PAUL: JEWISH LAW AND THE EARLY CHURCH

[jeremiah1five]

Both Acts and the New Testament as a whole are far removed from Paul in time and circumstance, yet they gave birth to the traditional view of Paul. The unmistakable message of Acts—repeatedly placed in the mouth of Paul by scholars—is that gentiles have replaced the Jews as the people of God. And Acts is strategically placed before the letters of Paul, so that it is through Acts that we first meet Paul. In other words, a clear image of Paul is presented to us that preconditions our response to his letters.

Like Acts, the overall message of the New Testament regarding Judaism is that Judaism is rejected, invalidated and replaced by Christianity. And if this is the message of the New Testament as a whole, how can we doubt that its central figure (13 of its 27 writings claim to be written by Paul, and Acts is about him) preached this same message? In short, the other parts of the New Testament, particularly Acts, have always served as the lens through which Paul has been read and interpreted. This eschatological intensity is especially relevant to two central themes in Paul’s thinking. The first is the expectation in numerous Jewish texts of the time when the inclusion of the gentiles as children of God will take place at the end of history. The second is the elaborate scenario that maintains that the temporary blindness of the Jews is a divinely ordained precondition for the inclusion of the gentiles (Romans 11). According to the final stage of this scenario, once the gentiles are brought into a new relationship with God, Israel will come to its senses, and “All Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26). Note that he does not say, “All Israel will come to believe in Jesus or Christianity,” just “All Israel will be saved.”

One final factor is important in understanding Paul’s letters from Paul’s viewpoint: Paul’s message contained instruction to and about gentiles—that they were being offered salvation outside the covenant with Israel—was actively and vociferously resisted by others within the Jesus movement. These anti-Pauline groups, whom Paul himself connects with Peter and James (the brother of Jesus) insisted that gentile followers of Jesus could be saved or redeemed only by becoming members of the people of Israel. For adult males, that meant circumcision. We also know that these anti-Pauline leaders from within the Jesus movement followed Paul from town to town, trying to impose their gospel of circumcision on his gentile believers. The issue between Paul and his opponents was not whether gentiles could become followers of Jesus. They could. The issue was whether they first had to become Jews or whether, as Paul insisted, a new way for them had been opened up by the faith and death of Jesus. It is these anti-Pauline apostles within the Jesus movement who are the targets of Paul’s anger. It is against them that his arguments are directed. His concern with circumcision has nothing to do with Jews outside the Jesus movement (as he tells us explicitly in Romans 2:25–3:4).

As the apostle, he is concerned exclusively with the issue of the circumcision of gentiles within the Jesus movement, but Paul never speaks of gentiles as replacing Israel. (Note that Paul never refers to gentile members of the Jesus movement as Christians; for him, humanity is always divided between Jews and gentiles.) And Paul never speaks of God as having rejected Israel in favor of a new chosen people. I cannot deny that interpreters throughout the ages have read him in this way. I believe that Paul vehemently repudiates this misreading of his thought: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people [Israel]? By no means!” (Romans 11:1).

Paul did not see the Mosaic Law as a bad thing or as somehow not being a revelation from God. The issue then is not whether Paul might have been anti-Law, because he wasn’t. Rather, the issue is how Paul viewed the Law’s role in the larger picture of salvation history, and the effect that Israel's Messiah had upon the Law. And what Paul says as clearly as he can in Galatians 3–4, in 2 Corinthians 3 and even in Romans is that the Law, though a very good thing, has been eclipsed by the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and must now be seen as obsolescent:

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Gal. 3:23–25.

For Paul, the new covenant in Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Paul views the Mosaic covenant as an interim solution for God’s people, and he believes that the covenant’s day has passed. In Galatians 4, Paul likens the Mosaic covenant to a minor’s guardian who plays an important role—but only until the youth comes of age. But as Galatians 4:4 says, when the fullness of time had come, God sent “forth his Son…born under the Law to redeem those who were under the Law.” Paul can only be referring to persons like himself, namely Jews. In other words, whether we agree with him or not, Paul believes Jesus is indeed the savior of Jews as well as gentiles. He believes that Jews need to be redeemed from the Law, not because the Law is a bad thing, but because it cannot save fallen human beings; it cannot make them new creatures. As Paul puts it: “For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the Law…Since God is one…he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith” (Romans 3:28–30).

Paul does not believe that Jews will be justified one way and gentiles another: He believes they will both be justified by a saving faith in the one Messiah for both Jews and gentiles, Jesus of Nazareth. We must make no mistake: In Romans 9:5, when Paul says the Messiah comes from Israel, he means the Messiah anticipated by Jews as their redeemer, whom he believes has now come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Paul never refers to anyone other than Jesus as “the Christ.” As Paul says in Romans 1:16– 17, the good news (that is, the gospel about Jesus) is the power of salvation “for everyone who has faith to the Jew first and also to the Gentiles.” Such statements cannot be dismissed simply as rhetorical flourishes intended solely for gentiles to make them feel they have equal standing with Jews before God.

 

[Eleanor]

Both Acts and the New Testament as a whole are far removed from Paul in time and circumstance, yet they gave birth to the traditional view of Paul.

Are you serious?

Paul's conversion and entire apostolic ministry of three journeys are recorded in Acts.

The unmistakable message of Acts—repeatedly placed in the mouth of Paul by scholars—is that gentiles have replaced the Jews as the people of God. And Acts is strategically placed before the letters of Paul, so that it is through Acts that we first meet Paul. In other words, a clear image of Paul is presented to us that preconditions our response to his letters.

What "condition"?
And unless it is all a lie, what is the problem?

Paul was an apostle appointed by Jesus Christ, receiving his revelation personally from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11-12), and enjoying the same authority as did the other apostles.
And Paul did not say that Gentiles have replaced believing Jews, he said that
unbelieving Jews have been cut off from God's people, represented as one olive tree--the NT church of both Jew and Gentile, and that believing Gentiles have been grafted in;
that the destiny of the Jews is to be grafted back into the one olive tree of God's people, IF they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23).
The church is not the replacement of believing Israel, the church is the fulfillment of believing Israel.

The only replacement taking place here is of believing Gentiles for Christ-rejecting unbelieving Jews, there is no replacement of believing Jews.

Like Acts, the overall message of the New Testament regarding Judaism is that Judaism is rejected, invalidated and replaced by Christianity.

It's never called Judaism in the NT. Christianity is the fulfillment of the OT.

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, whose teaching is authoritative to God's people, and of whom Jesus said that to reject the words of the apostles is to reject the words of Jesus (Lk 10:16), teaches that
the ceremonial laws of Leviticus (defilements, food, cleansings, feasts, etc.) are abolished (Eph 2:15),
the Mosaic covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13),
we are under a new covenant, new high priest, new mediator, new sabbath rest and a completed atonement (Heb 3-10), which is received by faith alone (Eph 2:8-9).

And if this is the message of the New Testament as a whole, how can we doubt that its central figure (13 of its 27 writings claim to be written by Paul, and Acts is about him) preached this same message? In short, the other parts of the New Testament, particularly Acts, have always served as the lens through which Paul has been read and interpreted.

The words in Paul's teaching above speak for themselves.
You don't need Acts to interpret Paul's plain teaching in the above.

(Con't. below)

 

[Eleanor]

Con't from above:

This eschatological intensity

What eschatology?
There is nothing eschatological in the above.

is especially relevant to two central themes in Paul’s thinking. The first is the expectation in numerous Jewish texts of the time when the inclusion of the gentiles as children of God will take place at the end of history.

