Apparently, very few people have connected a basic but crucial point: Paul was commissioned to the Gentiles—and then immediately returns to synagogues. That should raise an obvious question: who were the Gentiles in those synagogues? When that question is actually asked, both the text and historical evidence point in the same direction—God-fearers and proselytes, people already connected to Israel’s covenantal structure—not pagans disconnected from Israel. This directly challenges the long-standing assumption that Paul’s mission was directed toward all Gentiles everywhere.
At the same time, the text is not explicit about Paul’s Gentiles being estranged Israelites. The so-called “ten tribes” are not explicitly identified anywhere in the New Testament. Ephraim is mentioned but not used in the New Testament as an interpretive category for Gentiles. While some attempt to infer a lost-tribe identity for Gentiles from selective uses of Old Testament prophecy, that conclusion is not directly stated in the text and is not supported by leading scholarship.
While the text does not explicitly identify Gentiles as estranged Israelites, it does clearly show how categories function within the historical setting. Proselytes were Gentiles in their prior identity but were regarded as Israelites upon full conversion to Judaism. God-fearers, on the other hand, were Gentiles who were already attached to Israel’s covenantal life but without full conversion. This distinction is both textually and historically grounded and it presents a significant challenge to the ‘bloodline-only’ IO doctrine.
The strongest position on Gentiles, therefore, comes from both the New Testament itself (Acts 10, 13, 15, 17, among others) and from historical data (Feldman, Keener, Wright, and others), all of which consistently show that God-fearers were Gentiles—non-Israelites—participating in Israel’s covenant world.
In Acts, Paul’s pattern is not occasional or incidental; it is stable and repeatable. He goes to synagogues first, consistently addressing Jews, God-fearers, and proselytes within a Torah-centered environment. That is the observable audience. Even when he engages in other public settings, such as marketplaces, this occurs within cities shaped by synagogue presence and influence. It is not a departure into an entirely disconnected pagan mission. Even where Paul speaks outside the synagogue (Acts 17), it flows out of prior synagogue engagement within the same diaspora setting and is incidental—not a deliberate, targeted pagan mission.
Paul repeatedly addresses mixed audiences (Acts 13:16, 26): ‘men of Israel and you who fear God.’ He operates within diaspora networks where non-native participants are already attached to Israel’s covenantal life. This is not a minor detail; it is the consistent setting of his mission.
By contrast, the idea that Paul’s primary mission was directed toward pagans entirely outside of Israel’s covenantal world becomes difficult to sustain. If that were the case, we would expect to see a consistent pattern of engagement in pagan temples or other non-Jewish religious systems. But we don’t. Instead, Paul intentionally travels to destinations with synagogues and engages there first. The burden of proof, then, shifts—not to explain why Paul starts in synagogues, but to explain why he would continue doing so if his intended audience lay completely outside that sphere.
This observation also resolves a long-standing tension within the bloodline-only model of IO. That model often requires forcing groups like God-fearers and proselytes into a strictly genealogical framework that the text itself does not emphasize—or ignoring them altogether. As a result, it places the bloodline-only interpreter in a constant defensive posture, explaining away obvious categories rather than accounting for them.
The covenantal-inclusion model avoids that problem by allowing the categories already present in the text and historical record to stand on their own terms. The bloodline-only model only works if every non-Jewish category in Acts is reclassified as secretly genealogical Israel—which the text never does. That’s an irreconcilable problem within the bloodline-only model of IO.
Scholarship and Historical Context
IO has never depended on scholars to establish who the Gentiles were in the New Testament, because IO is grounded in the text itself. However, when scholars describe the historical reality of diaspora synagogues, their work consistently reinforces the same picture—mixed communities of Jews and Gentiles already connected to Israel’s covenantal structure, not a universal mission to all Gentiles everywhere.
Historical scholarship widely recognizes that synagogue populations in the Second Temple period included not only Jews, but also God-fearers—Gentiles devoted to the God of Israel—and proselytes who were integrated into Jewish covenant life. In diaspora settings, these distinctions were often less rigid, with identity shaped as much by covenant participation as by ancestry.
This shifts the conversation away from abstract definitions and toward concrete context. Instead of asking what “Gentiles” must mean in theory, the more grounded question is: Who were the Gentiles in synagogues? Who was Paul actually speaking to? The consistent answer is Gentiles already connected to Israel’s covenantal world.
In recent posts, YouTube narrations, and updated IO material, I have drawn directly from scholarly descriptions of synagogue life and Gentile participation to reinforce the covenantal-inclusion model of IO and clarify who the Gentiles were that Paul was actually engaging. This does not mean every use of “Gentiles” collapses into a single category, but it does demonstrate that Paul’s primary and consistent audience fits this model. That makes the argument more precise and better grounded in evidence.
Importantly, this approach does not depend on scholars affirming IO as a whole. Rather, it draws on widely accepted historical conclusions—regarding synagogue composition, diaspora Judaism, and covenantal participation—that provide a solid framework for understanding the New Testament. Instead of resisting those findings, this model incorporates them, resulting in a more coherent and historically grounded interpretation.
Why This Matters
The standard universal model relies on centuries of inherited tradition rather than the immediate textual and historical context. The bloodline-only model of IO must reinterpret or minimize the data to fit a predetermined system. The covenantal-inclusion model of IO allows the data—textual, historical, and contextual—to define the categories.
That is why it is not only easier to defend, but stronger. It aligns the text, the setting, and the evidence in a way that removes unnecessary tension and strengthens the overall case for IO.
And candidly, it’s also freeing. As this model has developed, there is no longer a need to rely on strained explanations that identify Gentiles as biological descendants of Jacob or Abraham—claims that are neither stated in the text nor supported by historical evidence. Nor is there any need to ignore or minimize clearly attested categories like God-fearers and proselytes. Instead, those categories can be fully integrated into a coherent and historically grounded IO model.
A Final Point on God-Fearers and Scholarship
In recent work, I have emphasized that the Gentiles Paul was engaging were primarily God-fearers. These were known to be Gentiles—non-Israelites—who were nevertheless attached to Israel’s covenantal community, not random pagans everywhere. This is affirmed by leading scholars.
This becomes even more significant when considering that these same Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 10), which, according to Joel 2:28, was promised to Israel in their last days. If God-fearers are not part of Israel’s covenantal framework in some meaningful sense, then their reception of the Spirit becomes difficult to explain within a strictly bloodline-defined model.
At this point, it is also worth acknowledging a practical reality: without some level of scholarly alignment, bloodline-only IO will continue to be dismissed as a fringe position. The bloodline-only model has serious vulnerabilities and lacks scholar support and, for various reasons, is unlikely to gain it.
By contrast, key components of the covenantal-inclusion model of IO—particularly regarding synagogue composition and Gentile participation—are already supported by historical scholarship.
Agreeing with scholars on the constituent elements of the covenantal-inclusion model of IO, then challenging them with the IO conclusion seems like the most feasible and strategic manner in which to move IO forward.
Since IO is not monolithic, it is still developing, refining, and sharpening its arguments. The covenantal-inclusion model of IO represents a meaningful step forward in that process. #ThisIsIO
