Why Israel-Only Should be Rejected — Thoughts and Research

If you’ve come across this article I am assuming you’ve been looking into Israel-Only and already have a good idea of what it teaches, but here is my definition:

Israel Only is a fringe hermeneutical system which reduces the biblical narrative to a hyper-fundamentalist interpretive construct, portraying an exclusive, Israelite-only redemption that ended in AD 70. It redefines “gentiles” as estranged Israelites to fit a prophetic framework. This narrative, largely detached from historical realities, functions more as a doctrinal lens than a credible historical account. Prioritizing a selective reading of scripture over historical evidence, IO reflects an extreme literalism and insularity that surpasses traditional fundamentalism.

However, that definition would probably be rejected by an IO proponent. Here is a definition by an actual IO proponent…

IO (Israel Only) is a hermeneutic that applies a consistent application of audience relevance across the biblical domains of soteriology and eschatology. IO shows that the entire bible’s redemptive narrative pertains only to the twelve tribes of old covenant Israel. IO rightly concludes that the end of the bible story happened in AD70 and that none of that story involves people today.

IO returns biblical words and phrases to their original Israelite context, showing that in many cases words like “world” (kosmos) referred to the covenant world of Israel (not the entire planet )and that “gentiles” (ethnos) who were saved were descendants of the tribes of Israel who had been dispersed among the nations.

IO also defends the view that Israel’s redemptive narrative ended in AD70, along with the need for the gospel. It is a view that is scriptural, adheres faithfully to audience relevance and has consideration for the exclusively Hebrew cultural and religious milieu the scriptures came from.

IO shows from the scriptures that salvation and redemption were only meant for old covenant Israel, which means nobody today is saved and redeemed, nor has anyone needed salvation and redemption since the first century. IO essentially destroys the premises upon which the post-AD70 version of Christianity relies on.

To disprove IO, one would have to show from the scriptures that non-Israelite nations had and were under the law of Moses, were judged at the end of the age, that Paul believed his audiences were non-Israelites, that there was a metanarrative involving restoration of non-Israelites, that non-Israelites were referred to as an olive tree, as the elect, as the sheep, that Jesus died for people outside of the 1st covenant, that non-Israelites were part of Christ’s new covenant and that the need for the gospel was expected to extend past the end of the age. To date, no one has been able to show any of those.

IO offers people the opportunity to understand why they were never sinners and why Jesus never needed to save them. This is good news! It can also save people money every Sunday, which can improve their quality of life. IO tends to be a great relief for people who have suffered mental and emotional anguish from the false premises of post-AD70 Christianity’s contrived narrative (like all are sinners on the way to a judgement and need salvation) and all the religious nonsense that comes with it.
Michael Bradley, 2025 (‘Preterist Perspectives Discussion & Debate’ Facebook group)

Israel Only (IO) theology is an outlier in Christian thought, requiring a specific and rare set of beliefs to even engage with it. Adherents must be Protestant, fundamentalist, Sola Scriptura-affirming, and preterist—a combination most Christians, historically and today, do not share. Upon arriving at IO, one finds a narrative that renders the modern believer’s role irrelevant, potentially leading to disillusionment or even atheism. However, no atheist would approach the Bible with the same rigid framework as an IO proponent, rendering the theology self-contained and insular. IO relies on unprovable claims detached from broader reality.

IO theology constructs a compelling narrative, but Judaism and Christianity are not mere stories—they are grounded in historical reality. Paul, a historical figure, preached a tangible gospel to real communities. IO’s assertion that all of Paul’s Gentile converts were descendants of uncovenanted Israelites fits its narrative but lacks historical evidence. In practice, Paul could not have distinguished between Israelite and non-Israelite Gentiles. This claim, while central to IO, remains unprovable and disconnected from the documented realities of early Christian history.

Furthermore, IO’s arguments falter logically. IO proponents can only claim that Gentile converts were proven to be Israelites after they converted, which is circular reasoning, assuming the conclusion within the premise (Gentiles converted because they were Israelites, and they were Israelites because they converted). Similarly, arguing that Paul’s Gentiles must have been Israelites due to Old Testament prophecies about the reunification of Judah and Ephraim is a non sequitur. Paul’s reinterpretation of scripture and his challenges to Jewish norms demonstrate he was not bound by such prophecies in a literal sense, undermining IO’s reliance on them.

Lastly, the notion that the Bible forms a single, cohesive narrative, as if penned by one author, may resonate within fundamentalist circles, but biblical scholarship tells a different story. Scholars recognize that each book of the Bible carries distinct themes, messages, and perspectives, with some books even presenting conflicting viewpoints. Moreover, Israel’s theology demonstrably evolved over time, reflecting changing cultural and historical contexts. This diversity and development challenges the Israel Only idea of the Bible as a singular, perfectly unified story.

Through interacting with IO proponents and reading Richard Carrier’s article refuting IO, and with the help of AI, I composed the following critique of IO…

The Israel-Only (IO) movement claims that Paul’s gospel targeted only estranged Israelites (northern tribes exiled in 721 BC) as covenant-bound gentiles (ethnē), identified by faith (Gal. 3:29) and Holy Spirit manifestations (Acts 10:44-46, 19:2-6), with salvation exclusive to Israel and ending in AD 70 (Acts 13:23-24, Rom. 9:4-5). They argue genealogies (Numbers 1, Ezra 2) preserved covenant eligibility, enabling identification. This essay refutes IO, arguing it is unbiblical, unhistorical, and logically flawed, as Paul could not distinguish Israelite from non-Israelite gentiles, per Richard Carrier’s critique.

IO’s logic is circular, assuming gentiles like Cornelius were Israelites because only Israelites could receive faith and the Spirit, then claiming these traits prove Israelite status. Carrier calls this “circular reasoning,” as IO provides no independent evidence that faith or Spirit were Israelite-exclusive. Without such evidence, their claim collapses. Biblical texts like Acts 10 describe Cornelius as a gentile (ethnē), with no indication of Israelite descent, undermining IO’s premise. Faith and Spirit were spiritual, not ethnic, criteria, incapable of verifying lineage, leaving Paul without a mechanism to identify Israelites.

Estranged Israelites were unidentifiable in the first century. Carrier argues they were fully assimilated post-721 BC, indistinguishable from other gentiles due to intermarriage and paganism. Josephus (Antiquities 11.133) places any remnant “beyond the Euphrates,” not in Paul’s mission areas like Corinth or Ephesus. Genealogical records, unlike Judeans’ in Ezra 2, were lost, making lineage-based identification impossible. Numbers 1 and Ezra 2 applied to active covenant communities, not future estranged descendants. Moreover, estranged Israelites were not in covenant, having “ceased to be Israelites” as pagans. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10) excludes them from salvation, and Romans 11:23 requires their reconversion, confirming they were not covenant-bound. IO’s claim that they remained covenantally significant is anachronistic, projecting modern biological notions onto ancient covenantal theology.

Paul’s gospel was universal, not Israelite-exclusive. Romans 11:13-24 describes ethnē as “wild olive shoots” grafted into Israel’s tree through faith, not descent, showing Paul targeted diverse audiences. Romans 9:6-8 redefines “Israel” as spiritual, including ethnē via faith. Galatians 3:8-9 cites Genesis 18:18, promising salvation to “all nations,” not just Israelite tribes. IO’s AD 70 cutoff is a preterist fallacy; Paul expected a cosmic end (1 Cor. 15:23-26), not temple destruction. These texts refute IO’s restrictive salvation model.

IO’s position is untenable. Its circular logic, reliance on unidentifiable Israelites, and denial of Paul’s universal mission contradict biblical evidence, historical reality, and Carrier’s analysis. Paul could not distinguish Israelite ethnē, as his criteria were spiritual, not ethnic, affirming the gospel’s broader scope.

Below is a video in which Jen Fishburne (a foremost IO proponent) defines IO. The section in which she does this is from 58:27 to 1:15:32…

Why Paul’s Gentiles in Romans 11 Were Not Estranged Israelites

The Israel-Only (IO) movement presents a tidy narrative, claiming that Paul’s Gentiles (ethnē) grafted into the olive tree in Romans 11:17-24 were estranged Israelites—descendants of the northern tribes exiled in 721 BC—restored to Israel’s covenant through faith and the Holy Spirit, with salvation exclusive to Israel and fulfilled by AD 70. While this story wraps biblical history neatly, it relies on unproven assumptions about Paul’s intentions, contradicts his clear teachings, and ignores historical realities. Scripture shows that non-Israelites could join Israel’s covenant, that Paul redefined “Israel” beyond ethnicity, and that Gentile converts became the majority of his covenant community. Thus, the ethnē in Romans 11 could not be estranged Israelites but were non-Israelites integrated through faith, refuting IO’s restrictive view.

IO’s Assumption About Paul’s Thinking Lacks Evidence

IO claims Paul’s ethnē were estranged Israelites, but Paul never states this. In Romans 11:13, he declares, “I am the apostle to the Gentiles,” addressing ethnē as distinct from Jews, but not as lost Israelite tribes. His olive tree analogy calls ethnē “wild olive shoots” grafted into Israel’s “cultivated olive tree,” contrasting them with “natural branches” (ethnic Israelites, Rom. 11:17, 24). The phrase “wild by nature” (11:24) emphasizes their foreign, non-Israelite origin. If ethnē were Israelites, they would be “natural branches,” not wild shoots requiring unnatural grafting. IO assumes Paul secretly viewed ethnē as Israelites, but this relies on unproven presuppositions, not Scripture. No text—neither Romans 11, Galatians 3:29, nor Acts 10:44-46—identifies ethnē as northern tribes. IO’s claim projects their theology onto Paul, ignoring his explicit language. As Scripture-focused readers, you must demand evidence, which IO cannot provide.