Paul does not teach that the inclusion of Gentiles will take place at the end of history.
Don't confuse dispensational interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:8) with NT apostolic teaching authoritative to God's people.

The second is the elaborate scenario that maintains that the temporary blindness of the Jews is a divinely ordained precondition for the inclusion of the gentiles (Romans 11). According to the final stage of this scenario, once the gentiles are brought into a new relationship with God, Israel will come to its senses, and “All Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26). Note that he does not say, “All Israel will come to believe in Jesus or Christianity,” just “All Israel will be saved.”

Note that in NT apostolic teaching authoritative to God's people, there is only one way to be saved, and when the NT speaks of "being saved," it is that way to which it is referring; i.e., by faith in Jesus Christ.

One final factor is important in understanding Paul’s letters from Paul’s viewpoint: Paul’s message contained instruction to and about gentiles—that they were being offered salvation outside the covenant with Israel—

The covenants with Israel were not salvific, they did not offer salvation.
Belief in the promise (Ge 15:5, seed; Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) was salvific.

was actively and vociferously resisted by others within the Jesus movement. These anti-Pauline groups, whom Paul himself connects with Peter and James (the brother of Jesus)

"Connects with Peter and James" in his identification of them as coming from Jerusalem, not either as approved nor sent by James or Peter.

insisted that gentile followers of Jesus could be saved or redeemed only by becoming members of the people of Israel. . . .

As the apostle, he is concerned exclusively with the issue of the circumcision of gentiles within the Jesus movement, but Paul never speaks of gentiles as replacing Israel. (Note that Paul never refers to gentile members of the Jesus movement as Christians;

They weren't called "Christians" at that time.

for him, humanity is always divided between Jews and gentiles.)

For Paul, humanity is always divided between believers and non-believers in Jesus Christ (Gal 3:28-29), both groups including both Jew and Gentile.
It is the Judaizers for whom humanity is divided between Jew and Gentile.

And Paul never speaks of God as having rejected Israel in favor of a new chosen people. I cannot deny that interpreters throughout the ages have read him in this way. I believe that Paul vehemently repudiates this misreading of his thought: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people [Israel]? By no means!” (Romans 11:1).

Which he goes on to explain as God's promises to Israel being fulfilled in a believing remnant only (Ro 11:1-5).
God rejects unbelieving Israel just as he rejects unbelieving Gentiles.
God accepts believing Israel (Ro 11:23) just as he accepts believing Gentiles, by faith.
And in both cases, it is only a remnant that believe.

Paul did not see the Mosaic Law as a bad thing or as somehow not being a revelation from God. The issue then is not whether Paul might have been anti-Law, because he wasn’t. Rather, the issue is how Paul viewed the Law’s role in the larger picture of salvation history, and the effect that Israel's Messiah had upon the Law. And what Paul says as clearly as he can in Galatians 3–4, in 2 Corinthians 3 and even in Romans is that the Law, though a very good thing, has been eclipsed by the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and must now be seen as obsolescent:

It is the Mosaic covenant that is obsolete (Hen 8:13).

For Paul, the new covenant in Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Paul views the Mosaic covenant as an interim solution for God’s people,

The Mosaic covenant was not a solution to anything. It was a temporary addition, until Christ, to the Abrahamic covenant (Gal 3:19), given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).

Paul says in Romans 1:16– 17, the good news (that is, the gospel about Jesus) is the power of salvation “for everyone who has faith to the Jew first and also to the Gentiles.” Such statements cannot be dismissed simply as rhetorical flourishes intended solely for gentiles to make them feel they have equal standing with Jews before God.

NT apostolic teaching disagrees with you in Gal 3:28-29:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile. . .if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

 

[Soyeong]

Both Acts and the New Testament as a whole are far removed from Paul in time and circumstance, yet they gave birth to the traditional view of Paul. The unmistakable message of Acts—repeatedly placed in the mouth of Paul by scholars—is that gentiles have replaced the Jews as the people of God.

Where is your evidence that words were placed in Paul's mouth? Paul did not say that Gentiles have replaced Jews as the people of God, but rather he identified as a Jew (Acts 21:39, Acts 22:3). The New Covenant is based on better promises and one of those promises is that Israel would never cease to be a nation before God (Jeremiah 31:35-37). In Ephesians 3:6, Paul said that the mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, which is a far cry from saying that Gentiles have replaced Jews as the people of God.

Like Acts, the overall message of the New Testament regarding Judaism is that Judaism is rejected, invalidated and replaced by Christianity. “All Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26). Note that he does not say, “All Israel will come to believe in Jesus or Christianity,” just “All Israel will be saved.”

Christ did not come to start his own religion following a different God, but rather he came as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and he set a perfect example for us to follow of how to practice Judaism by living in sinless obedience to the Torah, so he did not reject Judaism, but rather to reject Judaism is to reject him. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith who were all zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Torah, which is in accordance with believing in what Jesus gave himself to accomplish in Titus 2:14, so Jews coming to faith in Jesus were not ceasing to practice Judaism. This means that there was a period of time between the resurrection of Jesus and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimated to be around 7-15 years during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews. So Christianity at it origin was the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as the Messiah. In Acts 23:6, Paul identified as a Pharisee and a Pharisee is someone who practices Judaism. Likewise, in Acts 24:14, "The Way" is a sect of Judaism. The way that all Israel is saved is through faith in Jesus because there is no other way to the Father.

that they were being offered salvation outside the covenant with Israel

The issue was whether they first had to become Jews or whether, as Paul insisted, a new way for them had been opened up by the faith and death of Jesus.

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Torah, and he chose the way of faithfulness by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith that is offered by the Bible. The way to become saved was never by becoming Jews. In Ephesians 2:12-19, Gentiles were at one time separated from Christ, alienated from Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world, but through faith in Christ all of that is no longer true in that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens, but are fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints in the household of God, which again is a far cry from Gentiles replacing Israel. Judaism doesn't teach that we need to become circumcised in order to become saved, so opposing requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason is not opposing Judaism. Gentiles can't become followers of Jesus by refusing to follow the religion that he practiced.

As the apostle, he is concerned exclusively with the issue of the circumcision of gentiles within the Jesus movement, but Paul never speaks of gentiles as replacing Israel. (Note that Paul never refers to gentile members of the Jesus movement as Christians; for him, humanity is always divided between Jews and gentiles.) And Paul never speaks of God as having rejected Israel in favor of a new chosen people. I cannot deny that interpreters throughout the ages have read him in this way. I believe that Paul vehemently repudiates this misreading of his thought: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people [Israel]? By no means!” (Romans 11:1).

This paragraph seems opposed to the rest of what you have written.

Paul did not see the Mosaic Law as a bad thing or as somehow not being a revelation from God. The issue then is not whether Paul might have been anti-Law, because he wasn’t.

Agreed.

Rather, the issue is how Paul viewed the Law’s role in the larger picture of salvation history, and the effect that Israel's Messiah had upon the Law. And what Paul says as clearly as he can in Galatians 3–4, in 2 Corinthians 3 and even in Romans is that the Law, though a very good thing, has been eclipsed by the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and must now be seen as obsolescent:

Paul did not say that in any of those books, but just the opposite. In Galatians 3:16-19, a newer covenant does not nullify the promise of a covenant that has already been ratified, so the promise in connection with living in obedience to the Torah still stands. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Gal. 3:23–25.

In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so God's law leads us to Jesus because it teaches us how to know him, which is eternal life (John 17:3), but it does not lead us to him so that we can reject everything he taught and accomplish through the cross.

