Replacement Theology: What It Is and Why It Matters for Christians

[Victoria]

Replacement Theology teaches that “the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan, in that the church has transcended and fulfilled the terms of the covenant given to Israel that Israel lost because of disobedience.”[1] Those who accept Replacement Theology as true believe God’s covenant with the Jewish people ended in AD 30 and all the blessings given to Israel have been transferred to the gentile church. (However, most people who subscribe to this view are reluctant to say the church also inherited the curses and judgments God pronounced for her apostasy.)

According to this view, God has and will continue to save individual Jews who accept Jesus, but He has no present or future place for national, ethnic Israel in His plan of redemption. “Supersessionism” is the technical term for Replacement Theology; it is sometimes referred to as Fulfillment Theology.

God also promised a particular piece of land to the Jewish people. However, Replacement Theology proponents believe that land is unimportant to God now, and references to the promised land mean the whole world.

Former International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) Executive Director Malcolm Hedding argues that Replacement Theology rests chiefly on the idea that the whole or part of the Abrahamic covenant has been abolished, for it is this covenant that promises to Israel eternal ownership of the land of Canaan (Genesis 17:7–8):

Once this “promise” has been removed, the present-day restoration of Israel means nothing, and her only hope is in the church. Now, it must be made clear that we believe that only in Christ Jesus can there be salvation for Jews and gentiles alike (Romans 1:16–17). However, we do not believe that the promise of God in the Abrahamic covenant bequeathing the land of Canaan to Israel has been removed, and therefore, Israel’s modern restoration to the land of Canaan is indeed fulfillment of that promise and constitutes a milestone on her “way home” to her Messiah. (Ezekiel 36:24–28)[2]

How prevalent is Replacement Theology, and when did it start? What theological basis is there for this belief—if any? Keep reading to learn the answers to these questions and more, or skip to a specific topic below:

- Theological Basis of Replacement Theology
- “Israel” in the New Testament: Does It Refer to the Church?
- Historical Roots of Replacement Theology
- The Council of Nicaea’s Influence on Replacement Theology
- Is Fulfillment Theology the Same as Replacement Theology?
- Paul and Replacement Theology
- Types of Replacement Theology
- Flaws in the Thesis behind Replacement Theology
- Why Is Replacement Theology Dangerous?
- Replacement Theology and the New Testament
- Replacement Theology and the Abrahamic Covenant: Two Views
- Was Israel’s Failure the End of Her Calling?
- How Should Christians Respond?
- Conclusion


By: Susan Michael & Karen Engle

Full article: Replacement Theology: What It Is and Why It Matters for Christians

 

[jeremiah1five]

The presence of "replacement theology" belief began immediately after Rome's destruction of Israel and their Second Jewish Temple in AD 70. It was here when it all began and historically, it couldn't happen any time before or after this destructive war between Israel and the Roman armies under Titus. The explanation below is the only reasonable explanation that can explain how non-Hebrew Gentiles eventually began to replace Israel in their own Scripture and in God's plan for His covenant people the seed of Abraham.

After the death of Solomon, a struggle for political and religious power among the tribes occurred which culminated in the division of the tribes into two warring factions, each attempting to establish their legitimacy as rightful heirs of the Solomonic kingdom after Solomon's death. This schism resulted in ten tribes establishing a kingdom to the north, and two tribes maintaining their kingdom to the south. The primary account of the kingdom's division is found in the Book of First Kings, specifically Chapter 12.

The Northern Kingdom (Israel): This kingdom was formed by ten of the twelve tribes of Israel, led by Jeroboam as their first king. They kept the name Israel, with their capital eventually settling in Samaria
The Southern Kingdom (Judah): This kingdom consisted of the tribe of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin, and remained loyal to the house of David, led by Solomon's son, Rehoboam. Their capital remained Jerusalem.
A good You Tube video is posted here. It is about 15 minutes long:

