next »

[milothebean]

Per Gabe's request, I am creating a post / dialog centering around the word "gentile" in our modern English translations... This is an extension of a similar discussion that took place several months ago.

(A short introduction)

I will not hide my intentions in going into this study; I do not believe that the term "gentile" is correctly understood by contemporary readers of the Scriptures. I believe that the Bible tells the story of the Kingdom of Israel; both houses (Israel/Ephram, and Judah) having gone into captivity as prophesied in Deuteronomy 28-30, and being brought back from their captivity by Yahweh as a loving husband. I am excited that this study will focus on the word "gentile" as it fits in the New Covenant context, as I believe that the New Covenant is nothing new, but rather is a renewed covenant that was made with the House of Ephraim. As such, I believe that "gentiles" in the New Covenant are of Israelite descent, and I believe that most of modern-day Christianity is spiritually (as well as physically) descendants of the lost 10 tribes of Israel, the House of Ephraim. A common term for this belief is the "two house" theology. Although I don't abide by man made terms, I will state that this is something that I have studied... at length.

This should be a great discussion... That having been said, if my understanding is correct, Gabe will be guiding / moderating / officiating this discussion. So Gabe, I am ready to examine the first verse (of your choosing?).

[basething]

Hello Milothebean

it is seriously good to see you back. Welcome!

i believe, i also am  a party to this discussion, and would like to see you address the word gentile in Acts 9:15, and to do so without perv#rting language or context.


i will study before responding to your presentations, and therefore please bear with me and do not expect quick responces on my part.

once again welcome back

john

ps.  hopefully you have humbly come to this study in the spirit of seeking the truth of God's word. And your declaration of not hiding your “intentions” is not an overt challenge.

[milothebean]

hopefully you have humbly come to this study in the spirit of seeking the truth of God's word. And your declaration of not hiding your “intentions” is not an overt challenge.

Thank you basething, I would not have it any other way; I hope also that all others participating in this discussion will submit to the Spirit of Truth above their own doctrines.

I only declare my intentions ahead of time so that I cannot be later accused of having a "hidden agenda" behind this study. Also, since my views are relatively unique to many other users on 7xSunday, I felt it would be appropriate to give a brief run down of which angle I will be approaching things from.

Now on to Acts 9:15...

[milothebean]

i believe, i also am  a party to this discussion, and would like to see you address the word gentile in Acts 9:15, and to do so without perv#rting language or context.

Acts 9:15
But Yahweh said unto him (Ananias), Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.

The Greek word for "gentiles" here is "ethnos", which is best rendered "nations", or more specifically here, "foreign nations outside of Israel". I think we would both agree that this is the best fit for the context. So I see two possibilities for "gentiles" in this verse...

Possibility A...

"Jews" are not the only form of Israelites, for example, a "gentile" can also be called an Israelite. If you thoroughly read Deuteronomy 27-33, you will see that Yahweh promised that anyone who disregarded His Torah (law) would be taken into captivity, and be scattered to "the nations" or "the gentiles". After the kingdom split in I Kings / II Kings, the northern kingdom Israel/Jacob/Ephraim (for the rest of this study called simply "Ephraim") and the southern kingdom (Judah) were both taken into captivity, by two different nations at two different times. By the time of Chronicles/Ezra/Nehemiah, Ezra recounts how exiles from the tribes of the southern kingdom had returned from captivity, and were known as "Jews" (or in Hebrew, Y'hudi); these are the Jews of the New Covenant writings. But the northern kingdom never returned! This northern kingdom became known as the lost sheep of the house of Israel, as Yahshua called them in Matthew 10:6 and 15:24. This is why a "gentile" in context of the New Covenant writings can refer to an Israelite, or one whose heritage was from the lost tribes of Israel, scattered to the foreign nations (ethnos), as Yahweh promised.

Taking all things into consideration, I would suggest Acts 9:15 means this... "But Yahweh said unto him (Ananias), Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the scattered Ephraimites, and kings, and the children of Judah."

Possibility B...

Since the term "children of Israel" is used aside from "Gentiles", it is possible that in this context these "gentiles" are strangers to the Commonwealth of Israel. (As a side note, these strangers, or foreigners (true gentiles) were never prohibited from sojourning with the Nation of Israel; they were even allowed to keep the Passover feast, and required to observe the Torah!) So "children of Israel" in this context may refer to both houses, Jews and Ephraimites, while gentile may refer to those who never had Israelite heritage to begin with.

My point in this study is not to say, "Everyone's a biological Israelite!" and I very openly concede that anyone not of Israelite heritage- a true gentile- is still (and always was) welcome to to sojourn with Israel, and attach themselves to Yahweh (Isaiah 56) by honoring His Word.

(I opt for Possibility A, because as we will see when we get to Paul's writings, the congregations he wrote to shared Israelite herritage)

The bottom line is...

...that Yahshua's salvation, while given specifically to the lost 10 tribes of Israel (the lost sheep for whom He came), is given freely to anyone who will accept and live accordingly.

