If the New Covenant was made with Judah and Israel, how does it apply to Gentile Christians?

[bloodygrace]

In the nations where God scattered them but WITH a promise to be called back. See Deut. 30:1-6, all of Hosea 1... even Romans 9 if you had the will to hear why.

Paul quoted Hosea in chap. 9 and applied it to the Gentiles!

Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God - Rom. 9:24-26

 

[Ken Rank]

Paul quoted Hosea in chap. 9 and applied it to the Gentiles!

No, Paul quoted Hosea in chapter 9 and the Hosea chapter he quoted is speaking about the Northern Kingdom and them being scattered into the nations, called "not my people" but then promised to be called "sons of the Living God." Paul then quoted Isaiah 10:22 but the translators used "saved" in Rom. 9:27 when the verse he was quoting is clearly (by context and word) speaking about the RETURN of Israel.

Again, starting in Deut. 30:1-6 God says Israel will be scattered into the nations as punishment. But that is followed with a PROMISE to call them back and circumcise their hearts. Most of Christianity does not recognize the promise to call them back... they focus only on the punishment and then replace Israel with themselves.

 

[jamespyles]

If you remember, when the foreigners (strangers) came out of Egypt with Israel during the Exodus, we see three unique things happen.

1. They were to be treated as if native born. This means they were to be treated as if they were Israel.

2. The Torah was given to them as well, and they would be blessed if they kept it and cursed if they did not.

3. They were commanded to assimilate into the tribes they traveled with. In other words, they were grafted in....

If the covenant is made with only Judah and Israel... and that IS what the text says... then the believing gentiles who come in faith are simply grafted into Israel in the same manner gentiles coming out of Egypt were grafted in.

The word "gentile" was used in our first English bibles, it appeared like this "gentyls" in Tyndale's work, Wycliffe just used the word "hethene." Now when this word was used early in the English language, it meant heathen, pagan, anyone who wasn't a Jew or Christian (source, Webster 1828). But TODAY the word has evolved to mean, "any believer who is not Jewish." But that doesn't reflect the underlying Greek (ethnos) and Hebrew (goyim) which are best translated as nations, but any nation not Israel. What I am getting at is when we come in faith we cease being a gentile and should expect to be "treated as if native born." We have come to the God of Israel through the messiah of Israel and thus become a part of Israel. This is Paul's point in Eph. 2 where he says "you WERE gentiles in the flesh," and "WERE aliens of the Commonwealth of Israel" but "are NOW fellow citizens."

Truly in Scripture, a "gentile Christian" is an oxymoron... but in today's religious culture, it is a term worn as a badge of honor.

The problem with your reasoning, if I'm reading you right, is that the non-Israelites who left Egypt with Moses and Israel, and who received the Torah at Sinai, were expected to fully assimilate into the tribes, probably through intermarriage in the third generation and beyond (Deut. 23:3-8). They were not to retain the identity of a non-Israelite nor be distinguished from the born-Israelites, in any way.

Today, the only way a non-Jew could achieve this status would be to convert to Judaism. The better guide for how the non-Jewish Christian is "related" to Israel/the Jewish people, is Acts 15. A close reading of the text reveals that we would be considered "resident aliens" relative to the first century CE "Messianic Jews such as James the Just, Peter, Paul, and the Council of Elders in Jerusalem. Acts 15 was actually a legal proceeding to established the role of the non-Jew who was devoted to the Jewish Messiah King within Israel. We don't become Israel, and we only adopt a small subset of the Torah commandments (although there are some who say we can voluntarily take on more).

The "mixed multitude" at Sinai isn't a viable model for the modern non-Jewish Christian.

 

[Ken Rank]

The problem with your reasoning, if I'm reading you right, is that the non-Israelites who left Egypt with Moses and Israel, and who received the Torah at Sinai, were expected to fully assimilate into the tribes, probably through intermarriage in the third generation and beyond (Deut. 23:3-8). They were not to retain the identity of a non-Israelite nor be distinguished from the born-Israelites, in any way.

