In Galatians 2:11–14, Paul recounts a moment when he publicly opposed Peter (Cephas) in Antioch. The issue appears to involve Peter's withdrawal from eating with Gentile believers when certain Jewish Christians arrived. Paul accuses Peter and others of hypocrisy and not acting "in step with the truth of the gospel." >"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned..." (Gal. 2:11–14, ESV) Was Peter teaching or promoting heresy here, or was Paul's confrontation about inconsistent behavior rather than false doctrine? How have various Christian traditions historically interpreted this passage, especially regarding apostolic authority and church unity?

As the gospel spread beyond Israel to the Gentile world, many began to ask important questions about God's promises to the Jewish people. In *Exodus 4:22*, God declares, *“Israel is my firstborn son,”* highlighting Israel’s special place in His redemptive plan. But with the coming of Christ and the message of salvation extended to all nations, we now see Christians referred to as adopted sons and daughters of God through faith. This raises important theological questions: Has Israel’s special status been replaced by the Church? Do Gentile believers now stand in place of Israel as God's chosen people? Or does Israel still hold a distinct role in God's unfolding story? This topic invites reflection on God's faithfulness, the unity of His promises, and how both Jews and Gentiles fit into His plan through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I ask this in Christianity (rather than in Hermeneutics), because I want answers to reflect the whole Bible, not Matthew 25:31-46 in isolation. > All the nations will be gathered before him, and he [Jesus] will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats - Matthew 25:32 > Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world" - Matthew 25:34. **Point of View** I am looking for responses from the point of view of those who believe that those who reject Jesus in this life will be condemned. **Non-Issues** 1. I believe that *ethnos* in Matthew 25:31 means Gentiles rather than all nations including the Jews; but if you disagree, I still would appreciate your answer to my question. (Please also see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/106035/does-hebrews-11-teach-that-jews-who-never-heard-about-jesus-during-their-lifetim ) 2. I am not interested in whether or not the sheep would need to accept Christ after death. 3. I am not interested in whether condemnation is eternal punishment or annihilation. (This question is similar to Jon Schneider's question of 8/26/11, but I have added four limitations which I hope will result in more focused answers).Jon Schneider's question

I recently heard a pastor building his sermon around the 'fact' that Obed-Edom was a Gentile (a precursor to Acts 15:16 - the full inclusion of Gentiles), who became a Levite after the 'possession' of the ark. On the other hand, most commentators claim that he was a Levite from the beginning, though a Gittite obviously being a Philistine, the same camp that Goliath the enemy of David came from. Has anyone studied this in-depth and come to a balanced conclusion? 2 Sam 6:10 >So David would not remove unto him the ark of Yahweh, unto the city of David, - but David took it aside to the house of Obed-edom, the **Gittite**. Barnes: >Obed-edom was a Levite of the family of Merari, being 1Ch_15:18-24; 1Ch_16:38 a son of Jeduthun [*Barnes does not mention the preceding verse 1Chr 13:13 where Obed-Edom was still called a Gittite while he received the ark*], who was a Merarite. [...] He is called a Gittite perhaps from Gath-Rimmon, in Manasseh, which belonged to the Kohathites Jos_21:25. Marriage with a Kohathite, or some other cause, would account for his dwelling in a Kohathite city. Geneva Bible: >Who was a Levite, and had dwelt in Gittaim, (1Ch_15:21). Gill: >... this man was a Levite, as **appears** from his being afterwards appointed to be doorkeeper for the ark, and to sing praise before it, and so a proper person to commit the care of it to, 1 Chronicles 15:18; he is called a Gittite, either because he had sojourned in Gath some time, or rather because he was of Gathrimmon, a city of the Levites, Joshua 21:24. KingComments: >Later we see that Obed-edom gets a special service as gatekeeper at the temple (1Ch_26:4-8). He is a Levite, but born in a city of the Philistines. **His name means ‘servant of Edom’**, that is to say servant of the flesh, the sinful nature, someone who does the will of the flesh (Eph_2:3). But in him we also see what G-d can do in such a person and what His grace can make of him. Matthew Henry: >He lodged the ark in a good house, the house of Obed-edom a Levite, which happened to be near the place where this disaster happened, and there, (1.) It was kindly entertained and welcomed, and continued there three months, 2Sa_6:10, 2Sa_6:11. Obed-edom knew what slaughter the ark had made among the Philistines that imprisoned it and the Bethshemites that looked into it.

As I understand it, a key part of dispensationalist theology is a separation between Jews (Israel) and the Church as two separate entities with distinct purposes in God's plan. In discussions with them, I find that they often assert that some passages of the Bible are for Israel while others are for the Church; the process of distinguishing them is sometimes called "rightly dividing the Word of God." However, I often fail to see how they can tell which is which. In a discussion with a dispensationalist pastor I had recently, he seemed to believe that every other paragraph in Galatians is directed at Israel or directed at the Church, and I found myself totally at a loss to be able to follow. I am wondering, **what methodology do Dispensationalists use to determine which passages are directed at which group**?

