Christian doctrine question for anyone

[Amira]

I’ve always been taught that Jesus came to teach and minister to Jews/the House of Israel, and that the gospel went to the gentiles after Jesus’ death.  However, I’m not really convinced that’s what the New Testament says.  Matthew certainly does, but Mark, Luke, and John don’t.  In fact, they specifically contradict that idea with Jesus staying with the Samaritans for two days in John 4 and many people believing him (contrary to the instructions Matthew gives in 10:5 for the Twelve to not even enter a Samaritan town) and Jesus frequently traveling through gentile areas, teaching and healing.  Acts does seem to promote this idea with Cornelius in chapter 11, but even that requires you to ignore that a gentile was baptized in chapter 8. One of the places Matthew clearly states this idea is in 15:24, but the earlier Mark parallel in 7:27 isn’t entirely obvious, although I can see why someone would argue that Mark here (but only here, from what I can see), promotes this idea.

So,  two questions.

1. Have you been taught that Jesus went only to Jews/the House of Israel?

2. If so, what is the evidence for that, outside the gospel of Matthew? I’m not as familiar with the epistles so there might be something there.

It’s time for bed in my time zone, so I won’t be around till morning, but I’m really curious to read anyone’s thoughts about this.

[maize]

Interesting question.

One possibility: Jesus was sent to the Jews, but not to them exclusively. If a missionary (any denomination) goes to, say, Mongolia--you could say they are sent to the Mongolians. But that doesn't mean that if they encounter someone from China they won't share their message with them. 

A bit of an aside, but have you read the book Simply Jesus? Wright attempts to place Jesus and his significance within the historical and cultural context of his time; it's an easy read and I found it quite interesting. I think Wright might say that the Jews of the time--those who embraced Jesus as a Messianic figure--would have seen him as being sent to the Jews because the Messiah was promised to the Jews and his mission was tied up in Jewish prophecy and expectation.

 

[Bluegoat]

I have NOT been taught this, at least not in the way you are suggesting.  What I have been taught is more that although he came most directly to the Jews, in fact he was sent for all, and there are a variety of ways this is shown in the NT, some directly and some more spiritually.  As well, my tradition wold say this became manifest pretty quickly in the early church period.

So - as far as examples of evidence for the view that he didn't come just to the Jews - as you say there is his time in Samaria.  There were interactions with certain Romans.  I think though that there are probably two that stand out for me.  One would be Epiphany story - the wise men or however you prefer to characterise them who visited Jesus in his early years from afar.  This story has been since the early church used as a kind of sign that Jesus was sent to all peoples, and that incident is considered his first revelation to those outside of the Jewish community.  The other would be the account in Acts of the first Council of Jerusalem, regarding the question of whether non-Jews should take up Jewish observances upon becoming Christian.  Peter of course argued that they ought to, and lost the argument in the end, and non-Jews were not expected to do those things.  This seems to show directly that there were non-Jews in the church quite early on, and the decision, understood as the manifestation of the will of the Spirit in the Church, could hardly be opposed to what was intended for Christ himself.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Bluegoat

[Skippy]

I think it was important theme that the gospel was first preached to the Jews and then to the Samaritans and other Gentiles.

Acts 1:8 - You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

Acts 13:46 -  "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you [the Jews, see verse 45] first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles."

Luke 24:47 - and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

John 4:22 - [Jesus, speaking to the Samaritan woman, said,] "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."

Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, Amira said:

I’ve always been taught that Jesus came to teach and minister to Jews/the House of Israel, and that the gospel went to the gentiles after Jesus’ death.  However, I’m not really convinced that’s what the New Testament says.  Matthew certainly does, but Mark, Luke, and John don’t.  In fact, they specifically contradict that idea with Jesus staying with the Samaritans for two days in John 4 and many people believing him (contrary to the instructions Matthew gives in 10:5 for the Twelve to not even enter a Samaritan town) and Jesus frequently traveling through gentile areas, teaching and healing.  Acts does seem to promote this idea with Cornelius in chapter 11, but even that requires you to ignore that a gentile was baptized in chapter 8. One of the places Matthew clearly states this idea is in 15:24, but the earlier Mark parallel in 7:27 isn’t entirely obvious, although I can see why someone would argue that Mark here (but only here, from what I can see), promotes this idea.

