Foreigners, sojourners, strangers

[seekinganswers]

Karl,

I agree with you. The context does in fact disambiguate.

But let me give you an example of what I'm dealing with and why understanding the Hebrew meaning is so important to me.

And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the statute of the Passover; no foreigner [ben] shall eat of it, but every slave [ebed] that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. No foreigner [towshab] or hired servant [sakiyr] may eat of it...If a stranger [ger] shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native to the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and one for the stranger [ger] who sojourns among you.

Here are some contextual considerations that may stem from my lack of an understanding of the Hebrew culture AND from my ignorance of the Hebrew language:

1. Is the "foreigner" [ben] different from the "foreigner" [ger] in some way?

2. The text never says that the "foreigner" has to be circumcised, thus insinuating (at least in part) that they may have already been circumcised. If this is the case, then the "foreigner" may have been an Israelite already, which is why they do not need to be circumcised.

3. This seems plausible since the "stranger" [ger] that sojourns among the Israelites who wants to keep the Passover has to have all of his males circumcised; yet the "stranger" seems to be exempt from the clause.

4. Then "he," the male of the "stranger" that sojourns among them, is given the right to keep the Passover and shall be as a native to the land. Does this insinuate that the "stranger" that sojourns among the Israelites is already considered a native of the land, but one who had been gone somewhere?

5. An interesting part of all of this is in v.49 where it says that there shall be one law for the native and for the "stranger" [ger]. Two considerations come to mind: a) this had to be stated unequivocally because this was referencing a "heathen" who had become a convert, thus under the Law; or b) it was referencing an Israelite who had been living among the "heathens" outside of the Law of Israel.

Again, my ignorance of the intricacies of the Hebrew culture probably lends itself to an obvious defect in understanding. And I've admitted my ignorance of the Hebrew language. And while I agree with you, Mr. Mohler, and Mr. Levin, I'm just trying to gain a better grasp of all of this so that I can confidently come to a conclusion. Because I can say that the "plain reading of the text" seems to indicate that these people in question were all non-Israelites, a definitive case is hard to be made without a certain depth of knowledge.

Mr. Mohler stated that a "ger" cannot be a stranger in his homeland. I agree. But what if someone says "This 'ger' wasn't BORN in Israel, although he was of Israelite descent. This 'ger' was BORN in a foreign land but had become a sojourner amongst the Israelites, his native people?" Would this assertion be credible historically or grammatically?

I appreciate any input you may (or Mr. Levin or Mr. Mohler) may have.

Dustin...

[kwrandolph]

Dustin:

This discussion is starting to go around in circles.

Secondly, you need to deal with the Hebrew, not any translation.

Karl,

I agree with you. The context does in fact disambiguate.

But let me give you an example of what I'm dealing with and why understanding the Hebrew meaning is so important to me.

You originally said that it was a friend to whom you wanted to answer, or is it you? Have your friend post directly, if he dares.

And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the statute of the Passover; no foreigner [ben] shall eat of it, but every slave [ebed] that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. No foreigner [towshab] or hired servant [sakiyr] may eat of it...If a stranger [ger] shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native to the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and one for the stranger [ger] who sojourns among you.

Which translation is this? Secondly, it would have been easier for us if you had mentioned that this is Exodus 12:34–49.

Here are some contextual considerations that may stem from my lack of an understanding of the Hebrew culture AND from my ignorance of the Hebrew language:

1. Is the "foreigner" [ben] different from the "foreigner" [ger] in some way?

First of all, “foreigner” is “ben nekar”, or literally “son of a stranger”.

“Ger” is a sojourner, one who is living among Israel, not a stranger.

2. The text never says that the "foreigner" has to be circumcised, thus insinuating (at least in part) that they may have already been circumcised. If this is the case, then the "foreigner" may have been an Israelite already, which is why they do not need to be circumcised.

Again you need to deal with the Hebrew. What you claimed here makes no sense when looking at the Hebrew text.

