Jan
28
2013
Why Did Jesus Say He Came Only for Israel?
Ever notice the dissonance?
The early Christians saw their mission as global in scope, but during his earthly ministry, Jesus explicitly declared his mission to be focused only on Israel (Matt 15:24).
When traced backwards, the flow of universal mission of the early church runs into the rocks of Jesus’ striking particularity. What gives?
Here’s my brief attempt at giving an answer.
Jesus the Nationalist
The Gospels reveal a Jesus focused on Israel. In fact, his ministry appears to be focused so relentlessly on the Jewish people that many scholars have debated whether Jesus was concerned with outsiders at all. When taking into consideration the nations-focused mission of the early church as directed by the risen Jesus that was so prominent in Christian thinking, it is striking to discover that this global impulse appears to be absent from Jesus’ earthly ministry.
Furthermore, the Gospels record Jesus as being up front about his nationalistic intentions. He claimed that his mission was only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24), a statement made upon his initial refusal of a Gentile woman who asked for healing for her daughter.
It is interesting to note the parallel between the global vision of the risen Jesus as manifested in the actions of the early church and the nationalistic vision of Jesus’ earthly ministry as manifested in the disciples’ avoidance of Gentile towns in favor of “the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt 10:5-6, 23).
Other statements reinforce Jewish priority during the ministry of Jesus, including his decision to choose twelve disciples (corresponding, most likely, to the twelve tribes of Israel) and the fact that the “God of Israel” received the glory when Jesus did engage in brief ministry in Gentile territory (Matt 15:31).
The Wrong Answer
Because of the apparent discrepancy between Jesus’ ministry focus and that of the early church, some scholars assume the evangelists had ulterior motives in the way they portrayed Jesus’ interactions with others.
For example, the Jesus Seminar chooses to pit Mark’s intentions against those of Matthew, postulating that Mark’s account of Jesus’ healing of a Gentile woman’s daughter is meant to justify the church’s Gentile mission, whereas Matthew’s account is “an effort to reinstate a narrower scope for Jesus’ activity.” While it is undeniable that each evangelist chose particular emphases in shaping the Jesus stories, this kind of speculation is wrongheaded. After all, both accounts show Jesus answering the request, and both Gospels also include an emphasis on global mission. (We could make the case that Matthew envisions the Gentile mission even more clearly than Mark does.)
Regardless of how one interprets the evangelists’ different accounts of the same event, it is clear that Jesus’ focus was on reforming Israel, not bringing his kingdom message to the rest of the world. His focus on Israel can be seen in his prophecies and pronouncements of judgment on the nation. Through symbolic, prophetic actions like cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14, 20-25; Matt 21:18-22) and cleansing the temple (Mark 11:15-19; Matt 21:12-17; Luke 19:45-48, John 2:13-16), as well as strong prophetic denunciations (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21, 13:6-9), Jesus made his particular focus on Israel clear.
Christ’s Mission to Israel for the World
The messianic identity of Jesus, formed and shaped by the Old Testament promises and the Jewish prophets, leads in a direction that simultaneously complicates and resolves the issue. Instead of seeing Jesus’ messianic mindset in terms of either or, one ought to see his mission as to Israel on behalf of the nations. In other words, in narrowing his focus to Israel, Jesus does the work necessary for the entire world to be blessed.
If Jesus saw himself as Israel’s Messiah, the one who will constitute a new Israel, and if he purposefully acted in ways that fulfill the role of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah and the vocation of Israel as the light of the world, then it is no surprise that he would focus his ministry squarely on his Jewish contemporaries.
Jesus’ ministry was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel precisely, because he is the good shepherd come to gather the renewed Israel around himself and to launch their trajectory into the world with the healing grace God always intended to flow through his chosen people. Jesus ministered to the Jews for the Gentiles.
Therefore, we should say the mission of Jesus is first to Israel (through his own ministry) and then to the Gentiles (through the actions of his apostles), but this trajectory should not be reduced merely to salvation-historical terms. Instead, the mission of Jesus to the Gentiles (through his apostles) should be seen as contingent upon the success of his mission to the Jews.
Mission to the nations depends upon Jesus’ accomplishment of his mission to Israel. The particularity of Jesus’ earthly ministry serves the universality of God’s ultimate vision for the world.