Isaiah 49:5-6, "And now, saith Yahweh that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob (the northern kingdom) again to him, Though Israel (the full kingdom) be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of Yahweh, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob (the northern kingdom), and to restore the preserved of Israel (the full kingdom): I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles (individuals with truly no Israelite heritage), that thou mayest be my salvation (Yahshua) unto the end of the earth. "

John 3:16-21, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

[basething]

Milothebean


ok i see you have an agenda, that it is not hidden, and that from what you have presented so far that your  agenda is not the “study” of God's word, but rather a continued pushing of the same dogma that you were asserting some months back. Please bear with me, i am not trying to run you off. But let me be frank, i couldn't care less about your agenda or your dogma or the angle from which you present them. (tr: that you have an agenda does not bother me) my concern here is strictly the right dividing of the word of God (tr: I only care about the right dividing of the word of God). A concept which on the surface at this point does not seem to fit into your agenda, and so i hope that your agenda changes (tr: it seems that rightly dividing the word of God is less important to you than presenting your agenda... I hope this changes).



   i realize that this may sound elementary, ( and for that i apologize), but there does seem to be some confusion, and so....
Being that the purpose as i understand it of this Bible discussion forum is discussion of the BIBLE, would mean that  the discussion would naturally revolve around what was actually presented in the text of the Bible.

 From my perspective (and i believe the natural construction of the idea) this would mean that the participants here would

      (1.)take into account that the definition of the word “studying” is distinct from that of “authoring”. That as students of the Bible and not authors of it the participants would naturally seek to understand solely what is presented by the Author without any fabrication or editing on their part.
Which is why i ask that you deal with Act 9:15 without perv#erting language or context. A concept which you seemingly did not understand (tr: I don't think you know what I mean by "not perv*rting language or context"... I explain further under, "Possibility A" below).

(2.)that whether what is presented in the text is believed by the participants or not, what is presented is recognized and accepted. Period!


                                                          ON THE STUDY


possibility B...

That being said, it should be noted that  so  far (baring your possibility B ”side note” which is not pertinent to context)

 you have recognize that both language (“Since the term "children of Israel" is used aside from "Gentiles"”) and context (“So ... in this context” though not elaborated) allow for “possibility B” ie that the use of the term “the children of Israel” might actually refer to “Israel” and that the term  “gentiles” might actually refer to those who have no Israelite heritage.

possibility A...

However; “possibility A...” does not seem to fit into the “not per#verting language or context” part of my request. In that your “possibility” requires that you not only replace the word “gentile” in your search to identify  its meaning,  but if it is replaced with “Ephraim” then to remove further confusion it becomes necessary to change the word Israel as well.
    Being that the word gentile is in question here, and the author uses it as distinct from Israel, would seemingly by natural implication force the word Israel to become a substantial factor in identifying the intended meaning of “gentile”. Therefore to chage it would be to  escalate the confusion.
      Seemingly the need to change a clearly definable word, in order to replace a questionable word with one that fits an already purported agenda, would seem a fatal error to any student.

Possibility “A” clearly includes and mandates the per#version of language and  (i assert, in light of the book of Acts and specifically ch 10 ) the denial of immediate context.

(tr: your substituting the word "Ephraimites" in place of the word "gentiles" defies immediate context since Paul uses "Israel" in specific contrast to "gentiles" in the book under consideration. This requires mishandling of the word Israel to work, and allows immediate context to be set aside in lieu of passages--similarly mishandled--from other texts.)




the “The bottom line is...” Possibility “A” includes and requires a level of perversion, .....and you opted for possibility “A” .....??





                                              FURTHERING THE STUDY
My understanding here is that this study is supposed to be your work, and so i am not going to do the work for you. Therefore having asked you to address Acts 9:15 without perverting language or context and you having not done so; i am sending you back to Acts 9:15 and once again asking you to address it without perverting language while maintaining context (particularly immediate context).
    i am simply asking you to go to the presented text, observe it in its context, and concisely present your observations here.





                                                          Request for order
      Being that you have overly admitted to having an agenda, and being that so far all of your cross references have been directed toward pushing that agenda and  not toward a contextual understanding of the presented text, i am asking you to refrain from cross referencing at this time. This does not mean that i am asking you to ignore obvious references made by the author and therefore mandated by context.
   i am simply attempting to remove any possible... confusion-causing-variables that could fog focus on the intended meaning of the presented text.
     After having arrived at what the text says in its context, to offer supporting references would of course be appropriate. However seeing that you are as yet prone to changing God's word, lets deal with  the text as it exists and leave off cross referencing for later. Thank you.   

    You have also presented a multitude of questionable beliefs, such as you believe:
“the New Covenant is nothing new,” and  that the new covenant was “....made with the House of Ephraim.” and “... that most of modern-day Christianity is spiritually (as well as physically) descendants of the lost 10 tribes of Israel,” etc... Each of which (on my end) are highly controversial and i believe can be easily proved Biblically in-defendable. The problem is however that they are also distracting to the purpose here of determining  how the word Gentile is used in what is commonly known as the New Testament.  And so i am asking you to also refrain from offering any more like distracting statements.

i have already stated that it is elementary to recognize that the use of the word gentiles in certain contexts (as defined by context) are in fact references to some aspect of Israel. Therefore it is not necessary to belabor that point.

