• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Matthew 15:24 Rewrite?

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Unbelievable! Now we have @Van saying that the Lord Jesus did not express Himself in the way that Van wants Him so so Van will take it upon himself to improve His words at the expense of the Greek language.

The inability to represent accurately what is being said, indicates deception not devotion to truth.

Once again, altering the translation provided by tradition which makes God's word to no effect, is not altering God's word. Christ was not sent only to the Jews. Full Stop.
 

JD731

Well-Known Member
One of us is totally confused, but I think you'll find it's you. You are right about the foundational nature on Genesis 11-12, and that foundation is that God will bring blessing to all nations through the Seed of Abraham to those who will have the faith of Abraham. The Caananite woman is indeed also a teaching truth of the outworking of God's covenant. Where you are with the rest of it is, indeed, totally confused.


Me thinks I need to apologize to you for not reading your comments closely and assuming your meaning diffently than you intended them. I have a tendency to do that. Pray for me. I think (and it seems you do also) that all the points of the Abrahamic covenant, which is an everlasting covenant, will be fulfilled just as literally as the last point that promises that all the families (Shem, Ham, Japheth) will be blessed through the greater seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ. The sliding hermeneutic used by the Reformed worries me a lot.

I will try to do better in the future.

Let me just say where the rest of my understanding lies.

Knowing that one of the ways of God is to give a physical representation of his spiritual work, I draw from this incident with the woman the prophetic type of the church. It will be a gentile church (all the types of the church are a gentile woman), a kingdom entered into by faith, but with the King away. This will not be a kingdom within the family of David and is the reason Jesus did not answer her until she addressed him, not as the son of David, but as Lord. This is how one enters into the church. It was true for the greatest of all Pharisees, Paul. It is true of you and me if we have entered in. From Matthew 12 the gospel of the kingdom to Israel was off the table because of their national unbelief and had already sentenced him to death. This was the generation that was tasked to recognize and receive their Messih and King and they refused. However, there is a future for the world in spite of this fact and it will not be under the principle of the physical kingdom but under the principle of grace and after the Law of God has been fully vindicated by one perfect person in one day in one sacrificial event on the cross for everybody on the earth, God having been satisfied by this sacrifice for us all.

This does not negate a single promise of God to Abraham concerning his own family because God , who pictures the nation as his son who has died and has been buried after two one thousand year days of God and time is not counted when one is dead. This nation, Like our savour, is raised from the dead very early on the third day (the day of the LORD) and will live again and will be saved, every citizen and all the promises, every one, will be realized for heaven and earth to see.

Ho 6:1Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Of all the 7 miracle signs in the gospel of John, this is one of them. Why did the Lord single this one miracle out? It was to hide his truths from the mere religious while he reveals them to the spiritual.

Jn 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Jn 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The Reformed are feeding on ashes. Thir religion blinds them to the greater truths of the word of God.

While God's son Israel is dead and buried our God will take from his body a woman who will become his wife and will occupy the paradise of God with him when it is complete. The work goes on whle we speak but is nearly done.

Written in 58 AD
Rom 11:
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

Life from the dead is a resurrection.
 
Last edited:

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Matthew 15:24 traditional translation:
CSB
He replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

ESV
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

LEB
But he answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

NET
So he answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Thus the overwhelming consensus of Greek scholars says the intended meaning is: "I was not sent but only TO the lost sheep of the house of Israel. However this view is the opposite of the context where Jesus cares for someone not of the house of Israel. He healed the woman's daughter.

So the contextual idea seems to be "I was not sent only among the lost sheep" as she was not one of the lost sheep but was in His presence.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"I was not sent only among the lost sheep"

This answer explains why Jesus healed the woman's daughter, whereas the unstudied views that misrepresent the verse are not contextual.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here is an effort to provide a word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning translation of Matthew 15:24:

Yet - the - answer- He said - I was not sent - only - into - the - lost - sheep - of the house - of Israel.


Now I know we have others believing their translation is more accurate, but I am curious as to which part?

One post claimed the translation of "only" was invalid, as the Greek phrase could not mean "only" However dozens of translations render the phrase as "only."

An off-shoot of the argument against "sent not only among the lost sheep" was a claim that the lost sheep of the house of Israel actually referred to everyone redeemed by Christ. The traditional view is that the house of Israel refers to Jews.
 

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
Here is an effort to provide a word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning translation of Matthew 15:24:

Yet - the - answer- He said - I was not sent - only - into - the - lost - sheep - of the house - of Israel.


Now I know we have others believing their translation is more accurate, but I am curious as to which part?

One post claimed the translation of "only" was invalid, as the Greek phrase could not mean "only" However dozens of translations render the phrase as "only."

An off-shoot of the argument against "sent not only among the lost sheep" was a claim that the lost sheep of the house of Israel actually referred to everyone redeemed by Christ. The traditional view is that the house of Israel refers to Jews.
Every post proves your ignorance of biblical Greek.

peace to you
 

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
Here is an effort to provide a word or phrase meaning for the words or phrases being presented in this thread..

