The apostle Paul makes a remarkable statement in Romans 11:26:
“Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob” (Rom. 11:25-26)
The question is, how will all Israel be saved and to what extent does “all” mean?
I like how Keith Intrater explains what this means. He writes,
“Comparing Joel 2:32 to Romans 11:26 indicates that when Paul said that all Israel would be saved, he was referring to the remnant of Israelis that call upon the name of the Lord, as opposed to every person of Jewish blood. On the other hand, the indication is that the last-minute repentance and revival in Jerusalem will be of such magnitude that virtually every single person in the city will be saved.” (Israel, the Church, and the Last Days, 148).
There are two basic reasons I find this convincing:
- It avoids the problem of Jewish Universalism (every Jewish person will be saved regardless of their own faith in Christ).
- It maintains the natural exegetical and theological point of the texts in question (Joel and Romans).
There seems to be a few within the Messianic Movement who want to grant salvation to Jewish people simply because they are Jewish as well as some outside of Messianic Judaism that want to condemn all Jews because God simply no longer has any interest in the Jewish race.
Both views, as I read Scripture, are problematic.
What do you think?
Couple of things here – why this verse, and verses like it are highly debated.
1. Ethnic ambiguity. ‘The term ‘Jew’ and ‘Israelite’ are treated as synonymous. The term ‘Jew’ (from Judean) meant one of two things – it mean ‘citizen of Judea’ and it mean ethnic member of the ‘House of Judah’ (by birth). The two are not the same. The ‘Jewish’ king Herod, and his entire family, were citizens of Judea, indeed Kings of Judea, but ethnic Edomites (by birth; Edomites began migrating into Israel early on – see [2 Kings 16:6]). Jew’s like Herod were Jews but not Israelites. Indeed, the entire kingdom of Edomites became Jews under John Hyrcanus, and so non-Israelite Jews likely outnumbered Israelite Judeans.
2. Ethnic Ambiguity. Again, the term ‘Israelite’ and ‘Jew’ are treated as synonymous. Biblical scholars, and laymen tend to be ignorant of Israelite history. Israelites were never called ‘Jews’, so not only were not all Jews Israelites, not all Israelites were Jews. Under exactly four Kings were Judeans ‘Israelites’ Solomon, Ish-bosheth, David and Solomon. The rest of the time they were not. The Bible treats the Houses of Israel separately than the House of Judah. (for example [2 Sam 2:10;3:10][1 Kings 12:21][Isa 5:7][Jer 3:18;31:31][Eze 9:9][Hos 11:12] .. actually what prophet didn’t?) To make matters worse, not only does the bible treat the two separately, but they were at war with one another much of the bible after Solomon (King Ahaz and the Jews against King Pekah and the Israelites – [2 Kings 16:5-7]. In fact the Abrahamic promise itself [Gen 35:11] foresaw this division calling the House of Judah ‘a nation’ and the House of Israel (also Joseph) ‘a company of nations’. That is why when Israel died he bequeathed his name to Joseph saying:
“.. bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” [Gen 48:16].
But to Judah he established the right to rule only saying “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes. and to him shall be the obedience of the nations.” [Gen 49:10]
3. Unfounded presuppositions. [Romans 11:25] in English embeds a (false) presupposition. My ESV says:
“Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”
Given points 1 and 2 above that not all Jews were Israelites, and not all Israelites Jews, we can see this verse is not talking about Jews, but Israelites (the difference being Jews went to Babylon, returned and mixed with Edomites, Israelites went to Assyria became uncircumcised [Isa 29:10][Jer 6:10][Jer 9:26] and did not return – just like the prodigal son). But what is this English word ‘Gentiles’ (even capitalized as though it was important). The Greek word ????? means ‘nations’ – nothing more, nothing less. In every instance outside of biblical translation ????? is given the meaning ‘nations’. In Biblical translation however it is given the meaning ‘Gentiles’. ‘Gentiles’ is an invented meaning, not there in the Greek.
If we translate ????? correctly we actually uncover a Hebrew idiom:
“For I would not have you ignorant of this mystery, brothers, lest you be wise in your own conceits; that a partial blindness has befallen Israel, until the ?multitude of nations? comes about. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,” [Rom 11:25-26] referencing [Gen 17:4-5] and [Gen 48:19].