Moreover, in Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, through faith, in Christ, and children of Abraham and heirs of the promise is directly connected with living in obedience to the Torah. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to the Torah are not children of God. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked. In Matthew 23:23, Christ said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Torah. In John 8:39, Christ said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him.

For Paul, the new covenant in Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Paul views the Mosaic covenant as an interim solution for God’s people, and he believes that the covenant’s day has passed. In Galatians 4, Paul likens the Mosaic covenant to a minor’s guardian who plays an important role—but only until the youth comes of age. But as Galatians 4:4 says, when the fullness of time had come, God sent “forth his Son…born under the Law to redeem those who were under the Law.” Paul can only be referring to persons like himself, namely Jews. In other words, whether we agree with him or not, Paul believes Jesus is indeed the savior of Jews as well as gentiles. He believes that Jews need to be redeemed from the Law, not because the Law is a bad thing, but because it cannot save fallen human beings; it cannot make them new creatures. As Paul puts it: “For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the Law…Since God is one…he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith” (Romans 3:28–30).

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves obeying the Torah. In Exodus 33:14-17 and Leviticus 24:8, the Mosaic Covenant is eternal, not an interim solution. Someone who disregarded everything that their tutor taught them would be missing the whole point of a tutor. The Torah was given as a gift for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13, so those who are under it have no need to be redeemed from it, but rather we had the need to be redeemed from our lawlessness. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from the Torah, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Torah is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20). We do not earn our justification as the result of obeying the Torah because it was never given as a means of doing it, but the faith by which we are justified does not abolish our need to obey it, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:28-31).

Paul does not believe that Jews will be justified one way and gentiles another: He believes they will both be justified by a saving faith in the one Messiah for both Jews and gentiles, Jesus of Nazareth.

In Romans 3:21-22, the only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ, so that is the same for both Jews and Gentiles.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Are you serious?
Paul's conversion and entire apostolic ministry of three journeys are recorded in Acts.

I agree. I had meant to say that these words are said by some of the scholars I've read and wanted to take issue with.

What "condition"?
And unless it is all a lie, what is the problem?

The problem of Gentile Christians who teach Replacement Theology, that the Gentile Church has replace Israel in the plan of God for His covenant people because they rejected their Messiah and murdered Him on a cross. Not to mention the arrogant attitude, demons really, that have such a bias against Israel because of it.

Paul was an apostle appointed by Jesus Christ, receiving his revelation personally from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11-12), and enjoying the same authority as did the other apostles.

There was nothing 'mystical' about Paul's revelation of Christ. The man was a Pharisee and knew the Scripture. But he only knew the letter of the law until the Holy Spirit illuminated the Seed of the Word of God in him and he did what we do today and that is line upon line and precept upon precept. Quite natural and practical. Nothing supernatural about it except that God opened his mind to the Scripture just as He does with any and every obedient believer who trusts in God and seeks God's truth through Scripture.

And Paul did not say that Gentiles have replaced believing Jews, he said that
unbelieving Jews have been cut off from God's people, represented as one olive tree--the NT church of both Jew and Gentile, and that believing Gentiles have been grafted in;
that the destiny of the Jews is to be grafted back into the one olive tree of God's people, IF they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23).
The church is not the replacement of believing Israel, the church is the fulfillment of believing Israel.

Ask any horticulturist what would happen to the tree if you remove all the branches of a tree for the purpose of 'grafting' in branches of another tree. He'll tell you it will die. The natural branches had not been removed by God. Only some of them so that an equal number of other branches from another tree can be grafted into the branches of the original natural tree. In a way you have a subtle holding of Replacement Theology yourself in saying what you did.
One can only graft in branches into one tree the same number of branches taken away.

The only replacement taking place here is of believing Gentiles for Christ-rejecting unbelieving Jews, there is no replacement of believing Jews.

It matters not what Israel does with regard to believing or not believing in Christ as their Messiah. What matters is that GOD is faithful and will keep all His promises to Israel His Bride and Church.

It's never called Judaism in the NT. Christianity is the fulfillment of the OT.

Christianity comes from Christian, and it is the English for the Greek "Christos" which means Messias in Hebrew. And "Christian" was the name they gave the Jewish believers at Antioch. They might as well be called "Messiah-ites." Let's take it back to the original language from which we get "Christ." And Christianity is not the fulfillment of the OT.

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, whose teaching is authoritative to God's people, and of whom Jesus said that to reject the words of the apostles is to reject the words of Jesus (Lk 10:16), teaches that
the ceremonial laws of Leviticus (defilements, food, cleansings, feasts, etc.) are abolished (Eph 2:15),
the Mosaic covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13),

If the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete, then the Holy Spirit is obsolete.

we are under a new covenant, new high priest, new mediator, new sabbath rest and a completed atonement (Heb 3-10), which is received by faith alone (Eph 2:8-9).

Jesus Christ didn't change the Law of Moses. If He did then this is tantamount to suicide for the Mosaic Covenant prophesied of Messiah and in the Holy Spirit, that same Law God promised to put in our inward parts.

The words in Paul's teaching above speak for themselves.
You don't need Acts to interpret Paul's plain teaching in the above.

Of course you do. You need the whole counsel of God in His Word to come to the knowledge of the truth in Christ.

(Con't. below)

 

[EarlyActs]

Both Acts and the New Testament as a whole are far removed from Paul in time and circumstance, yet they gave birth to the traditional view of Paul. The unmistakable message of Acts—repeatedly placed in the mouth of Paul by scholars—is that gentiles have replaced the Jews as the people of God. And Acts is strategically placed before the letters of Paul, so that it is through Acts that we first meet Paul. In other words, a clear image of Paul is presented to us that preconditions our response to his letters.

Like Acts, the overall message of the New Testament regarding Judaism is that Judaism is rejected, invalidated and replaced by Christianity. And if this is the message of the New Testament as a whole, how can we doubt that its central figure (13 of its 27 writings claim to be written by Paul, and Acts is about him) preached this same message? In short, the other parts of the New Testament, particularly Acts, have always served as the lens through which Paul has been read and interpreted. This eschatological intensity is especially relevant to two central themes in Paul’s thinking. The first is the expectation in numerous Jewish texts of the time when the inclusion of the gentiles as children of God will take place at the end of history. The second is the elaborate scenario that maintains that the temporary blindness of the Jews is a divinely ordained precondition for the inclusion of the gentiles (Romans 11). According to the final stage of this scenario, once the gentiles are brought into a new relationship with God, Israel will come to its senses, and “All Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26). Note that he does not say, “All Israel will come to believe in Jesus or Christianity,” just “All Israel will be saved.”

One final factor is important in understanding Paul’s letters from Paul’s viewpoint: Paul’s message contained instruction to and about gentiles—that they were being offered salvation outside the covenant with Israel—was actively and vociferously resisted by others within the Jesus movement. These anti-Pauline groups, whom Paul himself connects with Peter and James (the brother of Jesus) insisted that gentile followers of Jesus could be saved or redeemed only by becoming members of the people of Israel. For adult males, that meant circumcision. We also know that these anti-Pauline leaders from within the Jesus movement followed Paul from town to town, trying to impose their gospel of circumcision on his gentile believers. The issue between Paul and his opponents was not whether gentiles could become followers of Jesus. They could. The issue was whether they first had to become Jews or whether, as Paul insisted, a new way for them had been opened up by the faith and death of Jesus. It is these anti-Pauline apostles within the Jesus movement who are the targets of Paul’s anger. It is against them that his arguments are directed. His concern with circumcision has nothing to do with Jews outside the Jesus movement (as he tells us explicitly in Romans 2:25–3:4).