Non-Israelites Could Join Israel’s Covenant

Scripture and history confirm that non-Israelites could become covenant members, undermining IO’s claim that ethnē were exclusively Israelites. In the Old Testament, foreigners joined Israel through covenant adherence, not descent. Exodus 12:48 allows circumcised foreigners to partake in Passover, integrating them into Israel’s worship. Ruth, a Moabite, became an Israelite by faith and loyalty (Ruth 1:16, 4:13-17), and Ezra 6:21 includes “all who had separated themselves from the impurity of the nations” in Israel’s covenant community, regardless of lineage. In the Second Temple period, Gentiles converted to Judaism through circumcision, Torah observance, and immersion, as seen with figures like Achior in Judith 14:10. Josephus records conversions (Antiquities 20.38-39), showing non-Israelites could join Israel’s covenant. Paul’s ethnē, grafted by faith (Rom. 11:20), follow this pattern, entering the covenant as non-Israelites, not as presumed Israelite descendants. IO’s restriction to biological Israel ignores this biblical precedent.

Paul Redefined Israel Beyond Ethnicity

Paul explicitly redefines “Israel” as a spiritual, not ethnic, entity, contradicting IO’s biological focus. In Romans 9:6-8, he states, “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel… it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” This spiritual definition includes ethnē via faith, not descent. Romans 11:17-24 reinforces this, as “wild olive shoots” (ethnē) are grafted into the covenant tree alongside “natural branches” (Israelites), united by faith, not ethnicity. Galatians 3:29 declares, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed,” extending covenant membership to believers, regardless of lineage. Romans 4:11-17 calls Abraham “father of many nations,” including ethnē without Israelite descent. IO’s claim that ethnē were estranged Israelites misreads Paul’s theology, which transcends ethnicity to form a new covenant community. Scripture demands we accept Paul’s redefinition, not impose a tribal limit.

Gentile Converts Became the Majority of Paul’s Israel

Over time, Gentile converts dominated Paul’s covenant community, proving ethnē were not estranged Israelites. In Acts 13:46-48, Paul turns to ethnē after Jewish rejection, and “all who were appointed for eternal life believed,” suggesting a broad, non-Israelite audience. His mission in diverse cities like Corinth and Ephesus (1 Cor. 1:14-16, Acts 19:10) targeted mixed populations, not identifiable Israelite enclaves. By the late first century, early Christian communities were predominantly Gentile, as seen in Ignatius’ letters (e.g., Magnesians 10:3), reflecting Paul’s success among ethnē. Romans 11:25-26 (“all Israel will be saved”) includes these grafted ethnē, not just ethnic Israel, per Paul’s spiritual redefinition (Rom. 9:6-8). IO’s claim requires an unprovable Israelite diaspora, but historical assimilation—after 750 years of intermarriage (2 Kings 17:24-34, Hos. 1:9)—made northern tribes indistinguishable from Gentiles. The Mishnah (Yadayim 4:4) notes Sennacherib “mixed up all the nations,” erasing identities. Paul’s ethnē were non-Israelites, as their majority in his churches confirms.

Refuting the IO Proponent’s Covenantal Resurrection

The IO proponent’s forum response, claiming the resurrection in Matthew 22:30 was a corporate, spiritual transition for Israel from the Old to New Covenant, illustrates their flawed approach. Matthew 22:30 describes a future, physical resurrection where individuals are “like angels,” not marrying—a transformed state, not a covenantal shift (1 Cor. 15:42-44). The IO view misreads this as Israel’s liberation from marriage laws, ignoring that NT ethics uphold marriage universally (Eph. 5:22-33). Their pre-AD 70 focus contradicts post-70 CE texts like Matthew, written for ongoing relevance (Matt. 28:19-20). By assuming ethnē were Israelites, IO imposes an unproven narrative, mirroring their circular logic in Romans 11: claiming ethnē were Israelites because only Israelites were saved, without evidence. Scripture (Rom. 11:13, Acts 15:8) shows Paul’s universal gospel, not an Israel-only story.

Conclusion

IO’s narrative, while neatly packaged, crumbles under scrutiny. Paul never identifies ethnē as estranged Israelites, and IO’s assumption about his thinking lacks scriptural support. Non-Israelites could join Israel’s covenant (Exod. 12:48, Ruth 1:16), Paul redefined “Israel” spiritually (Rom. 9:6-8), and Gentile converts dominated his churches (Acts 13:46-48), proving ethnē were non-Israelites grafted by faith (Rom. 11:17-24). Assimilation erased northern tribes’ identities (Hos. 1:9), making IO’s claim impossible. I urge you to examine Romans 11 and Galatians 3:29. Paul’s universal gospel welcomes all into God’s covenant, not just a presumed Israelite remnant.

***

Below is some research…

In The Incompetent Crankery of the Israel Only Movement, Richard Carrier discusses rabbinic views on Gentile converts to Judaism briefly, primarily to counter the Israel-Only (IO) movement’s claim that Paul’s Gentiles (ethnē) were estranged Israelites and that salvation was exclusive to Israel. Carrier’s references to rabbinic thought focus on how Gentiles could become part of Israel through conversion, challenging IO’s ethnic exclusivity, and how estranged Israelites were viewed as covenantally insignificant. Below, I summarize everything Carrier says about what rabbis thought about Gentile converts, with precise page references and context, ensuring a comprehensive yet concise response that ties to your broader inquiry into IO theology and Paul’s Gentiles in Romans 11.

Carrier’s Discussion of Rabbinic Views on Gentile Converts

Carrier’s comments on rabbinic perspectives are drawn from Second Temple and early rabbinic sources, particularly the Mishnah, to illustrate that Gentile conversion was an established practice and that covenant membership was not strictly biological. His points are:

Gentiles Could Become Israelites Through Conversion (pp. 4, 15):
- Context: Carrier argues that IO’s claim—that only ethnic Israelites could be saved—ignores historical evidence that Gentiles could join Israel’s covenant. He cites the Second Temple period’s acceptance of Gentile converts to show that Paul’s ethnē (e.g., in Rom. 11:17-24) could be non-Israelites grafted into Israel’s covenant, not estranged Israelites.
- Rabbinic View: Carrier notes that “Gentiles could become Israelites by conversion” (p. 15), referencing practices like circumcision and Torah observance. He points to Ezra 6:21, where non-Israelites joined Judah’s covenant community through adherence, not descent, reflecting a proto-rabbinic openness to converts (p. 4). While not directly citing the Mishnah here, Carrier’s broader argument aligns with later rabbinic texts (e.g., Mishnah Bikkurim 1:4), which treat converts as full Israelites upon circumcision and immersion.
- Implication for IO: This refutes IO’s assumption that ethnē were Israelites, as Gentiles could enter the covenant without ethnic ties, aligning with Paul’s inclusion of ethnē as “wild olive shoots” (Rom. 11:17, pp. 19-20). Rabbinic acceptance of converts shows covenant membership was not biologically exclusive, undermining IO’s premise.
Estranged Israelites Were Not Considered Covenant Members (pp. 5-6):
- Context: Carrier counters IO’s claim that estranged northern tribes remained covenant-bound, arguing that rabbis viewed them as having “ceased to be Israelites” due to paganism and assimilation.
- Rabbinic View: He cites the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:3, implicitly on p. 5), which excludes uncircumcised or apostate descendants from salvation, stating that “Israelites who have no share in the world to come” include those who reject the covenant. Carrier interprets this to mean that rabbis considered estranged Israelites “not in covenant” (p. 6), as they were indistinguishable from Gentiles after 750 years of intermarriage and pagan practices (p. 25).
- Implication for IO: This challenges IO’s view that ethnē were covenant-bound Israelites. If rabbis excluded estranged Israelites, Paul’s ethnē were more likely Gentile converts (per rabbinic conversion norms) than a presumed Israelite diaspora. In Romans 11:23, estranged Israelites need regrafting through faith, like Gentiles, not automatic inclusion (p. 19).
Rabbinic Conversion Context Supports Paul’s Universal Mission (p. 15):
- Context: Carrier connects rabbinic conversion practices to Paul’s theology, arguing that Paul’s inclusion of ethnē in Romans 11:17-24 and Galatians 3:29 (“Abraham’s seed” through faith) reflects a broader covenant accessible to Gentiles, not restricted to Israelites.
- Rabbinic View: He notes that “in the very era of Paul, Gentiles were converting to Judaism” (p. 15), citing examples like Josephus’ accounts of conversions (Antiquities 20.38-39). This shows rabbis and Jewish communities accepted Gentiles as Israelites through conversion, supporting Paul’s grafting of ethnē as non-Israelites (p. 19). Carrier implies that rabbis viewed converts as covenant members, akin to Paul’s spiritual redefinition of “Israel” (Rom. 9:6-8, p. 18).
- Implication for IO: IO’s claim that ethnē were Israelites ignores this context. Rabbinic openness to Gentile converts aligns with Paul’s mission to ethnē (Rom. 11:13), who dominate his churches (Acts 13:46-48), not an Israelite remnant.