Paul wrote a letter and said that the Gentiles do some things which are godly because they have the law of Christ written on their hearts through their conscience and thoughts. *Romans 2:15* >They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. If the law of Christ is already written in their hearts, why then spread the gospel and not just wait to judge them at the end of the age since they have the knowledge of God in their conscience and thoughts?

In Acts 15:19-29, were the Apostles of The Jerusalem Council acting in accordance with the Law of Moses, where each violation of the Torah equated to a "cutting off" of the community? Further, aren't three of the four dietary restrictions? The Four detailed prohibitions (Acts 15:19) are: 1) That they abstain from foods sacrificed to idols (dietary), as described in Leviticus 17:7-9. Note Leviticus specifically addresses the alien (Heb. *Ger*) shall be "cut off". 2) That they abstain from fornication, which is associated with Idolatry. (ref. Leviticus 18:26, 29). Here too both the native and the alien are addressed (vs 26), violations of such equate to a "cutting off" (vs. 29) removal from the Covenant. 3) That they abstain from consuming blood (Dietary, ref. Lev. 17:10-12). Verse 10 specifically states that both Native Israelites and Aliens who consume blood will be "cut off". 4) That they abstain from eating foods strangled. (Dietary, ref. Leviticus 17:12-14) The Torah specifically instructs the community to pour out the blood and cover it with earth which is not done in slaughters performed by strangulation. Note once again that those who do such are "cut off" - ref. vs. 14 Is this practice not associated with the idolatry of the surrounding nations and religion according to Leviticus 18:24-25? If the apostles are not standing upon the authority of the Law of Moses, being led by the Holy Spirit, where did they derive such an arbitrary set of conditions for new believers to enter the synagogue (vs. 21)?

The earliest Christian writings, notably the writings of Paul in his letters and of Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, address issues of multiculturalism in the relationships, beliefs, and practices of Jews and Gentiles. Based upon extra-Biblical sources and the histories of other religions, what evidence is there to support (or refute) a claim that Christianity was the *first* intentionally multicultural religion?

**Origination** Someone once quipped that ***Abraham was a Gentile before He was a Jew!*** By that it was a reference to the literature that Abraham lived with his ancestors in Ur of the Chaldees. That was his native land. (Genesis 11:31, 15:7, Nehemiah 9:7) Either because of economic necessity or looming military invasion by the Assyrians, the whole clan of Abraham's ancestors moved up north in the upper Fertile Crescent to Haran. This was in the land of the Hittites, and the city was an commercial center for caravans moving across the Tiger-Euphrates valleys. So it was said by one of the prophets, "Your mother was a Hittite." (Ezekiel 16:3-4) Then Abraham moved down the western part of the Fertile Crescent into the land of the many Canaanite tribes, and became a traveling nomad there. >Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land I will show you...and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Genesis 12:1-3) Because of this origination, it would be proper to say that Abram (Abraham) was indeed a Gentile---according to the broad definition applied to non-Jews in the world. He was an *ethnic* as the Bible uses the term. And so there was no difference between the humanity of Abraham's family and any other people. **Promise to Man** It was to this man that God spoke the ***promise of the Seed***. And it was a ***promise that engulfed all of humanity***, not just one race. Of course, Abraham needed a place to live, but the book of Hebrews explained that the *real destination of living* was a ***spiritual city, whose builder and maker was God.*** >By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange land...for he looked for a city which has foundations whose builder and maker is God.
...They that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
But now they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared for them a city. (Hebrews 11:9-17) **Since This is So** Since Abraham is of Gentile stock...since the promise of blessing was to the whole world...since the main goal is a "spiritual city" (spiritual realities)...would this not be sufficient reason, to not only interpret the Scriptures as a message for Equality of all Races, but be a basis to resolve the messy situation of Racism in the minds---and hearts---of people around the world? After all, is it not written: >For God so loved the world, that He gave... (John 3:16) >There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond or free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ. (Galatians 3:28-29) >For He is our peace who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition between us. (Ephesians 2:14) Could not the preaching and proclamation of the ancient promise to Abraham---without all the later Jewish legal trappings and rites and traditional customs---be a starting point, a rallying call, for racial reconciliation? For peace on earth and good will to men? All Gentiles (ethnics), Abraham and everyone else, are the same flesh and blood people...whom God loves. (Acts 17:26)