As the apostle, he is concerned exclusively with the issue of the circumcision of gentiles within the Jesus movement, but Paul never speaks of gentiles as replacing Israel. (Note that Paul never refers to gentile members of the Jesus movement as Christians; for him, humanity is always divided between Jews and gentiles.) And Paul never speaks of God as having rejected Israel in favor of a new chosen people. I cannot deny that interpreters throughout the ages have read him in this way. I believe that Paul vehemently repudiates this misreading of his thought: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people [Israel]? By no means!” (Romans 11:1).

Paul did not see the Mosaic Law as a bad thing or as somehow not being a revelation from God. The issue then is not whether Paul might have been anti-Law, because he wasn’t. Rather, the issue is how Paul viewed the Law’s role in the larger picture of salvation history, and the effect that Israel's Messiah had upon the Law. And what Paul says as clearly as he can in Galatians 3–4, in 2 Corinthians 3 and even in Romans is that the Law, though a very good thing, has been eclipsed by the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and must now be seen as obsolescent:

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Gal. 3:23–25.

For Paul, the new covenant in Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Paul views the Mosaic covenant as an interim solution for God’s people, and he believes that the covenant’s day has passed. In Galatians 4, Paul likens the Mosaic covenant to a minor’s guardian who plays an important role—but only until the youth comes of age. But as Galatians 4:4 says, when the fullness of time had come, God sent “forth his Son…born under the Law to redeem those who were under the Law.” Paul can only be referring to persons like himself, namely Jews. In other words, whether we agree with him or not, Paul believes Jesus is indeed the savior of Jews as well as gentiles. He believes that Jews need to be redeemed from the Law, not because the Law is a bad thing, but because it cannot save fallen human beings; it cannot make them new creatures. As Paul puts it: “For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the Law…Since God is one…he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith” (Romans 3:28–30).

Paul does not believe that Jews will be justified one way and gentiles another: He believes they will both be justified by a saving faith in the one Messiah for both Jews and gentiles, Jesus of Nazareth. We must make no mistake: In Romans 9:5, when Paul says the Messiah comes from Israel, he means the Messiah anticipated by Jews as their redeemer, whom he believes has now come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Paul never refers to anyone other than Jesus as “the Christ.” As Paul says in Romans 1:16– 17, the good news (that is, the gospel about Jesus) is the power of salvation “for everyone who has faith to the Jew first and also to the Gentiles.” Such statements cannot be dismissed simply as rhetorical flourishes intended solely for gentiles to make them feel they have equal standing with Jews before God.

Hey watch your language:
The unmistakable message of Acts—repeatedly placed in the mouth of Paul by scholars—is that gentiles have replaced the Jews as the people of God.

Nope, believers properly replace unbelievers, as always was the case, if you know the OT. But in Judaism, you were in if your race-nation was correct. This is not true in the Gospel. So the NT is about detangling from Judaism as clearly as possible. Please review my book THE COVENANT WAR, M. Sanford, Amazon. A better subtitle might be : 'Jesus, the Zealots, and the actual drama of the NT.'

 

[jeremiah1five]

Con't from above:
What eschatology?
There is nothing eschatological in the above.

Of course, there is. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and for ever, meaning tomorrow of the last things.

Paul does not teach that the inclusion of Gentiles will take place at the end of history.

The timeline of God in Scripture teaches that. We are at the end and it began with the Advent of the Holy Spirit two thousand years ago. Add two thousand years from A.D. 30, the accepted year of Jesus' ascension and the arrival of the Holy Spirit and it will be two thousand years in 2030.

Don't confuse dispensational interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:8) with NT apostolic teaching authoritative to God's people.

Note that in NT apostolic teaching authoritative to God's people, there is only one way to be saved, and when the NT speaks of "being saved," it is that way to which it is referring; i.e., by faith in Jesus Christ.

Apostolic teaching is from the word "apostolos" and it means "sent." The teaching Jesus taught and the teaching He sent with His disciples is the teaching of the covenants and prophecies of the Old Testament. The Jews were able to identify Jesus as their Messiah based upon what was written in the OT.
And the only way to be saved in through the covenants God gave to Israel for God made no covenant with Gentiles. Gentiles are enjoying the spiritual aspect of the original and natural covenant God made with Abraham the person and his seed the children of Israel (Mosaic.)

The covenants with Israel were not salvific, they did not offer salvation.
Belief in the promise (Ge 15:5, seed; Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) was salvific.

And everyone in Covenant with God that looked forward to His Promise to send a Deliverer and Redeemer and King trusted in that salvation of God that accompanied the covenant and the prophecies and promises.

"Connects with Peter and James" in his identification of them as coming from Jerusalem, not either as approved nor sent by James or Peter.

Because Jewish Christians populated the early Church predominantly for the several decades after Christ ascended it was originally related to the covenants and prophecies and promises God made to the children of Israel and Abraham. All our beliefs come from the Old Testament.

They weren't called "Christians" at that time.

The Jews who believed in their Messiah were called "Christian."
To be called "Christian" today is to follow in their footsteps.

For Paul, humanity is always divided between believers and non-believers in Jesus Christ (Gal 3:28-29), both groups including both Jew and Gentile.

For Paul humanity was always divided between Jew and Gentile. Nothing's changed. It is still the same.
God has covenant with Abraham and the children of Israel. And God will keep all His promises He made to them even if they do not. Thank God.

It is the Judaizers for whom humanity is divided between Jew and Gentile.

It is the Jew who has covenant with God against the Gentiles that do not. And that is the reality today for God made no covenant with Gentiles.

Which he goes on to explain as God's promises to Israel being fulfilled in a believing remnant only (Ro 11:1-5).
God rejects unbelieving Israel just as he rejects unbelieving Gentiles.

God has covenant with Abraham and with the children of Israel and God will keep His promise to them even if they do not to Him. God does not lie. God is faithful to what He promised to Abraham and his seed. Paul said, "an all Israel shall be saved"

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, there shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. Rom. 11:25–27.

Paul doesn't say Israel will accept Jesus as their Messiah, he merely says "and all Israel shall be saved."
He also says, "the Delivered shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" meaning salvation is of the Lord apart from the Law. But it is a Hebrew/Jewish covenant. There is nowhere in Scripture God making a covenant with any Gentiles, or with one Gentile and his seed. Gentiles are not the natural seed of Abraham to whom holds the promises. Paul also says, "for THIS is my covenant UNTO THEM when I shall take away their sins. He says nothing about faith. Just that God shall take away their ungodliness.

God accepts believing Israel (Ro 11:23) just as he accepts believing Gentiles, by faith.
And in both cases, it is only a remnant that believe.

If you read carefully the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17 when God says "I will establish my covenant between me and thee" there is no mention of faith as a condition. What is conditional and what will separate Abraham's descendants from Gentiles and their descendants who hold no covenant is the sign of circumcision. Up until the Catholic church Gentiles were not circumcising their infants. The sign of covenant among those who held the promises were Hebrews/Jews. And every child that belonged to observant Jewish parents circumcised their infants as a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, not Gentiles.

It is the Mosaic covenant that is obsolete (Hen 8:13).