Conclusion
Creating too strong a dichotomy between Jesus’ mission to the Jews and the church’s mission to the Gentiles is unhelpful. As the long-awaited Messiah who fulfills Israel’s vocation, Jesus accomplishes the mission of Israel through his own life and work, thereby bringing the blessing of Abraham to the nations, as was promised in the Old Testament.
The mission to the Gentiles was not at the expense of mission to Israel, nor was it merely an extension. Instead, Israel was to be the catalyst through which God would accomplish his promises to the world.
Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel in order that through his regathering and reconstituting the true Israel, the blessing of salvation would be released to flow from Israel and into all the world, just as God promised in the Old Testament.
21 Comments
Thanks, Trevin. I’m reading through N. T. Wright’s “How God Became King” right now, and this theme of Christ, as Israel’s Messiah, ushering in the Abrahamic promise of blessing to all nations is really recalibrating up my biblical-theological categories, in a good way! Suddenly, texts like Gal. 3:14 become so much richer when viewed in this light.
[...] Wax has a good article, “Why Did Jesus Say He Came Only for Israel?” This is a good article on issues related to the Gospels and Jesus’ [...]
I remember reading through Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God and truly thinking this through for the first time. Of course it opened up a lot of Paul as well. Great little summary of the Jesus as Israel for the Gentiles point. Super helpful.
Let’s not assume that when Jesus says He’s come to the lost sheep of Israel that by “Israel” He means literally Israelites. But that story ends with Jesus giving the woman what she asked for thus showing that in the end He considered her part of “Israel”.
So, I reject the premise that by “Israel” Jesus ever meant that His ministry was confined to the nation.
I like this answer, but I would add that Jesus left a few hints that his mission, although primarily for Israel, would eventually expand to all nations (for example John 10:16) he was “amazed” by the faith of some Gentiles, including the Syrophonecian and the centurion. Also, the prophesied rejection by Isreal had to occur before the door to the Gentiles was opened. His death and resurrection had to occur to tear the veil between God and Jew, and destroy the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile. (Gal 3:28-29)
You’re right, Clark. And there are also hints in Jesus’ parables – particularly his later ones.
While in Mt. 10 Jesus sends his disciples only to Israel, and while in Mt. 15:24 he says he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, he does end up healing the Gentile daughter in the Gentile region of Tyre and Sidon. And this is not the first time: at the beginning of his ministry, Jesus’ fame as a healer spread quickly to Syria, and they brought him “all the sick, those with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them” (Mt. 4:24). Then 4:25 says great crowds followed him, including those from the Decapolis and from beyond the Jordan. Already, in 4:15 Matthew says Jesus’ living in Capernaum fulfills Isa. 9:1-2, about being in “Galilee of the Gentiles.”
Various other passages in Matthew also have Jesus healing or ministering to Gentiles (e.g., healing the centurion’s servant in 8:5f., after he entered Capernaum, and contrasting the Gentile’s faith with that of Israel, a contrast found later also in 15:28 – “great is your faith!”). So Jesus is from the beginning an “internationalist,” the new king who welcomes outcasts (of the kingdom of Israel) and inaugurates a new kingdom that welcomes Gentiles as well as Jews.
[...] Continue Reading Be Sociable, Share! Tweet window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({appId: "", xfbml: true}); FB.Event.subscribe('comment.create', function(response) { }); }; (function() { var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js'; document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e); }()); [...]
The parable of the good Samaritan among other things demonstrates Jesus scope, also the “other sheep” of a different pen in Jn 10.
If we go to Revelation then the idea becomes not just the twelve tribes of Israel but many nations…the coming of the kingdom of heaven. Isaiah speaks of it also.
I dont know much about the “harmony of the gospels” but I am assured they are trust worthy.
great post. informative and concise – reminding us not to create false dichotomies in the life of Christ. Keep up the good work.
Regarding some Bible critics…CMI had an article on one of its pages yesterday which made a good point to me.
Choosing to give different details isn’t a contradiction, assuming the details don’t make the stories mutually exclusive
Tracing Jesus’ ministry backwards shows IMO that Israel was a federal representative of the nations under the Law . . . an Adamic rebel whose covenantal failure under the Law needed to be fulfilled and atoned for by Messiah, so that the blessing of salvation would flow to the nations, apart from the Law, through grace alone.
