I agree that the Gentiles were never under the Law, but they are now under grace (just at the Jews are today). The Jews are no longer under bondage to the Law of Moses, because they are now under the Law of Christ which is greater.
I ask many what is the "Law of Christ", and they can't seem to give me a definite answer.
Your answer will determine my response.
Clearly the Gentiles, who had not the Law, had to learn the ways of Christ in order to follow and obey Him. But they did not need to learn the Jewish Law, for the Law was made obsolete by the coming of Christ.
OK. You know I hold that the New Covenant writings of Paul, Peter, James, John, etc., were written to Jewish Christians, but for the sake of argument (because if I recall you don't agree with this), but for the sake of argument let's say the New Covenant writers wrote to Jewish Christians in the various cities or towns in Asia Minor (Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, etc.,) discussing Messiah's effect on their covenants and their Judaism, but you say the Gentiles had to "learn the ways of Christ in order to follow and obey Him."
My question is WHERE do they get this knowledge if indeed the Jewish Christians were writing to Jewish Christians talking about Jewish issues. The letters are dated variously and from one or two locations if we look at Paul, James may have written from Jerusalem, same with Peter. And John on Patmos in A.D. 95-110.
And isn't the way of Christ being obedience to the Law and fulfilling it? Jesus taught the Law to Israel. This is the way of Christ you mention above.
The Old Covenant with all of its components was fulfilled and completed by Christ, and the New Covenant was established in His blood. It is not in keeping the Law that we are made righteous, but in faith in Christ.
Tell me, if you know, under the New Covenant described in Jeremiah 31, what Law is described that God was going to put in the inward parts of the people of the House of Israel?
Indeed, the Gentiles of this time did not know much about the Jewish Law, and that is why, when Paul speaks to the Gentiles in Athens at the Areopagus, he does not talk about the Jewish Law, but he does mention Gentile poems about Zeus, even quoting one saying "For we also are His descendants" (Acts 17:28).
Thanks for that. You have added to my knowledge and understanding, and you are right.
The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. But Cornelius was converted in approximately 36-40AD (30 to 34 years before the destruction of the Temple). These congregations were not all started by the Jewish people who left Jerusalem after Pentecost. Many of them were started by Paul in his journeys to spread the Gospel (Acts 16:11 - Philippi, Acts 17 - Thessalonica, Acts 13-14 - Galatia, Acts 18-21 - Corinth and Ephesus). There were some Jews in some of these cities, and Synagogues also (like in Thessalonica), but there was no Synagogue in Philippi, which means there were not the 10 male Jews in the city needed to establish one (the Church in Philippi was, therefore, almost entirely Gentile.
I have to disagree with you here. At Pentecost the Jews at the feast recognized the languages spoken by the disciples. These languages covered a great deal of territory north, south, east and west, of Israel proper. The disciples spoke the wonderful works of God. What that was isn't mentioned but I'm sure they had to do with many things concerning Israel and their covenant and the prophecies and the promises of God.
Being filled with the Holy Spirit of Promise made to Israel he would have been Israeli in mind and thoughts and would have concerned himself with Jewish things of God not Gentile mindset. Nothing else is said of him. If there was anything else significant, such as he went to Gentiles and preached Jesus it would have said so, but as a Gentile convert to the Hebrew religion it's most likely a single solitary event that fruited nothing significant.
Further, it makes not sense for Paul to be the "Apostle to the Gentiles" if the Gentiles are not bonded in covenant to God along with the Jews.
There is no mention in the New Covenant promise of Gentiles, but there is incontrovertible statements by God that He's made this covenant with the House of Israel and Judah. Paul merely speaking about the covenant in his letters does not justify the covenant including Gentiles. If Paul even attempted to do that, he would be a false prophet and liar and no liar has eternal life living in him, John says. It has to do with interpretation and the correct interpretation would be without any doubt or hypocrisy a New Covenant God made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah: NO GENTILES.
Personal letters that turn out to be Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, showing that a Gentile is not only part of Israel, but a leader in Israel, and a teacher of other leaders in Israel.
Not a part of Israel. No covenant was later modified to include Gentiles then and it shouldn't be attempted now. Any interpretation of anyone discussing the covenants God made with Israel or the prophecies must first ensure that there is no human modification to God's covenants with His Bride and Church Israel.
Again, it is not theft to possess what was given to you freely. God invited the Gentiles into covenant with Him when Cornelius was given the Holy Spirit exactly the same way the Spirit was given to the Jews.
Christ invited Gentiles to salvation, not covenant for God made no covenant with Gentiles nor does He modify the New Covenant made with the House of Israel and Judah to include Gentiles.
God is saving Gentiles without covenant.
I am talking of a secular, human, contract; not the covenant of God. The analogy stands firm.
Nope. Israel is commanded to not mingle with the Goyim (Gentiles) nor learn their ways.
Obedience to God is to marry a fellow covenant member. Your analogy fails when you attempt to have a covenant member marry a non-covenant member and that would make them a member of the covenant. It didn't work that way.
God gave command to covenant Israel to love only covenant Israel and for covenant Israel to marry only covenant Israel.