This is true... today, there is not a Jewish person alive who cannot prove they are not from the foreigners who came out of Egypt with Israel. And they did assimilate... they were to be treated as if native born and they assimilated into the tribes they traveled with. That is what Scripture says.

Today, the only way a non-Jew could achieve this status would be to convert to Judaism.

I am not talking about Judaism, I am talking about being an Israelite. Judaism as a religion has truth but also rabbinic dogma. Plus, while many Jews are part of Israel, all of Israel is not Jewish. This is like calling the Feasts "Jewish feasts" when Scripture says they are, "Feasts of the LORD." And yes, I am aware of Passover being called a "feast of the Jews" in the NT. But that is only because Jews (Judah) were the only known face of Israel at that time. Israel was still... is still... in the nations as a whole.

The better guide for how the non-Jewish Christian is "related" to Israel/the Jewish people, is Acts 15. A close reading of the text reveals that we would be considered "resident aliens" relative to the first century CE "Messianic Jews such as James the Just, Peter, Paul, and the Council of Elders in Jerusalem. Acts 15 was actually a legal proceeding to established the role of the non-Jew who was devoted to the Jewish Messiah King within Israel. We don't become Israel, and we only adopt a small subset of the Torah commandments (although there are some who say we can voluntarily take on more).

You're welcome to your view on this, I certainly don't see it this way. Many today see the Acts 15 letter as a "finish line" (i.e. all that is expected of those in the nations...gentiles) when it is the starting line. The next line after the letter states that Moses (i.e. the Law) is read in the synagogues on Sabbath. And as we go through Acts we see Jews AND NON-Jews going to the synagogues to hear the Torah be read. Not only that, but the Acts 15 letter is a continuation of a 50 year old debate. Fifty years before the Acts counsel comes together Shamai (who taught letter of the law) and Hillel (who taught spirit of the law) debated as to what should be expected of a Jewish convert. Hillel determined that a new proselyte would abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.... exactly what you find in the Acts 15 letter. He added that one would go and learn the rest and he grew in his faith... which is seen in the Acts 15 letter being followed with:

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

Shamai accepted Hillel's position but added that one needed to be able to recite all 613 commandments AND.... "become circumcised." Shamai's position was adopted and that was the law of the land in that day. So, when Acts 15 opens up we see:

Acts 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

They held Shamai's position but Paul went to Beit Hillel (School of Hillel) and his mentor's grandfather's position. The counsel gets together, debates it, and reverses a 50 year old bad decision. That is all... the Acts 15 letter is a place to start, a place to differentiate oneself enough from your pagan ex-brethren and then you learn and grow as a member of God's Israel form there.

The "mixed multitude" at Sinai isn't a viable model for the modern non-Jewish Christian.

Again, you are welcome to your view but I don't share it. We have non-Israelites who join into Israel, accept their God, their laws, and are treated as native born by the Israelites. Caleb was the son of a stranger. This isn't only a viable model, it is the exact model that history held up as the manner in which a non-Israelite can become part of God's people. As a non-Jew we come to the God of Israel in faith through the messiah of Israel and thus become part of Israel.

By the way... it was only the Israelites who painted the lamb's blood on the doorpost. Everyone else would have lost their first born... which would include at least many of the foreigners. They still chose our God even after losing so much!

 

[jamespyles]

That's OK. You don't have to agree with me. I certainly don't agree with you.

I see Acts 15 as the "starting line" for the non-Jewish devotees of the Jewish Messiah King. Also, I don't think the Apostle Paul would agree with you disconnecting the Jewish people from Israel.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,

“That You may be justified in Your words,
And prevail when You are judged.”

-Romans 3:1-4 (NASB)

In essence, you seem to want to replace the Jewish people with "one law" Gentiles as "Israel," which has replacement theology and anti-semitism written all over it.

Just to let you know, my wife and children are Jewish and I have no intention of disconnecting them from the Land or people of Israel.

Ultimately, you may well attempt to insert yourself into Israel since you see it as partly or completely divorced from the modern Jewish people. I, on the other hand, being married to a Jew, have a rather unique perspective or the relationship between the covenants made between God and Israel and how the nations of the world are included in some of the blessings of the New Covenant, but only through God's grace and mercy, not through any merit possessed by us.

