Matthew 28:19

[Zenas]

______________________________

From another forum:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, [ethnos] baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Matthew 28:19

Matthew 28:19 speaks clearly abut the universality of Christ's mission.

Also, the fact that I'm from the "heathen" and a christian proves you wrong.

Why doesn't "all nations" refer to non-Israelite nations?

I understand Matthew chapter 10: Christ commands his disciples to not go
"into the way of the Gentiles." [sic]

5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

and

5 These twelve Yahshua sent out, commanding to them saying: “You should not depart into the way of the heathens, and you should not enter into a city of Samaritans. 6 But rather you must go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

But, as you can see, many believe 28:19 refers to the "universality of Christ's mission."

Any comments or directions to the appropriate missives addressing this interpretation?

[JamesTheJust]

Whenever I engage an Israelite in discussion, I try to set the foundation.

For the sake of brevity, I am cutting and pasting one such exchange I had with some kinspeople on EU times.

BEGIN...

Yahshua said, I have come ONLY for the lost (put away in divorcement) sheep of the House of Israel. Yahshua also commanded HIS Apostles (Ambassadors) to go ONLY to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

Matthew 15:24

But he [Yahshua] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 10:6

But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Therefore ALL scripture concerning THIS MISSION, should be read in this context. Otherwise, one is either calling Yahshua a liar or they are stating that the Apostles deliberately rebelled against their Messiah. Neither of these is the case and Yahshua did not and does not contradict HIMSELF.

It is fundamental for every True Israelite to understand this one point otherwise you are led to error. ALL Scripture and ALL the Epistles that were written by the apostles, to the various groups MUST then be Israelites. Otherwise, they DELIBERATELY disobeyed a direct order from Yahshua. THIS IS KEY TO UNDERSTANDING!

END....

I hope this helps. There is a great deal of misunderstanding where the use of the words "EVERYONE" and "NATIONS" are concerned. The way to explore this is to PROVE that every epistle was directed by the Apostles to Israelites and Israelites ALONE. To that end, you will find Bill's resources at Christogenea very valuable in proving that all those to whom the Apostles went were indeed Israelites.

Let the "student" explore the scripture and come up with every single chapter and verse they can concerning the concepts of presumed Universalism. Refute each on an individual basis; showing that the recipients of the those verses (chapters) were Israelites; either stated clearly at the beginning of the Epistle, or through historical research. Also, be sure to check the Chistogenea version of the bible because many scriptures, that appear to support Universalist doctrines were not part of the older Greek manuscripts and refuting them will be easy enough, in that they simply are not part of the original manuscripts, but added later by those with an agenda.

After the "student" has exhausted himself trying to prove his Universalist interpretation of the scripture, he will either be compelled to accept the simple truth or reject it. Either way, you have perform your responsibility in planting the seed, which YHWH may see fit to make grow.

This can be a very tedious and long process, but I have found, that destroying the false doctrine of universalism is a necessary first step for most of the indoctrinated.

It is kind of like basic training in the military. The first month is spent "destroying" the old man. Only after this goal is reached can the new man be built.

[Zenas]

_____________________________

good points, thanks much.

[wmfinck]

In Matthew 10:6 Christ commanded the apostles not to go to the “nations“. They very likely would have understood the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” to be only those of the circumcision. This is consistent with the knowledge of the apostles, and not the knowledge of Yahweh (or with ancient history, which until Paul the apostles knew little of), and it is also consistent with the general idea that divorced Israel (those of the uncircumcision) were not yet reconciled to Yahweh, which happened by the necessity of the law (Romans 7) at the cross with His death. In Matthew 15:24 Christ again made a very similar statement, that He was sent only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”. Later events such as that of Acts chapter 10 and Peter’s vision, and later statements such as the opening of the epistle of James show that only after the passion of Christ did the apostles eventually learn and teach just who it was that the “lost sheep” included.

Paul’s epistles fully reveal that it was primarily his mission to bring the gospel to the “uncircumcised” and to reveal who the “lost sheep” were. Paul told the Romans that they were indeed among those nations who had descended from Abraham – Romans 4. Paul told the Galatians that they were children of the promise “down through Isaak” – Galatians 3 & 4. Paul told the Corinthians that their fathers had been in the Exodus – I Corinthians 10. All of the people Paul wrote to and went to had a past history – although often unknown to them – which was relevant to the promises of Scripture: they had descended from the ancient Israelites. The historical essays on my site seek to prove as much, and of course many others have written on the topic also. This is the core of Identity teaching: that in order to understand the Bible properly, the histories of the Book and its peoples must also be understood, because if one has no connection to the people of the book, one does not belong in the picture.