The question at hand seems to be in which contexts does the word gentile clearly reference Israel or some part of Israel ,and which contexts are clearly referencing non-Israelites? Lets keep on point, thank you.

 This will be my last intended response to this thread for at least a week (barring calamity) and so i would suggest that you take the week to intensively study Acts 9:15 in its context and at some point toward the end of the week present you observations of the text.


God bless your study

john

[milothebean]

I really have no clue what you are asking me to do. You asked my opinion of Acts 9:15, and I gave it. I did not alter the language in any way, other than by going to the root words (I believe that English translations are often insufficient, on some level, for expressing the original text). I don't honestly care if you do (or do not) agree with the position I am presenting this study from, the fact of the matter is, that I posted a study. It is now either yours (or Gabe's) duty to respond to my study, making your statements and/or questions to the subject at hand, in a critical way. I am not going to give you a "run of the mill text book definition" for anything you ask. Bear with me, and honestly evaluate the material I prepare you.

These are my terms. Otherwise this is nothing more than a witch trial.

Fair?

[Gabriel Anast]

The most general and base terms are that each participant in the discussion should completely participate in the discussion.

basething fully read and understood your post, and then took time to reconstruct it in terms of his understanding. That his response might seem personally invasive is distinct from the fact that at base level he has indeed responded to your post and fully answered it.

Despite the fact that he asked for additional terms of discussion (which are not necessarily granted, but according to the original terms of this thread should be considered) his analysis and argument must be answered. This portion especially requires consideration, understanding and response:

However; “possibility A...” does not seem to fit into the “not per#verting language or context” part of my request. In that your “possibility” requires that you not only replace the word “gentile” in your search to identify  its meaning,  but if it is replaced with “Ephraim” then to remove further confusion it becomes necessary to change the word Israel as well.
    Being that the word gentile is in question here, and the author uses it as distinct from Israel, would seemingly by natural implication force the word Israel to become a substantial factor in identifying the intended meaning of “gentile”. Therefore to chage it would be to  escalate the confusion.
      Seemingly the need to change a clearly definable word, in order to replace a questionable word with one that fits an already purported agenda, would seem a fatal error to any student.

Possibility “A” clearly includes and mandates the per#version of language and  (i assert, in light of the book of Acts and specifically ch 10 ) the denial of immediate context.

In other words, approval in this board is not according to "who was mean..." but according who was right.

Leave your presuppositions aside and take up the text of the Bible as your sword.

--gabe

PS: I added some "translation" markers in basething's text, and highlighted a few points that should help get to the point within his text.

[milothebean]

basething fully read and understood your post, and then took time to reconstruct it in terms of his understanding. That his response might seem personally invasive is distinct from the fact that at base level he has indeed responded to your post and fully answered it.

I am completely OK with that part, the part that I dislike is (this is the impression I get), "I disagree, so re-think your assessment and repost." None the less, as you have said, there is, within his message, an aspect of discussion, and that is the portion I will respond to.

In other words, approval in this board is not according to "who was mean..." but according who was right.

I concur. Truth is not established by who is the most eloquent... truth is established by Yah's Word. I think we can agree to this? None the less I will remain diplomatic in all things.

Now on to a response...

[milothebean]

However; “possibility A...” does not seem to fit into the “not per#verting language or context” part of my request. In that your “possibility” requires that you not only replace the word “gentile” in your search to identify  its meaning,  but if it is replaced with “Ephraim” then to remove further confusion it becomes necessary to change the word Israel as well.
    Being that the word gentile is in question here, and the author uses it as distinct from Israel, would seemingly by natural implication force the word Israel to become a substantial factor in identifying the intended meaning of “gentile”. Therefore to chage it would be to  escalate the confusion.
      Seemingly the need to change a clearly definable word, in order to replace a questionable word with one that fits an already purported agenda, would seem a fatal error to any student.

Possibility “A” clearly includes and mandates the per#version of language and  (i assert, in light of the book of Acts and specifically ch 10 ) the denial of immediate context.

Basething,

My intent is not to corrupt the language in any way. I believe (as I have stated many times) that the term "gentile" as we have it today is grossly misunderstood to mean something that the Greek word "ethnos" and the Hebrew word "goyim" never were intended to say.

Modern English understanding of "gentile": anyone who's not from the nation of Israel.

Original definitions of Ethnos and Goyim: nations, tribes, groups of a particular set of peoples.

There are few occasions where, in context, these original words can legitimately mean "everyone except for Israelites". It's these rare occasions that make modern translators feel justified in using "gentile" as a blanket term to refer to everyone outside of Israel.

Do we agree thus far, or disagree?

It isn't the word "gentile" I want to replace; I am seeking a better translation for the original term. In this case, I fear that there is no perfect English equivalent, there are only English substitutions. "outside nations" would fit I suppose, keeping in mind that the Jews were the only surviving remnant of Israel (the Kingdom of Judah) because Ephraim had been scattered TO the "outside nations", as predicted in Deuteronomy 28-32, and occurred in 2 Kings.