The people of both kingdoms were taken captive, first the northern kingdom tribes by Assyria in 722 BC; the southern kingdom tribes of Judah and Benjamin lasted longer but were transplanted to Babylon by her kings in 586 BC. Through the people's idolatry and rebellion towards the God of Abraham eventually many Jews intermarried with the non-Hebrew Gentiles and mixed-race offspring were born to both northern and southern kingdom tribes, a situation that lasted for about 29-35 generations of mixed-race births between Abraham's seed and non-Hebrew Gentiles of both Assyria and Babylon. In 522 BC the king of Babylon, Cyrus, allowed Nehemiah permission to take a small contingent of Jews and return to Judah to rebuild the walls of the city and their nation. This "remnant" was prophesied by Isaiah, for one, and this small "remnant" returned and did just that. While the majority of this "remnant" consisted of the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, some peoples from the northern kingdom tribes accompanied them with many mixed-race Hebrews joined in and they established the restored Israelite nation through many hardships and opposition from neighboring peoples living nearby. Although the population of Jews was small, they were not strong enough to resist the Roman occupation of the area known as "remnant" Israel (specifically the region of Judea) and the Romans occupation of Israel began in 63 BC.

In 63 BC, Pompey captures Jerusalem, ending the independence of the Hasmonean Kingdom. The region becomes a Roman client state, governed indirectly under the supervision of the Roman province of Syria. In 37 BC the Roman Senate appoints Herod as the "King of the Jews." He rules Judea as a client king of Rome until his death in 4 BC.
Following the misrule of Herod's son, Archelaus, the Roman Emperor Augustus deposes him. The territory of Judea (including Jerusalem, Samaria, and Idumea) is formally annexed and converted into the Roman province of Judaea, placing it under direct Roman administration by a prefect (like Pontius Pilate). From the Assyrian Conquest of northern Israel (and subsequently, the southern kingdom of Judah) to the beginning of Jesus' Ministry to Israel was approximately 750 years and, in this time, while in Exile the Hebrew people already corrupted by idol-worship and other sinful behaviors intermingled and intermarried with non-pHebrew Gentiles which lasted an estimated 29-35 generations with all of these mixed-race births with each generation losing their Hebrew identity as well as their religion and culture to effectively 'grow up as Gentile' in every aspect of their lives. You couldn't tell them apart from actual non-Hebrew Gentiles who were Gentiles. These "Jews" were assimilated into Gentile and Greek culture and remained living in Gentile lands and were the majority of all Hebrews alive at the time - not including a small "remnant" that returned to the Holy Land to re-establish their nation. Although there was a great many Hebrews who were mixed heritage with non-Hebrew Gentiles they were for the most part "Gentile" in speech, dress, and behavior. In the gospels Jesus ministers to several mixed-race Hebrews among them was the Roman centurion, the Samaritan woman at the well, and a couple of others. In Acts 1 and before Jesus was to ascend He gave instruction to His eleven disciples to go into Jerusalem, Samaria, Judaea, and the uttermost parts where the majority of Jews and mixed-race Jews lived with a simple good news (gospel) message: "God has kept His Promise of a Deliverer to the Hebrew people, and this Deliverer's Name is Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus, son of Joseph.)" Saul, who began his ministry to Jews later tasked himself to "go to the Gentiles" and minister to Jews and mixed-race Jews living in Gentile territories. After Pentecost the Holy Spirit of Promise PROMISED TO ISRAEL began to save (through the born-again experience) many mixed-race Hebrews which when they were born-again and saved, some Judaizers taught that they needed to be circumcised to fully be saved, a controversy that reached Saul and who was sent to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders living there with the question of whether these uncircumcised mixed-race Jews who were born-again needed to be circumcised as Jews as instructed and commanded by God in the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:10-14.)
(Note: the elders mentioned were at this time many Sanhedrin elders who were born-again by the Spirit and allied with the apostles in Jerusalem when the Jerusalem Council was convened in AD 50.)

Let's look at what was said and decided at this council (Acts 15.)

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 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.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. Acts 15:4–6.

At this council there were born-again Pharisees who maintained these mixed-race Hebrews had to be circumcised in keeping with the Abrahamic promises given to Abraham (Gen. 17:10-14.)

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 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?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Acts 15:7–11.

At this council "Peter rose up" (echoing his "standing up" in Acts 1:15) and recounts his interaction with Cornelius - who was also mixed-race Hebrew - in verse 7. Peter, knowing from the prophet Joel that God promised His Spirit to Israel - NOT Gentiles - states God gave Cornelius and his family the Holy Ghost and that the middle wall partition that separated Jews from mixed-race Jews under the Mosaic banner was torn asunder by God and that each and every tribe, despite their kingdom aspirations (Jeroboam or Rehoboam) "put no difference" between the tribes, mixed-race or otherwise, that the "yoke" of the Mosaic Laws should not be placed upon these mixed-race Jews who grew up Gentile and knew almost nothing of their Hebrew heritage. Note Peter including "them" mixed-race Jews together with Israel Jews when he says "our fathers" in verse 10.