 

[Ken Rank]

That's OK. You don't have to agree with me. I certainly don't agree with you.

I see Acts 15 as the "starting line" for the non-Jewish devotees of the Jewish Messiah King. Also, I don't think the Apostle Paul would agree with you disconnecting the Jewish people from Israel.

In essence, you seem to want to replace the Jewish people with "one law" Gentiles as "Israel," which has replacement theology and anti-semitism written all over it.

Just to let you know, my wife and children are Jewish and I have no intention of disconnecting them from the Land or people of Israel.

Ultimately, you may well attempt to insert yourself into Israel since you see it as partly or completely divorced from the modern Jewish people. I, on the other hand, being married to a Jew, have a rather unique perspective or the relationship between the covenants made between God and Israel and how the nations of the world are included in some of the blessings of the New Covenant, but only through God's grace and mercy, not through any merit possessed by us.

I don't know who you are talking to but if me you have me all wrong. I am so far on the other side of what you just explained that most Christians are uncomfortable with my approach toward the Jews. Furthermore, the idea of replacement theology is one I abhor.... and, if you see Acts 15 as a starting line, then we are in agreement as I used that same phrase in my reply to you. You are either talking to somebody else, or didn't read what I wrote.

 

[Hawkins]

I've been following and commenting in a couple of discussions including Did Jesus tell us to follow Moses 10 commandments? and GENTILES OR CHRISTIANS PRACTICING THE SABBATH ? and I struggle to make what I consider valid points of response without writing long essays.

I've blogged on topics such as Hebrew Roots and Messianic Judaism and how they interact with and sometimes oppose traditional Protestant theology and doctrine, so I've got a lot of material to draw from.

For your consideration, I'd like to ask the question that given the New Covenant language we find in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 where God specifically makes that covenant with the House of Judah and the House of Israel, how exactly does that covenant apply to the rest of the world?

The mechanism isn't specifically defined in the Bible. Even Jesus's comments in Matthew 26, Luke 22, and Mark 14 about "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (usually rendered in the Greek as just "covenant") doesn't make the connection. In other words, there's no direct tie in between what we read in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Jesus's statement in the Gospels.

I believe there is an answer. It's a long one, longer than I care to post here, but you can read a summary of my thoughts here: Briefly Revisiting Gentiles and the New Covenant.

I'm partially creating this thread to read how others think about all this (no flame wars, please), but mainly to put the idea out there that how the Church has traditionally considered the New Covenant and interpreted the Bible to support their doctrine may be missing a few things.

Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Hebrews 8:8 (NIV2011)
But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

It's like in a campus, a child reported to the teacher that "my blanket is damaged, and I need a new one". The teacher thus told him that, "I will give you a brand new one by next week". When the time came, the teacher actually gave a new blanket to each and every student, as it's actually the time for the change of all blankets. Did the teacher made a false statement. It's no. It's still a proper communication especially under the circumstance that the child didn't realize the presence of other students.

So it makes sense for God to tell the Jews that there will be a coming covenant. It by no means says that it can't be a covenant covering the gentiles.

Law and covenants don't need to be forfeited. They have overlapping effects. The Law given to the gentiles refers to basically what our conscience is. It is given to mankind before the Mosaic Law. When Mosaic Law is given to Moses, it by no means says that the Jews no longer need to follow their conscience to act. Similarly, Christians under the New Covenant still needs to follow the Law written in our hearts (i.e., our conscience) to act. This is the overlapping effect of the laws in different covenants.

As for the Jews, once they accept the New Covenant they need to follow their own conscience to act, plus that they need to observe Mosaic Law to act. The rites for atonement, such as the burnt offerings, are no longer needed as Jesus has already come (they no longer have a tabernacle to do the rites legitimately anyway). However they have an option not to observe the Mosaic Law, including Sabbath. In this case they are gentile Christians instead of Jewish Christians in terms of Law and Covenant. They can still refer themselves as the Jews ethnically though.