This isn’t about ‘Jews’, and it is certainly not about ‘Israelis’ – but it is about ‘Israelites’, a biblical people completely misunderstood.
I think the passage is self explanatory. “And in THIS way” all Israel will be saved.
What way? By bringing in the Gentiles.
Believers in Christ are authentic Israel in other words.
Paul made this case all over his epistles. “A Jew is not one circumsized by hands, a Jew is one circumsized in their heart w/o hands”.
I think Jeremiah said quoting Yahweh, “This people are not circumsizied in their hearts”, which sounds to me like what Paul’s point was.
Yep… “Inclusion” theology… in that Gentiles are added into “Israel.”
Your popular theory, of course, is contradicted by the bible. Lets see what it says. Here’s who the bible records Jesus saying he was sent to:
[Matt 15:24] “He answered, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Here’s where Jesus sent his disciples:
[Matt 10:5-6] ” Go nowhere amongst the nations and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Here’s what the author of Hebrews says of the New Covenant [Heb 8:8-9] (quoting [Jer 31:31-32] “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I shall establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”
Here’s when Jeremiah says this would no longer be the case:
[Jer 31:35-36] Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— the LORD of hosts is his name: If this fixed order departs
from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever.”
[Jer 31:37] “Thus says the LORD: ‘If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I shall cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the LORD.’”
Here’s what Isaiah says about the on coming salvation:
[Isa 46:13] “I bring near my righteousness; it is not far off,
and my salvation will not delay; I shall put salvation in Zion,
for Israel my glory.’”
Here’s what David said about God’s dealings with others
[Psa 147:20] “He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his rules. Praise the Lord!”
Here’s Paul’s take on the matter (which incidentally not only contradicts yours, but is consistent with all of the quotes above):
[Rom 9:4] “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.”
Here’s how Paul addresses his audience:
[Rom 1:13] “I want you to know brothers ..”
[Rom 7:1] “Or do you know brothers..”
[Romans 7:4] “Likewise, my brothers ..”
[Rom 8:12] “So then, brothers ..”
[Rom 10:1] “Brothers ..”
[Rom 11:25] “For I would not have you ignorant of this mystery, brothers ..”
[Rom 12:1][Rom 15:30] “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, ..”
Here’s what Paul says about his audience’s forefather:
[Rom 4:1] “What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather ..”
[Rom 9:10] “And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac ..”
Here’s who Ezekiel saw joined into the body of Christ – filled with the Holy Spirit:
[Eze 37:11] “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, “Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; *we are clean cut off.”
[Eze 37:14 ” And I shall put my Spirit within you ….”
Here’s who Ezekiel saw joined, and the divide removed:
[Eze 37:16-17] “Son of man, take a stick and write on it, “For Judah, and the people of Israel associated with him”; then take another stick and write on it, “For Joseph (the stick of Ephraim) and all the house of Israel associated with him.” And join them one to another into one stick, that they may become one in your hand.”
[Eze 37:22] “And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms. ”
Here’s where Ezekiel saw the sanctuary of the Lord placed the midst of forevermore:
[Ezekiel 37:28] “Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.’”
Hosea’s ‘No Mercy ”
[Hos 1:6] “Call her name No Mercy, for I shall no more have mercy on the house of Israel ..”
Inclusion theology doesn’t seem to cut it biblically, at least not with out ignoring the bible, and perhaps inventing language, that is unless the goal is not to believe what was written.
I’m not sure how helpful this type of rhetoric is, and though I’m inclined to assume that you are probably what people call a “troll” due to your method of response, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt…
Anyway, while I am not one to dismiss “proof texting” (I think Allen and Swain make a good case for it’s usefulness in their JETS article, “In Defense of Proof-Texting”), I also must say that each of the passages you cite have actual contexts and should be interpreted along with sound hermeneutical principles in relation to how the NT authors understand the OT. I’m inclined to follow the scholarship of folks such as Carson and Beale on that issue.
But judging from what you seem to be saying, I think it appears you misunderstand what I mean by “inclusion” and are overlooking some key NT texts.
