded from Passover. The law cannot be eternal and gone at the same time. It cannot be unchanged and changed at the same time. It cannot be required and forbidden at the same time. To demand Gentiles must observe the law is to demand all of these contradictions. I agree that the law has changed! Since there are obvious changes, the answer cannot be that the Covenants are the same.

Some say the Covenants are different, but laws defy reason and magically skip like a flying reindeer from Covenant to Covenant ...but only certain ones! (The ones they choose. The  Bible doesn't choose. The Bible makes them an all-or-nothing deal.) How can some terms of a contract flit about so? They say all the terms of the Old Covenant come forward into the New Covenant unless otherwise stated. Notice, it's made up. Nothing in the Bible says this. Absolutely nothing in the New Testament says the terms of the Old Covenant come forward into the New Covenant unless otherwise stated. Since this is the opposite of how contracts work, we must have something in the Bible to say this - yet there is nothing of the sort. Therefore, it is impossible. Also, this ignores the fact that most of the 613 laws are never "otherwise stated", so they should have come forward, yet they don't appear in the cherry-picked list. And no two churches seem to agree on what that list is.

Some believe the laws were given to "us", regardless of whom Moses (DEU. 5: 3) and Paul (ROM. 9: 4) plainly and clearly state they were actually given to. If the laws were given to "us", then Gentiles were never excluded to begin with, which is contrary to the law and the Bible narrative. The Gentiles were excluded by law. In order to keep the law, the Gentiles had to go through steps to join Israel first. If they had to join Israel, then they were not Israel. And if they had to become Israel to get the law, then law was not given to them (to us). Plus, if it was given to "us", then that means all of the laws were given to us. All 613, not just a few. Now, we're right back to the previous paragraph again. Why aren't they keeping all of the laws? This back door is not possible.

Some even deny there is a New Covenant at all. Are you really a Christian if you get it this wrong? Tell me you don't read the Bible in light of the Christ event without saying you don't read the Bible in light of the Christ event. Usually, this back door comes from certain extremists who intentionally want the Gentiles to remain excluded. They cut Paul out of the New Testament and become a "Red Letter Christian" in order to minimize the New Testament as much as possible. If the Bible doesn't say what you want - change it! Yet, everything one needs to demonstrate the goal was always to bring back the Gentiles can be found in the Old Testament. (For more, read "Once and Future Kingdom - part II" where I go over a list of verses that state the Gentiles will be brought back.) And bringing the Gentiles back demands a change in the law because it excludes them. And a change in the law requires replacing the Covenant they are strangers to with a Covenant they are party to.

But of all the ways I've seen to bind us to parts of the Old Covenant, the most subtle is probably the "we're all [Spiritual] Israel now" method.

SPIRITUAL ISRAEL BACK DOOR

We are all Israel now ...Spiritual Israel, that is. It's a different Israel.

I'm not going to get deep into what spiritual Israel is. Spiritual Israel is a legitimate, biblical thing. It just means Christians. The idea comes from several verses, but mainly Romans 9. In Galatians 4, Paul uses Jerusalem instead of Israel, but it's the same idea. It is not to be confused with Physical Israel. 

In brief, Christians are all "grafted in" to the promises and inheritance given to Jesus because we are one body with Jesus (GAL. 3: 26-29). He is the vine and we are the branches (JON. 15: 5). Jesus is the true and spiritual Israel promised in the Old Testament, who reenacted Israel's journey and succeeded in every point where they failed. Because of Jesus, the entire church, both Jews (Physical Israel) and Gentiles, are the Israel of God (GAL. 6: 16).

Spiritual Israel gets turned into a back door. The thinking behind this spiritual Israel backdoor goes like this:
The laws applied to Israel, and we are all Israel now, so the laws apply to us. Yay!
...well, only some of the laws, not all, and rarely as written.

I left the word "Spiritual" out of that sentence above on purpose to illustrate the problem.

There are two distinct peoples and two distinct Covenants which are being confused. They must not be. The sleight of hand here is one Covenant and people are being swapped in where another Covenant and people belong. You need to discern this. It's critical. Just like discerning the difference between the New and Old Covenants is critical, discerning the difference between Spiritual and Physical Israel is critical. They aren't the same.

To elaborate a bit, Spiritual Israel is not the same as Physical Israel. All Christians are Spiritual Israel, and that can include some from Physical Israel, but not all Physical Israel are Christians. "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel" (ROM. 9: 6b). If it is possible to be a part of one or the other, then the two are different. Yes, they both contain the word Israel, but that does not make them the same. Just like York, England and New York both contain the word York, but they aren't the same. Joining Spiritual Israel is not the same as joining Physical Israel. And therefore joining Spiritual Israel does not join you to the the things that applied only to Physical Israel, such as the Covenant for Physical Israel. Acts 15 and 21 make this abundantly clear (at least they ought to). In other words, the law. The law is a part of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was made with Physical Israel alone; all others were excluded. The Old Covenant is gone for everyone. New Israel is part of the New Covenant alone, not the Old. So, there is still absolutely no reason to apply the Old law to New Israel.