3. This seems plausible since the "stranger" [ger] that sojourns among the Israelites who wants to keep the Passover has to have all of his males circumcised; yet the "stranger" seems to be exempt from the clause.

Same answer as #2 above.

4. Then "he," the male of the "stranger" that sojourns among them, is given the right to keep the Passover and shall be as a native to the land. Does this insinuate that the "stranger" that sojourns among the Israelites is already considered a native of the land, but one who had been gone somewhere?

Nope.

5. An interesting part of all of this is in v.49 where it says that there shall be one law for the native and for the "stranger" [ger]. Two considerations come to mind: a) this had to be stated unequivocally because this was referencing a "heathen" who had become a convert, thus under the Law; or b) it was referencing an Israelite who had been living among the "heathens" outside of the Law of Israel.

Nope.

Again, my ignorance of the intricacies of the Hebrew culture probably lends itself to an obvious defect in understanding. And I've admitted my ignorance of the Hebrew language. And while I agree with you, Mr. Mohler, and Mr. Levin, I'm just trying to gain a better grasp of all of this so that I can confidently come to a conclusion. Because I can say that the "plain reading of the text" seems to indicate that these people in question were all non-Israelites, a definitive case is hard to be made without a certain depth of knowledge.

Mr. Mohler stated that a "ger" cannot be a stranger in his homeland. I agree. But what if someone says "This 'ger' wasn't BORN in Israel, although he was of Israelite descent. This 'ger' was BORN in a foreign land but had become a sojourner amongst the Israelites, his native people?" Would this assertion be credible historically or grammatically?

Nope.

Dustin: you should invite your friend to come on this list and make his assertions that you have passed on to us. Because you don’t know Hebrew by your own admission, yet your friend claims to know Hebrew quite well — here he could discuss among scholars, if he dares. But you are making obvious errors because you rely on translations. If he comes on here, then you can lurk to see how well his claims fare in this milieu.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Yogajoe777]

Karl,

Just to give you some background. Dustin and I have been dealing with a fellow who has a very odd view that the only people that could enter into the covenant was someone descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We gave him at least a dozen examples of non-Israelites in the Hebrew Scriptures entering into covenant with YHWH. He responded that these were people that one way or another were descended from Abraham. We are fairly sure based on some research that he picked up these ideas, especially around the hebrew words for strangers/foreigner, from folks in racist groups like 'Christian Identity.' He wants to present the hebrew 'foreigner' who was allowed to sojourn and be circumcised as someone who was natively born Israelite but that had been living outside the Land as a 'foreigner' and had returned to sojourn. It seems obvious to me that this is more of problem of eisegesis because he is supplying details not found in the text to satisfy a presupposition (namely that no one but a native born Israelite could enter into covenant with YHWH). I think what we would like to be able to do is go back to the forum where he presents his nonsense and say "hey, based on what these hebrew experts say, nothing in the hebrew text supports your idea."

Thanks,
Joe

[Jemoh66]

Dustin,

First, your friend is imposing a theological concept on the word GER. This is the same thing as trying to make Goy or Goyim carry the post biblical idea that the Goyim are non-Jews.
Secondly, his concept is convoluted. It makes no sense to call an Israelite a GER in his native land, no matter how long he may have sojourned abroad. This is nonsensical.
Thirdly, the passage in Exodus above makes no sense, if you plug in his concept of GER. When Naomi returned to her home in Bethlehem she was greeted with gladness by her kindred. No one need to be told that she should be treated like a native. On the other hand, Ruth was now the GER. Boaz treated her like a native. That's the spirit of the law.

Jonathan Mohler

[seekinganswers]

Karl,

I assure you that this "person" I'm talking with is not me. That would be incredibly deceptive of me to do. And while I know these things happen in forums, I have much more integrity than that.

What Yogajoe777 relayed to you is accurate. And so as I explained the scenario, I was plugging in this other persons ideas. Nothing more. And just so you know, I've invited him over here several times.

I appreciate your responses.

Dustin...