If the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete, then the Holy Spirit is obsolete for the Law is type and shadow of the Holy Spirit that God promised the house of Israel to put in their inward parts. That's a covenant God made with the house of Israel. Why are Gentiles inserting themselves in a covenant God made with the Jews of twelve tribes? God made no covenant with any Gentile or group of Gentiles and their seed. It's a delusion to think as Gentile that He did when there's no Scriptural evidence for that belief or theology.

The Mosaic covenant was not a solution to anything. It was a temporary addition, until Christ, to the Abrahamic covenant (Gal 3:19), given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).

The Presence of God the Holy Spirit, or God the Father, or God the Son reveals sin because no one can stand blameless before a Holy God except a Holy Son and a Holy Spirit which is why no [sinful or redeemed flesh] shall glory in His Presence.

NT apostolic teaching disagrees with you in Gal 3:28-29:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile. . .if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Paul wrote to Jewish Christians in Asia Minor. He was explaining to them that by being a Jewish person in the Abrahamic Covenant and accepting Jesus as their Messiah they are still Abraham's children. It didn't divide them from the covenant as the Judaizers would teach and from whom and from the hands Jewish Christians were being persecuted first in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1 - think Stephen) and later as well (think Hebrews 6.)

Peter, speaking to the twelve tribes who lived in Israel and to visitors Jews from Gentile lands that came for the celebration and were there for the Feast of Trumpets:
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2:39.

And Paul writing to Jewish Christians at Rome:
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Rom. 9:3–5.

God saves Gentiles merely by just saving them and He does it outside the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant. God made no covenant with any Gentile and their seed nor to any Gentiles and their seeds.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Where is your evidence that words were placed in Paul's mouth? Paul did not say that Gentiles have replaced Jews as the people of God, but rather he identified as a Jew (Acts 21:39, Acts 22:3). The New Covenant is based on better promises and one of those promises is that Israel would never cease to be a nation before God (Jeremiah 31:35-37). In Ephesians 3:6, Paul said that the mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, which is a far cry from saying that Gentiles have replaced Jews as the people of God.

I was editing and meant to say that scholars put such words in Paul's mouth in their erroneous interpretations of the Scripture. They have done it by teaching Replacement Theology, that because the Jewish leaders rejected their Messiah in the Person of Jesus that God has rejected them, but as you can see by the crowds that followed Jesus and later at the Feast of Harvests.

Christ did not come to start his own religion following a different God, but rather he came as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy

...and Hebrew/Jewish covenant.

and he set a perfect example for us to follow of how to practice Judaism by living in sinless obedience to the Torah, so he did not reject Judaism, but rather to reject Judaism is to reject him. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith who were all zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Torah, which is in accordance with believing in what Jesus gave himself to accomplish in Titus 2:14, so Jews coming to faith in Jesus were not ceasing to practice Judaism. This means that there was a period of time between the resurrection of Jesus and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimated to be around 7-15 years during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews. So Christianity at it origin was the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as the Messiah. In Acts 23:6, Paul identified as a Pharisee and a Pharisee is someone who practices Judaism. Likewise, in Acts 24:14, "The Way" is a sect of Judaism. The way that all Israel is saved is through faith in Jesus because there is no other way to the Father.

But the covenants, prophecies, and promises were not made with Gentiles.
Paul, writing to Jewish Christians at Rome says:

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Rom. 9:3–4.

And it was more than 15 years after ascension. James writes in A.D. 49 "to the twelve tribes scattered" and by the time Paul sets the Jewish Christians straight concerning what to do with Gentile believers in his Galatian [circular] letter (A.D. 54) and his letter to Jewish Christians at Rome (A.D. 64) the churches in Asai Minor and all around the then-known Gentile world were founded by Jewish Christians and they were in the majority since Jesus was a Jewish Messiah and no one was able to address what to do with Gentiles that became saved before that, they were separated in their home churches from Gentiles for a time as they were in their Temple and their synagogues - and until the destruction of their Temple in A.D. 70 were also in their Jewish home church fellowships.

God made no covenant with any Gentiles and their seed(s). The whole of both New Testament and Old Testament writings are of the Jews, by the Jews, and to the Jews. NOT to any Gentile.

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Torah, and he chose the way of faithfulness by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith that is offered by the Bible. The way to become saved was never by becoming Jews. In Ephesians 2:12-19, Gentiles were at one time separated from Christ, alienated from Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world, but through faith in Christ all of that is no longer true in that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens, but are fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints in the household of God, which again is a far cry from Gentiles replacing Israel. Judaism doesn't teach that we need to become circumcised in order to become saved, so opposing requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason is not opposing Judaism. Gentiles can't become followers of Jesus by refusing to follow the religion that he practiced.

Judaism doesn't teach Gentiles anything. The covenant was not made with Gentiles.

This paragraph seems opposed to the rest of what you have written.
Agreed.
Paul did not say that in any of those books, but just the opposite. In Galatians 3:16-19, a newer covenant does not nullify the promise of a covenant that has already been ratified, so the promise in connection with living in obedience to the Torah still stands. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it.

The New Testament writings were written by Jewish Christians to other Jewish Christians. They were not addressed to Gentiles. The writers might have addressed Gentile issues where the covenants and promises were concerned and the effect Israel's Messiah had on Judaism but they were not adressed to Gentiles.

In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so God's law leads us to Jesus because it teaches us how to know him, which is eternal life (John 17:3), but it does not lead us to him so that we can reject everything he taught and accomplish through the cross.

If Messiah Jesus was the fulfillment of every covenant and prophecy and promise God made to Abraham and his seed, then everything He taught and accomplished on the cross is also part of the New Covenant God made with the house of Israel (Jer. 31), but God made no covenant with Gentiles or their seed.

Moreover, in Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, through faith, in Christ, and children of Abraham and heirs of the promise is directly connected with living in obedience to the Torah. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to the Torah are not children of God. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked. In Matthew 23:23, Christ said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Torah. In John 8:39, Christ said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him.

You read the NT with a Gentile mindset. Those words were not given to Gentiles. He came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not the lost sheep of the people of Gentiles.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves obeying the Torah. In Exodus 33:14-17 and Leviticus 24:8, the Mosaic Covenant is eternal, not an interim solution. Someone who disregarded everything that their tutor taught them would be missing the whole point of a tutor. The Torah was given as a gift for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13, so those who are under it have no need to be redeemed from it, but rather we had the need to be redeemed from our lawlessness. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from the Torah, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Torah is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20). We do not earn our justification as the result of obeying the Torah because it was never given as a means of doing it, but the faith by which we are justified does not abolish our need to obey it, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:28-31).

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Rom. 9:3–5.

God made no covenant with Gentiles.

In Romans 3:21-22, the only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ, so that is the same for both Jews and Gentiles.

Paul writes to Jewish Christians at Rome (A.D. 64) and the which they were still the majority until after the destruction of their Temple. Until then the "ism" of Judaism remained as it was a predominantly Jewish home-church fellowship and until Paul could set them straight still practiced separation from Gentile believers as they did in the Temple and in the synagogues.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Hey watch your language:
The unmistakable message of Acts—repeatedly placed in the mouth of Paul by scholars—is that gentiles have replaced the Jews as the people of God.

Nope, believers properly replace unbelievers, as always was the case, if you know the OT. But in Judaism, you were in if your race-nation was correct. This is not true in the Gospel. So the NT is about detangling from Judaism as clearly as possible. Please review my book THE COVENANT WAR, M. Sanford, Amazon. A better subtitle might be : 'Jesus, the Zealots, and the actual drama of the NT.'