On the other hand, core commandments exist in each and every covenant, for Jews and gentiles. So the 10 commandments mentioned by Jesus (thus excluding Sabbath) remain commandments of the New Covenant. We need to observe them because they are now part of the New Covenant. They appear as Christ's teaching though, instead of Law to the Jews. Teaching means it is still a commandment yet it's no longer enforced by a judgment.

In another perspective, Christianity practice Sabbath by attending Sunday services while the whole world is observing Sabbath as Sunday is a holiday for everyone under the Sovereignty of God.

 

[BABerean2]

Hebrews 8:8 (NIV2011)
But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

It's like in a campus, a child reported to the teacher that "my blanket is damaged, and I need a new one". The teacher thus told him that, "I will give you a brand new one by next week". When the time came, the teacher actually gave a new blanket to each and every student, as it's actually the time for the change of all blankets. Did the teacher made a false statement. It's no. It's still a proper communication especially under the circumstance that the child didn't realize the presence of other students.

So it makes sense for God to tell the Jews that there will be a coming covenant. It by no means says that it can't be a covenant covering the gentiles.

Law and covenants don't need to be forfeited. They have overlapping effects. The Law given to the gentiles refers to basically what our conscience is. It is given to mankind before the Mosaic Law. When Mosaic Law is given to Moses, it by no means says that the Jews no longer need to follow their conscience to act. Similarly, Christians under the New Covenant still needs to follow the Law written in our hearts (i.e., our conscience) to act. This is the overlapping effect of the laws in different covenants.

As for the Jews, once they accept the New Covenant they need to follow their own conscience to act, plus that they need to observe Mosaic Law to act. The rites for atonement, such as the burnt offerings, are no longer needed as Jesus has already come (they no longer have a tabernacle to do the rites legitimately anyway). However they have an option not to observe the Mosaic Law, including Sabbath. In this case they are gentile Christians instead of Jewish Christians in terms of Law and Covenant. They can still refer themselves as the Jews ethnically though.

On the other hand, core commandments exist in each and every covenant, for Jews and gentiles. So the 10 commandments mentioned by Jesus (thus excluding Sabbath) remain commandments of the New Covenant. We need to observe them because they are now part of the New Covenant. They appear as Christ's teaching though, instead of Law to the Jews. Teaching means it is still a commandment yet it's no longer enforced by a judgment.

In another perspective, Christianity practice Sabbath by attending Sunday services while the whole world is observing Sabbath as Sunday is a holiday for everyone under the Sovereignty of God.

The Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant of Christ are two completely different covenants.

The ten commandments written on stone are the Sinai Covenant, as revealed by the verse below.

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



In Galatians chapter 4 Paul compares the Sinai Covenant to bondage and compels the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of bondage.


Gal 4:24　 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—　


Gal 4:25　 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—　
Gal 4:26　 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.　
Gal 4:27　 For it is written: "REJOICE, O BARREN, YOU WHO DO NOT BEAR! BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR! FOR THE DESOLATE HAS MANY MORE CHILDREN THAN SHE WHO HAS A HUSBAND."　
Gal 4:28　 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.　
Gal 4:29　 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.　
Gal 4:30　 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREEWOMAN."　
Gal 4:31　 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.　



In 2 Corinthians Paul compares the Sinai covenant to a ministry of death.

Co 3:6　 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.　
2Co 3:7　 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,　
2Co 3:8　 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?　


In Hebrews chapter 12 we also find a contrast between the two covenants.

Heb 12:18　 For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest,　

Heb 12:19　 and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore.　

Heb 12:20　 (For they could not endure what was commanded: "AND IF SO MUCH AS A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT SHALL BE STONED OR SHOT WITH AN ARROW."　

Heb 12:21　 And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, "I AM EXCEEDINGLY AFRAID AND TREMBLING.")
　

Heb 12:22　 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels,　

Heb 12:23　 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,　

Heb 12:24　 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.　


Paul makes it clear in Colossians 2 that Christ is our Sabbath rest, instead of a day of the week.

Col 2:16　 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths,　
Col 2:17　 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.　