This is fully consistent with many other Scriptural expressions also. For instance, the “lost sheep” were to be “blind”, as described often in the Old Testament, and also the Kingdom of Heaven was to be like a net, which when cast into the sea pulled up both good and bad “kinds” (genos is “race”) of fish. The bad “kind” are cast aside.

Hope this helps,
Bill

[matthewott]

It seems another point of confusion is in the rendering of the word "Gentiles". In KJV Matthew 10:5, it shows a distinction of contrast between "gentiles" and "the lost sheep", straight from Yahshua's mouth, but throughout Acts and the letters and epistles, the word "gentile" is used in association with "the nations" or lost tribes/sheep of Israel, and even Strong's Concordance equates "gentile" to "christian" according to Paul. This is where true exegesis is needed and separates the milk and the meat. If "gentile" can be used in various contexts, then Matthew 28:19 could read "Therefore go and make disciples of all gentiles, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." So was Yahshua trying to throw us off, DECEIVE us? I think not!!!

The word "gentile" is a translated Latin word meant to deceive. Any direct translation from the original greek manuscript to english will not come up with the word. That is the first lesson universalists need to learn, as the word "gentile" itself and it's vague meaning attached to it is what they depend on to substantiate their doctrine. To an Israelite, there is a distinction between heathens and the lost tribes/sheep/nations. To a jew, there is not, and therefore "gentile" is their tool to lump the two together. While "heathen" often denotes religious promiscuity, it's usage is applied according to the eye of the beholder. "Heathen" (noun) refers to people who are uncivilized and/or irreligious. To a jew or jewdaeochristian, "heathen" can be applied to anyone not jewdaized. To an Israelite/Christian, a heathen is someone of another or mixed race who CANNOT be an Israelite. A heathen can be Judaized, but a heathen cannot become an Israelite. However, "heathen" (adj.) can be applied to Israelites to describe their actions, especially in context to the lost sheep/tribes/nations. An Israelite BEHAVING in a heathen way can be forgiven and retain his position within the Israelite family. There is no differentiation to a jew or jewdaeochristian in the application of the noun or adj.

To a jewdaeochristian universalist, "gentile" basically means everyone else in the world not jewish as they are taught to understand what "jewish" is. To an Israelite, "gentile" means lost kinsman, those blind to Yahweh and their own heritage. Yahshua never uttered the word "gentile", and I suggest quoting from the Christogenea NT for proper translations of "gentile" in reference to "the nations" and "heathens" when debating universalists.

I hope this might help also,
Matt

[Zenas]

_______________________

Much confusion arises from the mistranslations. I'm going through the passages and correcting all the mistranslations I can find. Sadly, many pages are marked up. No wonder all the confusion. But that is the purpose of Babylon isn't it? Confusion.

I often wish with English words such as "Gentile" and "jew" and others, that in the text, in parenthesis, the Greek or Hebrew word could be listed - like this: “kinds” (genos is “race”) of fish. Or at least in the margin. This would make understanding the affected passages much easier. Of course, a proper translation would solve this problem, would it not?

See how confused this poster was?

John 3:1
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.

John 6:4
The Jewish Passover Feast was near.

John 7:2
But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near....

He insists the gospel and the OT concerned the jews, and not the Israelites.

WF's translation helps much, but is only available online at this time.

Hope this helps,
Bill

I hope this might help also,
Matt

Sure does, thanks.

[Karl]

"Gentile" has always meant 'of the same tribe, clan or class' afterwards it is applied to being 'well-bred, high noble birth'. In Latin its is GENS, a clan, tribe, allied to genus. From the same stem or root, as in genus. In greek 'ethnos' means the same, 'of the same clan, tribe, a relation, same caste'....

There is nothing in linguistics but mere folly that would suggest the word 'Gentile' means non-jew! That is ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination, the word simply does not have that meaning.

"Go ye therefore and diciple all the noble of our tribes, baptizing them in the one true Name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

If there are some modern dictionaries or Bible commentaries around that translate 'Gentiles' as non-jew just blot it out with a black pen or throw it on the fire.