Summary of Carrier’s Points

Carrier’s discussion of rabbinic views on Gentile converts includes:

Conversion Allowed Covenant Membership: Rabbis accepted Gentiles as Israelites through conversion (circumcision, Torah observance), per Second Temple practices (Ezra 6:21, Josephus; pp. 4, 15). This shows covenant access was not ethnically exclusive.
Estranged Israelites Excluded: The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10) excludes uncircumcised or apostate Israelites from salvation, viewing them as non-covenantal, not distinct from Gentiles (pp. 5-6).
Support for Paul’s Theology: Rabbinic conversion norms align with Paul’s inclusion of ethnē as non-Israelites in the covenant (Rom. 11:17-24, Gal. 3:29; p. 15), refuting IO’s Israelite-only claim.

***

Question: Were non-Israelite/non-Jewish circumcised converts allowed into the temple’s Court of Israel (also known as the Court of the Jews) in Paul’s time?

Answer: Yes, Non-Israelite/Non-Jewish Circumcised Converts Were Allowed into the Court of Israel

In Paul’s time (c. 30–60 CE), non-Israelite/non-Jewish circumcised converts to Judaism, known as proselytes, were generally permitted to enter the Temple’s Court of Israel (or Court of the Jews), provided they had fully converted through circumcision, immersion, and Torah observance, achieving the status of a full Jew. This court, restricted to Jewish men, was distinct from the outer Court of the Gentiles, which allowed non-Jews. The evidence below supports this conclusion, addressing the Temple’s structure, conversion practices, and rabbinic views, while refuting IO’s ethnic exclusivity.

1. Temple Structure and Access Rules

Court of Israel Description: The Second Temple in Jerusalem had a hierarchical layout, described by Josephus (War 5.190–200) and the Mishnah (Middot 2:1–6). The Court of the Gentiles was open to all, but the Court of Israel (also called the Court of the Jews in some sources, e.g., Josephus, War 5.194) was restricted to Jewish men who were ritually pure. This court surrounded the Court of the Priests and was where Jewish men could approach for worship and sacrifices.
Warnings Against Non-Jewish Entry: Inscriptions on the balustrade separating the Court of the Gentiles from inner courts warned: “No foreigner may enter within the balustrade around the sanctuary… whoever is caught will be responsible for his own death” (Josephus, War 5.193–94; Antiquities 15.417; cf. archaeological evidence of the “Soreg” inscription). “Foreigner” (ἀλλογενής) typically meant uncircumcised non-Jews, not converts, as proselytes were considered Jews post-conversion.
Evidence for Convert Access: The Mishnah (Shekalim 1:5) implies that proselytes, as full Jews, paid the Temple tax and participated in worship, suggesting access to the Court of Israel. Josephus notes that converts like Achior (Judith 14:10) were integrated into Israel, implying Temple access for sacrifices (Antiquities 20.38–39). Acts 21:28–29, where Paul is accused of bringing an uncircumcised Gentile (Trophimus) into the Temple, underscores that only Jews (including converts) were allowed, reinforcing that circumcised proselytes were not “foreigners.”

2. Conversion Practices in Paul’s Time

Process of Conversion: In Second Temple Judaism, non-Israelites could become Jews through circumcision (for men), immersion, and Torah observance, as evidenced by texts like Judith 14:10 and Josephus (Antiquities 13.257–58, 20.38–39). Carrier notes, “In the very era of Paul, Gentiles were converting to Judaism” (p. 15), citing these practices. The Mishnah (post-Paul, but reflecting earlier traditions) treats converts as full Israelites upon conversion (Bikkurim 1:4).
Status of Converts: Once converted, proselytes were legally and socially Jews, not Gentiles. Philo (Special Laws 1.51–52) equates proselytes with native-born Jews in religious duties, including Temple worship. Ezra 6:21, cited by Carrier (p. 4), shows non-Israelites joining Judah’s covenant community through adherence, not descent, a precedent for proselyte integration. This status allowed converts access to the Court of Israel, as they were no longer “foreigners” under Temple law.

3. Rabbinic and Biblical Support

Rabbinic Views: Carrier cites the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:3, p. 5) to show rabbis excluded uncircumcised Israelites from salvation, implying circumcised converts were included as Jews. Later rabbinic texts (Yevamot 47a–b) confirm converts’ full Jewish status, including Temple access, reflecting Second Temple norms. In Paul’s time, proselytes like the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27, if a convert) likely accessed inner courts for worship, as circumcision granted covenant membership.
Biblical Precedent: Exodus 12:48 allows circumcised foreigners to partake in Passover, integrating them into Israel’s worship, a practice extended to Temple access. Ruth, a Moabite convert (Ruth 1:16), was fully Israelite, implying eligibility for covenantal worship spaces. These texts, echoed in Paul’s theology (Gal. 3:29, Rom. 4:11–17), show non-Israelites could join Israel, supporting their access to the Court of Israel.

4. Implications for IO and Paul’s Gentiles

Refuting IO’s Ethnic Exclusivity: IO claims Paul’s ethnē were estranged Israelites, as only ethnic Israelites could enter the covenant (Staples, p. 4). However, the ability of non-Israelite converts to access the Court of Israel shows covenant membership was not ethnically exclusive. Carrier argues that Gentiles became Israelites through conversion (p. 15), aligning with Paul’s grafting of ethnē as “wild olive shoots” (Rom. 11:17–24, pp. 19–20). Staples notes Paul’s gospel re-creates Israel from ethnē, not by lineage (p. 5), reflecting this inclusive tradition.
Paul’s Context: Paul’s mission to ethnē (Rom. 11:13) included proselytes and God-fearers, many of whom were non-Israelites (Acts 13:46–48). His rejection of circumcision for Gentiles (Gal. 5:2–6) doesn’t negate that circumcised converts in his era accessed the Temple as Jews, supporting your argument that ethnē weren’t estranged Israelites. The Court of Israel’s openness to converts mirrors Paul’s spiritual redefinition of “Israel” (Rom. 9:6–8; Carrier, p. 18).

5. Addressing Potential Objections

Objection: Some argue only ethnic Jews entered the Court of Israel, citing strict purity laws. Response: Purity laws applied to all Jews, including converts, who were ritually pure post-immersion (Mishnah Pesachim 8:8). Josephus and Philo confirm converts’ full integration, and no text excludes them from the Court of Israel.
Objection: The “Soreg” inscription barred all non-Jews, including converts. Response: The inscription targeted uncircumcised “foreigners,” not proselytes, who were Jews post-conversion (Philo, Special Laws 1.51). Acts 21:28 implies circumcised Jews (including converts) were permitted.

Conclusion

In Paul’s time, non-Israelite/non-Jewish circumcised converts, as full Jews, were allowed into the Temple’s Court of Israel, provided they were ritually pure. Josephus, the Mishnah, and biblical precedents (Exod. 12:48, Ruth 1:16) confirm proselytes’ covenant status, granting access to worship spaces restricted to Jews. This refutes IO’s claim that covenant membership was ethnically exclusive, supporting Carrier’s point that Gentiles could become Israelites (p. 15) and your argument that Paul’s ethnē were non-Israelites (Rom. 11:17–24). The Temple’s inclusivity for converts aligns with Paul’s universal gospel, challenging IO’s restrictive narrative.

***

Israel Only is basically just Two House Theology (aka Ephraim Movement) without the Preterism…

Overview of Two-House Theology (THT)

Two-House Theology posits that the ancient division of Israel into the Northern Kingdom (Israel/Ephraim, comprising ten tribes) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah, primarily Judah and Benjamin) has ongoing significance. After the Assyrian captivity (circa 721 BCE), the Northern tribes were scattered among the nations, losing their identity. THT proponents, like Batya Wootten and Moshe Koniuchowsky, argue that many modern Gentiles who come to faith in Yeshoua (Jesus) are descendants of these “lost tribes” (Ephraim), being regathered alongside Judah to fulfill prophecies of Israel’s restoration (e.g., Ezekiel 37:15–28). This theology emphasizes a physical and spiritual reunion of the two houses, often within a Messianic or Hebrew Roots context, and typically holds a futurist eschatology where the restoration is ongoing or future.

Overview of Israel Only Preterism (IOP)

Israel Only Preterism is a subset of preterism, a view that interprets most biblical prophecies as fulfilled in the past, particularly around the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. IOP specifically asserts that the Bible’s redemptive narrative, including the New Testament, is exclusively about Israel—meaning the covenant people of God, often defined as the physical descendants of Jacob or the faithful remnant thereof. Proponents argue that salvation, the New Covenant, and eschatological promises (like the “coming” of Christ in Matthew 24) were for Israel alone, fulfilled in the first century. Gentiles are either excluded from salvation or understood as dispersed Israelites (from the Northern tribes) who were regathered through the Gospel, as seen in the chart you provided earlier (e.g., Romans 9:25–26 interpreted as Gentiles being Northern Israel).

