Where do you get "Gentile" from? Where in the Hebrew Scripture does God make or have covenant with the non-Hebrew Gentile? And it must find some expression in the Old Testament in order to have a New Testament reality. ALL the New Covenant writings from Matthew to Revelation is the Jewish born-again mind that since the giving of God's Promised Spirit to Israel when they are born-again which searches the [Hebrew] Scripture for "doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness" and for doctrine understood going towards the New Covenant era Israel found itself in with the Advent of the Holy Spirit of Promise PROMISED TO ISRAEL (Joel) and not promised to any non-Hebrew Gentile.
27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel,
And that I am the LORD your God, and none else:
And my people shall never be ashamed.
Joel 2:27.
The Holy Spirit of Promise is definitely given to Israel and NOT to Gentiles (non-Hebrews.) For what follows in Joel's prophecy to Israel is the giving of God's Spirit upon ALL [Hebrew] flesh, and it is [their] sons and [their] daughters that shall see visions, etc., when the day of the Spirit is given to covenant Israel at Pentecost. Three thousand Jews were born-again that day, and it says that Christ "added to His Church (thousands) daily such as should be saved."
Yes, at this point in the Church only Jews were being saved, and only Jews were being added to the Church. But in Acts 10 God sends Peter to convert the first Gentile into the Church, and then Saul (who renames himself Paul) is sent to the Gentiles to convert masses of them into the Church. Most of the letters he wrote were addressed to majority Gentile congregations of the Church. Paul's sermon in Acts 17 is directed to Gentiles, and he even quotes the Gentile poet's comment about zeus ("For we also are His descendants") and turns it to refer to the one true God instead of zeus.
Very soon in the narrative comes the Hellenized Hebrew of whom the Judaizers from Jerusalem taught these brethren of mixed heritage they must be circumcised or they couldn't be saved. These Judaizers would be teaching that these mixed heritage Hebrews need to be circumcised for they would never seek to teach or command non-Hebrew Gentiles to be circumcised for this would be anathema to all Jewry. No Jew - Jewish Christian or layman Jew - would never command uncircumcised, non-covenant, Gentile "dogs", these unclean Gentiles to be circumcised. It is unheard of.
Acts 15 details the Judaizers' attempted to force Gentile (not Hellenized Hebrew) converts to the Church to be circumcised. But the Apostles, after discussion, prayer, and seeking the direction of the Holy Spirit, came to the conclusion that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be part of the Church. That Old Covenant command is not relevant to Gentile converts to Christ (nor is it relevant to Jewish converts to Christ either, but that is for a different discussion).
The command given "come, follow me" is a command that was similarly given to Andrew and Peter, to James and John, and to another, "follow me and let the dead bury the dead." This interaction between Jesus and this "ruler" who had great possessions was commanded by Christ to "follow me" and may very well be among the three thousand Jews on Pentecost who was born-again and who did obey Jesus to sell all his possessions and to also give to the poor like Barnabas who sold his property and gave the proceeds to the apostles. Mark states that, "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me."
This ruler, it can be discerned, was among those Jews on Pentecost who were born-again and along with others,
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:45.
But the command was given to "take up your cross and follow me." Matthew received the same command to "follow me." And when the Spirit of Promise was poured out upon all Hebrew flesh this ruler became saved.
The Spirit was not poured out upon "all Hebrew flesh". He is only poured out upon those who believe in and trust Christ Jesus. All those who do not believe in and trust Christ Jesus are cut off from Israel.
If the text says, "[Jesus] loved him" you can bet that Jesus would not allow one of His covenant people whom He loves to be lost and cast into "hell." Those that Jesus loves shall ALL be saved. Even this ruler. The example is found here:
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:45.
If Jesus loves "you", He will save "you" for He came to save those He loved, right? Greater love hath no man than this," right?
That's right.
Jesus loves all of humanity, Jew and Gentile alike, and He came to die to save us even when we were still sinners. And He knows that there will be many whom He loves that will indeed be cast into Hell. He loves (and died for) not only the saved, or the Jews, but everyone in the whole world (1 John 2:2).
God nor Christ has ever made covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles. And God saves through covenant and this is established in Scripture. The Hebrew seed of Abraham have covenant promises given by God to the children of Israel. Neither Father or Son have covenant with non-Abraham, non-Hebrew Gentiles. There is no such covenant in Scripture.
You mention Jeremiah but why do that if you're not going to believe his prophecy of the New Covenant between God and the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Where in this New Covenant described by Jeremiah - whom you mention - does God make covenant with non-Abraham, non-Hebrew Gentiles? Where? There is none.