For example, Jesus himself said,
The vast majority of exegetes (e.g., Carson, Borchert, Burge, Kostenberger, etc.) recognize that this is clearly in reference to the fact that there are Gentiles who are not “of this fold” and that Jesus intended to “bring them also” so that “there will be one flock, one shepherd.” That sure sounds like Gentile believers in Jesus are included with Jewish believers in Jesus… are you saying that you dispute this? Listing a bunch of references with no explanation of what you are saying about them doesn’t really help further the conversation along.
If you disagree with this interpretation, please explain why and how you view it.
But even more convincing towards the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God that previously was primarily made up of Jews is what Paul writes to the Ephesians. He writes,
I’m not sure it could be any clearer than that statement. Gentiles are:
fellow heirs members of the same body partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel
I don’t think you can get around it. So while you may quickly jump to the conclusion that I am not “biblical” or that I am “ignoring the Bible” or “inventing language” because my goal is to “not believe what is written,” I actually am doing my best to take the exact opposite route.
I want to honor the Lord Jesus, the Jewish Messiah and Son of God, by honoring the intention of the biblical authors who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
If you find cause to disagree with my exegesis or statements I am making. Please enter into dialogue. If you want to be a troll and ignore direct responses, jump to conclusions, and just type your own views with little regard for interaction, please do so elsewhere.
Hopefully you’ll take the chance to engage in dialogue…
“Your popular theory, of course, is contradicted by the bible” and
theology doesn’t seem to cut it biblically, at least not with out
ignoring the bible, and perhaps inventing language, that is unless the
goal is not to believe what was written”
I’m not sure how helpful this type of rhetoric is, and though I’m inclined to assume that you are probably what people call a “troll” due to your method of response, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt…
Thanks for looking past the rhetoric at the arguments presented. Most ‘trolls’ don’t bother to reason. Granting me benefit of the doubt is to your credit. Even so – in making arguments against ‘Gentiles’ I am confronting a ‘popular theology’. Recognizing this doesn’t make me a troll.
Likewise, given that the first argument presented essentially laid out how the use of ‘Gentiles’ in English is disjoint from the Greek. It was essentially a linguistic argument which if true has potential to significantly impact theology. That your subsequent readers did not deal with the challenges raise, and simply parroted the original post, likewise doesn’t make me a troll.
About proof texting, my point was and is that God has not abandoned his bride and simply married another (namely Gentiles), my point opposes replacement theology at least as a dangerous un-biblical teaching poisoning Christian thinking today – at worst a heresy.
My ‘proof texting’ (as you call it) did not require to me to add additional comments onto the biblical passages cited since neither did I take them out of context, nor were they too obtuse for anyone understand the purpose of their inclusion. The difference between proof-texting and legitimate use of biblical citations is whether or not the ‘proof-texts’ are ambiguous or not, and can be taken multiple ways.
However, since you present [John 10:16] as a challenge, lets look at that for a minute. Who were Jesus’s sheep, not according convention,but according to the bible? (If any of these quotes are out of context, please point them out – lest I proof text)
[I Kings 22:17][2 Chron 18:16] “I saw all Israel on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd.” I take these verses to mean Israel is the Lord’s flock.
[Jer 50:17] “Israel is a hunted sheep driven away by lions. First the king of Assyria devoured him, and now at last Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon has gnawed his bones.”
Since my argument was essentially that the House of Israel (taken by Assyria) and the House of Judah (taken by Nebuchadnezzar) would be united by the Christ – and since ONLY the House of Judah returned from Babylon, could not those sheep in that other fold be the House of Israel?
Lets further explore this by looking at Ezekiel and others:
[Eze 34:2] “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: “Ah shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves!” I take Israel to be the flock here.
[Micah 2:12] I shall surely assemble all of you O Jacob (the House of Israel), I shall gather the remnant of Israel; I shall set them together like SHEEP in a fold, like a flock in its pasture, a noisy multitude of men.
Ok so again, I’m not quite seeing how the other Sheep Jesus was speaking of in [John 10:16] could have been anyone other than those prophesied about – the ‘House of Israel’ … since we already know Jesus sent his disciples to them [Matt 10:6] and since you can’t find any other instance in the bible where the ‘sheep’ imagery is anyone but Israel [Psa 80:1][Jer 23:2-3](new Covenant [Jer 31:31] flock [Jer 31:10])[Eze 36:7][Amos 7:15]
If you’ve got texts those sheep not of this fold (the House of Judah), were not the House of Israel prophesied about, feel free to make your case. I have a tendency to believe that God inspired prophecy is certain and I just haven’t seen anyone but Israel called his flock, or his special possession, his portion etc.