Similarities Between Two-House Theology and Israel Only Preterism

Both theological frameworks share a focus on Israel’s central role in biblical prophecy and salvation, often interpreting Gentiles as part of Israel’s covenant identity. Below is a chart outlining their similarities, focusing on shared themes, interpretations, and implications:

Aspect	Two-House Theology (THT)	Israel Only Preterism (IOP)	Similarity
Focus on Israel’s Identity	Emphasizes the division of Israel into two houses (Judah and Ephraim) and their reunification.	Views the Bible’s redemptive narrative as exclusively for Israel (physical or covenantal descendants of Jacob).	Both prioritize Israel as the central focus of God’s covenant and redemptive plan, rejecting a universalist view of salvation.
Gentiles as Israel	Many Gentiles are seen as descendants of the lost tribes (Ephraim), regathered through faith in Yeshoua.	Gentiles in the New Testament are often interpreted as dispersed Israelites (e.g., Northern tribes), not ethnic outsiders.	Both interpret Gentiles as part of Israel, either as lost tribes (THT) or dispersed covenant Israel (IOP), rather than distinct ethnic groups.
Regathering of Israel	Focuses on the regathering of the two houses, often seen as an ongoing or future event tied to the Messianic age.	Sees the regathering of Israel as fulfilled in the first century, with the Gospel calling back dispersed Israelites (e.g., Acts 2:5–11).	Both emphasize the biblical theme of Israel’s regathering, though differing on the timing (future/ongoing vs. past).
Use of Old Testament Prophecies	Relies on prophecies like Ezekiel 37 (two sticks), Hosea 1–2, and Isaiah 11 to argue for the restoration of all Israel.	Uses similar prophecies (e.g., Hosea 1–2 in Romans 9:25–26) to argue that the regathering occurred in the first century for Israel alone.	Both heavily draw on Old Testament prophecies to support their views on Israel’s restoration, often citing the same passages (e.g., Hosea, Isaiah).
Covenant Continuity	Views the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) as applying to both houses of Israel, with Gentiles included as Ephraim.	Interprets the New Covenant as exclusively for Israel (Jeremiah 31:31), fulfilled in the first century for the covenant people.	Both see the New Covenant as tied to Israel, not a universal replacement of Israel with a new “Church” (anti-supersessionist stance).
Rejection of Replacement Theology	Rejects supersessionism; the Church does not replace Israel but includes regathered Israelites (Ephraim).	Also rejects supersessionism; the New Testament is about Israel’s redemption, not a new entity replacing Israel.	Both oppose the traditional Christian view that the Church universally replaces Israel, maintaining Israel’s enduring covenant role.
Interpretation of “Nations” (Goyim)	“Nations” in Scripture often refer to the scattered Northern tribes (e.g., Genesis 17:4–5, “multitude of nations”).	“Nations” in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 24:14) are often seen as dispersed Israelites, not all ethnic Gentiles.	Both interpret the biblical “nations” (goyim) as including or primarily referring to dispersed Israelites, not all humanity.
Theological Lens on New Testament	Reads New Testament passages (e.g., Ephesians 2:13–17) as including Gentiles as part of Israel’s restoration.	Similarly interprets passages like Romans 9–11 or Ephesians 2 as addressing Israel’s remnant, including dispersed tribes.	Both use a hermeneutical lens that sees New Testament references to Gentiles as part of Israel’s covenant narrative, not a separate entity.

Analysis and Critical Notes

Shared Emphasis on Israel’s Covenant Role: Both THT and IOP center Israel as the sole recipient of God’s covenant promises, rejecting the idea that the Church universally replaces Israel (a hallmark of supersessionism). This is evident in their interpretations of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) as being for Israel, whether extended to regathered Ephraim (THT) or fulfilled for Israel in the first century (IOP).
Gentiles as Israelites: A key similarity is their shared view that many “Gentiles” in the New Testament are actually dispersed Israelites. THT sees this as a physical lineage (lost tribes), while IOP often frames it covenantally (Israelites by covenant status, not necessarily ethnicity). This aligns with the chart you provided, where verses like Romans 9:25–26 equate Gentiles with Northern Israel.
Differing Eschatology: While they share thematic elements, their eschatological timelines diverge significantly. THT typically holds a futurist view, seeing the regathering as ongoing or future, whereas IOP, as a preterist framework, sees these prophecies as fulfilled by 70 CE. This difference affects how they apply their interpretations but doesn’t negate the shared focus on Israel’s restoration.
Potential Overlap in Scripture Use: Both rely on similar Old Testament passages (e.g., Hosea 1–2, Isaiah 11) to argue for Israel’s regathering, though IOP applies them to first-century fulfillment, while THT sees a broader timeline. Their use of New Testament texts (e.g., Romans 9–11, Ephesians 2) also overlaps, as seen in the chart’s interpretations.

Critical Examination

Strength of Similarities: The strongest similarity lies in their anti-supersessionist stance and their view of Gentiles as part of Israel’s covenant identity. This challenges mainstream Christian theology, which often sees the Church as a new entity distinct from Israel. Their shared hermeneutic of reading “nations” as dispersed Israel also provides a consistent interpretive thread.
Limitations and Differences: Despite these similarities, their implications differ. THT often includes a broader soteriology, where Gentiles (as Ephraim) join Judah in a future restoration, potentially allowing for non-Israelite inclusion through faith. IOP, however, can be more exclusivist, limiting salvation to Israel alone, with Gentiles only included if they are covenantally Israel. This exclusivism in IOP can conflict with THT’s more inclusive restoration vision.
Historical Context: Both views have roots in reactions against traditional Christian theology. THT evolved from British Israelism and gained traction in the late 20th century through Messianic movements, while IOP is a more recent development within preterist circles, often associated with online communities on platforms like X, where users debate eschatology and soteriology.

Conclusion

Two-House Theology and Israel Only Preterism share significant similarities in their focus on Israel’s covenant identity, their interpretation of Gentiles as part of Israel, and their rejection of replacement theology. However, their eschatological frameworks (futurist vs. preterist) and soteriological scope (broader inclusion vs. Israel-only) create distinct applications of these shared themes. The chart above highlights their common ground, which aligns with the earlier discussions about the chart of New Testament verses and their implications for Israel’s identity.

***

Judaism, Mystery Cults, and Christianity

It is implausible that gentiles in the first century thought of themselves as estranged Israelites, even if Paul told them they were (which he didn’t). No gentile becoming a follower of Christ thought he was doing so because he could trace his lineage back 750 years to northern Israel, or because he thought he was bound to some covenant he had no knowledge of, or participation in.

There is strong evidence that early Christianity was similar to Greco/Roman savior mystery cults in many ways. Mystery cults offered personal salvation, often in the form of eternal life, rebirth, or a blessed afterlife. New members had to undergo secret initiation ceremonies, which often involved symbolic death and rebirth, purification, or the revealing of sacred knowledge. Many cults centered around a divine figure who suffered, died, and was resurrected or triumphant over death (e.g., Osiris in the Isis cult, Dionysus in Orphic traditions, or Mithras slaying the bull as a life-giving act). Initiates were often expected to live by higher moral or ethical standards, sometimes with promises of judgment in the afterlife (especially in the Orphic and Isis traditions). Many cults celebrated ritual meals that symbolized unity with the god and among the members. The cults often provided a deeply emotional and mystical experience, sometimes including visions, ecstasy, or trance states.

Richard Carrier notes in his “Jesus from Outer Space,” on page 51: “Christianity is unmistakably a Jewish version of this same Western cultural trend [Greco/Roman savior mystery cults]—and was such from its very founding. This already-popular savior-cult model was simply Judaized—and very quickly (under Paul) made even more alike, rendering it even more popular. Thence the Christianity we know was born. The ‘differences’ from all those other cults are the Jewish element. The similarities are the Western cultural influences that brought forth something new.”

Thus, the appeal of Christianity to gentiles was not some kind of reintegration into a long-lost covenant with Yahweh, which would have been entirely foreign to them. Rather, the appeal was a universal salvation from death, as the mystery cults offered it. Robert Turcan writes in his book: “A religion is successful only if it can monopolize the individual totally: body and soul, mind and senses. If the impoverishment, indigence or inanity of the liturgy engender indifference, divorce between knowledge and religion undermines or relativizes belief. In order to be stimulating and full of dynamism, a faith must provide an all-embracing explanation of man, the world and life.” (The Cults of the Roman Empire – page 22) No gentile would care about some lost covenant or a dead people they themselves had no tangible connection to. Christianity would never have spread throughout the gentile world if that’s what they were expected to believe.

***

The Israel Only (IO) narrative, as defined by its proponents, is the view that the entire Bible’s redemptive narrative pertains only to God’s covenant people—Jews, Gentile descendants of the tribes of Israel, and non-descendant proselytes under the law—ending in AD 70 with a scriptural focus on Hebrew culture and consistent preterism (Michael Bradley). But IO proponents claim it’s just a story, a fictional narrative. This is where IO falls apart. Unless IOers argue that Paul is a fictional character, it’s not just a story. Paul was a real person, preaching a real gospel to real people. Two questions must be answered: 1. Did Paul believe the same thing IO Preterists believe? 2. Did first-century Gentiles believe the same thing IO Preterists believe? Historical evidence answers ‘no’ to both. Paul’s universal gospel, cosmic eschatology, and mission to non-Israelites contradict IO’s Israel-only, AD 70-limited narrative. First-century Gentiles saw themselves as non-Israelites, adopted through faith, following a law-free gospel with cosmic hopes, not as covenant-bound Israelites. IO’s narrative, while claiming scriptural consistency, imposes a fictional framework on historical reality, disconnected from early Christianity.

***

Analysis of the Apostolic Fathers’ Writings

1. Clement of Rome (1 Clement, c. 96 AD):

• Eschatology: Clement does not explicitly address the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD) as a fulfillment of prophecy. In 1 Clement 23–27, he speaks of future resurrection and judgment, suggesting an unfulfilled eschatology. For example, he writes, “Let us consider the glorious gifts which He has promised to those who love Him” (1 Clem. 34), implying future expectation.

• Israel and the Church: Clement uses Old Testament imagery (e.g., Israel as God’s people) but applies it to the Church universally, not limiting salvation to ethnic Israel (1 Clem. 29–31). He sees Christians as heirs of God’s promises, suggesting a continuity model where the Church inherits Israel’s role.

• IO Preterism Relevance: No clear preterist framework or Israel-only focus. His eschatology is futuristic, and his view of the Church is inclusive of Gentiles.

