B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Jonathan,
Why is it ok for Naaman to bow down to idols, but not ok for Daniel and his friends?
God allowed the nations to go their own ways until the Messiah would come (Acts 14:16).

Jonathan,

Yes, I received this post:

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.

I agree with you.

But at the risk of frustrating you, I'm trying to have something definitive to have linguistically, grammatically, or exegetically to bring forth to this person positing this nonsense.

I'll just type this out and you all can dismiss it as ignorant, or what have you. And believe me when I say that exegesis and attention to the text is one of my strong suits. So it's not that I don't see the weakness in this mans arguments (a man who has refused to bring his arguments here on three instances now). It's just that what I bring up from the text or the the definitions of the words is dismissed with certain assertions. For example:

You say that this person (not my friend at all) is imposing a theological concept onto the word GER. He would say that YOU are imposing a theological concept on the word GER. He would say that a person NOT born in Israel, who was born in a foreign land, but who is DESCENDED from Israel (ethnically) and CAME to Israel would be a GER. And he says that there's no way to prove from the Scriptures (in Exodus 12, for example - which is why I brought it up) that these strangers are not Israelites. And his assertion would nullify (theoretically) your statement here: "It makes no sense to call an Israelite a GER in his native land, no matter how long he may have sojourned abroad." He's claiming that these genealogical Israelites didn't sojourn anywhere, thus they weren't "native." They were born OUTSIDE of Israel in a foreign land.

Assertions like this are what brought me here in hopes to find some sort of definitive proof via linguistics, grammar, or history that his assertions are empty.

For example, an Israelite who was NOT born in Israel but who's family were Israelites, would he have been circumcised at birth? I would think so, but I don't know with any certainty. If he would have been circumcised then there's an immediate case for dismissing his claims.

Again, I see the holes in his arguments. I've walked through various texts with him.

One of the most powerful examples given in this thread has been Caleb. From what I can see, Caleb clearly was NOT an Israelite, yet he was a representative of the tribe of Judah and sent by Moses to spy out the promised land.

On another note, you say that the "Goyim" in the New Testament (post Biblical) text are actually Israelites. This is what I've been seeing for nearly a year as well. So, for example, in Romans 9-11, would you say that those "Goyim" are Israelites?

Dustin...

Dustin:

seekinganswers wrote:But at the risk of frustrating you, I'm trying to have something definitive to have linguistically, grammatically, or exegetically to bring forth to this person positing this nonsense. … You say that this person (not my friend at all) …

Unless this person is a personal friend or relative, with whom you have regular discussions including theological, why deal with him at all?

There are certain people on this list whose only purpose here is to push their private theories, who treat this discussion as their private blog. When I see their names at the beginning of a post, I don’t read that post. I’ve found it’s a waste of time and effort to try to correct them, so now I don’t even read their posts to try to correct them. I don’t understand why the moderators allow them to stay on this list. I don’t deal with them.

Similarly, if you go to his blog and try to correct him, expect a closed mind. If you have tried to reason with him a few times, and he continues in his theory, you are wasting your time to go back and argue.

As for having something definitive — we don’t have that in Biblical Hebrew. Nowhere did the writers of Tanakh spell out in linguistic terms what they were writing. As a result, there are discussions and disagreements among scholars exactly how the language is to be understood in linguistic understanding. However, we understand the main themes well enough so that we grasp 95% or better the message.

However, there are historical examples that we can point to. One of which is that those Jews who were born in Babylon were never called “garim” when they moved to Judea after the Babylonian exile. They were considered natives. So while this is not a definitive grammatical rule, it’s merely an example of how the language was used.

So, unless this is a close relative or friend with whom you regularly shoot the breeze on all subjects, including theology, don’t bother attacking someone else’s blog to try to convince him, especially as in this case, he has shown himself to be closed minded.

Yours, Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,

I appreciate your thoughts. It's a good encouragement to not waste time with this guy. My issue with him is that his Christian Identity/British Israel views are really having an impact on some who don't grasp sound hermeneutics.

You said:

However, there are historical examples that we can point to. One of which is that those Jews who were born in Babylon were never called “garim” when they moved to Judea after the Babylonian exile. They were considered natives. So while this is not a definitive grammatical rule, it’s merely an example of how the language was used.

This is a great, great point.

As a side note - do you know if an Israelite who was born in a "pagan" land was circumcised or not?

Dustin...

Dustin:

seekinganswers wrote:… My issue with him is that his Christian Identity/British Israel views are really having an impact on some who don't grasp sound hermeneutics.

Then deal with those people directly, tell them about your experiences here on this list, emphasize that these people here are the experts and that the Christian Identity/British Israel theory doesn’t have support in the Bible. Further, you can tell them that the Christian Identity/British Israel theory people don’t have the guts to peddle their stuff on this list, because they know they would be quickly shot down.

seekinganswers wrote:As a side note - do you know if an Israelite who was born in a "pagan" land was circumcised or not?

