[b-hebrew] Dying, you will die Gen 2:17

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Wed Apr 11 13:53:39 EDT 2007

Harold et al:

That non-Jews should be accepted if they accept God's covenant goes
back to the Torah itself.

When Solomon stated his prayer concerning the dedication of the temple
he built, specifically mentioned non-Jews as having their prayers and
sacrifices accepted in the temple if they follow God instead of their

Caleb, who along with Joshua were the only two of their generation to
enter the Promised Land, was a Kenite (if I remember correctly), not a

Torah was always for all peoples. Only a tiny percentage follow it.

Karl W. Randolph.`

On 4/11/07, Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Peter Kirk wrote:
> >>
> >> Is. 56:6-7 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve
> >> him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep
> >> the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant —
> >> these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house
> >> of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on
> >> my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all
> >> nations."
> >>
> >>
> > It is interesting that you and Shoshanna agree on the futurity of this
> > passage, at least relative to Isaiah - although I suppose that you
> > take it as fulfilled in Christ although Shoshanna as still future. But
> > the verb forms here (in fact right through vv.4-8) are WEQATAL and
> > YIQTOL. And there is nothing in the context to show clearly that this
> > passage is future rather than timeless present, a general principle
> > that such people, gentiles who come to YHWH, are at all times accepted
> > in his house. It is certainly stretching the exegesis to insist that
> > this principle applies only in the future and not already in Isaiah's
> > time.
> HH: It's a difficult passage to interpret too precisely, but let me
> explain why I put it in the future. First, the general context is a
> future context. I don't know how far you want to go back in the text,
> but chapters 51-55 are all speaking about a future salvation.  Certainly
> 55:12-13 is. That salvation was still anticipated in 56:1:  "my
> salvation is close at hand and my righteousness will soon be revealed."
> But Isaiah was speaking to an Israelite audience, so they may be fixed
> at a point in time. One question is whether they were situated in
> Isaiah's time or were looked at as a future generation. Or could they
> embrace all generations prior to the fulfillment of the promised salvation?
> HH: At any rate, the person hearing the message does not suppose himself
> to be participating in the blessings:
> Is. 56:3      ¶ Do not let the foreigner joined to the LORD say,
>         "The LORD will surely separate me from his people";
>     and do not let the eunuch say,
>         "I am just a dry tree."
> HH: If the person were completely experiencing the blessed state that
> Isaiah describes in 56:4-8, then he would not suppose himself cut off
> from God's people. Rather, I think you have to look at these blessings
> in the context of the surrounding chapters as pointing to the future
> salvation that the Lord will bring (56:1).
> HH: Of course, as you say, the futurity of the text could signal a
> blessing now realized some nearly three thousand years later, but I
> believe that it does not fully do so. My understanding of the NT
> suggests that the obligation to keep the Sabbath is not something that
> is currently pressed on foreigners who join themselves to the Lord.
> There is strong NT evidence for that conclusion. Yet there is other OT
> data that someday, when the Lord fulfills his OT promises to Israel of a
> blessed kingdom, the Gentiles will be required to celebrate according to
> the ancient Jewish pattern of holy days. This, of course, will not be a
> burden but a joy to those rightly related to the Lord.
> HH: As far as the verb forms are concerned, they in no way forestall a
> future interpretation of the passage. The YIQTOL can designate the
> simple future, and WEQATAL can also designate the future (e.g., Mic
> 1:6). But I suppose you were only saying that a timeless present was
> also possible.
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list