2. Ignatius of Antioch (Letters, c. 108–140 AD):

• Eschatology: Ignatius focuses on martyrdom and personal eschatology, with little reference to apocalyptic events or 70 AD. In Epistle to the Ephesians 11, he speaks of Christ’s work as defeating death but does not tie this to a specific historical event like Jerusalem’s fall. His eschatology seems partially realized but not explicitly preterist.

• Israel and the Church: Ignatius emphasizes the unity of the Church as the new people of God, transcending Jewish-Gentile distinctions (Magnesians 8–10). He critiques Judaizing practices, suggesting Christianity supersedes Judaism, not that it is exclusively for Israel.

• IO Preterism Relevance: Ignatius shows no Israel-only focus or preterist interpretation of 70 AD. His theology is universal, and eschatology is not tied to a completed event.

3. Polycarp of Smyrna (Epistle to the Philippians, c. 110–140 AD):

• Eschatology: Polycarp emphasizes future resurrection and judgment (Phil. 2, 7). He does not mention 70 AD or suggest prophecies were fulfilled then. His focus is on enduring faith for a future reward.

• Israel and the Church: Polycarp does not explicitly address Israel’s role but speaks of Christians (Jew and Gentile) as God’s people, implying a universal Church (Phil. 3).

• IO Preterism Relevance: No evidence of preterism or an Israel-only covenant. His eschatology is futuristic and inclusive.

4. Epistle of Barnabas (c. 80–130 AD):

• Eschatology: The Epistle allegorizes Old Testament prophecies, focusing on Christ’s fulfillment of the Law (Barn. 2–6). It does not explicitly reference 70 AD as a prophetic endpoint but interprets the Temple’s destruction as evidence of Judaism’s obsolescence (Barn. 16). The author sees the physical Temple’s end as signaling a spiritual temple (the Church), not a final eschatological event.

• Israel and the Church: The Epistle strongly argues that the Church has replaced Israel as the recipient of God’s covenant (Barn. 4, 14). It claims Jews misunderstood the Law, and Christians (including Gentiles) are the true heirs of God’s promises. This supersessionist view is incompatible with IO Preterism’s Israel-only focus.

• IO Preterism Relevance: The Epistle comes closest to a preterist-like view by linking the Temple’s destruction to covenantal shift, but it lacks an explicit claim that all prophecies were fulfilled by 70 AD. Its universal view of the Church contradicts IO Preterism’s exclusivity.

5. Papias of Hierapolis (Fragments, c. 100–130 AD):

• Eschatology: Papias, preserved in Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.39), describes a future millennial kingdom with vivid material blessings, suggesting a futuristic eschatology. He does not connect 70 AD to prophetic fulfillment.

• Israel and the Church: Papias’ fragments focus on Jesus’ teachings and apostolic traditions, not Israel’s role. His eschatology implies a universal scope, not an Israel-only framework.

• IO Preterism Relevance: Papias’ chiliastic (millennial) expectations rule out preterism, and there’s no indication of an Israel-only focus.

6. The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 100–150 AD):

• Eschatology: Hermas emphasizes repentance in light of an impending judgment (Visions 1–3). He does not reference 70 AD or suggest prophecies were fulfilled. His eschatology is futuristic and ethical.

• Israel and the Church: Hermas uses imagery from Israel (e.g., the vine, Similitudes 9) but applies it to the Church as a universal body, not ethnic Israel.

• IO Preterism Relevance: No preterist or Israel-only elements. The focus is on future judgment and universal salvation.

7. Didache (c. 80–120 AD):

• Eschatology: The Didache includes an eschatological section (Did. 16), warning of future trials, the “deceiver,” and the Lord’s coming. This suggests an unfulfilled eschatology, with no mention of 70 AD as a fulfillment.

• Israel and the Church: The Didache is a practical manual for a mixed Jewish-Gentile Christian community, with no emphasis on Israel alone. It assumes the Church as God’s people.

• IO Preterism Relevance: No preterist or Israel-only themes. Eschatology is futuristic, and the community is universal.

Key Observations

• Preterism: None of the Apostolic Fathers explicitly interpret the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD) as the fulfillment of all biblical prophecies, a core tenet of IO Preterism. The Epistle of Barnabas comes closest by linking the Temple’s destruction to a covenantal shift, but it frames this as a transition to the Church, not a final eschatological event. Most Fathers (e.g., Polycarp, Papias, Didache) express futuristic eschatological hopes, expecting a future return of Christ, resurrection, or judgment.

• Israel-Only Focus: The Fathers consistently present the Church as the new people of God, incorporating Gentiles and often superseding or fulfilling Israel’s role (Barnabas, Clement, Ignatius). This universalism directly contradicts IO Preterism’s claim that God’s promises were exclusively for physical Israel.

• Covenantal Views: The Fathers lean toward supersessionism or continuity, where the Church inherits or fulfills Israel’s covenant promises. None limit salvation or prophecy to ethnic Israel alone.

Conclusion

There is no clear evidence of Israel Only Preterism in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. While the Epistle of Barnabas notes the Temple’s destruction as significant, it interprets this as a shift to the universal Church, not a fulfillment of all prophecy for Israel alone. The Fathers’ eschatology is generally futuristic, expecting a future return of Christ, and their theology is inclusive, viewing the Church as the heir of God’s promises for both Jews and Gentiles. IO Preterism, as a modern construct, finds no direct parallel in these early texts.

October, 2026

Here is a debate between Richard Carrier and Jason Decosta on the issue of who were Paul’s gentiles…

Summary

Topic: Who were the “Gentiles” Paul wrote to and converted?
Were they non-Israelite pagans from the nations, or scattered/lost Israelites (the northern tribes) being restored to the covenant?

Jason DeCosta (Israel-Only position)
Paul’s entire mission is the fulfillment of the original Abrahamic promise made in Genesis. God swore an everlasting covenant to Abraham’s physical descendants through Isaac and Jacob. Genesis already predicts that Jacob’s line would become “a nation and a company of nations” / “fullness of nations.” The northern tribes were scattered, became “not my people” (Hosea), and Paul is gathering them back.

Paul repeatedly anchors his argument in Sarah’s womb, Isaac, Jacob, the fathers, sperma (seed/descendants), and the “irrevocable” calling. Romans 9–11 is one continuous restoration story of all Israel (Jews + scattered). The “Gentiles” are those alienated Israelites living among the nations. Later Christianity (Barnabas, Justin Martyr, etc.) gradually spiritualized and universalized the promise after the fall of Jerusalem.

Richard Carrier (standard view)
Paul never once says “you Gentiles are lost Israelites by blood” or “salvation is for Israel only.” Instead, Paul repeatedly says the opposite.

Key texts:

Romans 9:8 – the children of the promise are counted as (logizetai) Abraham’s seed, not that they are the seed by nature.
Romans 11 – Gentiles are wild olive shoots grafted in from a completely different tree; the natural branches (lost Israelites) are a separate group that can be grafted back.
Galatians 3–4 – a long, elaborate argument is needed precisely because Paul is claiming non-biological inclusion through faith and baptism into Christ (the true “seed”).
Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 – “all people” die in Adam and can be made alive in Christ.

Paul’s solution is spiritual adoption by God’s power, not bloodline. The original oath is preserved, not annulled or expanded, because joining Christ makes one part of the promised seed.

Overall dynamic
Jason builds a cumulative case from Genesis through the prophets into Paul, insisting the original oath still controls the identity of the heirs. Carrier insists Paul never states the Israel-only claim and repeatedly uses language and metaphors that contradict it. The cross-examination grew heated, especially over the meaning of “adoption” and whether Paul is redefining or simply fulfilling the promise. Both sides stayed largely on the texts; the debate remained substantive even when tense.

Combined summary of Carrier’s opening and closing…

Paul never states the Israel-only position. He never says salvation is for Israel only, that his Gentile converts are biological lost Israelites, or that non-Israelites are excluded. Jason must invent this claim through reinterpretation.
The burden of proof therefore lies on Jason. If Paul held that view he would have said it clearly; he does not.
Only Paul’s own words and his interpretation of scripture count as evidence. Reinterpreting a text according to the theory and then treating that reinterpretation as proof is circular reasoning.
Paul repeatedly says the opposite of the Israel-only thesis:
- Romans 9:3–4 – Paul distinguishes himself as “fellow-born in the flesh” from his Gentile readers, implying many of the saved are not racial Israelites.
- Romans 9:8 – The children of the promise are counted as (logizetai) Abraham’s seed; Paul deliberately avoids saying they simply are the seed by nature.
- Romans 11 olive-tree metaphor – Gentiles are wild shoots grafted in from a completely different tree. The natural branches (which Carrier identifies as lost Israelites) are a separate group that can be grafted back into their own tree. Paul includes lost Israelites while clearly distinguishing them from the Gentiles.
- Romans 4:16 – The promise comes by faith and grace, not by blood inheritance.
- Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 – Universal language (“all people” / pantas anthrōpous): everyone dies in Adam and everyone can be made alive in Christ.
- Galatians 3–4 – A long, elaborate argument that inheritance comes by adoption into Christ (the singular “seed”). If the Galatians were already Abraham’s physical heirs, this argument would be unnecessary. Belonging to Christ makes one Abraham’s seed; the reverse is never stated.
- “Adoption” language itself implies the people in question were not already sons by nature.
Paul is not annulling the Abrahamic oath. He preserves it by identifying the seed as Christ and allowing anyone baptized into Christ to become part of that seed by God’s power.
Jason’s approach is “red-string-board” / circular: he reinterprets texts to fit the theory and then cites those reinterpretations as evidence for the theory. Paul himself never says the things Jason attributes to him.
In every key passage, Paul would have written differently if he held the Israel-only view. The plain sense of his statements refutes it.