Those Israelites who left Egypt under Moses were circumcised, and afterwards if a family was “fromm” (following the law), they were circumcised.

Karl W. Randolph.

SteveMiller wrote:Jonathan,
Why is it ok for Naaman to bow down to idols, but not ok for Daniel and his friends?
God allowed the nations to go their own ways until the Messiah would come (Acts 14:16).

Hi Steve,

When I first read this question, I thought to myself, "good question!" So I sat on it for a while. Upon reflection, I think it's an unfair question. True, here we have a contrast: Daniel and friends are in covenant with YHWH, while Naaman is not. But the question is unfair because Daniel and friends are not asking God to allow them to Worship the statue or to even eat the king's food. These are young men who are both enlightened by their understanding of the Law, and are committed to it come what may. I see a parallel to this in the Book of Acts. The letter James draws up seems to reflect this kind of understanding.

Blessings,

Jonathan Mohler

Jemoh66 wrote:

SteveMiller wrote:Jonathan,
Why is it ok for Naaman to bow down to idols, but not ok for Daniel and his friends?
God allowed the nations to go their own ways until the Messiah would come (Acts 14:16).

I missed this question.

You need to look at the contexts.

In the case of Naaman, one of his duties as the King’s right hand man was to help his king worship his gods. The context indicates that the king physically leaned on him in that worship. Apparently the king was somewhat frail and needed physical help. So in helping his king, he had to bow down physically too, but he was not worshipping that idol.

In the case of Daniel and his friends, to bow down would be worship, therefore forbidden.

Karl W. Randolph.

Jemoh66 wrote:

SteveMiller wrote:Jonathan,
Why is it ok for Naaman to bow down to idols, but not ok for Daniel and his friends?
God allowed the nations to go their own ways until the Messiah would come (Acts 14:16).

Hi Steve,

When I first read this question, I thought to myself, "good question!" So I sat on it for a while. Upon reflection, I think it's an unfair question. True, here we have a contrast: Daniel and friends are in covenant with YHWH, while Naaman is not. But the question is unfair because Daniel and friends are not asking God to allow them to Worship the statue or to even eat the king's food. These are young men who are both enlightened by their understanding of the Law, and are committed to it come what may. I see a parallel to this in the Book of Acts. The letter James draws up seems to reflect this kind of understanding.

Blessings,

Jonathan Mohler

Hi Jonathan,
I think the answer is, as you said, that Naaman was not in a covenant relationship with the God of Israel. That is what I meant by, Naaman is not really a convert or an Israelite.
Daniel and his friends could not ask God permission to violate the 2nd commandment. Neither could any Israelite. But Naaman could, and it was granted.

kwrandolph wrote:

Jemoh66 wrote:

SteveMiller wrote:Jonathan,
Why is it ok for Naaman to bow down to idols, but not ok for Daniel and his friends?
God allowed the nations to go their own ways until the Messiah would come (Acts 14:16).

I missed this question.

You need to look at the contexts.

In the case of Naaman, one of his duties as the King’s right hand man was to help his king worship his gods. The context indicates that the king physically leaned on him in that worship. Apparently the king was somewhat frail and needed physical help. So in helping his king, he had to bow down physically too, but he was not worshipping that idol.

In the case of Daniel and his friends, to bow down would be worship, therefore forbidden.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,
The 2nd commandment says not to bow down to idols, not just not to worship them. Naaman was breaking the 2nd commandment.

seekinganswers wrote: For example, an Israelite who was NOT born in Israel but who's family were Israelites, would he have been circumcised at birth? I would think so, but I don't know with any certainty. If he would have been circumcised then there's an immediate case for dismissing his claims.

Dustin, of course the Israelites living in foreign lands were circumcised, whether they were religious or not. If they were not circumcised, then they would be cut off from their people (Gen 17:14) = they would not longer be an Israelite, but a gentile, just like any other gentile.

I have run into this sect indirectly. A friend of mine is an ex-Armstrong World Wide Church of God member. His father, who also left Armstrong-ism seems to follow the sect you describe. You may have heard of Ernest Martin, former head of theology or something like that at WWCOG. On my website I have the audio from some of his messages. The message that may interest you is the one titled, "The U.S. and Britain in Prophecy", which is very clear on proving that the U.S and Great Britain are not tribes of Israel. This would be obvious to most, but not to people from an Armstrong background.
http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/ernes ... ctures.htm

seekinganswers wrote: On another note, you say that the "Goyim" in the New Testament (post Biblical) text are actually Israelites. This is what I've been seeing for nearly a year as well. So, for example, in Romans 9-11, would you say that those "Goyim" are Israelites?

The goyim in Rom 9-11 are people of non-Jewish ancestry who have been cut out of wild olive trees (gentile nations) and grafted into the nation of Israel, the cultivated olive tree. They are now Israelites, but are mostly not flesh descendants of Abraham (Rom 10:12-13).