NO ONE can show me in Jeremiah 31:31-34 that God has covenant with Gentiles. Where is this "phantom" covenant with Gentiles? Where in Jeremaih 31:31-34 does it say the "House of Gentiles"? Don't add to the bible or add to the New Covenant Jeremaih prophesied that includes non-Hebrew Gentiles. Where is this Gentile covenant? Show me the money and show me the Scripture.
There is no "phantom" covenant. The New Covenant was indeed established first with the Jews, but when they refused to accept it, it was offered to the Gentiles as well. And many of them accepted it. Gen 12:3 (along with Gen 18:18, 22:18, 26:4, Num 24:9, and others) says clearly that ALL nations of the Earth will be blessed through the Seed of Abraham (Jesus). Rom 9:24, Rom 11:17-32, and Acts 13:47 all speak of the Gentiles who believe in Jesus being added to Israel, being included in the Covenant, and being heirs with the Jews who believe in Jesus to the promises made to Abraham.
The mechanism of the New Covenant is only the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Jesus died on a cross and the Law was nailed to the cross, and when one resurrected in newness of life, so did the Law resurrect in newness of life and it has become God's declaration of every Jew that became born-again.
The Law was not resurrected to new life. It was indeed nailed to the cross with Christ, but it is the only soul of the believer that is resurrected with Jesus, not the Law.
For every Jew that was born-again was justified by God as having obeyed and fulfilled every aspect of the Law of Moses. Even Saul, after being born-again continued to obey the Law of Moses thus destroying the false theology that the Law was "abolished" or "obsolete" for how else can one be born-again separate from the Law for it leads the Jew to their Lord. Take away the Law and the work, sacrifice, and Person of Christ is also "abolished" or "obsolete" and this is the great delusion of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
Sorry, but the fulfillment and obsolescence of the Law does not invalidate the sacrifice of Jesus. The fulfillment of a contract does not make obsolete the result of that contract. Through fulfilling the Law, Jesus procured righteousness, and He offers that righteousness to everyone who believes and trusts in Him.
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: Acts 21:20.
Even Saul, who as a man separated and observing his Nazarene vows obeyed the Law of Moses AFTER his conversion to Christ:
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:24.
Paul did indeed observe this vow and purify himself, along with these men, in order to not offend the Jews who were still zealous for the Law. But as he had preached to the Jews among the Gentiles, the keeping of the OT Law was not necessary for salvation in Christ. The keeping of the Law among the Jews was no longer God's will, but was necessary to prevent offending them and to keep the lines of communication open so that they will be receptive to the teaching of Christ. After they are in Christ is the time to teach them of the freedom in Christ from the restrictions of the Law.
The Law nailed to Jesus' cross died and was raised by Christ the Law of Moses very much alive and well and joined to Christ in death and in newness of life.
There was a separation of a one family obedient to God. Salah, who took his family and "crossed over" the Jordan River and separated from the disobedient Adamites who remained together and chose to build a tower. Follow those obedient to God against those disobedient to God and what became of those obedient to God. You end up with Abraham who was among others who "called upon the LORD."
10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:
13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:
15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:
17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.
18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:
19 And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters.
20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:
21 And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters.
22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:
23 And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:
25 And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters.
26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Gen. 11:10–26.
It's all right here in these passages.
Certainly Abraham, not Salah, was separated from the rest of the Adamites as a separate nation from whom God would raise up His savior (Jesus) to save all mankind from their sins. But that separation was only from Abraham to Christ Jesus. In Christ, the separation between Jew and Gentile, Israel and "the Nations", was removed and torn down (Eph 2:11-22).
Jesus is Head of Church and State.
He is head of the Church, but He is head of no "state" on Earth. His Kingdom is not of this world; it is Heavenly.
James was head of Church and State and gave permission by God to publish a new translation for the English-speaking people.
Where do you find this permission given in Scripture? James was no more head of the Church than I am. As you said above, Jesus is the Head of the Church, and NO ONE has (or can) replace Him as that Head.
Even if Trump was a born-again Christian and led by the Spirit (which He wouldn't do) cannot sign an Executive Order and gather the linguists of our day and order a new translation.
What makes Trump different from James? If Trump is the head of State (as James was), then he has the same mandate from God to "authorize" things as did James.
He is head of the State but not of the Church. Not even King Charles III can order a new translation being Head of Church and State. It is unnecessary for we have a translation that is the best and most anointed work of God back in 1604-1611. It is a matter of authority.
What is the difference in "authority" between Charles and James? Both are king of the same nation. I don't find anything in Scripture that would imply, state, or even hint at the distinction you seem to think is God's Law.
And God sits a person on a throne and God removes one from a throne and no other translation is necessary than the King James Version of the Bible.
Authority.
That is your opinion, and it may well be valid, but it is not God's Word.