Click here to read Carrier’s follow-up article on the debate.

From the article…

[A]ny exegesis of scripture that Jason performs here can only be a hypothesis about what exegesis Paul was performing on it, rather than a hypothesis about what it really meant. DeCosta confuses the two repeatedly and thus doesn’t even know how to test or prove his hypothesis at all. Yet he acts with absurd confidence that he does. And that’s always a bad sign.

Moreover, a hypothesis cannot be evidence for itself. Anyone can claim Paul read the scriptures any way they want. That doesn’t make them right.  We need evidence that Paul thought as we want him to. So where is this evidence?  Which evidence cannot be the theory itself. Remember this. It will come up a lot as you interact with Jason’s arguments.  It is fallacious to reinterpret a passage using a theory, and then use the new interpretation as evidence for the theory. That is textbook circular reasoning, which can never lead to a believable conclusion.  Every time, it could instead be that Paul is reinterpreting the scriptures exactly as all mainstream scholars agree he did, and not in the way Jason wants. So we need evidence to reject mainstream readings. We can’t get by with just the possibility. Jason’s theory has to be a conclusion, not a premise. That is the only way to get it to be probable, not just “possible.” Jason shows no signs of understanding this. He has no idea how to prove a theory.

Little Gods

Any religion that cannot move beyond “we’re bad, God gets mad” is unworthy of devotion. Imagine a world in which a law was unnecessary. What would have to happen to humanity for that to be possible? We would have to become like God. Judaism will always require a law (and Jews bend over backwards trying to find loopholes to that law). Eastern religions teach you can grow beyond the need of a law, but your individuality will be obliterated in the process. Only Christianity teaches that we can grow beyond the need of a law while still maintaining our identities. How? God becomes like us so that we can become like Him. We become little gods.

Salvation From Sin – Salvation From Death (This article is a work in progress)

Imagine you’re reading a novel. This novel is about a man, Roger, who is deeply and unwaveringly in love with his wife, Eva. Eva, however, is a horrible person. She is consistently unfaithful. She continuously gets herself into all kinds of trouble. Again and again Roger is saving her from disaster; he is bailing her out of prison, he is paying off her debts, he is saving her from an abusive lover, he is finding her drug addicted body half dead in the streets. Roger always takes her back, into his home, and revives her to a place of beauty and wholeness. Yet, predictably, Eva goes her own way time and time again. There is foreshadowing in the story, and you know that Roger, in his undying love, will even give his life for Eva.

Now imagine you arrive at the last chapter in this novel and suddenly, with no explanation, Roger has seventy wives, and he loves them all equally as he loves Eva. And he gives his life to save them all… I imagine that twist in the story will confuse and frustrate you.

It’s an interesting thing then, how we Christians, read the biblical story as though it plays out the same way as with Roger and Eva, and Roger’s unexpected polygamy.

The bible is God’s and Israel’s story, and that includes the New Testament (NT). The bible is all about the God of Israel, Yahweh, and His marriage covenant with His unique and chosen bride, Israel (Read Deuteronomy 4 and 7; Amos 3 for some examples). Again and again, Israel is unfaithful to Yahweh, but Yahweh always remains faithful to His covenant obligations. He promises to purify His bride and to uphold an everlasting covenant marriage with her. Does Yahweh then suddenly have a marriage covenant with all humanity in the NT? Are we reading things correctly?

Before reading further, take a moment to read Jeremiah 3.

It is interesting to see in James’s introduction of his letter who he wrote to: “To the twelve tribes [Israelites] which are scattered abroad…” And also in Peter’s introduction of his first letter: “To the pilgrims of the Dispersion [Israelites]…” Peter wrote again to these same people in his second letter: “Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle…” and noted that Paul wrote his letters to these same people: “…our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things…” (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Let’s look at Paul’s writings…

²¹And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled ²²in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight…
Colossians 1:21-22 (NKJV)

¹³And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, ¹⁴having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. ¹⁵Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
Colossians 2:13-15 (NKJV)

Who was Paul speaking to in these passages? Look closely at the details. These people had been alienated from Yahweh, but had been reconciled back to Yahweh by the death of Christ. They were once dead in their trespasses against the handwriting of requirements which had authority over them (the same requirements which had authority over Paul — “against us … contrary to us”), and they were relationally dead to Yahweh in their fleshly uncircumcision. But, the lawful condemnation against them had been removed by the cross. The powers and principalities over them had been disarmed by Jesus.

Only Israelites could have been alienated from Yahweh (alienated from covenant relationship), and only Israelites could have been reconciled (or restored) back to Yahweh. Only Israelites could be guilty of trespassing against the law (of Moses — the “handwriting of requirements”), and only Israelites could be dead for not being circumcised in the flesh (a covenantal requirement only given to Israel – see Genesis 17:9-14). Only Israelites were under the powers and principalities of the Mosaic law system. These Colossians were Israelites who had been divorced from the first (Mosaic) covenant.

¹¹Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— ¹²that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. ¹³But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

¹⁴For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, ¹⁵having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, ¹⁶and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. ¹⁷And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. ¹⁸For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Ephesians 2:11-18 (NKJV)

And who is Paul speaking to here? Again, look at the details. These people were once Gentiles (or “of the nations”) in the flesh, which does not mean they were non-Israelites, but rather of the nations (rather than being of the commonwealth of Israel) because they were uncircumcised in the flesh. They had been alienated (past tense — not present tense as the NKJV has it) from the commonwealth of Israel (Yahweh’s covenant people). Without Christ they had been far off (like the prodigal son), but with Christ they had been brought near again.

Jesus had broken down what was separating two groups of people. What two groups? Consider this passage…

¹⁵Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ¹⁶“As for you, son of man, take a stick for yourself and write on it: ‘For Judah and for the children of Israel, his companions.’ Then take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel, his companions.’ ¹⁷Then join them one to another for yourself into one stick, and they will become one in your hand.

¹⁸“And when the children of your people speak to you, saying, ‘Will you not show us what you mean by these?’— ¹⁹say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Surely I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will join them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand.” ’ ²⁰And the sticks on which you write will be in your hand before their eyes.

²¹“Then say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; ²²and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again. ²³They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. Then they shall be My people, and I will be their God.

²⁴“David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. ²⁵Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children’s children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. ²⁶Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. ²⁷My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. ²⁸The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.” ’ ”
Ezekiel 37:15-28 (NKJV – emphasis mine)

Paul was clearly drawing on this passage to prove how, in Christ, Yahweh was regathering the scattered sheep of Israel, those who were far off, to reconstitute all his people into one bride of Christ. The wall (the law) between the Uncircumcision (Israelites who had been divorced from the Mosaic covenant) and the Circumcision (Israelites who were faithful to the Mosaic covenant) had been torn down by the death of Christ.

For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
Romans 2:25 (NKJV)

What happened when Israelites were divorced from Yahweh under the first (Mosaic) covenant?

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, ²when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, ³if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, ⁴then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (NKJV – emphasis mine)

A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 7:39 (NKJV)

The first covenant must be nullified so that a new covenant can be ratified.

And for this reason [Jesus] is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrews 9:15 (NKJV – emphasis mine)

The death of Christ redeemed those who had transgressed against the first covenant, which could only have been Israelites.

¹⁰For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” ¹¹But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” ¹²Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”

¹³Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), ¹⁴that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles [nations] in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Galatians 3:10-14 (NKJV)

Christ redeemed Israel from the curse of their law, so that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the nations — the scattered sheep of Israel, aka the Dispersion (see John 7:35).

⁴But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, ⁵to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Galatians 4:4-5 (NKJV)

⁴⁹And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, ⁵⁰nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” ⁵¹Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, ⁵²and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

⁵³Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death. ⁵⁴Therefore Jesus no longer walked openly among the Jews, but went from there into the country near the wilderness, to a city called Ephraim, and there remained with His disciples.
John 11:49-54 (NKJV)

¹²So Joseph brought them [his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim], from beside his knees, and he bowed down with his face to the earth. ¹³And Joseph took them both, Ephraim with his right hand toward Israel’s [Jacob’s] left hand, and Manasseh with his left hand toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them near him. ¹⁴Then Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn…

¹⁷Now when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; so he took hold of his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. ¹⁸And Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head.”

¹⁹But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother [Ephraim] shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.”
Genesis 48:12-14, 17-19 (NKJV – emphasis mine)

For an explanation of the meanings of the words Jew, Gentile, and Greek, check out this article: The Jews, the Greeks and the Gentiles: Who are they? While I don’t agree with all of that article, I do find it helpful. But, here is a brief summary of what these terms mean…

The Judaeans (Jews): The (Mosaic law system) observant Israelites who rejected the Greek culture and language.
The Hellenists (Greeks): Israelites who adopted the Greek culture and language. (See John 7:35 – “the Dispersion”)
The Nations (Gentiles): Sometimes referring to non-Israelite peoples, but more often, in the NT context, referring to the scattered or Hellenized Israelites living among the non-Israelite peoples (this included the somewhat mysterious lost 10 tribes).

We could also phrase it like this: All Judaeans were Israelites, but not all Israelites were Judaeans. All Gentiles were non-Judaeans, but since not all Israelites were Judaeans, some Israelites were Gentiles.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
Romans 1:16 (NKJV)

Paul was separated and called by God to preach the gospel to the scattered sheep of Israel among the Gentiles.

