Yes, it refers to the concept of people. I was saying that many words could be used to mean people other than "people". You chose that one, and then translated it to your liking. I didn't think it was proper to translate a concept into specific word(s), and then translate those word(s), even if they don't actually appear in the Bible.
Let's leave Orthodoxy alone for now and concentrate on what took place:
"These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Matthew 10:5-6]
Not only does Christ say to ALL the Apostles not to go to the Gentiles, but he calls the 12 tribes the lost SHEEP.
This was obviously not Christ's ultimate command to the Apostles. This was His first command on this. This was one mission. Why would Christ Himself preach to Samaritans, but not want the Apostles to ultimately do so? That would make no sense and be a waste of His time. Further, why did Christ not use the same type of command in Matt. 28? There, He was clearly expanding the mission field. Again, if you really believe that Christ did not want them to preach to Gentiles, then the only way you are saved is because Paul DISOBEYED Christ. If that was true, then you should venerate Paul twice as much as you venerate Mary! :) Yet, among Apostolics, Paul takes the worst beating.
Of course there were lost sheep among the Jews. There always have been. There were also lost sheep among the gentiles.
So, not only did Christ EVER command His Apostles to preach to the Gentiles, not even Semitic, Torah-worshipping Samaritans, but one must seriously question WHY would He send ALL of His disciples on a mission He knew would fail?
I made your correction to "EVER", but I actually think the original "NEVER" fits more in line with what I think you are saying. With "EVER" you are saying that Christ DID command the Apostles to preach to the Gentiles.
Who says that the mission was a failure? Was it a failure by your standards? Do we know what Christ expected? Perhaps the results of the mission were exactly as Christ intended, thus LEADING to opening up Christianity to all nations of the earth. That makes more sense to me.
Find me one where He says GO therefore to the Gentiles.
Again, Matthew 28 is matter of interpretation. Ethnos can mean a avariety of things. Just as American Indians speak of "nations" coming together (meaning Native American), this is a common anthropological phenomenon among tribal peoples.
The reason I am saying this the fact that Jesus was a Jew and as a Jew He could not associate closely with the Gentiles. Activities such as eating together and fraternizing in a general way was strictly fobidden, never mind praying together!
Christ never advocated anything but Judaism. And Judaism He could preach only to the lost tribes of Israel (Jews do not proselitize). Christ never even hinted that His 'mission' was to convert the Gentiles.
He merely restated what the Jews believed, namely that through the messiah (meshiyah), who will establish peace and rule as a king on earth, the world will get to know (know about) the God of Abraham, not necessarily that the world will believe.
He certainly never advocated dropping the Law for anyone converting to Judais, and early Christians until +Paul considered themnsleves observant Jews. He never even hinted that such a person will appear and create a new religion, or that there was a general plan to do so.
The Gospels were written when Christianity had only a one way ticket out of Israel. +Matthew wrote his between 70 and 100 AD. By then +Paul was already dead, and so was +James, along with the Church in Jerusalem (which was shut down in 69 AD). In view of that, +Matthew's Gospel's ending makes sense, a lot of sense!
if you really believe that Christ did not want them to preach to Gentiles, then the only way you are saved is because Paul DISOBEYED Christ
I don't think he disobeyed Christ. I don't think he ever saw Christ. I think +Paul was a very zealous convert. He saw Christians dying with joy and without fear. Many were impressed by that. He could have learned a great deal about Christianity in his line of work.
Don't get me wrong: I don't believe +Paul was a dishonest person; God forbid! I believe he was truly converted and spent many days and nights learning and asking questions and meditating. He also realized that Christianity had no future in Israel, that the Jewish hearts will not warm up to Christ and, being shrewed, smart and zealous, he took the banner of the Church and lead the Church out of Israel the way Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt.
We have a lot to be thankful to +Paul. And he is a Saint if there ever was one. He put his faith to work, he opened churches and wrote epistles before any of the Apostles wrote anything. And he died a martyr for the faith. Unconventional, brave, resolute, practical, steadfast, but never disobedient.