I hope that wasn't t too far off topic; that was in response to "per#verting the language". I'm certainly not trying to belabor the point; just trying to be 100% clear so we can be on the same page.

[milothebean]

i am simply asking you to go to the presented text, observe it in its context, and concisely present your observations here.

Acts 9:15, "But the Lord said unto him, 'Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.' " (KJV)

My observations: Yahshua/Yahweh has instructed Ananias not to be troubled over the troubling reports he has heard regarding Paul, but rather to trust that Paul is an authentic emissary to bear the name of Yahweh before "gentiles" (those who are not Jews), kings, and the children of Israel (at this point consisting primarily of Jews).

You have also presented a multitude of questionable beliefs, such as you believe:
“the New Covenant is nothing new,” and  that the new covenant was “....made with the House of Ephraim.” and “... that most of modern-day Christianity is spiritually (as well as physically) descendants of the lost 10 tribes of Israel,” etc...

I would be willing to discuss any of these statements with anyone, at any time.

i have already stated that it is elementary to recognize that the use of the word gentiles in certain contexts (as defined by context) are in fact references to some aspect of Israel. Therefore it is not necessary to belabor that point.

The question at hand seems to be in which contexts does the word gentile clearly reference Israel or some part of Israel ,and which contexts are clearly referencing non-Israelites? Lets keep on point, thank you.

(emphasis mine)

Since we agree that (and I quote) "the use of the word gentiles in certain contexts (as defined by context) are in fact references to some aspect of Israel", what is there left to discuss? Is the purpose of this discussion to validate when "gentile" refers to Ephraim, or when it refers specifically to people not of Israelite descent?

[Gabriel Anast]

However; “possibility A...” does not seem to fit into the “not per#verting language or context” part of my request. In that your “possibility” requires that you not only replace the word “gentile” in your search to identify  its meaning,  but if it is replaced with “Ephraim” then to remove further confusion it becomes necessary to change the word Israel as well.
    Being that the word gentile is in question here, and the author uses it as distinct from Israel, would seemingly by natural implication force the word Israel to become a substantial factor in identifying the intended meaning of “gentile”. Therefore to chage it would be to  escalate the confusion.
      Seemingly the need to change a clearly definable word, in order to replace a questionable word with one that fits an already purported agenda, would seem a fatal error to any student.

Possibility “A” clearly includes and mandates the per#version of language and  (i assert, in light of the book of Acts and specifically ch 10 ) the denial of immediate context.

Basething,

OK, I think you misunderstood me... you don't have to defend yourself to basething... you just have to look at his argument, and answer it.

Here is my re-characterization of his argument (if I may):

Milo said:

Acts 9:15
But Yahweh said unto him (Ananias), Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.

The Greek word for "gentiles" here is "ethnos", which is best rendered "nations", or more specifically here, "foreign nations outside of Israel". I think we would both agree that this is the best fit for the context. So I see two possibilities for "gentiles" in this verse...

Possibility A...

[...]"gentile" in context of the New Covenant writings can refer to an Israelite, or one whose heritage was from the lost tribes of Israel, scattered to the foreign nations (ethnos)[...]

So, in order to do this, the newly constructed verse in your rendering would say:

Act 9:15    But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the [Israelites, or those whose heritage was from the lost tribes of Israel, scattered to the foreign nations], and kings, and the children of Israel:

Or:

My observations: Yahshua/Yahweh has instructed Ananias not to be troubled over the troubling reports he has heard regarding Paul, but rather to trust that Paul is an authentic emissary to bear the name of Yahweh before "gentiles" (those who are not Jews), kings, and the children of Israel (at this point consisting primarily of Jews).

Which to the reader that uses regular vocabulary, you mean:

My observations: Jesus/God has instructed Ananias not to be troubled over the troubling reports he has heard regarding Paul, but rather to trust that Paul is an authentic emissary to bear the name of God before "gentiles" (those who are [the lost 10 tribes of Israel]), kings, and the children of Israel (at this point consisting primarily of [Judeans, primarily sons of Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, Levi, and sundry others]).

Act 9:15    But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the [Israelites that are not Judeans], and kings, and the [Judeans]:

For the casual reader,

Milo's lexicon:

Jews

• mostly Judean descendants of Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, Levi, and misc others that didn't leave with the lost 10
• but in this passage (or in Acts? Deuteronomy? New York Times?) Jews can be substituted for, "children of Israel."

Ephraim, Joseph, Jacob, Israel

• lost 10 tribes

Gentile

• mostly "lost 10 tribes"
• rarely "people who are not descended from Jacob / Israel at all"
• ---> typically he does not indicate specifically what he means when he uses the word, but you can tell from context.

basething said:

1) your stated agenda is to demonstrate that in most cases gentile means lost ten tribes
2) to establish this you replace a word that in the passage has dubious meaning (gentiles)
3) in doing so, you make the verse not make sense: ie, how are "Israelites, or those whose heritage was from the lost tribes of Israel, scattered to the foreign nations" not "children of Israel"?
4) By asserting that gentiles in this verse means, "Israelites, or those whose heritage was from the lost tribes of Israel, scattered to the foreign nations" you force the latter phrase, "children of Israel" to mean something else: which is EXACTLY what you do in the post AFTER he said you would do it... ;P... you turn "children of Israel" into "Judeans..."