¹⁵But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, ¹⁶to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles…
Galatians 1:15-16 (NKJV) – Compare to Isaiah 49:1-6

In Romans 9, Paul lamented the condition of his brethren Israelites. Why did so many reject the gospel of Christ? But, Paul assured himself, not all Israel is Israel. There was a true Israel and a counterfeit Israel. These are the two groups of people contrasted against each other in that chapter — the vessels of wrath and of mercy. The true Israel would be called out from not only the Judaeans, but also from the Israelites scattered among the nations.

²²What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, ²³and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, ²⁴even us whom He called, not of the Jews [Judaeans] only, but also of the Gentiles [nations]?

²⁵As He says also in Hosea:

“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
²⁶“And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

²⁷Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.
²⁸For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.”

²⁹And as Isaiah said before:

“Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,
We would have become like Sodom,
And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”
Romans 9:22-29 (NKJV – emphasis mine)

Hosea’s prophesies did not concern non-Israelites. His prophesies concerned only Israelites (the 10 northern tribes to be precise, or “Ephraim” – see Hosea 5).

The following is from the Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul written by scholars Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch concerning the passage above…

God’s call goes to all of [the] Israelites, not only from those resident in Judea, but also from those resident among non-Israelites. Paul argues that his is a fair assessment, since it was indicated by what God said through his prophets Hosea and Isaiah. Of course Hosea (1.10; 2.23) speaks only of Israelites, now called ‘my people’ and ‘beloved,’ indeed ‘children of the living God.’ And Isa. 10.22-23 stated that only a remnant of Israel responds to God’s initiative… Many interpreters read vv. 24-28 as applying to non-Israelites now included in Israelite Jesus groups. But since Paul’s activity is among Israelites living among non-Israelites and he does not recruit non-Israelites or have a gospel of God for them, this passage can only apply to Israelite Jesus group members. His scriptural argument would make sense only to them and their fellow Israelites!
Malina and Pilch. Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul, Fortress Press, 2006

³⁰What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; ³¹but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. ³²Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. ³³As it is written:

“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
Romans 9:30-33 (NKJV – emphasis mine)

Again from Malina and Pilch concerning this passage…

Paul contrasts ‘peoples [NRSV “Gentiles”] who did not strive for righteousness’ with ‘Israel who pursued the righteous law.’ The majority of Israelites outside Palestine and outside the circles of Pharisaic scribalism did not observe the law with any great devotedness. This nonobservant Israelite group, a group of ‘peoples [NRSV “Gentiles”] who did not strive for righteousness’ is contrasted with those Israelites who attempted to fulfill the law.
Malina and Pilch, Ibid.

Paul also mentions a remnant of Israel in Romans 9:27. Moses warned Israel what would happen when they rejected their covenant with Yahweh…

²⁵“When you beget children and grandchildren and have grown old in the land, and act corruptly and make a carved image in the form of anything, and do evil in the sight of the Lord your God to provoke Him to anger, ²⁶I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you cross over the Jordan to possess; you will not prolong your days in it, but will be utterly destroyed. ²⁷And the Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the Lord will drive you. ²⁸And there you will serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. ²⁹But from there you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul. ³⁰When you are in distress, and all these things come upon you in the latter days, when you turn to the Lord your God and obey His voice ³¹(for the Lord your God is a merciful God), He will not forsake you nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers which He swore to them.
Deuteronomy 4:25-31 (NKJV – emphasis mine)

Consider what Paul says in Romans 1, a passage normally applied only to non-Israelites…

¹⁸For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²²Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

²⁴Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, ²⁵who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

²⁶For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. ²⁷Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

²⁸And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; ²⁹being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, ³⁰backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, ³¹undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; ³²who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Romans 1:18-32 (NKJV – emphasis mine)

Notice in the passage above, in verse 32, there are two groups of people: 1) Those who knew the righteous judgement of God and yet still did all the wicked things listed in vv. 28-31, and approved of… 2) Those who practiced the wicked things listed in vv. 28-31. Who knew the righteous judgment of God? Israel, the covenant people who were given the law. And who was group #2? Everyone who was never in a covenant relationship with Yahweh (see 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8, esp. vs. 5). It was Israel who knew God and turned away from the truth to worship (as stated in Deuteronomy 4) carved images (see also Acts 7:38-43).

In Romans 2, Paul continued to speak of the Israelites, both the Judaean Israelites and the Hellenized Israelites (“Jew and Greek” – Romans 2:9-11). Did they not know, that even though they were doing the wicked things listed in Romans 1:28-31, God was being patient and kind to them, in order to lead them to repentance? Did they not know that if they did not repent they were storing up wrath for themselves for the soon coming day of judgement?

In Romans 2:12 and following, things become confusing as Paul seems to contradict himself with what he wrote later in Romans.

¹²For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law ¹³(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; ¹⁴for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, ¹⁵who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) ¹⁶in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Romans 2:12-16 (NKJV – emphasis mine)

Remembering that the law here is the law of Moses, let me remove the parenthesis — “For as many as have sinned without the law will also perish without the law … in the day when God will judge the secrets of men…” Those who did not have the law would still perish because of their sin on judgement day, even though they were not judged by the law. But yet, Paul says they had the work of the law written on their hearts. This is confusing. Were these people guilty of sinning against the law or not? Did they know the law or not? Did Paul not say, “Where there is no law there is no transgression, and sin is not imputed when there is no law?” (Romans 4:15b; 5:13b) Who were these people then, who had the law written on their hearts, when only Israel was given the law? The only conclusion that seems to make sense is that these people did indeed have the law of Moses written on their hearts, and thus were descendants of Israel, but were so far gone from the covenant that they lived without the law. However, the fact that their own consciences approved or accused their actions proved that they had the law of Moses written on their hearts. They mostly lived no differently than the rest of all the non-Israelite nations, but were still under the law’s curse.

The promise from Yahweh in Deuteronomy 4 and in Ezekiel 37 (and in many passages found in the writings of the OT prophets) was that He would not forget His covenant people, and that He would gather them back together again after their exile, and establish a new covenant with them.

³¹“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— ³²not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. ³³But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. ³⁴No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
Jeremiah 31:31-34 (NKJV – emphasis mine)

Back in Jeremiah’s day, Yahweh promised to make a new covenant with Israel. That new covenant began already when the exiles began to return to their land and rebuild the temple, and although it was Jesus who brought that new covenant into a final reality (see Hebrews 8), the covenant, with its new conditions, began centuries before Jesus. The law was written on Israel’s heart long before the cross.

As mentioned above, Paul wrote in Romans 5:13-14 that although sin was in the world before the law (of Moses given to Israel), sin was not imputed because there was no law. Death still reigned, but it reigned in the lives of people who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam. They had no law to sin against. Adam had a law to sin against (“…of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat…”), and so did Israel. Israel was given the law when they entered into covenant with Yahweh. Notice the similarities between the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Adam’s law) and Israel’s law (all the following verses are from the NKJV, and all emphasis are mine)…

Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.

Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
Genesis 1:31 and Romans 7:12

Then to Adam [God] said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“Cursed is the ground for your sake;  in toil you shall eat of it  all the days of your life…”

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”
Genesis 3:17 and Galatians 3:10

“…but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death… And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.
Genesis 2:17 and Romans 7:5 and 10

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes…
Genesis 3:7 and Psalm 19:8b

…but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat…

You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Genesis 2:17a and Galatians 5:4 — A relationship with God cannot be achieved through the law.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

You, through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies;
For they are ever with me.
Genesis 3:6 and Psalm 119:98

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked…

For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.
Genesis 3:7a and Hebrews 10:1-3 — The law makes one conscious of sin.

And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law…
Genesis 3:8 and Galatians 5:4a — The law, approached incorrectly, estranges people from God.

So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

For you did not receive the spirit of bondage [of the law – see Galatians 4:25] again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”
Genesis 3:10 and Romans 8:15 — The bondage of the law leads to fear.

For the judgment which came from one [Adam’s] offense resulted in condemnation…

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, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.
Romans 5:16b and 2 Corinthians 3:7-9 — The law is a ministry of condemnation.

For as by one man’s [Adam’s] disobedience many were made sinners…

Moreover the law [of Moses] entered that the offense might abound…
Romans 5:19a, 20a

Looking closer at Romans 5, Paul came to some illuminating conclusions. David Bentley Hart (DBH) translates Romans 5:12 like this…

Therefore, just as sin entered into the cosmos through one man [Adam], and death through sin, so also death pervaded all humanity, whereupon all sinned…
Hart, David B., A Translation of the New Testament, Yale University Press, 2017

DBH writes in the footnotes concerning this verse…

A fairly easy verse to follow until one reaches the final four words, whose precise meaning is already obscure, and whose notoriously defective rendering in the Latin Vulgate … constitutes one of the most consequential mistranslations in Christian history. The phrase [in the Greek] is not some kind of simple adverbial formula like [“therefore”] with which the verse begins; literally the [Greek phrase] means “upon which,” “whereupon,” but how to understand this is a matter of some debate.
Ibid, Footnote on page 296

DBH believes the proper understanding of the verse to be “that the consequence of death spreading to all human beings is that all become sinners.”