YET—-I—don’t ——like——passage—-saying—-so—-rewrite—-the passage ——I—-will—-until—-satisfies—-me—-it—does—-and disagrees—-any—-will—be—-called—-false—-teachers.

peace to you
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
EXACTLY!!! Quit being decietful

peace to you

Altering the translation provided by tradition which makes God's word to no effect, is not altering God's word. Christ was not sent only to the Jews. Full Stop.

This view is what Canadyjd falsely claims is "deceitful."

Here is an effort to provide a word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning translation of Matthew 15:24:

Yet - the - answer- He said - I was not sent - only - into - the - lost - sheep - of the house - of Israel.

Now I know we have others believing their translation is more accurate, but I am curious as to which part?

One post claimed the translation of "only" was invalid, as the Greek phrase could not mean "only" However dozens of translations render the phrase as "only."

An off-shoot of the argument against "sent not only among the lost sheep" was a claim that the lost sheep of the house of Israel actually referred to everyone redeemed by Christ. The traditional view is that the house of Israel refers to Jews.

 

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
Altering the translation provided by tradition which makes God's word to no effect, is not altering God's word. Christ was not sent only to the Jews. Full Stop.
Not being able to understand scripture or the context in which it was written does not make it “to no effect”.

Altering scripture does not make it better or more accurate.

Humbly accepting the inability to understand and devoting oneself to diligent study, is a much better approach than altering scripture to fit your bias, which is deceitful.

peace to you
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Any unstudied blow-hard can say, "taint so" and "you do not understand."

1) The correct translation of Matthew 15:24 is consistent with the context. The errant traditional translation is inconsistent with the context. Recall the Canaanite woman.

2) Every translation renders God's word differently, the NASB differs from the NKJV. To claim one translation choice "rewrites God's word" is the height of stupidity. The difference reflects a different choice in translation. "Eis" can mean "to" or "among" To go with either is not rewriting God's word, but it is interpreting God's word.

3) If Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then He sinned by saving her daughter. But if He was sent not only among the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then His action reflects the will of God.

4) Jesus was not sent only among the lost sheep of the house of Israel!! As the Lamb of God, He became the means of reconciliation for all the lost sheep, Jews and Gentiles.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
One post claimed the translation of "only" was invalid, as the Greek phrase could not mean "only" However dozens of translations render the phrase as "only."
Do you ever read my posts?
One last try. Ei me means literally 'if not.' "I was not sent if not to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." And some translations change 'if not' into 'except' which makes better English. Ei me NEVER means 'only.' What many translations do is to remove the first negative ('ou'), making 'I was not sent' into 'I was sent.' If you leave it there, you have made the verse say the exact opposite of what it does say, so they change 'except' into 'only.' They have now got rid of two negatives, so the text, though not a literal translation, carries the meaning of the original Greek. "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But if you change one negative and not the other one, you make the text say exactly the opposite to what it actually says.
Now your problem is that you desperately want the text to say the opposite of what it actually says so that it will support your faulty theology. As gently as I can, I have to tell you that it is your theology that heeds to change, not the text of God's word. You need to reconsider who the "Lost tribe of the house of Israel" actually are. I gave a whole pile of texts explaining it to you.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Do you ever read my posts?
One last try. Ei me means literally 'if not.' "I was not sent if not to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." And some translations change 'if not' into 'except' which makes better English. Ei me NEVER means 'only.' What many translations do is to remove the first negative ('ou'), making 'I was not sent' into 'I was sent.' If you leave it there, you have made the verse say the exact opposite of what it does say, so they change 'except' into 'only.' They have now got rid of two negatives, so the text, though not a literal translation, carries the meaning of the original Greek. "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But if you change one negative and not the other one, you make the text say exactly the opposite to what it actually says.
Now your problem is that you desperately want the text to say the opposite of what it actually says so that it will support your faulty theology. As gently as I can, I have to tell you that it is your theology that heeds to change, not the text of God's word. You need to reconsider who the "Lost tribe of the house of Israel" actually are. I gave a whole pile of texts explaining it to you.
Since you seem not to know I completely refuted your bogus claims, I will just say read my post again.

Is "El me" used to convey only one contextual meaning, which of course means dozens of translations are wrong? Nope
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Since you seem not to know I completely refuted your bogus claims, I will just say read my post again.

Is "El me" used to convey only one contextual meaning, which of course means dozens of translations are wrong? Nope
Read my last post again. I admit it is a little complicated. I would reckon that you would need the understanding of an eight year-old to comprehend it fully, but please make the effort.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Read my last post again. I admit it is a little complicated. I would reckon that you would need the understanding of an eight year-old to comprehend it fully, but please make the effort.
Did Mr. Marprelate admit that "El me" construction is translated as "only" in various translations. Nope. Rather he says even a 8 year old would be able to understand him. I agree any eight year old would see he is wrong.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ei me NEVER means 'only.'