So,  two questions.

1. Have you been taught that Jesus went only to Jews/the House of Israel?

2. If so, what is the evidence for that, outside the gospel of Matthew? I’m not as familiar with the epistles so there might be something there.

It’s time for bed in my time zone, so I won’t be around till morning, but I’m really curious to read anyone’s thoughts about this.

One school of reasoning is that that statement to the Canaanite woman was made to demonstrate her faith and humility so no one could question why he was performing healing miracles for gentiles.  This seems born out by the next statement about taking the children’s meat and feeding it to dogs.  It seems almost deliberately insulting which doesn’t make sense with Jesus as we know him.  But maybe it was for the sake of those around him knowing that she truly had faith.

[aaplank]

It's a long and complicated history, but the Samaritans considered themselves to be the "true Jews" and they had the same Torah scriptures as the Jews (the first 5 books). 

So I believe in a sense, when in Samria, Jesus was ministering to the Jews, just an off-shoot sect that arose after the Assyrian captivity. 

However, the rest of the New Testament is very clear that the gospel of Jesus Christ was to be preached to all nations  

 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

2 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

One school of reasoning is that that statement to the Canaanite woman was made to demonstrate her faith and humility so no one could question why he was performing healing miracles for gentiles.  This seems born out by the next statement about taking the children’s meat and feeding it to dogs.  It seems almost deliberately insulting which doesn’t make sense with Jesus as we know him.  But maybe it was for the sake of those around him knowing that she truly had faith.

This story used to bother me for that reason as well, but I have heard that the 'feeding to dogs' was a lot more affectionate/jovial in context as it referred to pets, not, like, a pack of sheep dogs or wild dogs that are super lesser like it sounds.  I can't independently verify it but heard this from someone who knows Greek and other Biblical languages very well.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Carol in Cal.

[Carol in Cal.]

Amira, I agree with the other points here.  I have never EVER been taught that Jesus only came to the Jews and that that was extended by others ONLY after His death, resurrection, and ascension.  The story of the sages 'from the East' specifically contradicts that, and that took place within His first two years of earthly life, before He even began His preaching and healing public ministry.  The story of the Samaritan woman is interesting as well, in that although the Samaritans considered themselves Jewish, they did not accept the full Jewish Scripture and teachings, and they were not considered Jewish in popular Jewish thought--animosity between the two groups being so high that it was unusual for Jewish folks to travel through Samaria--they tended to go WAY out of their way to avoid that.

[desertflower]

 

Jesus was the fulfillment of a long period of history that led up to a change in covenants. He did go to those under the old covenant, largely jews first, but like in the OT anyone could follow God and the mosaic laws.  He did teach to others as well because his message was for anyone. For example, the samaritan woman by the well.

It may be best to view this from a perspective of old covenant and new covenant.  

In the old covenant, it originated with jews and was largely followed by mostly jews, but others could convert, such as in the book of Esther when hundreds of gentiles converted.

Once jesus died he fulfilled the old covenant and replaced it with the new covenant which is the new testament (instead of following the mosaic laws of sacrificing) Jesus was the one and only sacrifice needed.  Under the new covenant, there was "neither Jew nor Greek, 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." (Galatians 3:28-29).  The distinction of under the covenant by birth (jew) or converted (proselyte) was no longer.  All who followed God were under the new covenant and God's people regardless of background.

This distinction between old covenant and new covenant is often short handed as jew versus gentile, but this isnt the best or most correct way to look at things since gentiles could convert to follow the old covenant and jews could convert and follow the new covenant.

I hope this helps some.

[EMS83]

I like the other responses here, so I'll just say that it can appear that Christ was "sent" to the Jews "first" because the nation of Israel was supposed to be a testament to God before the rest of the nations, and carried within its worship and teachings the prophecy of Christ Himself.  This was the plan from the beginning.  Because of this, he had to be sent through the Jews, as a Jew, and if anyone was to recognize Him, it should have been the Jewish people, and many did.  The religious leaders were largely who opposed Him, and to whom "the Jews" is referring throughout the Gospels.  Also, it's good to remember that Christ is Hebrew.  That didn't ever change; He rose and ascended bodily.  🙂  

Edited March 24, 2019 by CES2005

[Ali in OR]