The most obvious and, I think, likely reading is that, in this verse, a parallelism (something for which Paul has such a marked predilection) is given in chiastic form: just as sin entered into the cosmos and introduced death into all its members, so the contagion of death spread into the whole of humanity and introduced sin into all its members. This, as we see in Romans and elsewhere, is for Paul the very dynamism of death and sin that is reversed in Christ: by his triumphant righteousness he introduced eternal life into the cosmos, and so as that life spreads into the whole of humanity it makes all righteous (as in [Romans 5:15-19], or as in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28).
Ibid, Footnote on page 297

And so…

Adam’s sin —> Adam’s death

Adam’s death —> Humanity’s (descendants of Adam) death

Humanity’s death —> Humanity’s sin

Humanity’s sin was in the world (the greater cosmos) before the law (of Moses), but was not imputed (because there was no law). However, death still reigned because humanity’s death is a result of Adam’s sin (Adam sinned because he broke God’s law). To remedy this problem humanity needed a new Adam to reverse what the first Adam had done.

In order to have another Adam humanity needed another law given directly from God. Israel was given that law so that it could become like Adam — so that it could transgress as Adam did (Romans 5.14). Israel was a cosmos created within a greater cosmos, through which came the last Adam.

Israel was a new creation — God defeated the Egyptian gods just as He defeated the gods of chaos. He separated the Red Sea just as He separated the waters above from the waters below. He formed Israel in a wilderness and placed them in a land flowing with milk and honey just as he formed Adam in a wilderness and placed him in a garden. God gave Israel a law just as He did with Adam, and He threatened exile and death if they broke that law. And they did break that law, both Israel and Adam.

For God so loved the Israelite cosmos,* He sent His own Son Jesus to be born into it as a man, under its law. Jesus perfectly kept the law and, by His death, He redeemed Israel from the transgressions they made against it (Isaiah 53.4-12; Galatians 3.13; Hebrews 9.15). Thus, Jesus became the true Israel (a remnant of one) — He is the elect of God, He is the temple, He is the High Priest, He is the sacrifice.

Jesus is also the last Adam. By His righteousness (perfect obedience to God and covenant), He undid what the first Adam did. He defeated death for all humanity.

Jesus’s righteousness —> Jesus’s resurrection

Jesus’s resurrection —> Humanity’s (all those in Jesus) resurrection

Humanity’s resurrection —> Humanity’s eternal life

Out of the world God chose Israel
…Out of Israel God chose a remnant
……Out of the remnant God chose a Messiah
……In the Messiah God chose a remnant
…In the remnant God chose Israel
In Israel God chose the world**

In this diagram we see the microcosm of Israel within the larger cosmos. The cross is at the center within human history. There is also a cross outside the diagram with arrows pointing off into eternity which shows that all of the cosmos was created on the foundation of mercy and grace.

So what does this all mean? There is, what I see, a conundrum in Christianity: What seems to have started off as an Israel only apocalyptic Messianic movement morphed into a Greco/Roman religion heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. Does OT theology justify that change? Does NT theology? Is Christianity today even the same religion as first century Christianity? Can modern day Christianity, theologically speaking, legitimately trace its roots back to anything before the Council of Nicaea in AD325?

Christianity began, not as a new religion, but as an Israel exclusive Messianic movement. Paul never converted to a new religion, nor was it his primary mission to convert non-Israelites to some new religion. I remember a western missionary teaching on Acts 16, about when Paul’s party was prevented from preaching in Asia. This missionary believed that Paul wanted to go to China. She was unaware that Asia was a Roman province, and it was into that province Paul was prevented to go. Now, her biggest mistake was not that she got the geography wrong. Her biggest mistake was thinking that Paul wanted to convert Chinese people to some new religion called “Christianity.”

The first Christians were Judaeans. The second group were Hellenized Israelites. Yes, it seems there were non-Israelites who became Jesus followers in the NT, but I suspect their numbers were small. It seems the influx of non-Israelites into the Christian churches didn’t happen until the second and third centuries. Non-Israelites entering the Church was tertiary.

What was the Roman world like in these early centuries? Here is what the late professor Leo D. Davis wrote…

The ancient gods of the Roman people led by Jupiter the Thunderer and his consort Juno naturally held pride of place… But the great high gods of the Romans and Greeks were the austere patrons of the state and evoked little personal emotional response from the masses.
Davis, Leo Donald, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787), The Liturgical Press, 1983, page 17

In the great towns the more cosmopolitan middle and lower classes and some of the aristocracy, emotionally dissatisfied with the gods of the state and with little taste for philosophical reflection, turned to the mystery religions.*** Through secret rites of exotic ancient oriental flavor, the devotee was initiated into their theology, purified and assured of some form of life after death.
Ibid, page 18

It was in this world of thought and devotion that Christianity was born and developed. The Christian Church too had its Saviour-God who died and rose from the dead. Its devotees came to share the life of Christ through the rites of baptism which initiated them into divine life and of the Eucharist which sustained it. The Christians voluntarily organized their communities and supported their priests. They appealed to the same middle and lower classes as the mystery religions, at first scarcely touching the aristocracy and the peasants.
Ibid, page 20

Yet Christianity had a social ethos that appealed to many. The Christians were profoundly cosmopolitan. Their faith transcended all local boundaries; they were professedly a non-nation. They were also profoundly egalitarian … The Christians also formed strong local communities led by a bishop assisted by priests, deacons and deaconesses which were conscious of common bonds among all similar communities.
Ibid, page 20

It was perhaps above all this sense of community which attracted to the ranks of the Church the Roman citizen lost as an individual in a vast impersonal empire, whose ancient cities had lost his allegiance.
Ibid, page 21

These young churches spread out over the empire would have primarily been made up of Hellenized Israelites who had no strong ties to the Israelite Old Covenant system. For them, was there any good reason for preventing non-Israelites from entering the Church? In times past, non-Israelites could join Old Covenant Israel, so surely non-Israelites could also join into the New Covenant. And since these Hellenized Israelites did not have to be circumcised to enter the New Covenant, certainly these non-Israelites would not have to either.

Old Covenant Israel was dismantled in AD70 with the destruction of the temple. The time from Christ’s resurrection (AD30ish) to AD70 was a forty year wilderness period. There was a second exodus for Israel — the first was freedom from Egypt and the second was freedom from the Mosaic Covenant and its curse (see Galatians 4:1-5). Just as in the first wilderness period when God performed many miracles for the people, gave them a new way to live, and put to death their old way of life, so this happened to Israel in the second wilderness period between AD30-AD70. Just as Israel, when finally entering the promised land began to conquer all the people and territory, so did the Church do after AD70.

Over time the leadership of the Church became less and less Israelite and more and more Greek, (For example, according to Eusebius, the first 15 bishops of Jerusalem were circumcised Judaeans, but that ended in AD135 with the Bar Kokhba revolt.) The new Greek leaders were educated in Greek philosophy, and they asked new and different questions about the faith than the previous Israelite leadership: What is the nature of Jesus? Is God a Trinity of Persons? What is the nature of that Trinity? Is the God of the Hebrew scriptures the same as the Christian scriptures? Etc…

The divided Roman empire was united under Constantine, who had himself adopted the Christian faith. Constantine would not allow a divided Church in his empire, and so he called hundreds of bishops to come together and work out their disagreements. This gathering is called the Council of Nicaea. It was the first of several councils in which the foundations and boundaries of the Christian faith were decided.

Consider the four gospels, the four apostles, and the Church…

Mathew = James = Eastern Orthodox

Mark = Peter = Roman Catholic

Luke = Paul = Protestantism

John = John = ?Future Church?

***

If you are a real person and you’ve read this far, then there is probably something wrong with you, because nobody reads my blog, and I know I am just talking to myself, but thanks for reading.

* Click here to read an interesting essay.

** Source: Election by David Embury

*** Mystery religions were made up of groups of people who were longing for a personal religious experience, which they were unable to achieve through the state religion. One was not born into a mystery religion, rather one had to choose to join it. Mystery religions involved a secretive initiation and offered the believer communion with the god through ritual imitation of the god’s victorys (see Romans 6:3-5).

“I conceive that the founders of the mysteries had a real meaning … that he who arrives there after initiation and purification will dwell with the gods.” – Plato, Phaedo, circa 360BC

“On this lake they hold, at night, an exhibition of the god’s (Osiris) sufferings, a performance that the Egyptians call the Mysteries…” – Herodotus, The History, circa 440BC

***

Is Israel Doomed? (Video)

Some Speculations on Romans 5

Adam’s sin —> Adam’s death

Adam’s death —> Our (descendants of Adam) death

Our death —> Our sin

Our sin was in the world (the greater cosmos) before the law (of Moses), but was not imputed (because there was no law).* However, death still reigned because our death is a result of Adam’s sin (Adam sinned because he broke God’s law). To remedy this problem we needed a new Adam to reverse what the first Adam had done.

In order to have another Adam we needed another law given directly from God. Israel was given that law so that it could become like Adam — so that it could transgress as Adam did (Romans 5.14). Israel was a cosmos created within a greater cosmos, through which came the last Adam.

For God so loved the Israelite cosmos,** He sent His own Son Jesus to be born into it as a man, under its law. Jesus perfectly kept the law and, by His death, He redeemed Israel from the transgressions they made against it (Isaiah 53.4-12; Galatians 3.13; Hebrews 9.15). Thus, Jesus became the true Israel (a remnant of one) — He is the elect of God, He is the temple, He is the High Priest, He is the sacrifice.

Jesus is also the last Adam. By His righteousness (perfect obedience to God and covenant), He undid what the first Adam did. He defeated death for all humanity.

Jesus’s righteousness —> Jesus’s resurrection

Jesus’s resurrection —> Our (all those in Jesus) resurrection

Our resurrection —> Our eternal life

* Although, God did deal with wickedness before the law of Moses (eg. the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah), so there was some imputation.

** Click here to read an interesting essay.

*** Source: Election by David Embury