Then, James, one of the Judaizers in the Jerusalem Church and half-brother of Jesus, says:

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Acts 15:13–21.

Verse 14 "God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name" James is referencing mixed-race Jews living in Gentile land and brings up a prophecy as follows:


11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen,
And close up the breaches thereof;
And I will raise up his ruins,
And I will build it as in the days of old:
12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen,
Which are called by my name,
Saith the LORD that doeth this.
Amos 9:11–12.

Now, let's learn something of what James is saying against the issue before them of mixed-race Jews becoming born-again and whether these seed of Abraham needed to be circumcised:

The word Edom (Hebrew: ʾĔḏōm) literally means "red". The Edomites are the descendants of Esau, the elder twin brother of Jacob (who was later renamed Israel.) Edom was primarily located in the mountainous region of Mount Seir, which today is in the south of modern-day Jordan and parts of southern Israel. The relationship between the Israelites and the Edomites was historically one of tension, hostility, and frequent conflict, reflecting the rivalry between their ancestors, Jacob and Esau. Edom was later defeated and made a vassal state by King David (2 Samuel 8:13-14.) Later, several prophets, including Obadiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, delivered strong prophecies of divine judgment and ultimate desolation against Edom for their pride and for rejoicing over the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.

James is referencing a prophecy of Amos in which God is going to save Abraham's grandson's descendants, some who have Gentile in their bloodline. Amos calls them "heathen."

In later history, particularly during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the Edomites were known by the Greek name Idumaeans, and their territory as Idumea. They were eventually forced to convert to Judaism by the Hasmonean leader John Hyrcanus in the 2nd century BC. The New Testament figure Herod the Great, the king of Judea who ordered the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16), was of Idumaean descent.

Is the picture of what was at issue at the Jerusalem Council becoming clearer? These so-called "Gentiles" they are discussing are the descendants of Esau with the twelve tribes mixed in of both the northern kingdom and southern kingdom that God was giving His Spirit to. Esau was "among the families of the earth" mentioned in Genesis 12:3 prophesied to be "blessed" of God. These are those descendants of Abraham, both those receiving blessing of God and only one receiving both blessing and covenant promises - Jacob and his children.

James continues: "That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."

God's name is associated with Abraham. James connects "Gentiles" with Abraham through Esau (Acts 15:17.)
James then adds: "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

The Edomites which had been force into the Law of Moses in the past are now being required as mixed-race Jews again to the Law of Moses in its simplest form: abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

The apostles and elders (some of the Sanhedrin) were dealing with born-again mixed-race Jews who lived as Gentiles and are historically connected to Abraham through his grandson, Esau, and these apostles and elders knew from the covenants that no one would ever to seek to circumcise actual non-Hebrew Gentiles nor to compel them to obey the Law of Moses. The Jewish people also knew the Law (and the Abrahamic Covenant) and would not stand for non-Hebrew Gentiles to be circumcised or made to obey the Law of Moses. There would be riots in the streets and great strife among the people caused by the apostles and elders IF these "Gentiles" were actually non-Hebrew and not connected to the Jewish people as was in the past and now again 'today' in the first century.
James ends with: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 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:
24 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:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 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 15:22–29.

So, in these "Gentiles" we have the convergence of the family line of Ishmael branching off in one direction, and the family line of Esau branching off in another direction that meet up in the first century AD right in the laps of the apostles and the elders with Saul and Barnabas to balance out the hereditary blessings of Abraham upon each son of Abraham - directly (Ishmael), and indirectly (Esau.) If anything screams that "Gentiles" in the New Testament are the descendants of blessed Abraham in the guise of mixed-race hereditary identity and blessings, it is right here in the Jerusalem Council who take up the question as to whether mixed-race Jews who grew up as Gentile heavily influenced by Greek culture (Hellenized) should be circumcised, the wisdom and history revealing the identity of these "Gentiles" can be discerned here in Acts 15.