God made covenant with Abraham and later with his seed the children of Israel. Paul says, "and all Israel shall be saved," he didn't say they will come to accept Jesus but that "all Israel shall be saved" and this is one of the benefits of their covenants, and prophecies, and promises.

 

[Eleanor]

I agree. I had meant to say that these words are said by some of the scholars I've read and wanted to take issue with.

The problem of Gentile Christians who teach Replacement Theology, that the Gentile Church has replace Israel in the plan of God for His covenant people because they rejected their Messiah and murdered Him on a cross. Not to mention the arrogant attitude, demons really, that have such a bias against Israel because of it.

There is only one people of God, going all the way back to Abraham, the one olive tree (Ro 11:16-22) of believing Jews, and into which one tree was grafted believing Gentiles, while unbelieving Jews were cut off, but whose destiny is to be grafted back in again, IF they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23).
It's not "replacement" theology, it's the "fulfillment" theology of Ro 11, and from which believing Jews are not excluded.

There was nothing 'mystical' about Paul's revelation of Christ. The man was a Pharisee and knew the Scripture. But he only knew the letter of the law until the Holy Spirit illuminated the Seed of the Word of God in him and he did what we do today and that is line upon line and precept upon precept. Quite natural and practical. Nothing supernatural about it

That's a real subversion of the Biblical account.
Evidently you've never read the account of his conversion in Acts.
You probably should get informed on the subject before opining thereon.

except that God opened his mind to the Scripture just as He does with any and every obedient believer who trusts in God and seeks God's truth through Scripture.

Ask any horticulturist what would happen to the tree if you remove all the branches of a tree for the purpose of 'grafting' in branches of another tree.

That's called unbelief. . .of the NT in Ro 11.

Not to mention your misrepresentation of the account.

He'll tell you it will die. The natural branches had not been removed by God. Only some of them so that an equal number of other branches from another tree can be grafted into the branches of the original natural tree. In a way you have a subtle holding of Replacement Theology yourself in saying what you did.
One can only graft in branches into one tree the same number of branches taken away.

AT least you acknowledge that it is the NT which presents what you call "replacement" theology, in the NT's presentation of cutting off the unbelieving Jewish branches and grafting in the believing Gentile branches (Ro 11).

Your issue is unbelief. . .of the NT in Ro 11.

It matters not what Israel does with regard to believing or not believing in Christ as their Messiah. What matters is that GOD is faithful and will keep all His promises to Israel His Bride and Church.

Christianity comes from Christian, and it is the English for the Greek "Christos" which means Messias in Hebrew. And "Christian" was the name they gave the Jewish believers at Antioch. They might as well be called "Messiah-ites." Let's take it back to the original language from which we get "Christ." And Christianity is not the fulfillment of the OT.
If the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete, then the Holy Spirit is obsolete.

More unbelief. . .of the NT in Heb 8:13.

Jesus Christ didn't change the Law of Moses.

Indeed he did with his bloody sacrificial atonement on the cross.

The sacrifices, defilements, cleansings, feasts, etc. of the (ceremonial, Levitcal) Mosaic laws are abolished (Eph 2:15).

More unbelief. . .of the NT in Eph 2:15.

If He did then this is tantamount to suicide for the Mosaic Covenant prophesied of Messiah and in the Holy Spirit, that same Law God promised to put in our inward parts.

More misrepresentation.

The sacrifices, defilements, cleansings, feasts, etc. of the (ceremonial, Levitcal) Mosaic law are not written on our hearts.

Of course you do. You need the whole counsel of God in His Word to come to the knowledge of the truth in Christ.

Or course you don't, when it is self-explanatory.

Too much misrepresentation and unbelief of the NT by you for you to be taken seriously.

 

[Eleanor]

Of course, there is. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and for ever, meaning tomorrow of the last things.
The timeline of God in Scripture teaches that. We are at the end and it began with the Advent of the Holy Spirit two thousand years ago. Add two thousand years from A.D. 30, the accepted year of Jesus' ascension and the arrival of the Holy Spirit and it will be two thousand years in 2030.
Apostolic teaching is from the word "apostolos" and it means "sent." The teaching Jesus taught and the teaching He sent with His disciples is the teaching of the covenants and prophecies of the Old Testament. The Jews were able to identify Jesus as their Messiah based upon what was written in the OT.
And the only way to be saved in through the covenants God gave to Israel for God made no covenant with Gentiles. Gentiles are enjoying the spiritual aspect of the original and natural covenant God made with Abraham the person and his seed the children of Israel (Mosaic.)

And everyone in Covenant with God that looked forward to His Promise to send a Deliverer and Redeemer and King trusted in that salvation of God that accompanied the covenant and the prophecies and promises.

Because Jewish Christians populated the early Church predominantly for the several decades after Christ ascended it was originally related to the covenants and prophecies and promises God made to the children of Israel and Abraham. All our beliefs come from the Old Testament.

The Jews who believed in their Messiah were called "Christian."
To be called "Christian" today is to follow in their footsteps.

For Paul humanity was always divided between Jew and Gentile. Nothing's changed. It is still the same.
God has covenant with Abraham and the children of Israel. And God will keep all His promises He made to them even if they do not. Thank God.

It is the Jew who has covenant with God against the Gentiles that do not. And that is the reality today for God made no covenant with Gentiles.

God has covenant with Abraham and with the children of Israel and God will keep His promise to them even if they do not to Him. God does not lie. God is faithful to what He promised to Abraham and his seed. Paul said, "an all Israel shall be saved"

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, there shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. Rom. 11:25–27.

Paul doesn't say Israel will accept Jesus as their Messiah, he merely says "and all Israel shall be saved."
He also says, "the Delivered shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" meaning salvation is of the Lord apart from the Law. But it is a Hebrew/Jewish covenant. There is nowhere in Scripture God making a covenant with any Gentiles, or with one Gentile and his seed. Gentiles are not the natural seed of Abraham to whom holds the promises. Paul also says, "for THIS is my covenant UNTO THEM when I shall take away their sins. He says nothing about faith. Just that God shall take away their ungodliness.

If you read carefully the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17 when God says "I will establish my covenant between me and thee" there is no mention of faith as a condition. What is conditional and what will separate Abraham's descendants from Gentiles and their descendants who hold no covenant is the sign of circumcision. Up until the Catholic church Gentiles were not circumcising their infants. The sign of covenant among those who held the promises were Hebrews/Jews. And every child that belonged to observant Jewish parents circumcised their infants as a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, not Gentiles.

If the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete, then the Holy Spirit is obsolete for the Law is type and shadow of the Holy Spirit that God promised the house of Israel to put in their inward parts. That's a covenant God made with the house of Israel. Why are Gentiles inserting themselves in a covenant God made with the Jews of twelve tribes? God made no covenant with any Gentile or group of Gentiles and their seed. It's a delusion to think as Gentile that He did when there's no Scriptural evidence for that belief or theology.

The Presence of God the Holy Spirit, or God the Father, or God the Son reveals sin because no one can stand blameless before a Holy God except a Holy Son and a Holy Spirit which is why no [sinful or redeemed flesh] shall glory in His Presence.

Paul wrote to Jewish Christians in Asia Minor. He was explaining to them that by being a Jewish person in the Abrahamic Covenant and accepting Jesus as their Messiah they are still Abraham's children. It didn't divide them from the covenant as the Judaizers would teach and from whom and from the hands Jewish Christians were being persecuted first in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1 - think Stephen) and later as well (think Hebrews 6.)

Peter, speaking to the twelve tribes who lived in Israel and to visitors Jews from Gentile lands that came for the celebration and were there for the Feast of Trumpets:
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2:39.