Here the claim is made that every time "El me" is translated as "only" the translation is in error. Thus when I say "El me" sometimes means "only" based on published translations going with that meaning, I am just as wrong as the published translations.

Did some of my examples include "ou El me?" Did all of them? Nope. Are there other examples in published translations where "El me" is translates as "only" that do not include "ou" (the negative). Yes.
 

JD731

Well-Known Member
Any unstudied blow-hard can say, "taint so" and "you do not understand."

1) The correct translation of Matthew 15:24 is consistent with the context. The errant traditional translation is inconsistent with the context. Recall the Canaanite woman.

2) Every translation renders God's word differently, the NASB differs from the NKJV. To claim one translation choice "rewrites God's word" is the height of stupidity. The difference reflects a different choice in translation. "Eis" can mean "to" or "among" To go with either is not rewriting God's word, but it is interpreting God's word.

3) If Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then He sinned by saving her daughter. But if He was sent not only among the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then His action reflects the will of God.

4) Jesus was not sent only among the lost sheep of the house of Israel!! As the Lamb of God, He became the means of reconciliation for all the lost sheep, Jews and Gentiles.


This is not a good place for you Van. Most of the people here know one important fact that you don't seem to know. The sheep in the contexts of scripture are those of Israel. You are not a sheep and you will never be a sheep. God is not seeking sheep now. The woman in Matt 15 was not a sheep and the Lord was not seeking her. Both she and Jesus agreed that she was a dog. As a dog she was willing to lick up the crumbs that fell from the master's table. She had more understanding than the sheep, even those who were with the Lord that day. Therefore, it was said that she had great faith.

Paul the apostle was the man God chose to reveal the church with gentile members and to write it's doctrines, none of which were in the OT. Not one single time did Paul ever refer to the church, a New Testament entity, as sheep. Not once. How do you deal with this fact? It is a house, a family, a body, a bride, a temple but never a sheep or a flock of sheep as it relates to the 13 letters of the great apostle Paul. He writes the word sheep one time in Romans 11 in the context of Israel.

Ezekiel 34:12
As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.

Zechariah 13:7
Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

Jeremiah 50:17
Israel is a scattered sheep; the lions have driven him away: first the king of Assyria hath devoured him; and last this Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon hath broken his bones.

It is dangerous to write your own Bible.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is not a good place for you Van.
SNIP
It is dangerous to write your own Bible.

I feel like the Publican being berated by the Pharisee. Who made you hall monitor.

Try addressing the topic.

1) The correct translation of Matthew 15:24 is consistent with the context. The errant traditional translation is inconsistent with the context. Recall the Canaanite woman.

2) Every translation renders God's word differently, the NASB differs from the NKJV. To claim one translation choice "rewrites God's word" is the height of stupidity. The difference reflects a different choice in translation. "Eis" can mean "to" or "among" To go with either is not rewriting God's word, but it is interpreting God's word.

3) If Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then He sinned by saving her daughter. But if He was sent not only among the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then His action reflects the will of God.

4) Jesus was not sent only among the lost sheep of the house of Israel!! As the Lamb of God, He became the means of reconciliation for all the lost sheep, Jews and Gentiles.

Romans 8:36 NASB
(As the Scriptures say, “For your sake we are killed every day; we are being slaughtered like sheep.”
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
2) Every translation renders God's word differently, the NASB differs from the NKJV. To claim one translation choice "rewrites God's word" is the height of stupidity. The difference reflects a different choice in translation. "Eis" can mean "to" or "among" To go with either is not rewriting God's word, but it is interpreting God's word.
Scripture is not a wax nose to be punched into whatever shape you want. Whether Greek or Hebrew, there are grammatical rules that have to be followed
3) If Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then He sinned by saving her daughter. But if He was sent not only among the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then His action reflects the will of God.
Leaving aside the mangling of the text in the O.P., I think it may be helpful to ask ourselves, who comprise the 'lost house of Israel.'?
John 1:47. "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit."

John 10:26. "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you."

Romans 2:28-29. 'For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.'

Romans 9:6-8. 'For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but "In Isaac shall your seed be called." That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.'

Galatians 3:7. 'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.'

Galatians 3:28-29. 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.'

Philippians 3:3. 'For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh.'

The Canaanite woman believed - she was 'of faith.' Therefore she was a true Israelite and one to who our Lord was sent. Indeed, He went out of Israel into Phoenicia to find her. There does not appear to be any other reason for His trip to 'the region of Tyre and Sidon' than to meet the woman (Matthew 15:21-26).
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Since you seem not to know I completely refuted your bogus claims, I will just say read my post again.

Is "El me" used to convey only one contextual meaning, which of course means dozens of translations are wrong? Nope
:rolleyes:Read post #52 again. It is all explained to you. You do not know what you are talking about.
 
Top