You said “The vast majority of exegetes (e.g., Carson, Borchert, Burge, Kostenberger, etc.) recognize that this is clearly in reference to the fact that there are Gentiles who are not “of this fold” and that Jesus intended to “bring them also” so that “there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
It’s not advisable to rely on a fallacy to make your case. Argumentum ad populum (or appealing to the people) is a fallacious arguments that asserts a proposition is true because many or most people believe it to be true. In fact, we can tell from the former ‘flat earth theory’, and ‘Elvis is still alive theory’ that the number of people who believe something to be true – does not make it so. How do you know Carson, Borchert, Burge, Kostenberger, etc aren’t wrong?
I have no doubt some very fine minds join you in the mistaken belief that ‘Gentiles’ is not a made up word, and that God was willing to deal with another people, just as he dealt with Israel (despite the bible’s contrary assurances in [Exo 19:5] and [Psa 147:20]). Still, it could also be true that everyone in the world believed it, except me, and I alone could be the one bold enough to take the bible at face value, and believe a true (but unpopular) thing. Respectfully, I pay no mind to how many people might think me wrong (or the credentials they possess) – I care only for whether the belief is true or not.
With respect to (Eph. 3:6 ESV) – yes, its clear to you because you believe ‘Gentiles’ is a meaningful word. If I also accepted the English translation you present as a faithful representation of Greek meaning – I’d agree with you, except that I don’t. I think the meaning there in the English is not there at all in the Greek, and I intend to show you. Humour me for a second; do you think it is equally clear in any or all the following verses?:
[Matthew 12:18]: Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
[Matthew 12:19-21]: He will not quarrel or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory; and in his name the Gentiles will hope.
[Acts 13:47]: For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.
[Romans 15:12]: And again Isaiah says, The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope.
Do any of the above verses strengthen your position and weaken mine or the other way around?
(Thank you, and yes of course, I welcome the chance to engage in dialogue.)
I’m sure you have some “fresh” insight into the original languages… do you have any sources that support your conclusions?
There are a number of exegetical fallacies that you are inserting into your “exegesis” (if that’s what posting random Bible verses is) that are relevant to the discussion.
I’m sure you feel you made a good argument. I guess the problem is that others don’t seem to think so, including myself. There was really no linguistic argument. Maybe it’s because your rhetoric overshadows it? No sure. Do you have any sources that make a scholarly contribution to the subject? Words, especially in Greek and Hebrew, are controlled by context, which is why proof-texting to prove a theological point about linguistic issues doesn’t really prove a point. It just shows that words have different meanings in different contexts. That’s why ethnos is thought to have several different means related to (1) nations and (2) Gentiles. Your theory simply needs to have more “weight” to it in order to do anything other than read as a few Bible verses scattered. How about you interact with and extensively provide response to BDAG (pp. 276-277)? Or Mounce (pp. 281)? Or NIDNTT-A (pp. 161–62)? Or any of the other lexicons that are widely in use?
Of course, when I pointed you to some relevant sources, you wrote:
Incorrect, sir. I did not make an argument based on appealing to people. I simply pointed you to a number of reputable sources that provide scholarly exegetical work. Why? Because typing what can easily be read takes more time than is worth it. Hence my previous question for you as to where I may find some sources that “bolster” your perspective. It’s what separates the “trolls” from effective theological discussion.
In fact, it appears you are unfamiliar with what the actual definition of argumentum ad populum actually is. It’s the fallacy of deciding truth by opinion polls. I am not deciding truth by opinion polls. I’m simply pointing you to the relevant scholarly exegetical work that essentially undermines every single argument you are attempting to make. Therefore, there is no argumentum ad populum or consensus gentium or even an argumentum ad verecundiam. Again, it’s simply pointing to relevant arguments that I believe are convincing. There is good evidence too, etc.
The way that we’ll know whether Carson, Borchert, Burge, Kostenberger, BDAG, Mounce, NIDNTT, or any of the other lexicons/scholars are wrong is if you demonstrate it to be so. The burden of proof, sir, is upon you. You must provide more than a few Bible verses here and there to do so. While I’m sure you do not believe you are taking them out of context and that you don’t need to sufficiently demonstrate that exegetically… the rest of us remain unconvinced.
