Who Loses?
“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a nation which produces its fruit.” Matthew 21:43 (R. T. France)
Nation – One of the key verses for those who believe that Israel has been supplanted by the Church is here at the end of the parable of the vineyard owner. R. T. France, a well-recognized Matthew scholar summarizes the problem: “The whole parable might then be interpreted as a prediction of imminent regime change in Jerusalem, if it were not for the unexpected term ethnos, ‘nation,’ in verse 43.”[1] France argues that this new nation is the people who “follow the risen Christ,” and since those people do not include the Jews who failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, it must follow that this new nation is the Church. France, among many others, sees ethnos as the key to something other than Israel, namely a new people of God who replace failed Israel. France dismisses claims that ethnos can mean “a new voluntary organization or small social group” on the basis that Matthew would not have chosen this “inappropriate” term unless he meant a radical change.
But there’s a problem here.
First, ethnos is almost always a translation of the Hebrew goy which is differentiated from ‘am. ‘am are the people of God. Goy are outsiders. But the LXX uses ta ethne as a technical term for the Gentiles so it is not possible to simply interpret goyim as pagans. In fact, in the Psalms we see Hebrew vocabulary move back and forth as it captures the idea that God’s chosen people include righteous Gentiles. Schmidt concludes that ethnos means “mass, multitude, host or herd” in general and “people” when applied to human groups. “It is much weaker than, e.g. laos or glossa.”[2] This remark is crucial since laos occurs more than 2000 times in the LXX as a direct reference to Israel, the people of God and glossa (tongue) is used metaphorically to designate people of other languages. There is overwhelming linguistic evidence that the opposing pairs are laos and ta ethne, not ethnos.
In fact, of the 160 occurrences of ethnos in the New Testament, 64 have no specialized sense (referring to both Jews and Gentiles). The derivative, ethne, not ethnos, is used as a technical term for Gentiles more than 100 times. Linguistically, we cannot conclude that Matthew meant a new nation when he used this term. It is entirely likely that the choice of ethnos rather than ta ethne includes both Jews and Gentiles characterized only by their commitment to Yeshua as Messiah. To translate ethnos as “nation” presupposes a replacement not found in the linguistic fabric.
Secondly, France and others must assume that Matthew wrote this verse in Greek for the problem occurs with the Greek text and the Greek word. But if current scholarship is right, and Matthew wrote the gospel in Hebrew, then what we have in this verse is a translation of a Hebrew term. We know from the LXX that ethnos translates goy. But what does goy really mean in Hebrew? Clements observes that goy is used to describe Israel in several key Old Testament passages, particularly those that deal with the “nation” descending from Abraham and the unified kingdom under David. Goy carries the sense of a group of people held together by common language, common territory and political cohesiveness.[3] It is equally applied to nation-states outside of Israel and to Israel, although there is no uniform definition of what constitutes a “nation” in the Tanakh. What emerges from a closer look at goy is that this term recaptures the once unified kingdom of Israel during the Davidic era, a time when the am YHWH were also a goy under a divinely-appointed king.
We may conclude that the use of the term goy, translated as ethnos, cannot conclusively mean either Gentiles or a “nation” separate from Israel. If it has political overtones, it is a potent word pointing back to the reunification of God’s people. The statement that the kingdom of God (a very unusual expression for Matthew) will be taken from “you,” specifically the religious leaders of the day, and given to a goy that produces fruit can just as reasonably be applied to a renewed Israel, an Israel reunited under the banner of the Messiah consisting of the same mixed multitude that make up Abraham’s household.
The claim that this verse supports the replacement of the nation of Israel with the “nation” of the Church is not sustainable.
Sometimes it’s worth digging much deeper. I hope you didn’t mind.
Topical Index: nation, replacement, Israel, ethnos, goy, Matthew 21:43
This helps me a great deal. Thank you for digging …
Skip, your post is a reminder that every translation is at the same time a linguistic effort and a theological statement, since the translator’s theology will often determine which word he chooses to use in translation. NASB and Stern’s translation seem to capture the sentiment of Sha’ul, who wrote on this issue in Romans, chapters 9-11. See these comments in chapter 11:
25 For, brothers, I want you to understand this truth which God formerly concealed but has now revealed, so that you won’t imagine you know more than you actually do. It is that stoniness, to a degree, has come upon Isra’el, until the Gentile world enters in its fullness; 26 and that it is in this way that all Isra’el will be saved. As the Tanakh says, “Out of Tziyon will come the Redeemer; he will turn away ungodliness from Ya’akov 27 and this will be my covenant with them, . . . when I take away their sins.” 28 With respect to the Good News they are hated for your sake. But with respect to being chosen they are loved for the Patriarchs’ sake, 29 for God’s free gifts and his calling are irrevocable.
