The Continuing Deception and Dishonesty of the Israel Only Doctrine
The Continuing Deception and Dishonesty of “Israel Only” Doctrine- and the “God Fearers.”
The Israel Only proponents are known for making historically false, logically ludicrous claims, boldly asserting things that unless a person actually knows better, may seem to have some validity. However, for those who have actually a smattering of knowledge of history, logic, proper hermeneutic and exegesis, their claims are ludicrous.
A good example of this is taken from a recent (March 2025) exchange I had with Ken Atwood, one of the most dishonest of many dishonest representatives of the godless IO doctrine. The subject was the identity of proselytes and more specifically god-fearers (in the Greek commonly called sebomai. I will not discuss proselytes here, although it is a critical issue fatal to the IO view).
In the Bible and history, god fearers could be either faithful Jews or Gentiles who loved the God of Israel and worshiped Him. Some Gentile god fearers built synagogues for the Jews. But they were not full converts (proselytes) to Judaism and were not circumcised. This is the use of the term in the book of Acts for instance, as will show. However, Atwood rejected this historical definition and sought to justify that position by offering up some texts. He even claimed that Cornelius was actually a Diaspora Jew.
Let me note at the outset that Atwood has created a “False Exclusive.” By that I mean that Atwood presented texts that spoke of “sebomai” and were speaking of Torah observant Jews. He argued that since these texts spoke of god fearers who were not pagans this somehow proves that no Gentile was ever a god fearer. Atwood is arguing that the ONLY person that could be called a sebomai was a devout Israelite that had never been circumcised. This is to deny the linguistics.
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, Vol. VII, p. 171ff, says that sebomai was commonly used to speak of pagans who feared their pagan gods. It had NOTHING to do with Diaspora Israelites. Context determines who a sebomai was and what God he feared. There are no texts that indicate that a pagan could never be a fearer of the God of Israel. Thus, to reiterate, Atwood is guilty of creating a false exclusive. Just because sebomai could and did (at times) refer to Diaspora Israelites (although we have no clear cut examples that I have found) does not mean that sebomai could refer ONLY to Diaspora Israelites. That is a gross abuse of logic.
I am giving below the majority of Atwood’s post with my responses below his comments.
KA– Don K. Preston There’s a pattern in Second Temple Jewish literature where certain labels like “those who fear God” were often used as code for dispersed Israelites, not simply random pagans.
Response: To acknowledge that sebomai COULD refer to dispersed Israelites is NOT to suggest that all sebomai were dispersed Israelites. It does not prove that pagans did not or could not fear YHVH.
KA – Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., Damascus Document, 4Q266).
The Qumran community refers to themselves and the faithful remnant as “the fearers of God” (yir’ei elohim). These are not outsiders or pagans; they are covenantal Israelites who remained faithful during Israel’s apostasy.
This confirms that “fearing God” was covenantal language for true Israelites, especially those scattered or marginalized.
Response: The Qumran community was intensely sectarian. Of course they saw themselves as god fearers– the only true ones! But, Atwood conveniently overlooks or ignores the fact the Essenes were circumcised, baptized, intensely Torah observant Jews! They were not Diaspora Jews who had never been circumcised. Did they fear God? Of course! But they were not sebomai in any kind of technical sense as Atwood is claiming. His definition of a sebomai as “dispersed Israelites” is 100% inaccurate. In fact, notice Atwood’s definition of god fearer in light of the Essenees view of themselves. Atwood says, “God-fearers were Israelites still outside covenant life, needing restoration.”
The reality is that the Dead Sea Community believed that THEY were the only true God fearers! They claimed that the entire priesthood and those in Jerusalem were the ones “still outside covenant life.” They did not even believe that the Jews in Jerusalem were truly “god fearers” because they did not worship properly! Thus, for Atwood to apply the term “god fearer” in the way he does to the Dead Sea Community is illegitimate. It is patently and historically false.
2 Maccabees 1:2
“May God bless you and remember his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, his faithful servants…”
In the surrounding passages, those who “fear God” are associated with faithfulness to the covenant. Again, it’s not language about pagans, but Israelites staying loyal during dispersion and oppression.
Response: This is more diversion and straw man argumentation. The context has nothing to do with pagans who feared God. Maccabees is the story of Torah observant Jews. Atwood has latched onto a term that is totally unrelated to his claims. It does not address the question of whether pagans ever feared the Lord.
KA – Sibylline Oracles 3.573–600 – These Jewish writings mention that scattered Israelites among the nations would continue to fear God and practice righteousness, awaiting restoration.
The God-fearers are those of the diaspora, mixed among the Gentiles but still covenantally attached.
Response: No actual quotation is given by Atwood. He is simply making claims. The citation listing is vague. Nonetheless, Atwood is guilty of petititio principii – assuming what he must prove, and that is that no pagan would or could ever fear the God of Israel. He cites a text which (ostensibly) speaks of Israelites among the nations that would continue to fear God. But that does not prove that no pagan ever feared the God of Israel! That claim is specious and unproven.
KA – Psalm 22:23; Psalm 66:16
The “fearers of God” are called to praise God alongside the congregation of Israel not Gentiles being absorbed, but members of Israel themselves.
Response: Atwood is great at making anachronistic arguments. The Psalms were not describing Diaspora Jews observing Torah. The Psalms were written in the time of David, long before the Ten Tribes were carried off into the Diaspora. David was addressing and speaking to, and of, totally Torah observant Jews– not Diaspora Israelites! Notice: //I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You. 23 You who fear the Lord, praise Him! All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him, And fear Him, all you offspring of Israel!// These were NOT Diaspora Jews in foreign countries. They were “in the midst of the assembly”– NOT DISPERSED.