Here’s my point. You clearly have misrepresented both my point and clearly are unfamiliar with what I mean by “inclusion.” I had stated this earlier, but you completely ignored that comment.
I do not hold to “Replacement Theology” or believe that God has abandoned his bride. And interestingly enough, the quote that I originally posted in this blog was from a leading member of the Messianic Jewish movement (Keith Intrater) who I also know does not embrace “Replacement Theology.” Hmmm… looks very trollish, sir.
But I’m going to simply camp out on the two passages that I already cited because your response was unconvincing.
There are many assumptions in your statement here. Again, you obviously are unfamiliar with my position on the church, Israel, and what I mean by “inclusion.”
Yes, Jesus sent his disciples to ethnic Jews. No argument from me there. But in John 10:16 he states that he has sheep who are not of the fold (Israel). Where, oh where, do we find Jesus commissioning anyone to go and reach people outside of the “fold” of ethnic Israel? Oh, that’s right:
Yes, the word translated as “nations” is ethnos. And yes, these people from other nations will observe all that Jesus commanded. Why? Because Jesus said that “The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice” (John 10:3-4 ESV).
If the evidence of John 10 indicates that Jesus is calling his sheep out of the pen of Judaism (which he is) and that his sheep obey his voice and that he will also get sheep that are not of the original fold (which he does) than it’s quiet logical to assume that what Jesus is saying is simply what he indicates in Matt. 24:14 and 28:19-20, as well as what the apostle Paul spends a great deal of his life and ministry participating in.
You see, when you state that “you can’t find any other instance in the bible where the ‘sheep’ imagery is anyone but Israel,” you make a number of common exegetical mistakes: the word fallacy as well as ignoring the context (which determines meaning and application) as well as the disjunctive fallacy.
Could it be that Jesus is concerned about communication that his people, whom he calls sheep, will include people from both Israel and the nations? Sure seems so. That’s why Paul writes to Gentiles (yes, I’m using an accepted term that has meaning, despite your opinion, but you can insert “nations” here if you’d like) and discusses the concept of the “Bride of Christ” in Ephesians 5.
Listen, I’m familiar with Two-House Theology. I realize that advocates of it rarely offer any really helpful interaction. That’s why when I’m reading your responses (which are largely ignoring what I’ve said, making assumptions of what I’ve said, and taking a highly aggressive polemical style), I’m discerning the same characteristics of what an “Internet troll” does. It’s the same approach to dialogue, with a different banner.
But I believe your position lacks serious biblical support (as I’ve demonstrated with simply two passages of Scripture – John 10 and Ephesians 3). You have not demonstrated that these passages have no bearing on the issue because you have misrepresented and ignored the arguments and have employed smoke screen straw men arguments (e.g., pointing to logical fallacies that simply did not exist because you did not demonstrate that they were there).
Since there are a few different “types” of advocates of Two-House theology, I’ll grant that maybe you don’t go to the extent of stating that all followers of Jesus are somehow, someway, of Israel or Judah. But at the end of the day, there are so many exegetical, theological, and historical problems with your proposals that I simply reject them. I believe there are very good reasons why we should reject your conclusions, many of which can be read here:
http://www.mjaa.org/site/DocServer/EphraimiteError.pdf?docID=141 http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Two_House/two_house.html http://www.hebrewroot.com/Articles/two_house_answers.htm
When Paul says that the gospel is the power of salvation for Jews and Greeks, I think he has in mind that non-Israel and non-Judah lineage people can experience the power of salvation through the gospel of the kingdom… even if they are Greek (Rom. 1:16). Do you?
You say there are many exegetical problems with my assertion, but you haven’t shown any. You ask ‘Do I have any sources that support my conclusions?’ Giving you the benefit of the doubt – t hat you’re not asking me to appeal to authority – Yes I have sources I can cite. Not only, but you can engage my sources the same way I did and arrive at the same results or a different one, thus proving my assertion as true or not. Like me, scour the Oxyrhynchus Papyri and Tebtunis papyri (both now available on-line), representing 60 million words of ancient Greek secular literature from Homer through to 1453 AD, find a single instance where ????? is translated as ‘gentile’. In every instance the word is ONLY EVER translated as ‘nation’ (or sometimes ‘people of like habit’).