Ergo... perv*rting of language.

This is the argument that wants an answer.

--gabe

PS: "Is the purpose of this discussion to validate when "gentile" refers to Ephraim, or when it refers specifically to people not of Israelite descent?"

Yeah, this is a Bible study on the word gentile as used in the Bible, just as you titled the thread... specifically but not exclusively those references in and after Acts 9.

[milothebean]

Hello Gabe, Basething, and anyone else following along,

I apologize for my lack of participation in the discussion for the last several weeks. Life has become unexpectedly busy... First, a leaking bathtub in the basement of my house lead to a serious mold issue I had to remedy. Second, my dad has been going through serious health issues (cancerous brain tumors, etc) so much of my spare time is spent visiting him. Third there has been- a lot- of "work drama" lately, and as a supervisor, it is my responsibility to deal with this drama. But I digress, and intend to "invest" what I can into perpetuating this study, and regaining the ability to post in other areas of this forum. So moving on...

For the casual reader,

Milo's lexicon:

Jews

• mostly Judean descendants of Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, Levi, and misc others that didn't leave with the lost 10
• but in this passage (or in Acts? Deuteronomy? New York Times?) Jews can be substituted for, "children of Israel."

Ephraim, Joseph, Jacob, Israel

• lost 10 tribes

Gentile

• mostly "lost 10 tribes"
• rarely "people who are not descended from Jacob / Israel at all"
• ---> typically he does not indicate specifically what he means when he uses the word, but you can tell from context.

You have made a fair assessment of these terms (how I see them), and I generally agree with your assessment.

1) your stated agenda is to demonstrate that in most cases gentile means lost ten tribes

The overall theme to my agenda is to prove that our modern understanding of the term "gentile" is incorrect, the way I intend to illustrate it is by showing that "gentile" in the New Testament generally refers to those exiled from the northern Kingdom of Israel, Ephraim.

2) to establish this you replace a word that in the passage has dubious meaning (gentiles)

I'm glad we both realize that "gentile" has "dubious meaning". My entire thesis (if I hadn't already clearly stated it) is that "gentile" in it's original language (inspired text) does not mean the same as what our modern understanding teaches it to mean today.

3) in doing so, you make the verse not make sense: ie, how are "Israelites, or those whose heritage was from the lost tribes of Israel, scattered to the foreign nations" not "children of Israel"?

In this specific context I offered multiple interpretations. It is important to note that Ephraim had forgotten, or given up, their Israelite heritage. They had become outsiders to the nation of Israel (currently made up of the nation that was formerly called Judah... I will elaborate on this in the next point) but they were still physically decendents of Jacob. For example, look at Yahshua's parable of the prodigal son, in Luke 15, the son who ran astray (Ephraim) had been eating the unclean foods. This is just an example (though possibly a poor one...)

There are several OT prophecies pertaining to Ephraim (lost ten tribes) forgetting their identity and Israelite heritage, though it would take time to find all the referrences. I suppose I will be working on that this week.

4) By asserting that gentiles in this verse means, "Israelites, or those whose heritage was from the lost tribes of Israel, scattered to the foreign nations" you force the latter phrase, "children of Israel" to mean something else: which is EXACTLY what you do in the post AFTER he said you would do it... ;P... you turn "children of Israel" into "Judeans..."

Ergo... perv*rting of language.

This is the argument that wants an answer.

Let me offer you a hypothetical: Knowing that the term "Israel" can refer either exclusively to the northern kingdom, or it can refer to the collective nation (both nations together), consider this. By the time the New Testament was written, the only part of the nation of Israel remaining was the southern kingdom of Judah (Ezra/Nehemiah recount how only select tribes came back from exile). It can be rightly said that the term "Israel", referring to the entire nation, would only consist of the southern tribes, previously called Judah (and currently called Jews). This is certainly the case today; I believe that what we call the modern nation of "Israel" today is really the remnants of the southern kingdom.

I apologize if I didn't make this clear enough in my original post, and I am going to openly admit: this part of my belief is hypothetical.

[Gabriel Anast]

Hey, MTB, thanks for your persistence...

Once again:

The entire intent and focus of this thread is to look at the Bible and see how is uses the word "gentile" (and possibly, "Greek"). As regards the purposes of this thread, we, the participants don't care what you (or any participant) think about lost Israel, or the Boogey man. Our intention is to see how the Bible uses the term (Israel, not Boogey man).

We have all agreed on these points:

1) The word gentile sometimes refers to parts of Israel.
2) The word Israel itself has a complicated, very contextual nature.

What we have not agreed on, is how each usage is used by the authors as they used it in the text.

The text was written, and as such, cannot change. Sometimes the meaning may be so ambiguous that we cannot tell... but it is a violation of the original authors work, dishonesty to ourselves, and juvenile at best to simply reconstruct an author's work in order to demonstrate our own pre-conceived expectations.