This may be long, but this information needs to be given so that others may see upon the basis in which I hold that God never made any salvation covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles nor did God ever promise His Spirit to any non-Hebrew Gentiles anywhere and any time in history or in Scripture.
The "families of the earth" God said He was to bless are the bloodline families that come out of Abraham:

6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Genesis 17:6–7.

I pray, let the redeemed say "so."

 

[civic]

Replacement Theology teaches that “the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan, in that the church has transcended and fulfilled the terms of the covenant given to Israel that Israel lost because of disobedience.”[1] Those who accept Replacement Theology as true believe God’s covenant with the Jewish people ended in AD 30 and all the blessings given to Israel have been transferred to the gentile church. (However, most people who subscribe to this view are reluctant to say the church also inherited the curses and judgments God pronounced for her apostasy.)

According to this view, God has and will continue to save individual Jews who accept Jesus, but He has no present or future place for national, ethnic Israel in His plan of redemption. “Supersessionism” is the technical term for Replacement Theology; it is sometimes referred to as Fulfillment Theology.

God also promised a particular piece of land to the Jewish people. However, Replacement Theology proponents believe that land is unimportant to God now, and references to the promised land mean the whole world.

Former International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) Executive Director Malcolm Hedding argues that Replacement Theology rests chiefly on the idea that the whole or part of the Abrahamic covenant has been abolished, for it is this covenant that promises to Israel eternal ownership of the land of Canaan (Genesis 17:7–8):

Once this “promise” has been removed, the present-day restoration of Israel means nothing, and her only hope is in the church. Now, it must be made clear that we believe that only in Christ Jesus can there be salvation for Jews and gentiles alike (Romans 1:16–17). However, we do not believe that the promise of God in the Abrahamic covenant bequeathing the land of Canaan to Israel has been removed, and therefore, Israel’s modern restoration to the land of Canaan is indeed fulfillment of that promise and constitutes a milestone on her “way home” to her Messiah. (Ezekiel 36:24–28)[2]

How prevalent is Replacement Theology, and when did it start? What theological basis is there for this belief—if any? Keep reading to learn the answers to these questions and more, or skip to a specific topic below:

- Theological Basis of Replacement Theology
- “Israel” in the New Testament: Does It Refer to the Church?
- Historical Roots of Replacement Theology
- The Council of Nicaea’s Influence on Replacement Theology
- Is Fulfillment Theology the Same as Replacement Theology?
- Paul and Replacement Theology
- Types of Replacement Theology
- Flaws in the Thesis behind Replacement Theology
- Why Is Replacement Theology Dangerous?
- Replacement Theology and the New Testament
- Replacement Theology and the Abrahamic Covenant: Two Views
- Was Israel’s Failure the End of Her Calling?
- How Should Christians Respond?
- Conclusion


By: Susan Michael & Karen Engle

Full article: Replacement Theology: What It Is and Why It Matters for Christians

The doctrine is unbiblical for sure.

 

[360watt]

The doctrine is unbiblical for sure.

I wonder if the Vineyard Movement subscribe to this?

They emphasize Israel in their statement of faith......

God created humankind in his own image, male and female38, for relationship with Himself and to govern
the earth39. Under the temptation of Satan40, our original parents fell from grace41, bringing sin42, sickness43
and God’s judgment of death to the earth44. Through the fall, Satan and his demonic hosts gained access to
God’s good creation45. Creation now experiences the consequences and effects of Adam’s original sin46. Human
beings are born in sin47, subject to God’s judgement of death48 and captive to Satan’s kingdom of darkness49.
We believe . . .
. . . that God did not abandon His rule over the earth50 which He continues to uphold by His providence51. In
order to bring redemption, God established covenants52 which revealed His grace to sinful people53. In the
covenant with Abraham, God bound Himself to His people Israel, promising to deliver them from bondage to
sin and Satan and to bless all the nations through them54.
We believe . . .
. . . that, as King, God later redeemed His people by His mighty acts from bondage in Egypt55 and established His
covenant through Moses, revealing His perfect will and our obligation to fulfil it56. The law’s purpose is to order
our fallen race57 and to make us conscious of our moral responsibility58. By the work of God’s Spirit59, it convicts
us of our sin60 and God’s righteous judgement against us61 and brings us to Christ alone for salvation62.
We believe . . .
. . . that when Israel rejected God’s rule over her as King63, God established the monarchy in Israel64 and made
an unconditional covenant with David65, promising that His heir would restore God’s kingdom reign over His
people as Messiah forever66.