I remember attending a Bible study with a missionary friend who knew the Bible a lot better than I did. This was a long time ago, so I don't remember exact details, but I do remember learning about the Decapolis from him. The Decapolis, literally "10 cities" in Greek, was an area on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee that was considered pagan and Hellenistic--not Jewish. But Jesus ministered in this area as well as Jewish areas. Below is just something I found after Googling something like "Jesus Decapolis". I think if Jesus came only for the Jews, he would not have had anything to do with the Decapolis. I also remember my missionary friend talking about the leftovers from Jesus's miracle feedings, and that the amounts leftover (I think 12 baskets and 7 baskets) symbolized bread for the 12 nations of Israel and the other for the gentile world. One google search said something about there being 7 nations in the land when Israel arrived so 7 might symbolize that. Anyway, I've always remembered at least a little from that Bible study night. 

JESUS AND THE DECAPOLIS

The Bible records two of Jesus' visits to the Decapolis. It also mentions crowds of people from the Decapolis following Jesus. Understanding the pagan world represented by these city-states helps us see the significance of Jesus' response to it. His message clearly was for the inhabitants of the Decapolis, for they heard and followed. He confronted the darkness of the pagan world in choosing to visit its people.

Given the Jewish view of the paganism of the Decapolis, it probably was not surprising to the disciples that as soon as he landed there, Jesus met a man (Matthew referred to two men) possessed with a "legion" of demons (Matt. 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39). Jesus had just stilled the storm, which the disciples probably also believed was fueled by the powers of evil connected to the depths of the sea (Luke 8:31; Rev. 13:1). The devil was unable to prevent Jesus from crossing the sea to enter the pagan territory, so his demonic power confronted Jesus when He came ashore. But Jesus pierced the power of darkness that lay over the demon-possessed man.

When Jesus had cast out the demons, he commanded the man to return home to tell others what God had done for him. The territory to which Jesus sent the man was certainly one of the most challenging mission fields to which he ever called anyone. Later, crowds from the Decapolis followed Jesus. This crowd of followers was a testimony to the effectiveness of the healed man's witness. (Mark 7:31-36 and Matt. 15:30 record the same event. Matthew referred to crowds of people, but he did not mention the place.)

[LMD]

Jesus was sent in fulfilment of the promise that through Abraham's descendants the whole world would be blessed.

He didn't come (only) to, He came through. The Jews were to be an example/standard, they always were.

[MercyA]

@desertflower, great response. 👍🏼

[Amira]

Thanks, everyone!  I’m always curious how other denominations interpret things, and why.  This was really helpful.

[Amira]

11 hours ago, maize said:

Interesting question.

One possibility: Jesus was sent to the Jews, but not to them exclusively. If a missionary (any denomination) goes to, say, Mongolia--you could say they are sent to the Mongolians. But that doesn't mean that if they encounter someone from China they won't share their message with them. 

A bit of an aside, but have you read the book Simply Jesus? Wright attempts to place Jesus and his significance within the historical and cultural context of his time; it's an easy read and I found it quite interesting. I think Wright might say that the Jews of the time--those who embraced Jesus as a Messianic figure--would have seen him as being sent to the Jews because the Messiah was promised to the Jews and his mission was tied up in Jewish prophecy and expectation.

 

Thanks for the book suggestion.  It sounds interesting.

[maize]

6 hours ago, Amira said:

Thanks for the book suggestion.  It sounds interesting.

I belong to a reading group on facebook that is made up of Latter-day Saints reading non-LDS New Testament scholarship (they had one for Old Testament last year); if you're interested I could send you a link. Simply Jesus was the first book on the list this year.

[KrissiK]

I would agree with Desertflower and LMD’s responses.

[Amira]

35 minutes ago, maize said:

I belong to a reading group on facebook that is made up of Latter-day Saints reading non-LDS New Testament scholarship (they had one for Old Testament last year); if you're interested I could send you a link. Simply Jesus was the first book on the list this year.

Yeah, I would be interested.  Most of my religious reading isn’t LDS-oriented anyway so I’d probably fit in. 🙂

[bolt.]

1. No, I have not been taught that, nor do I teach it that way. There is a sense of focus, fulfillment and continuity with the Jewish story (symbols, festivals, promises, etc). There is also plenty of gentile inclusion and crossover in the gospel accounts. There aren’t distinct phases of ‘absolutely Jews only’ followed by Gentile inclusion at a sudden or specific point.