When basething (and I) assert that you have "perverted the text" we are saying that you have not allowed the author's construction, context, and wording to stand. You have simply rewritten the passage as you see fit.

Its like me saying this if you:

Here is the original text:

I'm glad we both realize that "gentile" has "dubious meaning". My entire thesis (if I hadn't already clearly stated it) is that "gentile" in it's original language (inspired text) does not mean the same as what our modern understanding teaches it to mean today.

Here is an analysis that perverts the text:
So, it is obvious that MTB is using the words "I," "My," and "I'm" to refer to people that cannot diagram sentences. But since I can diagram sentences, when he says "we both" he actually means other people like me, but only in belief, not in expertise.



So, this is not me saying this about you... although... um, its painfully close to accurate. I am saying here: prove your mettle!

As I understand the Bible, it presents a view that I think you would be satisfied with... but you must take this seriously if you expect anyone else to do so, and if you expect to actually get to the truth.

Having said all this, I see you as being quite sincere, resilient, and having some measure of faith... which is an amazing set of qualities. The next step is that this thread / board requires you to be willing to see what the Bible actually says on this subject. Don't fear to be wrong in some aspects... the actual picture will be quite satisfying I think.

--gabe

PS: Although I also have pre-conceptions, I expect that if we work through this together, we will both grow... changing in our opinions and expectations to see and agree with those of God.

[Gabriel Anast]

Let me offer you a hypothetical: Knowing that the term "Israel" can refer either exclusively to the northern kingdom, or it can refer to the collective nation (both nations together), consider this. By the time the New Testament was written, the only part of the nation of Israel remaining was the southern kingdom of Judah (Ezra/Nehemiah recount how only select tribes came back from exile). It can be rightly said that the term "Israel", referring to the entire nation, would only consist of the southern tribes, previously called Judah (and currently called Jews). This is certainly the case today; I believe that what we call the modern nation of "Israel" today is really the remnants of the southern kingdom.

I apologize if I didn't make this clear enough in my original post, and I am going to openly admit: this part of my belief is hypothetical.

So, I meant to add this:

If "Israel" in this verse means "Judeans" then the verse now reads like this:

Act 9:15    But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the [Israelites that are not Judeans], and kings, and the children of [Judean Israel]:

Which works better than any of the before mentioned options since it at least does not violate construction... however it introduces another incredibly ambiguous group, "children of Judean Israel" which is a group that is never referred to anywhere else in the Bible. Not only is this group ambiguous in an amazing way, but why didn't Luke just write, "to Israel, to kings and to Judah" since that is the way that all the Hebrew authors before him referred to those groups. If he did say, "to Israel, to kings, and to Judah" then... who are the kings? They are evidently not Israel or Judah... so are they gentiles?

It just doesn't work, man...

--gabe

[Gabriel Anast]

I am trying to make up for being so hard nosed by doing as much work as possible here...

Our positions... yours and mine, share a lot of common understandings. If I were to compare my understanding of the text to any major denominational teaching including modern Judaism, I am pretty sure that my beliefs would be closer to your beliefs (MTB) than to any of the rest.

That said... my beliefs come from the text of the Bible... and as far as I can tell, yours don't. Again, as far as I can tell, yours come from Sevynn... or some white separatist documents, or something else. Take the chance... the leap of faith, if you will... to follow the Bible. Just let the Bible say whatever it will say... see where it leads.

As concerns this verse (Acts 9:15), there are three groups that Paul is evidently called to... this is how I see them:

1) these groups are separate, distinct groups
2) these groups are contextually defined... in other words, the words used here to define these groups are going to be used the same way elsewhere in this book (Acts), probably in other books by the same author (Luke) and more than likely in other books written by people of the same belief system (other books of the Bible), and to a lesser extent people of the same culture (Mishna, Talmud, etc...)
3) these groups are explicitly characterized by the words used by the author (God Himself in this case) as penned by Luke. The words used to characterize these groups are meaningful... they mean what they appear to mean... they aren't codes. The meaning might be hard to figure out (for other reasons), but the writer did not intend them to be difficult.

The words used are:

gentiles --> ethnos --> Gentiles 93, nation 64, heathen 5, people 2
kings --> basileus --> king 82, King (of Jews) 21, King (God or Christ) 11, King (of Israel) 4
children of Israel --> huios Israēl --> lit. progeny of the man Israel, also named Jacob