And Paul writing to Jewish Christians at Rome:
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Rom. 9:3–5.

God saves Gentiles merely by just saving them and He does it outside the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant. God made no covenant with any Gentile and their seed nor to any Gentiles and their seeds.

Too much misrepresentation and unbelief of the NT by you for you to be taken seriously (see post #10, above).

 

[EarlyActs]

God made covenant with Abraham and later with his seed the children of Israel. Paul says, "and all Israel shall be saved," he didn't say they will come to accept Jesus but that "all Israel shall be saved" and this is one of the benefits of their covenants, and prophecies, and promises.

Paul spent much more time explaining what things meant in Gal 3 than that. You don't seem to know it.

 

[jeremiah1five]

There is only one people of God, going all the way back to Abraham, the one olive tree (Ro 11:16-22) of believing Jews, and into which one tree was grafted believing Gentiles, while unbelieving Jews were cut off, but whose destiny is to be grafted back in again, IF they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23).
It's not "replacement" theology, it's the "fulfillment" theology of Ro 11, and from which believing Jews are not excluded.

Yes, the ONE people of God are Israel.
There is only ONE people of God and ONE Olive tree: Israel.
There is nothing anywhere in the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17 where "faith" is a condition. You're reading more into this covenant than what's there.
The Covenant describes what God is going to do with regard to His promises to Abraham and there is no requirement of "faith" on the part of Abraham and his descendants. But there is a requirement of circumcision.

jeremiah1five said:
There was nothing 'mystical' about Paul's revelation of Christ. The man was a Pharisee and knew the Scripture. But he only knew the letter of the law until the Holy Spirit illuminated the Seed of the Word of God in him and he did what we do today and that is line upon line and precept upon precept. Quite natural and practical. Nothing supernatural about it.

That's a real subversion of the Biblical account.
Evidently you've never read the account of his conversion in Acts.
You probably should get informed on the subject before opining thereon.

The Scripture is for our training and admonition. It says a light shone around Saul/Paul (not the men) and there was a voice Saul heard as did the men with him, but they saw no man.
Now, you're taking my statement about Saul's revelation he mentions in Galatians 1 which was not supernatural and confusing it with his experience at his conversion in Acts 9, which the light that shone on him alone (not the men) and they all hear a voice and seeing no man. Now, that was supernatural.

jeremiah1five said:
except that God opened his mind to the Scripture just as He does with any and every obedient believer who trusts in God and seeks God's truth through Scripture.
Ask any horticulturist what would happen to the tree if you remove all the branches of a tree for the purpose of 'grafting' in branches of another tree.

That's called unbelief. . .of the NT in Ro 11.

Saul's revelation of Scripture he mentions in Galatians 1 is only the seed of the Word of God planted in his mind (I'd say 'heart' but the 'heart' doesn't think. That's the faculty of the mind and where salvation occurs.) All the Holy Spirit did was just by His Presence in Saul's life illuminated the Word and he was able to understand more perfectly the OT Scripture and the effect Messiah had on Judaism through his thought processes. The Lord does the same thing when one of His people read and study the Scripture day in and day out meditating on the Scripture and no worldly influences affecting the person. For several months I would sit at a table at home with the Scripture (KJV) and a Strong's for about 14 hours a day taking a break for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and walks in-between and while studying/reading hot tears would just roll down my cheeks because of the anointing and the Lord would speak to me through His Word and I would understand many things I was reading and any believer that were to do the same thing would have at least the same experiences I did. Maybe more. Maybe less. But that's the effect when one obeys Deuteronomy 6:5-9.
And your statement about the Olive tree branches all being replaced by other branches being grafted in is pretty much the belief of Replacement Theology.

Not to mention your misrepresentation of the account.
AT least you acknowledge that it is the NT which presents what you call "replacement" theology, in the NT's presentation of cutting off the unbelieving Jewish branches and grafting in the believing Gentile branches (Ro 11).
Your issue is unbelief. . .of the NT in Ro 11.

Scripture doesn't teach replacement theology. The majority of the natural branches of the Olive tree remain and only a few other branches grafted into the natural branches are meant. And it has to be a few other branches grafted in because if you were to cut more branches than the tree can support it will die.

jeremiah1five said:
It matters not what Israel does with regard to believing or not believing in Christ as their Messiah. What matters is that GOD is faithful and will keep all His promises to Israel His Bride and Church.

Christianity comes from Christian, and it is the English for the Greek "Christos" which means Messias in Hebrew. And "Christian" was the name they gave the Jewish believers at Antioch. They might as well be called "Messiah-ites." Let's take it back to the original language from which we get "Christ." And Christianity is not the fulfillment of the OT.
If the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete, then the Holy Spirit is obsolete.

More unbelief. . .of the NT in Heb 8:13.
Indeed he did with his bloody sacrificial atonement on the cross.

First, just admit you don't understand the type and shadow of the Law and its reality in the New Covenant which is an extension of the "Old" Covenant.
Second, the book of Hebrews is written to the Hebrews who are in covenant with God.
You're not Hebrew but you along with millions of Gentile Christians always seem to insert 'yourselves' into the covenants and promises God gave to them.

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom. 9:4–5.

The sacrifices, defilements, cleansings, feasts, etc. of the (ceremonial, Levitcal) Mosaic laws are abolished (Eph 2:15).

Then there's no need to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, or to take baths, to be careful of being defiled by unclean things like people and thoughts, etc. But again, those things apply to Israel, not Gentiles.

jeremiah1five said:
Jesus Christ didn't change the Law of Moses.

More unbelief. . .of the NT in Eph 2:15.

He fulfilled the Law of Moses.

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; Eph. 2:15.

You quote it but don't understand it. You don't understand what "in his flesh" means.

jeremiah1five said:
If He did then this is tantamount to suicide for the Mosaic Covenant prophesied of Messiah and in the Holy Spirit, that same Law God promised to put in our inward parts.

More misrepresentation.
The sacrifices, defilements, cleansings, feasts, etc. of the (ceremonial, Levitcal) Mosaic law are not written on our hearts.

As above.
No, they were not written in the 'hearts' of Gentiles since it's a Jewish Covenant. It is written in THEIR 'hearts.'

Or course you don't, when it is self-explanatory.
Too much misrepresentation and unbelief of the NT by you for you to be taken seriously.

jeremiah1five said:
Of course you do. You need the whole counsel of God in His Word to come to the knowledge of the truth in Christ.

A half-covenant is like a half-truth.
It's a whole lie.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Too much misrepresentation and unbelief of the NT by you for you to be taken seriously (see post #10, above).

Gentiles who try to make the Hebrew covenants apply to themselves make serious error.