Two Israels. Two Covenants.

Do you see? The thinking confuses Physical Israel and Spiritual Israel because they both contain the word Israel. And it does this in order to remove Spiritual Israel from the New Covenant, turn it into Physical Israel, and then place it into the Old Covenant. This is impossible. This is against the law. And as Jesus said, you cannot put new wine into old wineskins.

This backdoor rests entirely on confusing the two Israels. "Hey! I'm Israel now. So, that makes me the Israel that the Old law applied to. Everybody Sabbath!" No. Not at all.

The law was given to a specific people in a specific area for a specific purpose and for a specific time. That wasn't the Gentiles and it's still not. That wasn't Spiritual Israel, and it will never be.

Israelites are not necessarily Spiritual Israel. You must be a disciple of Jesus to be part of Spiritual Israel, and some simply do not want to join up. Spiritual Israel allows Gentiles in - no circumcision required! How is that possible if the law is still in place? It is not possible.

Someone might say to me, "If I am joined to Jesus, and Jesus was physically an Israelite, then doesn't that make me a part of Physical Israel?" No. We are not physically joined to Jesus; we are spiritually joined. And, once again, His death dissolved the Covenant. There is no Old Covenant to join. It's like going to your bank and demanding to get the terms of your great grandfather's mortgage. You can't, even if you are literally a physical descendant. That mortgage no longer exists.

Removing the distinctions between Jew and Gentile requires the law to be gone first. If the law is not gone, then the Jews are still separate and the Gentiles are still rejected. But we know the Gentiles are no longer rejected and the Jews are no longer separate, so the law is gone. It's the only way.
And how can those laws be gone? The only possible way is by dissolving the Old Covenant and bringing in a New Covenant. The only way to replace the Old Covenant is for one of the parties to the Covenant to die. Who were the parties? Physical Israel and God. So, either all Physical Israel must go extinct, or God must die. God promised to never let Physical Israel go extinct. Therefore, God had to die. When Jesus died, that Old Covenant - with all of its laws - was dissolved, for everyone, even Physical Israel. There is no Old Covenant to break into anymore. Either you are in the New or you're in no covenant at all. The Old is not an option. The New Covenant was made in His blood. It is the New Covenant that creates Spiritual Israel. To leave the New Covenant for the Old Covenant - or rather for no covenant at all - is to leave Spiritual Israel. Some people think they are pleasing God by this when in reality they are sitting on a fence between two Covenants, satisfying neither.

Even if it were somehow possible to resurrect that old law, you would immediately be excluded by it. And that is the main reason why those who want to resurrect the law only want to resurrect about 2% of the law. They know it is impossible to fulfill the law they say must be fulfilled, so they cheat. But you cannot resurrect only 2% of the law. It's an all or nothing deal. As James said, you break one, you break them all. (Read "Are The Ten Commandments Removed?" for more.) Are they keeping all 613? No. If they aren't keeping all the law, then they aren't keeping the law at all.

Physical Israel was created hundreds of years before the Old Covenant. It can exist apart from any covenant. That is not the case with Spiritual Israel. Spiritual Israel cannot exist apart from the New Covenant. It exists only under the New Covenant. Spiritual Israel does nothing to restore the Old Covenant. Spiritual Israel does nothing to make the laws of the New Covenant the same as the laws of the Old Covenant. "New Israel, Old Covenant" is a contradiction.

So, Spiritual Israel is not the back door into the law that many seem to think it is. One must misunderstand both Israels and both Covenants to achieve this. Having failed here, one must go once again to the list of back doors we reviewed earlier and choose another. And, as we've seen, those back doors fail, too. If any one of those back doors actually worked, the rest wouldn't be necessary. So, why are there so many?

CONCLUSION

Today, we've seen two Israels are being confused and two Covenants are being combined. This cannot be.
Today, we have seen many attempts to pry open a back door into the Old Covenant. All fail.

(JON. 10: 1) Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

I know I've repeated the same things a few times today. I wanted to try and say this in a way that would resonate. I figured saying it a couple different ways might just do it.

The key takeaway here is, just because you are part of Spiritual Israel does not in any way bind you to a cherry-picked handful of terms from a dissolved Covenant. That's the wrong Israel and the wrong Covenant.

[Also see Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, & Part VIII]

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

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

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