The term "children of Israel" is used 604 times in the Bible: According to my study (yes, I read them all, and read the context surrounding about 50 of them): All the descendants of Isreal / Jacob: about 537 of the usages refer to all of the descendants of the man Israel also named Jacob. This includes ALL of his blood children, grandchildren, etc. Northern 10: as far as I can tell, "children of Israel" is used 54 times to refer specifically to the northern 10... and in those cases it is specifically contrasted with Judah or the context is obviously the northern kingdom: 1Sa 11:8, 14:18, 1Ki 12:17, 12:24, 12:33, 18:20, 19:10, 20:15, 27, 29, 2Ki 8:12, 13:5, 17:7, 8, 9, 22, 24, 2Ch 10:17, 10:18, 13:12, 16, 18, 28:8, 31:6, Isa 17:3, 9, 27:12, 31:6, 66:20(?), Jer 3:21, 16:15, 32:30, 32, 50:4, 33, Eze 2:3, 4:13 (specific contrast to gentiles), 6:5, 37:16, 21, 43:7, 44:15, 48:11, Hsa 1:10, 11, 3:1, 4, 5, 4:1, Amo 3:12, 4:5, 9:7, Oba 1:20, Mic 5:3 (as far as I can tell... this one is difficult), Rom 9:27 (probably the one that causes the most confusion) House of Judah: There is one (1) place that I could find where the meaning seems to me ambiguous enough to assume that "children of Israel" might refer to the house of Judah: 2Ki 18:4... also contextually defined. Refs used to describe all of Israel that were left after the Babylonian captivity, into the NT... incidentally referring to Judah: There are 12 refs in Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel and the NT that specifically refer to the captive or returned from captivity house of Judah as the "children of Israel," however this is a ref to those of Israel that were taken / returned from the Babylonian captivity as distinct from people of other lineages that were in the land already and from northern Israel which are gone: Ezr 3:1, 6:16, 21, 7:7, Neh 1:6, 2:10, 7:73, 9:1, Dan 1:3, Luk 1:16, Act 5:21, Act 10:36

So, Question: Is it possible, looking at other uses in Acts, Acts + Luke, and the entire Bible, that "children of Israel" in Acts 9:15 means, "Judean Isreal?"
Answer: The phrase, "children of Israel" is indeed used (even twice in Acts) to mean "Judeans that are sons of Israel," so, yes, the possibility exists that "children of Israel" in Acts 9:15 could mean "Judean Israel."

Question: Is it possible in context that Acts 9:15 uses the phrase, "children of Israel" to mean, "Judean Israel?"
Answer: No, it is not possible without breaking the construction of the sentence as demonstrated in the post(s) above.

Question: Just to make sure, if we changed "gentiles" to mean "lost Israel / northern 10" would the interpretation of "children of Israel" as "Judean Israel" work?
Answer: No. We would still have to contend with "kings" as a racial category separate from "northern 10" and "Judean Israel," we would have to deal with "gentiles" in other of Paul's writings and in Acts as being a group of people that were not under the law of Moses, and we would have to deal with the fact that in Acts the word "gentile(s)" in 28 cases out of 30 appears overtly (and with a sense of surprise / shock) to mean, "people that are not of the blood line of Jacob." Exceptions being Act 13:42 and Act 26:20.

Question: So, how do we interpret "children of Israel" in Acts 9:15? From context, we interpret it to mean, "all the blood descendants of the man Israel / Jacob," noting also that this interpretation sides with the vast majority of usages in the Bible, the clear majority in the writings of Luke, and the "most likely" majority in the book of Acts itself (this verse being the deciding factor).

--gabe

PS: This is off topic, but interesting to me.... while looking through these refs I [thought I] found a place where gentiles are overtly called "brethren" which, I will have to admit, was unexpected for me: Act 15:23     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:

...just wanted to make note of that somewhere...

[edited above and here to add: haha... um... I was wrong. After looking at this more I see that the construction is indeed, "brethren to brethren among-the-gentiles," not, as I at first thought, to, "brethren to gentile-brethren"]

[milothebean]

Hello Gabe, Basething;

I again apologize for my lack of participation here recently. It has been a very trying past couple of months, involving health issues (not my own), job changes (my own), and the passing of my father. I plan to be dedicated to this study from hence forth... so let's pick up where we left off.

You make a valid point about the construct of this verse, that if "nations" and "children of Israel" refer exclusively to two distinct racial groups, then logically, "kings" must be counted as well.

I did say in advance, apparently with good reason, that this rendition of Acts 9:15, "But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the [Israelites that are not Judeans], and kings, and the children of [Judean Israel]" is purely hypothetical.

During my absence from this 7xSunday, I have done much contemplation regarding this thread, and I think I've come to a more in depth understanding, one which we can come to a common ground on.

I still maintain that Yahshua's mission was to gather the lost 10 tribes of Israel, who had been sent into exile for Torah violations according to Deuteronomy 28-30, etc... but it would be appropriate  (and beneficial) for me to, at this point, "do my homework" to provide a Biblical framework to support this.

Isaiah 49:5-7

5 And now, saith Yahweh that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of Yahweh, and my God shall be my strength.
6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
7 Thus saith Yahweh, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of Yahweh that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

If I could paraphrase, Yahweh here is telling Yahshua; "It not enough for you to regather the lost sheep of Israel. You will also bring salvation to the end of the earth, to nations who are not physical descendants of Jacob."

In light of this, it is more likely that Acts 9:15 reads like this, "But Yahweh said unto him, Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles (those foreign to the nation of Israel), and kings (even those who hold high ranking positions will worship at His feet), and the children of Israel (Israel and Judah, all who are physical descendants of Jacob):"

I'm not meaning to play Biblical hop scotch. It's just that God's Word is built precept upon precept, line upon line; from my stand point, it is vital to go to the foundation (Psalm 11:3) of this concept (rooted in the First Covenant) to fully grasp what is being said in the New Covenant.