.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

It always bothered me that there was such a disconnect from the Old Testament to the New Testament. If God meant to graft the nations into Israel (and the nature of that grafting is a conversation in and of itself), why wasn't it explicitly prophesied?

It was but they did not understand what was written.

 

[Bob S]

On the other hand, core commandments exist in each and every covenant, for Jews and gentiles. So the 10 commandments mentioned by Jesus (thus excluding Sabbath) remain commandments of the New Covenant. We need to observe them because they are now part of the New Covenant. They appear as Christ's teaching though, instead of Law to the Jews. Teaching means it is still a commandment yet it's no longer enforced by a judgment.

In another perspective, Christianity practice Sabbath by attending Sunday services while the whole world is observing Sabbath as Sunday is a holiday for everyone under the Sovereignty of God.

I was following you until your last two paragraphs. You have to be making the last two paragraphs up. Those statements are unfounded my friend. it is evident you have not studied the writings of Paul and especially 2Cor3:7-11. Plus you need to study post #208.

 

[HighCherub]

Covenant Theology is something that can be directly shown to have existed since the beginning of Gentile churches, and indirectly shown as existed before.

Dispensationalists have managed to make a mess of biblical interpretation regarding Jews and Gentiles. Notably, by rejecting the beliefs that a Christian is inwardly a Jew and that the outward Jews were already given what was promised them.

I'm pretty sure their growth today has everything to do with having the common disdain for Islam as the Jews have.
But that's my opinion.

In reality, seeing the Bible ultimately as teaching a universal covenant is to simply drop the idea altogether that the Bible is a mass of dispensations
Really don't know any other way to put it

 

[pescador]

The Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant of Christ are two completely different covenants.

The ten commandments written on stone are the Sinai Covenant, as revealed by the verse below.

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



In Galatians chapter 4 Paul compares the Sinai Covenant to bondage and compels the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of bondage.


Gal 4:24　 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—　


Gal 4:25　 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—　
Gal 4:26　 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.　
Gal 4:27　 For it is written: "REJOICE, O BARREN, YOU WHO DO NOT BEAR! BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR! FOR THE DESOLATE HAS MANY MORE CHILDREN THAN SHE WHO HAS A HUSBAND."　
Gal 4:28　 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.　
Gal 4:29　 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.　
Gal 4:30　 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREEWOMAN."　
Gal 4:31　 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.　



In 2 Corinthians Paul compares the Sinai covenant to a ministry of death.

Co 3:6　 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.　
2Co 3:7　 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,　
2Co 3:8　 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?　


In Hebrews chapter 12 we also find a contrast between the two covenants.

Heb 12:18　 For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest,　

Heb 12:19　 and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore.　

Heb 12:20　 (For they could not endure what was commanded: "AND IF SO MUCH AS A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT SHALL BE STONED OR SHOT WITH AN ARROW."　

Heb 12:21　 And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, "I AM EXCEEDINGLY AFRAID AND TREMBLING.")
　

Heb 12:22　 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels,　

Heb 12:23　 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,　

Heb 12:24　 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.　


Paul makes it clear in Colossians 2 that Christ is our Sabbath rest, instead of a day of the week.

Col 2:16　 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths,　
Col 2:17　 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.　

.

That's odd. One of my bibles has Jesus' words in red, the rest don't. Furthermore, his words are the same size and font as the rest of the text.

What's with the technicolor font? Why, it even changes size!

 

[Hank77]

That's odd. One of my bibles has Jesus' words in red, the rest don't. Furthermore, his words are the same size and font as the rest of the text.

What's with the technicolor font? Why, it even changes size!

Well your Bible is shaped like a heart and mine is a rectangle.

 

[HighCherub]

That's odd. One of my bibles has Jesus' words in red, the rest don't. Furthermore, his words are the same size and font as the rest of the text.

What's with the technicolor font? Why, it even changes size!

I, for one, disagree with that tradition of print because it encourages taking Jesus' words out of context.
They are quotes written by the Apostles for the use of edifying the reader- a very easy thing to keep in mind when reading any other thing, but the Bible has been mystified to a point where such simple observations are neglected.