“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to G-d, that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2.9)
Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” (Acts 10.13) Did Peter “shema” the Savior? What was his initial (wrong) response? But Peter said, “By no means, ADONAI; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” (Acts 10.14)
There are two words (in any language) that never should be seen together. These two words are- “no, LORD” If Yeshua is Master and Commander, King of the Universe(s)- how can we possibly say ‘no,-LORD?” If we say “No, LORD”- then we are saying “No” to the King! “No” to the Master! How can you call me LORD, LORD and do not the things which I say?” – Am I communicating this correctly? – Look, (take a good look) at the word “LORD” and then consider this (Peter, Paul or Mary..)- “King of kings and LORD of lords”. -Who is this Man?- Who is this King of glory? For this Man is “not only” the King of the Jews (would you like to see a sign?- look above the crown of thorns and you will see it- written in three languages)- Why? – Because dear friends, (both Jew and Gentile, male and female- etc.) This Man, this Second Adam is not only the Lamb, but He is also the Lion of the tribe of Judah-and Ruler of all nations.
“And they sang a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for G-d from every tribe and language and people and nation.” (Revelation 5:9) – Who are these people? lol! – “They” is us! I am and you are the chosen ones, one of the redeemed, one who has been “both” purchased by His blood and sealed by His Breath. Is this cause for great rejoicing? “Dear friends, now we are children of G-d, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” (1 John 3.2)
“Again a voice came to him a second time, “What G-d has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” (Acts 10.15) Is your heart right with G-d, -washed in the crimson flood? Cleansed and made holy, humble and lowly, -right in the sight of G-d. It is not what goes into the mouth that makes a person unclean. It is what comes out of the mouth that makes a person unclean.”It is not what goes into the mouth that makes a person unclean. It is what comes out of the mouth that makes a person unclean.” Then the disciples came and asked Him, “Do you realize that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?” (Acts 10.16) But He answered and said to them, “Every plant that my Father who is in Heaven has not planted will be uprooted.” “Let them alone. They are blind guides of the blind; but if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” And Shimeon Kaypha answered and said to Him: “My Lord, explain to us this parable.” (ask and you will receive!)- And He said..
Skip,
Not being a seminarian, I’ll need to read this one several times for it all to be absorbed. It’s “heady” stuff for my very average little head.
But, thank you for taking the time to do the research and challenge us with this kind of critical thinking. It’s a good reminder that Yahweh keeps His promises and will NEVER break his covenant with Israel.
Hi pastor, I am a spanish speaking person and probably trying to make sense in spanish of the definitions for the words in english and greek and hebrew I did not capture the meanings correctly and for me it look like as an appeal to ignorance informal fallacy but of one and only one thing I am sure of is that or God is faithfull and trustworthy and He said that the covenant with His people was firm and eternal so I am convince that there is no sustitution.
Benny de Brugal
@ Carl: Why couldn’t and shouldn’t Peter say no?
You are saying: “If we say “No, LORD”- then we are saying “No” to the King! “No” to the Master! How can you call me LORD, LORD and do not the things which I say?” But is Peter really disobeying God?
Did you ever read Peter’s explanation of what the vision meant? People totally ignore Acts10:28.
What is this vision all about? It is about whether men are considered unclean. Not animals.
According to Jewish tradition [and still with to orthodox Jews] a Gentile is unclean. Period. So according to their view a Jew is therefore not allowed to have fellowship with a Gentile. You would become ritually impure and were not allowed to participate in the temple worship.
But God never said that a Gentile was unclean. But tradition held it to be so. “And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me [in that vision] that I should not call any man common or unclean.” – Acts 10:28.
What does this tell us? God needed to get across that Peter would be allowed to preach the Gospel. So He gives Peter a vision. A vision about eating unclean animals. He commands: Eat! What does Peter say? NOWAY! Nowhere does it say that Peter ate! And nowhere does it say that Peter is being told he was wrong. I agree; one must have a lot of chutzpa to dare to tell God NO!
You tell me how in the world Peter can come to the conclusion that God told them about Gentiles not being unclean. Did God say that you can’t eat pork? Yes he did! Lev 11. So by saying no he actually obeyed the Master’s Torah. Since Torah is the expression of who God is, it can never be done away with because He doesn’t change.
So when Peter received these men at the door he put two and two together. “Did God tell me in His Torah that I can’t eat detestable things? Yes he did! Did He tell me in His Torah that Gentiles are unclean? No He didn’t!” This was a test for Peter. And he passed the test with flying colours. [By the way same test for Ezechiel with cooking with human dung – Ezechiel complains too.]
And look at what Peter says in his letter: 1 Pet 14-16. Be holy for I am holy. Where do you think he quoted verse 16 from? Lev 11:44 Read the context. Why are we to be holy? [and not to defile us by eating unclean animals] Because He delivered us out of Egypt! So He may be our God. Peter knew very well that he was quoting from this passage.
To me this is actually a reiteration that you are NOT allowed to eat pork or shrimp. Why would you want detestable things anyway? We can’t thank God enough that He tells us not to eat a walking garbage can!