I hope my thoughts here haven't been too sporadic, and that I have effectively explained my position. I've been listening to your broadcasts, and I think we have substantially more in agreement than in disagreement.

I look forward to receiving your thoughts on the matter, hopefully moving on to the next verse for discussion.

[Gabriel Anast]

Hello Gabe, Basething;
[...]

Isaiah 49:5-7

5 And now, saith Yahweh that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of Yahweh, and my God shall be my strength.
6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
7 Thus saith Yahweh, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of Yahweh that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

[...]

In light of this, it is more likely that Acts 9:15 reads like this, "But Yahweh said unto him, Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles (those foreign to the nation of Israel), and kings (even those who hold high ranking positions will worship at His feet), and the children of Israel (Israel and Judah, all who are physical descendants of Jacob):"

[...]

OK, so in this verse,

Gentiles means what we expect it to mean: people who are not of the bloodline of Israel
Kings means what we expect it to mean: people that rule over nations
"children of Israel" means what we expect it to mean: people who are of the bloodline of Israel / Jacob.

So... I (as posted above) agree with you. Cool. I made a bible study page in the wiki, and, if you would, please post your findings there... omit any full text refs or exposition... just post a link to the above post and a short synopsis. Thanks.

--gabe

[Gabriel Anast]

Since I think we are (collectively) satisfied with the meaning of "Gentile" in Acts 9:15, let's go on back to Matthew 4:15 if you don't mind... in a new thread.

Please remember to quote the KJ along side any paraphrases you might use, and use typical words. If you like to use the phrase, "New Covenant," that is fine, but please use it as a parenthetical to help the reader track. Thanks.

--gabe

[milothebean]

Excellent,

So I am going to post a new thread on the Bible Discussion board, as well as post any additional findings on the Wiki? Just seeking clarification,

 - MtB

[Gabriel Anast]

Excellent,

So I am going to post a new thread on the Bible Discussion board, as well as post any additional findings on the Wiki? Just seeking clarification,

 - MtB

Yes, this will help us keep a clear record of where we have been and where we are going, and allow the reader to see an overview of the work.

If you like, I can add your synopsis to the wiki. The markup is a little complicated... but if you look at the area where I added your comments for Acts 9:15 you can see how to add your comments in other places. However, just add your comments there after consensus has been reached, or after we have concluded that the implication is ambiguous.

The idea is that the wiki Bible study will be fairly authoritative... no internal conflict.

--gabe

[milothebean]

After reading your analysis of Matthew/Mark on the wiki, I actually agree (for the most part) with your assessments of ethnos/goyim. I plan to go through the Wiki to add my own commentary, but for the most part, I would concede (although I have not always believed this), "ethnos" does not always refer to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.

Advanced search

• 1 Timothy 3:16 GOD was manifest in the flesh, or the Vatican versions "he"?: Translation Questions and Discussion byandiclare (3)
• Revelation 18:20 - Bible critics and "ye holy apostles and prophets": Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• What About the 2011 NIV Old Testament?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• 1 Samuel 6:19 Is your Bible the 100% historical truth of God? 50,070 or 70 slain: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (3)
• What About the new NIV 2011?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (2)
• Answering the Typical Anti-KJB Only sites: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• We are Gods?: Bible Discussion bySoffi (0)
• Every Man For Himself Bible Versions: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• Answering James White's Question - Which KJV?: Translation Questions and Discussion byAndysDad (6)

• Japanese/English Bible?: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byGarlicMomma (5)
• Beka....?: Announcements & Updates byandiclare (0)
• HELP? Hubby can't sleep (I tried to search this): Healthcare @ Home byandiclare (1)
• Where is everyone?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (5)
• Introduce Yourself!: Nothing Deep bypiperjameson (325)
• The scoop on Soap: House and Home byCherika Four Seasons (1)
• Ideas: Children serving each other: Parenting byjenibee (0)
• My husband needs help with something I think is wrong: Relationships byjackiee (4)
• like minded moms?: Parenting byHomeschool_Newbie (2)
• "Courtship" discussions/questions: Relationships byHomeschool_Newbie (15)
• Announcing....: Announcements & Updates byBJ_BOBBI_JO (5)
• 80 days dream: Announcements & Updates bybasething (16)
• strabismus: Healthcare @ Home byFree Woman (10)
• Prayer Requests -- Health Related: Healthcare @ Home byBJ_BOBBI_JO (640)
• Translations in Guatemala...: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byAndysDad (5)
• Boring christian life: Sarah's Daughters byBJ_BOBBI_JO (6)
• Is this site for real?: Relationships byandiclare (2)
• Emergency food: canned or powder?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (9)
• A heart issue for my children?: Parenting byandiclare (9)
• Keeping Warm, Heating Tips & Tricks: House and Home byherbalmom (60)

[Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

February 08, 2012, 03:02:54 PM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 6896
• Latest: ESTel987

Stats

• Total Posts: 243886
• Total Topics: 21906
• Online Today: 37
• Online Ever: 437
• (April 01, 2008, 03:09:36 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 26
• Total: 26