Seems pretty standard.. not sure..

 

[Soyeong]

Replacement Theology teaches that “the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan, in that the church has transcended and fulfilled the terms of the covenant given to Israel that Israel lost because of disobedience.”[1] Those who accept Replacement Theology as true believe God’s covenant with the Jewish people ended in AD 30 and all the blessings given to Israel have been transferred to the gentile church. (However, most people who subscribe to this view are reluctant to say the church also inherited the curses and judgments God pronounced for her apostasy.)

According to this view, God has and will continue to save individual Jews who accept Jesus, but He has no present or future place for national, ethnic Israel in His plan of redemption. “Supersessionism” is the technical term for Replacement Theology; it is sometimes referred to as Fulfillment Theology.

God also promised a particular piece of land to the Jewish people. However, Replacement Theology proponents believe that land is unimportant to God now, and references to the promised land mean the whole world.

Former International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) Executive Director Malcolm Hedding argues that Replacement Theology rests chiefly on the idea that the whole or part of the Abrahamic covenant has been abolished, for it is this covenant that promises to Israel eternal ownership of the land of Canaan (Genesis 17:7–8):

Once this “promise” has been removed, the present-day restoration of Israel means nothing, and her only hope is in the church. Now, it must be made clear that we believe that only in Christ Jesus can there be salvation for Jews and gentiles alike (Romans 1:16–17). However, we do not believe that the promise of God in the Abrahamic covenant bequeathing the land of Canaan to Israel has been removed, and therefore, Israel’s modern restoration to the land of Canaan is indeed fulfillment of that promise and constitutes a milestone on her “way home” to her Messiah. (Ezekiel 36:24–28)[2]

How prevalent is Replacement Theology, and when did it start? What theological basis is there for this belief—if any? Keep reading to learn the answers to these questions and more, or skip to a specific topic below:

- Theological Basis of Replacement Theology
- “Israel” in the New Testament: Does It Refer to the Church?
- Historical Roots of Replacement Theology
- The Council of Nicaea’s Influence on Replacement Theology
- Is Fulfillment Theology the Same as Replacement Theology?
- Paul and Replacement Theology
- Types of Replacement Theology
- Flaws in the Thesis behind Replacement Theology
- Why Is Replacement Theology Dangerous?
- Replacement Theology and the New Testament
- Replacement Theology and the Abrahamic Covenant: Two Views
- Was Israel’s Failure the End of Her Calling?
- How Should Christians Respond?
- Conclusion


By: Susan Michael & Karen Engle

Full article: Replacement Theology: What It Is and Why It Matters for Christians

If Israel was replaced because they did not obey the Torah, then people who also do not obey the Torah should not think that they have replaced Israel.

 

[Victoria]

If Israel was replaced because they did not obey the Torah, then people who also do not obey the Torah should not think that they have replaced Israel.

Israel wasn't replaced, just set aside for now. Paul covered this even back in his day, Romans 9-11.
Paul also addressed the circumcision & law keeping of Moses issue in Acts 15; Galatians 2.

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Galatians 6:15

 

[jeremiah1five]

If Israel was replaced because they did not obey the Torah, then people who also do not obey the Torah should not think that they have replaced Israel.

Where in Scripture does it say God replaced Israel?

 

[Soyeong]

Where in Scripture does it say God replaced Israel?

I didn’t say that Scripture said that, but rather I used a conditional statement to expose a major flaw in that position.

 

[Soyeong]

Israel wasn't replaced, just set aside for now. Paul covered this even back in his day, Romans 9-11.

Then the same holds true that if Israel was set aside because they did not obeyed the Torah, then they have not been set aside by people who also do not obey the Torah.

Paul also addressed the circumcision & law keeping of Moses issue in Acts 15; Galatians 2.

If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then Galatians 5:2 would mean that he caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council and Christ is of no value to roughly 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Torah by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly acting in accordance with what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Torah was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace and neither Galatians 2 nor Acts 15 should be interpreted as speaking against believing the Gospel.

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Galatians 6:15

In Ephesians 2:10, we are new creations in Christ to do good works and the Torah is God’s instructions for equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17).