[SteveMiller]

Karl,
Thanks for the post about Caleb. I never realized he was a gentile, but you are right. The Bible says, repeatedly that he was a Kenezite.

Naaman wasn't really a convert. He came to realize that the God of Israel was the only true God, but did not become an Israelite. God allowed him to continue to violate the 2nd commandment because he did not become an Israelite. This was not required of him, but would be of any Israelite. Nebuchadnezzer was probably the same sort of case.

Dustin,
A case of non-Jews becoming part of God's people Israel:
Zech 11:10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I [then] made with all the peoples.
The new covenant was just for Judah and Israel. By Christ's death (the breaking of the staff Beauty), God righteously expanded the new covenant to all peoples.

From the NT, how about Rom 10:12.

[SteveMiller]

Karl,
Thanks for the post about Caleb. I never realized he was a gentile, but you are right. The Bible says, repeatedly that he was a Kenezite.

Naaman wasn't really a convert. He came to realize that the God of Israel was the only true God, but did not become an Israelite. God allowed him to continue to violate the 2nd commandment because he did not become an Israelite. This was not required of him, but would be of any Israelite. Nebuchadnezzer was probably the same sort of case.

Dustin,
A case of non-Jews becoming part of God's people Israel:
Zech 11:10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I [then] made with all the peoples.
The new covenant was just for Judah and Israel. By Christ's death (the breaking of the staff Beauty), God righteously expanded the new covenant to all peoples.

From the NT, how about Rom 10:12.

[seekinganswers]

Steve,

I agree with you that Naaman doesn't seem to be a convert to the worship of Israel's God. Clearly he acknowledges His power, but I don't see anything indicating he became a proselyte.

With regards to Caleb, this is indeed a powerful observation. I will be exploring this further. I'm so thankful to Karl for this knowledge.

Your citation of Zechariah 11 is intriguing and something I'll be taking a closer look at.

Thanks,

Dustin...

[Jemoh66]

Dustin,

I am resubmitting this because I don't see it in the discussion anymore, and I wonder if you all have seen my post from last week.

First, your friend is imposing a theological concept on the word GER. This is the same thing as trying to make Goy or Goyim carry the post biblical idea that the Goyim are non-Jews.
Secondly, his concept is convoluted. It makes no sense to call an Israelite a GER in his native land, no matter how long he may have sojourned abroad. This is nonsensical.
Thirdly, the passage in Exodus above makes no sense, if you plug in his concept of GER. When Naomi returned to her home in Bethlehem she was greeted with gladness by her kindred. No one need to be told that she should be treated like a native. On the other hand, Ruth was now the GER. Boaz treated her like a native. That's the spirit of the law.

Jonathan Mohler

[Jemoh66]

Steve,

You wrote: "Naaman wasn't really a convert. He came to realize that the God of Israel was the only true God, but did not become an Israelite. God allowed him to continue to violate the 2nd commandment because he did not become an Israelite. This was not required of him, but would be of any Israelite. Nebuchadnezzer was probably the same sort of case."

This is a theological interpolation, not a linguistic judgment. I don't mind challenging the comment however.
1. It does not change the fact that these non-Israelites believed in YHWH.
2. To say that Naaman wasn't a convert is not very helpful since the word "convert" is ambiguous. It is perfectly in keeping with scripture to infer that God imputed righteousness to both Naaman and Nebuchadnezzar.
3. Finally, to speak to your second claim that "God allowed him to continue to violate the 2nd commandment because he did not become an Israelite," I find this to be absurd and in contradiction with the rest of Scripture. The psalmists and the prophets continually appeal to the nations to worship the one true God, and look forward to the time when the nations will come from every corner to worship on the Mount (see Micah). A better explanation that keeps in line with the Law, is that Naaman was under authority. When the king leaned on his arm to worship in their Temple, Naaman was under orders. Like a woman who submits to an unbelieving husband, God will always give allowance because of their submission to authority. The is a clear teaching of Moses. See for example the teaching of foolish vows made by a wife or a daughter in Num. 30:3-5.

Blessings,

Jonathan Mohler