 

[Eleanor]

Yes, the ONE people of God are Israel.
There is only ONE people of God and ONE Olive tree: Israel.
There is nothing anywhere in the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17 where "faith" is a condition. You're reading more into this covenant than what's there.
The Covenant describes what God is going to do with regard to His promises to Abraham and there is no requirement of "faith" on the part of Abraham and his descendants. But there is a requirement of circumcision.
jeremiah1five said:
There was nothing 'mystical' about Paul's revelation of Christ. The man was a Pharisee and knew the Scripture. But he only knew the letter of the law until the Holy Spirit illuminated the Seed of the Word of God in him and he did what we do today and that is line upon line and precept upon precept. Quite natural and practical. Nothing supernatural about it.
The Scripture is for our training and admonition. It says a light shone around Saul/Paul (not the men) and there was a voice Saul heard as did the men with him, but they saw no man.
Now, you're taking my statement about Saul's revelation he mentions in Galatians 1 which was not supernatural and confusing it with his experience at his conversion in Acts 9, which the light that shone on him alone (not the men) and they all hear a voice and seeing no man. Now, that was supernatural.
jeremiah1five said:
except that God opened his mind to the Scripture just as He does with any and every obedient believer who trusts in God and seeks God's truth through Scripture.
Ask any horticulturist what would happen to the tree if you remove all the branches of a tree for the purpose of 'grafting' in branches of another tree.
Saul's revelation of Scripture he mentions in Galatians 1 is only the seed of the Word of God planted in his mind (I'd say 'heart' but the 'heart' doesn't think. That's the faculty of the mind and where salvation occurs.) All the Holy Spirit did was just by His Presence in Saul's life illuminated the Word and he was able to understand more perfectly the OT Scripture and the effect Messiah had on Judaism through his thought processes. The Lord does the same thing when one of His people read and study the Scripture day in and day out meditating on the Scripture and no worldly influences affecting the person. For several months I would sit at a table at home with the Scripture (KJV) and a Strong's for about 14 hours a day taking a break for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and walks in-between and while studying/reading hot tears would just roll down my cheeks because of the anointing and the Lord would speak to me through His Word and I would understand many things I was reading and any believer that were to do the same thing would have at least the same experiences I did. Maybe more. Maybe less. But that's the effect when one obeys Deuteronomy 6:5-9.
And your statement about the Olive tree branches all being replaced by other branches being grafted in is pretty much the belief of Replacement Theology.
Scripture doesn't teach replacement theology. The majority of the natural branches of the Olive tree remain and only a few other branches grafted into the natural branches are meant. And it has to be a few other branches grafted in because if you were to cut more branches than the tree can support it will die.
jeremiah1five said:
It matters not what Israel does with regard to believing or not believing in Christ as their Messiah. What matters is that GOD is faithful and will keep all His promises to Israel His Bride and Church.
Christianity comes from Christian, and it is the English for the Greek "Christos" which means Messias in Hebrew. And "Christian" was the name they gave the Jewish believers at Antioch. They might as well be called "Messiah-ites." Let's take it back to the original language from which we get "Christ." And Christianity is not the fulfillment of the OT.
If the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete, then the Holy Spirit is obsolete.
First, just admit you don't understand the type and shadow of the Law and its reality in the New Covenant which is an extension of the "Old" Covenant.
Second, the book of Hebrews is written to the Hebrews who are in covenant with God.
You're not Hebrew but you along with millions of Gentile Christians always seem to insert 'yourselves' into the covenants and promises God gave to them.
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom. 9:4–5.
Then there's no need to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, or to take baths, to be careful of being defiled by unclean things like people and thoughts, etc. But again, those things apply to Israel, not Gentiles.
jeremiah1five said:
Jesus Christ didn't change the Law of Moses.
He fulfilled the Law of Moses.
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; Eph. 2:15.
You quote it but don't understand it. You don't understand what "in his flesh" means.
jeremiah1five said:
If He did then this is tantamount to suicide for the Mosaic Covenant prophesied of Messiah and in the Holy Spirit, that same Law God promised to put in our inward parts.
As above.
No, they were not written in the 'hearts' of Gentiles since it's a Jewish Covenant. It is written in THEIR 'hearts.'
jeremiah1five said:
Of course you do. You need the whole counsel of God in His Word to come to the knowledge of the truth in Christ.
A half-covenant is like a half-truth.
It's a whole lie.

Gentiles who try to make the Hebrew covenants apply to themselves make serious error.

Too much misrepresentation and unbelief of the NT by you for you to be taken seriously (see post #10, above).

 

[jeremiah1five]

Paul spent much more time explaining what things meant in Gal 3 than that. You don't seem to know it.

The New Testament Jewish Christian writers wrote to their Jewish Christian brethren.
They in places may have spoken about Gentiles but the gospels and epistles speak about things that pertain to Jews, like the covenants, the promises, the prophets and their prophecies, their history, their Judaism, their culture, and their practices:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Rom. 9:4–5.

Gentiles knew nothing of these things because there was a middle wall partition separating them and Gentiles were idol-worshipers carried away by those dumb idols.

 

[EarlyActs]

The New Testament Jewish Christian writers wrote to their Jewish Christian brethren.
They in places may have spoken about Gentiles but the gospels and epistles speak about things that pertain to Jews, like the covenants, the promises, the prophets and their prophecies, their history, their Judaism, their culture, and their practices:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Rom. 9:4–5.

Gentiles knew nothing of these things because there was a middle wall partition separating them and Gentiles were idol-worshipers carried away by those dumb idols.

If you knew Eph 2-3 you would know this doesn't matter. You are reinforcing the dividing wall.

 

[EarlyActs]

The New Testament Jewish Christian writers wrote to their Jewish Christian brethren.
They in places may have spoken about Gentiles but the gospels and epistles speak about things that pertain to Jews, like the covenants, the promises, the prophets and their prophecies, their history, their Judaism, their culture, and their practices:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Rom. 9:4–5.

Gentiles knew nothing of these things because there was a middle wall partition separating them and Gentiles were idol-worshipers carried away by those dumb idols.

Read Colossians. It's for all of them. Read the excitement at the end of ch. 1. You really don't know know your way around this woods.

Most of the letters are about detangling the truth of the Gospel from the Judaizers. That would also help the Gentile believers being bullied by Judaizers, and it would make sense to them.

 

[jeremiah1five]

If you knew Eph 2-3 you would know this doesn't matter. You are reinforcing the dividing wall.

Up until Paul's teaching on how to accept Gentile believers into the Jewish Church the mind of these Jewish Christians at their churches throughout Asia Minor practiced the "middle wall partition" at the beginning, a practice from the Temple and synagogues that separated Jews and Gentiles at their religious functions. Until the destruction of their Temple in A.D. 70 the "ism" of Judaism remained.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Read Colossians. It's for all of them. Read the excitement at the end of ch. 1. You really don't know know your way around this woods.

Most of the letters are about detangling the truth of the Gospel from the Judaizers. That would also help the Gentile believers being bullied by Judaizers, and it would make sense to them.

The New Testament Church was founded by Jewish Christians and was a continuation of the "Great Congregation" of covenant Jews/Hebrews from the time of their wanderings in the desert when the Tabernacle was built. The mind-set of the early Jewish Christians that populated their synagogues and later their home fellowships was Yeshua was from the tribe of Judah, a descendant of David, and the fulfillment of their covenants and prophecies. Of course, the letters written that we have in the canon was written to Jewish Christians. No Gentile at this time knew anything substantial enough that was included in these letters to warrant that the epistles were written to them. The level of knowledge to understand the things written in the letters require an intimate knowledge and understanding of the Jewish covenants and its peripherals (prophecies, practices, history, culture, etc.), something these Gentiles and their dumb idols could not know.
After the Temple was destroyed the population of Gentile believers grew as the population of Jewish believers dwindled and Gentile believers were not taught Jewish covenants and histories and prophecies. They brought in a mind-set of Gentile understanding coming out of idol worshiping and Gentile history and culture. One of the first heretics taught that the God of the Old Testament was a harsh, judgmental God, and the God of the "New Testament" was love and compassion and promoted a separation of Gentilism from Judaism. I think his name was Marcion.
As more Gentiles became saved, they soon unmoored their "faith and reason" from its Judaic roots.