Why didn’t this article mention that maybe the point of this passage was not simply to show that “What’s good for Israel is good for Gentiles” but that that gentile woman was one of the lost sheep of Israel because her faith was great?
Trevin, I would like to suggest a different interpretation (sorry for the length). To say that Jesus relentlessly focused only on Jewish people loses sight of so much that Jesus did and misses a huge theme in the Gospels. Jesus’ ministry was extended to Gentiles to a surprising degree. We see this right from the beginning of Jesus’ mission (Matt 5:23-25). Much of his ministry took place in “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Matt 4:15). Jesus commended the faith of the Roman centurion (Matt 8:10) and the Canaanite woman (Matt 15:28). Jesus intentionally went out of his way to minister to the Samaritan woman and village (John 4:3-4) and to Tyre and Sidon (Matt 15:21). Jesus clearly envisioned the future worldwide scope of the gospel advance (Matt 8:11, 24:14, 25:32, Mark 14:9, Luke 24:47, John 10:16). In fact, when Jesus spoke about going away, his opponents assumed that he would go and teach the Greeks (John 7:35).
The two apparent exceptions are Matt 15:24 and Matt 10:16. The missionary statesman, Don Richardson, has shed much light on the Matt 15 passage. If you skim the surface of Jesus’ interaction with the Canaanite woman, it would appear that Jesus ignores her, dismisses her, and is rude to her (“dogs”), actions which do not seem consistent with Jesus’ character. Here is where the preceding context is so important. In Matt 15:1-20, Jesus has just been teaching his disciples about the importance of inner purity over outer, ritual purity. Jesus then specifically goes to a Gentile region and “coincidentally” runs into a Canaanite woman, all for the purpose of testing to see if his disciples have understood his point. At first, Jesus says nothing, in order to give his disciples room to respond, which they derisively do. Jesus then plays along with the preconceptions of his disciples to reinforce their judgments (“Israel” and “dogs”). But then, when the Canaanite woman responds with great faith (which Jesus knew she would do), he shocks his disciples by commending her faith. The real-life example reinforced the message that Jesus had just taught the disciples in a way that they would not soon forget.
With Matt 10:16, Jesus tells his disciples not to go to the Gentiles because of their own weakness, which continued up into the early part of Acts. But even then, Jesus would have his disciples “dragged before governors and kings. . . to bear witness before them and the Gentiles” (Matt 10:18). What the disciples would not willingly do, Jesus would accomplish through other means.
Now the gospel does not seem to go forward in full force until after Jesus’ death and resurrection, but this was not only true for Gentiles but for Jews as well. After Jesus ascension, the number of his followers was quite small (Acts 1:15). But after Jesus’ resurrection and the giving of the Spirit, the gospel would spread with new power and breadth, to the Jews (Acts 2:41) and, eventually, to the Gentiles.
Hugely helpful article for me.
I teach a high school Bible class and was asked about this out of Romans 11 this afternoon.
Thanks!
Well, I am in agreement with the stance that Jesus knew what the Father had sent Him to do. I feel that Jesus had the church that He had come to set up in mind when speaking about Isreal in the context of this article. Before He ascended, He provided the command He wished to be carried out. There is no doubt in my mind about who the new Isreal is, Jews and Gentiles in the Body of Christ–the church.
http://www.21stcenturuconfusion.com
http://www.zachmalott.com
Nice to see someone who finally gets it. You nailed it!
Christ’s ministry includes his birth, death, resurrection and sending of the HS at Pentecost. It was Jesus himself who appointed and sent Paul. It was Jesus himself who told his disciples that his leaving them was for their benefit. He was raised incorruptable and in power and has been given all rule and authority.
Trevin,
Mate, I wrote my Ph.D thesis on this topic. It was published as “Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission.” In short, I agree with you, Jesus went to Israel because it was always God’s plan that a transformed Israel would transform the world.
Israel was chosen through Abraham for global salvation and mission to nations, i.e., gentiles. Israel having failed in its set goal by God, Jesus had to focus on Israel first to make Israel understand Jesus is Christ for gentiles too. Was the manger belonged to a gentile? Bethlehem belonged to Jews? Yes, Jesus is for both.
Excellent, excellent post. The only thing that would probably change if I had written it would be the difference in writing styles peculiar to each author. The meaning and context would remain the same. Good Job and good witness!
~Zach