2. There isn’t any evidence of an ‘absolutely Jews only’ phase other than a few isolated verses that are (by intent) expressing focus and fulfillment themes, but can be understood (in wording) to imply exclusivity (if taken out of the larger context).

The idea of, “Gentiles are in now, because Jesus was open to Jews during his earthly ministry, and then things changed.” — is actually a fragment of latent (unintentional) antisemitism carried over from times and places where antisemitism was neither latent nor unintentional. The idea is that if Jews ‘had their chance’ an antisemetic person can build on that sentiment to say that ‘their chance is over’ and ‘it’s their own fault’. These thoughts form a “defence” for how people can acknowledge that Jesus was Jew that ministered to primarily to Jews (as the Bible says) without any experiencing any dissonance with antisemitic modern-historic sentiments.

The reason it’s not so common now is because it doesn’t serve that important function any more. (And it doesn’t make much sense on its own.) People sometimes still say it because they were taught it ‘back in the day’ or taught by someone who leaned it from someone else. It seems pretty insignificant, and there are a few proof texts. Usually this happens in absolutely all innocence. I’m not intending to make any accusations here.

Edited March 24, 2019 by bolt.

[HomeAgain]

Would Luke 10 be evidence of that?  The chapter before might as well.  Jesus sent out 12 to perform miracles (which always mystified me - why aren't these mentioned elsewhere in any text?  Surely people would be wondering wtf is going on!) and then it talks about him visiting a Samaritan town.

After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. ² He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. ³ Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. ⁴ Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.

⁵ “When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ ⁶ If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you. ⁷ Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

⁸ “When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you. ⁹ Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ ¹⁰ But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, ¹¹ ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ ¹² I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

¹³ “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. ¹⁴ But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. ¹⁵ And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.^[b]

^{---------------------------------}
 

[EMS83]

I would think (totally off the top of my head) that Corazin and Bethsaida were Jewish towns, and Tyre and Sidon were Gentile towns.  I could be wrong, but if I'm not, this just reinforces what I was saying about how the Jews were supposed to be the likeliest to recognize the Messiah, with mixed results.  It would also testify to the spiritual sensitivity of the Gentiles, sort of like Nineveh repented, and Jonah was salty about it.

And I'll warrant it's not written down much elsewhere because for one, Christ says in that passage that the miracles were met with unbelief.  And two, the people who would have been following Him and seeing these miracles with belief were not very likely able to read and write.  The people who could read and write were "the Jews," the Jewish leadership, who opposed Him.  Also, in the first couple of centuries, word of mouth was supposedly trusted more than the written word.  And the Gospel spread verbally for many years before it was ever written down.  None of the Gospel books were even the first NT book to be written, anyway.

[Heathermomster]

Mark 3:7-19 demonstrate that Jews and Gentiles were preached to.  Tyre and Sidon were Gentile regions and considered unclean by Jews.  Queen Jezebel was a notorious Baal worshipper from Sidon.

During Christ’s earthly ministry, his preaching was rejected by all types.  He was not always welcomed in areas, be they Gentile, Samaritan, or Jewish towns/areas and would have naturally avoided certain areas to evade arrest until His appointed time.  Eta:  He also knows the hearts of men.   I cannot directly address any specific verses but context would have to be considered whenever He avoided a specific region.  Jesus’s missionary journey lasted three years.

1.  No, I was taught that the earthly ministry of Jesus was intended for both Jew and Gentile alike.  It seems natural and appropriate that the ministry would begin with Jews.

2.  Mark 3:7-19 and Luke 6: 17-10 clearly indicate that Jesus ministered to both Jews and Gentiles.

I recommend the following book to help with context and study:

https://www.amazon.com/Manners-Customs-Bible-Super-Value/dp/0785250425/ref=pd_sbs_14_3/140-6429689-3469840?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0785250425&pd_rd_r=649a061d-4f0f-11e9-88b9-21f8c111ccdc&pd_rd_w=FjrVv&pd_rd_wg=977NQ&pf_rd_p=588939de-d3f8-42f1-a3d8-d556eae5797d&pf_rd_r=12J926Y3C3XGMHHE4RTY&psc=1&refRID=12J926Y3C3XGMHHE4RTY

Edited March 25, 2019 by Heathermomster