Jesus was raised as a Jew in a Jewish culture. All Jewish male children, starting at age 5, were taught the Torah and were required to memorized parts of Torah, along with how to read and write. After a period of time, after the boys were familiar with the core essentials of Judaism, some of the boys would be recognized as superior in intelligence and they would continue in study, with the idea that they would become a rabbi, a teacher of Scripture. The other boys would be released to return home and learn the trade of their fathers. According to Scripture, we know that Jesus was an exceptional student and had a superior understanding of Scripture, Lk 2:40,50 and Lk 2 46-47. Since there was no "New Testament" at that time, everything Jesus knew and taught came straight from the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, we see that God only loved the Jews and any Gentile that became a proselyte. There is not one verse in the Old Testament that states that God loves/loved all people. Beyond that, the Old Testament also teaches that there are certain types of people that God hates: - Psalm 5:5-6: The foolish will not stand in thy sight. You hate all workers of iniquity. You will destroy liars, He will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. - Psalm 11:5-6: The Lord tests the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence His soul hates. Upon the wicked He will rain snares, fire and brimstone. A horrible tempest will be their portion... - Proverbs 6:16-19: the proud, liars, murderers, those who devise wicked plans, those who are quick to do evil, false witnesses and those that gossip (with the intent of causing chaos or spreading lies.) Jesus did not come and proclaim "new teaching.": - John 17:6: "...My doctrine is not mine, but he that sent me." - John 8:28: "I do nothing of myself, but as my Father has taught me, I speak these things." - John 12:50: "...Whatever I speak is what the Father said unto me." - John 7:28 "...I have not come in my own authority or will..." Since Jesus only taught from the Old Testament, God never changes and there is no Old Testament teaching that God loves all people, is it even remotely possible that Jesus would introduce a completely new and strange teaching that contradicts what God clearly laid out in the Old Testament?

In Acts 15 it is recorded that certain men from Judea had come to Antioch and were teaching the Gentile believers that, if they were not circumcised after the law of Moses, they could not be saved. Paul and Barnabbas strongly resisted them: > And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them ... - v. 1-2a They were sent/went to Jerusalem to sort out this very issue with the Apostles and elders there and, while reporting on all the things God had done through them amongst the Gentiles: > But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.- v. 5-6 After much disputing Peter spoke his piece, explaining how God had made no distinction between Jew and Gentile *in that both are purified by faith* and, in his discourse, he refers to the law of Moses as a yoke on the neck that no one can bear: > Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. - v. 10-11 Barnabas and Paul then give more testimony followed by the final summation and declaration on the matter by James, the leader of the Jerusalem council. The council then writes and sends a letter to the Gentile churches in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. They send this letter with Paul and Barnabas and also send along Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas as witnessess to verify that the letter is, in fact, from the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem: > And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that **certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment**: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. **For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication**: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. - Acts 15:23-29 How do those who insist that the 7th day Sabbath must be kept explain the complete absence of this command in a letter sent to the Gentile church for the express purpose of resolving the issue of which commands these believers should keep?

**Introduction:** Merriam-Webster defines New Israel as “the Christian fellowship of believers: the Christian Church.” The relationship of Israel and the Church has been debated for centuries and various theologies have emerged. For example, ***replacement theology*** teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan and that the many promises God made to Israel are fulfilled in the Church instead—Old Testament prophecies are allegorized in order to make them applicable to the church. ***"Spiritual Israel"*** is a term sometimes used to suggest concepts related to replacement theology. Contrary to replacement theology, ***dispensationalism*** teaches that, after the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. Others believe that ***the church is distinct from Israel***, and the church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the day of Pentecost. **The reason for my question** is not to argue for or against any of these conflicting views. I have been asked to answer a very specific question, namely, ***does the Bible refer to Christian gentiles or the Church as "New Israelites", "New Israel" or "Spiritual Israel"?*** It may be that the early church fathers wrote about the relationship between Israel and the Church and it would be helpful to know who may have said what. However, being a Christian of the Protestant persuasion, I prefer to stick to what the Bible says. Nonetheless, in order to respond to the question I have been assigned, I would appreciate any helpful input regarding this specific question. Thank you. P.S. If the tags I have selected can be improved upon, feel free to make suggestions.

# Enoch and the Inclusion of the Gentiles The [Book of Dream Visions](https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_4.HTM) , the fourth section of the Book of Enoch, closes with a summary of the history of Israel told in terms of animals. ([Wikipedia offers a short analysis.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#Animals_in_the_second_dream_vision)) It closes with a vision of the Messianic Kingdom: >And I saw that a white bull was born, with large horns and all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air feared him and made petition to him all the time. And I saw till all their generations were transformed, and they all became white bulls; and the first among them became a lamb, and that lamb became a great animal and had great black horns on its head; and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over it and over all the oxen. And I slept in their midst: and I awoke and saw everything. > >Enoch 9:37-39 This seems to describe the incorporation of gentiles (the animals of the field and birds of the air) into the Kingdom (they all became white bulls). They are not just subject to the Kingdom, but are a part of it and pleasing to the Lord (the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over it and over all the oxen). It is widely accepted that Enoch influenced the early Church. Jude, 2 Peter, and possibly John reference it. Barnabus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others make use of it. Do any of the Church Fathers (for the purpose of this question, assume the Patristic Age ends with John Damascene) make reference to this passage when discussing the inclusion of the gentiles into the Kingdom?