You continue to cite Carson, Borchert, Burge, Kostenberger, BDAG, Mounce, NIDNTT as though this makes a case, except that Carson, Borchert, Burge, Kostenberger, BDAG, Mounce, NIDNTT, like you all presuppose the same false meaning you do. None of them seem aware of their own presupposition, and certainly non validate that ‘Gentiles’ is acceptable meaning for ethnos. That they presuppose as you do proves nothing. To prove me wrong, you (or Caron, Borchert … etc) need only show a single instance in secular ancient Greek literature where the word ethnos means ‘Gentiles’. If there is not a single instance of ????? meaning ‘Gentiles’ outside of biblical translation, that meaning is ‘special’ to biblical translation, and therefore suspect needing to be justified. My claim is testable, I freely offer it for anyone to prove me wrong.
Ok, so where is ????? translated as Gentiles (capitalized even)? ONLY in the bible! Exactly 93 times. It is only translated correctly to be ‘nation’ 64
times. Of the 93 times it is translated to be ‘Gentiles’ it can be shown to have been falsely translated in many of those instances. I notice you ignored my question about [Matthew 12:18][Matthew 12:19-21][Acts 13:47] and [Romans 15:12]. All those verses seem to make your case. Even so, you were wise to avoid this question because these instances (an many others) can be shown to be false translations.
[Matthew 12:18] cites [Isa 42:1-4]. [Matthew 12:18] suggests justice will be proclaimed to the ‘Gentiles’ while [Isa 42:1-4] says something completely different. It says justice will be proclaimed to the NATIONS
[Matt 12:18-21] cites [Isa 42:1-4].
[Matt 12:18-21] suggest the ‘Gentiles’ will hope in his name while [Isa 42:1-4] suggests that nations will, not Gentiles.
[Acts 13:47] cites [Isa 49:6]. The translators of Acts from the Greek have felt fit to ignore Isaiah’s ‘light of the nations’ and restrict the light in describe in [Acts 13:47] only to the Gentiles.
[Romans 15:12] cites [Isa 11:10].
English translators of [Romans 15:12] would have us believe The root of Jesse will come, even to rule the Gentiles, and in him the Gentiles hope – yet this completely contradicts Isaiah who was clearly speaking of the nations banished from Israel [Isa 11:12] also Ephraim [Isa 11:13] against the backdrop of their hostility with Judah [Isa 11:13].
When two verses are translated to mean opposite things from the same text, both cannot be correct. You say I’ve committed an exegetical fallacy, but you’ve not shown it. At most you’ve cited others who share the same error.
Before you cite your long list of credentialed supporters again as proof I’m wrong, D.A. Carson doesn’t say a single word on the verses I’ve cited above that shows clearly this translation false, or on the use of ethnos generally, either in “Exegetical Fallacies” or any of his other work. Neither do the other others – they all simply presuppose this meaning. If you’re going to continue to cite them – It would be most useful if you show where they specifically validate this particular false presupposition given that
ONLY biblical scholars impart this false meaning to ‘ethnos’.
Incidentally my favour example of a false translation of ethnos to Gentiles is [Matthew 4:15]. [Matthew 4:15] is citing [Isa 9:1-2] and [Isa 42:7]. The way [Matt 4:15] is translated it seems like Galilee belongs to ONLY non-Israelites – yet [Isa 9:1-2] and [Isa 42:7] is ONLY talking about Israelites speaking of the lands of Ephraimite nations (as clear from the
reference to Zebulun and Naphtali). When Isaiah was speaking Galilee
of the nations belonged to Naphtali and Zebulun, and Benjamin.
To prove this wrong, a single secular example of where ‘ethnos’ means ‘gentiles’ needs to be found, or it needs to be shown how the folks you been citing have done anything more than simply presuppose a false meaning.
Finally, I believe biblically and historically that the nation of Israel, as a unified entity, only existed under 4 kings. I believe that Israel split into two separate houses afterwards because the bible clearly teaches that. Of course, how you label your pigeonholes is up to you, but if my belief is biblical and true – it is a very good pigeonhole to be in.