Atwood’s “research” and claims are sloppy, un-careful and unscholarly. They are simply false.
KA – Josephus, Wars of the Jews 2.454 Josephus refers to the fearers of God in contexts where he is plainly describing Jews, especially diaspora Jews maintaining their distinctiveness among Gentiles.
Response: First off, his citation is loose and does not allow an internet search to find. When I did a Google for “Josephus, Wars of the Jews 2.454″ It did not find anything except Josephus Wars, Bk II. Atwood does not tell us if he is citing Whiston, the Gutenberg EBook, or who? If he wants us to seriously consider his claims he must give us the precise references.
Second, it is not a question of whether Diaspora Israelites may have continued to fear God. That is not in dispute. Once again, Atwood has created a false exclusive by arguing that ONLY Diaspora Israelites could be or would be referred to as sebomai. And he has not given is a keystroke of proof for the claim. To say that Israelites feared the Lord is not the same as saying – or proving– that no pagan ever feared the Lord!
KA– Targums and Rabbinic Literature / Later Jewish tradition in the Targums also equated “God-fearers” with faithful Israelites in exile, those still waiting for redemption.
Response: Once again, we are given no actual proof, just some vague references that prove nothing.Not only that, to appeal to the later Targums, or even the Talmud, would be another example of anachronistic claims. What may or may not have been taught in the later works does not prove what might or might not have been taught in the Tanakh or the NT.
And once again, Atwood is assuming that no pagan would every fear the God of Israel.
KA – The title God-fearer as used in Acts is not just a casual label for a pious pagan: it resonates with this long-standing Israelite remnant identity: scattered, semi-assimilated, but still attached to YHWH.
Response: Illegitimate claim.
First, he did not prove that all of the references he cited excluded pagans from fearing God. And we had already demonstrated that his claim about a “long-standing Israelite remnant identity” of the term god fearer referring exclusively to Diaspora Israelites was false. He has fabricated his doctrine on false premises and logical fallacies. He did not present a single text that affirms that pagans could never fear the God of Israel.
In fact, the Greek text of Acts totally falsifies Atwood’s claims.
In Acts 13:43 (ESV) we have reference to, “many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas.” What is so significant about this is that the term “devout converts” is σεβομένων προσηλύτων / sebomenon proseluton. (The word proseluton gives us ‘proselyte”). Why is this so significant? Because Atwood has told us this about a proselyte: //Proselytes were non-Israelites who fully converted to Judaism, but God-fearers were Israelites still outside covenant life, needing restoration.// (Atwood, on FB, 4-26-25).
Do you catch the power of this? On the one hand Atwood tells us that a proselyte was a pagan that was fully converted to Judaism, but that god fearers were Israelites! Yet, right here in this one text, we are told that the proselytes– meaning pagan converts to Judaism– were god fearers!! (And needless to say, the text also proves that pagans were fully converted to Judaism!)
Other texts in Acts corroborate this, totally negating Atwood’s wild claims.
And then, based on Atwood’s totally false claims, he makes the following claim:
//Thus, Cornelius was a diaspora Israelite…likely descended from the scattered northern tribes…who was living among the nations, culturally distinct from Judean Jews but covenantally tied to the promises. The Second Temple Jewish world understood “fearing God” as marking covenantally loyal Israelites among the dispersion, not pagan outsiders.
Cornelius fits perfectly into that framework…explaining why his acceptance involved no circumcision controversy, why he was already practicing covenant behaviors, and why Peter needed a vision to realize that “unclean” scattered Israelites were now “clean” through Christ.//
As the old saying goes, if you grant a man his presuppositions he can prove anything. But Atwood’s presuppositions are false- 100%. All he has done is to show that Israelites (non-Diaspora Jews at that!) were said to fear the Lord. That proves nothing. It is not in dispute! Thus he has made multiple false claims and then based on those false claims he says “Thus, Cornelius fits perfectly into that framework.” No, his “framework” is false to the core.
All he has done is cite one text after another where Torah observant Jews were said to fear the Lord. That proves NOTHING in support of his claim that god fearers were Diaspora Israelites and could not be pagan worshipers of YHVH.
He cites texts and applies them anachronistically– a favorite IO tactic.
Not one thing that Atwood cited proves that Cornelius was an Israelite. There is no hint, of a clue, of a suggestion that his claim is true. Cornelius was a pagan, a Gentile, converted to Christ and who became fully and equally part of the “ONE NEW MAN” of the body of Christ. Totally falsifying the godless IO doctrine.
Just for kicks, I asked Grok to give me all the uses of sebomai in the book of Acts. After doing so, it gave this summary, which is the consensus of virtually all scholarship:
“The Greek word σεβομαι (and its participle forms) appears in Acts 13:43, 13:50, 16:14, 17:4, 17:17, and 18:7. In each case, it describes Gentiles who “reverence” or “worship” the God of Israel, commonly known as “God-fearers.” These individuals are typically associated with synagogues, sympathetic to Jewish monotheism and practices, but not full converts to Judaism. They form a significant group in Acts, often receptive to Paul’s preaching and pivotal in the early spread of Christianity among Gentiles.”
Conclusion: Ken Atwood and IO has been exposed, once again, as handling history and scriptures deceitfully.
For an indepth analysis of the Israel Only doctrine get a copy of my book, One Root, One Kingdom, All Nations! Some readers have called this the most devastating critique of the Israel Only Doctrine as well as the Replacement Doctrine available. When you order the book, if you will mention this article I will refund your shipping!
The Continuing Deception and Dishonesty of the Israel Only Doctrine