We read in Matt 15:24 , of the initial response of Jesus to the pleadings of the Canaanite woman > He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (NB: Some editions omit the word `house') Collectively, the descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel are known as the house of Israel and are called Israelites. Obviously, all Israelites (descendants of Jacob) are Hebrews (descendants of Abraham), but not all Hebrews are Israelites. Additional family names are used for some groups in the house of Israel. The descendants of Judah (the fourth-born son of Jacob), for example, are known as Jews, and the descendants of Ephraim (a son of Joseph) are called Ephraimites. Now , we see St Paul writing in Romans 1:16: > For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. The basic meaning of the word Gentile is “foreign,” “other,” or “non.” Thus, to a Hebrew, a Gentile is a non-Hebrew; to an Israelite, a Gentile is a non-Israelite; and to a Jew, a Gentile is a non-Jew. There appears to have been some confusion in the Early Church as to who the Chosen People were. But for the induction of Gentiles to the Group, there was chance that the Early Church stood terribly divided. My question therefore is: How did the Apostolic Church manage to integrate different Tribes and Clans under its ambit.

In a fore-frame of Final Judgement, we see Jesus telling those on his left: > I was a stranger and you did not welcome me (Matt 25:43) The concept of one's being kind to the stranger is derived from Ex 23:9 which says: >You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. We also see Jesus telling his followers in Matt 18:15-17 : > If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. In the present context, an alien does not share his nationality with you, but a gentile may. On the other hand, an alien may share your faith but the gentile does not. It is not clear if Jesus set two different standards for extending one's compassion to an alien *versus* to a gentile. Or, it is possible that in the days of Jesus, the term 'alien' meant a stranger in respect of *both* nationality and faith? My question therefore is: According to Catholic scholars, did Jesus set different standards for expressing compassion to a foreigner versus to a gentile?

In Acts 29 the Jewish Christian Elders in Jerusalem sent a letter to the gentile believers throughout the world, instructing them to be at peace, and stating that they were not required to follow Jewish tradition. > For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. **Acts 15:28-29 ESV ** This is obviously in response to the circumcision party, and it's fairly obvious that they're saying circumcision and the dietary laws were not required of gentiles, but it doesn't seem to saying anything about the laws we still consider core (murder, covetousness, stealing, etc). **Was there some implicit set of laws that was not referenced, but would be understood by both parties to be in effect?**

Acts 13:42-48 (ESV) > 42 As they went out, **the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath**. 43 And after the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who, as they spoke with them, urged them to continue in the grace of God. > > 44 **The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord**. 45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, **we are turning to the Gentiles**. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, > > “‘I have made you a **light for the Gentiles**, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’” > > 48 And when **the Gentiles** heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 15:19-21 (ESV) > 19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of **the Gentiles** who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 **For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues**.” Acts 16:11-14 (ESV) > 11 So, setting sail from Troas, we made a direct voyage to Samothrace, and the following day to Neapolis, 12 and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city some days. 13 **And on the Sabbath day** we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to **the women who had come together**. 14 One who heard us was a woman named **Lydia, from the city of Thyatira**, a seller of purple goods, **who was a worshiper of God**. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. Acts 17:1-4 (ESV) > Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a **synagogue of the Jews**. 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and **on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures**, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, **as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women**. Acts 18:4 (ESV) > 4 And he reasoned **in the synagogue every Sabbath**, and tried to persuade Jews and **Greeks**. ______________________________ I've seen these passages cited many times by Sabbatarians to argue that the Gentiles kept the Sabbath at the time of the apostles and, by induction, that Christian Gentiles in general are to keep the Sabbath. Of course, non-Sabbatarians do not arrive at the same conclusion, so they must interpret these passages differently. How do they interpret them?

What are the main views in Christianity regarding the issue of whether evangelized gentiles are expected to tithe? Which scriptures are commonly cited to support each position? Lastly, is this a controversial topic or does there appear to be consensus among the majority of denominations?

Which passages of Scripture are canonically or typically cited by Seventh-day Adventists in defense of the belief that evangelized Gentiles are to keep the Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) the same as the Jews in the Old Covenant? How do they normally interpret those passages in order to come to that conclusion?

Did Gentiles use to keep the Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) during the first centuries of Christianity? How widespread was the practice in comparison with Sunday meetings? What does the historical evidence say about all this?