Introducing the Problem

"Jesus is for the Children of Israel only." We recall these or similar words addressed several times by a Muslim to our small group of Christians as we attempted to share Gospel portions among Muslims in a town of South India. It was as if he were telling us to stop wasting our time distributing a message which was not intended for Muslims, Hindus or anyone else in this Indian community. Did not Jesus say the same thing?

Whether or not all Muslims agree with his opinion is here beside the point. There is no doubt that this contention has been shared by a significant number of Sunni and Shi'i Muslims as well as by Ahmadis. How can Christians respond to it?

1. The Limitation Upon Jesus' Ministry

Christians will wisely recognize that sufficient evidence exists to take this Muslim contention seriously, simply because it is Biblical. After Jesus has equipped His disciples with authority, He sends them out and charges them:

Here Jesus clearly distinguishes the house of Israel from the Gentiles and the Samaritans.² His disciples are to confine their mission to the physical descendants of their forefathers. Perhaps it is not co-incidental that their number is twelve, representing the twelve tribes of Israel.

Similarly Jesus limits His own apostolate to the house of Israel. To a Canaanite woman, seeking help for her daughter, Jesus says:

This verbal response of Jesus was preceded by silence on His part and then the request of His disciples that Jesus send her away. There follows His second verbal response to her second plea, a response which can be interpreted only as a harsh rejection:

Further support to this limitation upon Jesus' ministry is indicated in the following passages which deal respectively with a sick Jewish woman and a despised tax-collector, who mends his ways after meeting Jesus:

Jesus helps them, for they belong to the house of Israel.

Like the first three Gospel accounts, the Gospel according to St. John tends towards the same limitation. Though Jesus and His disciples encounter Samaritans and stay with them for about two days (John 4:1-42), this event is unusual in Jesus' ministry. Only prior to His Passion and the conclusion of His ministry on earth does He meet Greeks; He informs them only that the seed must first die before it can bear fruit, an obvious reference to His death (John 12:20-26). Even Paul mentions "that Christ became a servant to the circumcised ...." (Romans 15:8). He says nothing about a ministry of Jesus among the Gentiles.

Topographical studies likewise provide no evidence that Jesus ever went beyond the boundaries of the Jewish population.⁴

To speak of this limitation upon Jesus' ministry is one thing. To give a reason for it is another. As is often the case with the person, words and works of Jesus, here also our understanding of this limitation upon His ministry is governed by patterns deeply and beautifully engraved in the Old Testament. To search the Old Testament for such patterns is not an arbitrary procedure; it is to follow the example of Jesus, who constantly points to the Old Testament for an understanding of Him and His ways because the Old Testament always points to Him. (Luke 24:25-27; John 5:39,46)

Thus it is not co-incidental that Jesus views Himself as the shepherd of the lost sheep of Israel. Through the prophet Ezekiel God had declared:

Matthew, in summarizing the ministry of Jesus, says:

The New Testament understands Jesus, as a descendant of David, to be the David of Ezekiel's prophecy. As shepherd He is king. The New Testament term "Son of David" means the Messiah."⁵

What then was Jesus' attitude towards the Gentiles and the Samaritans? Occasional references of Jesus to them reveal the distinction which Jesus made between them and the Children of Israel. While they may sound disparaging, they are more accommodating to the views of Jewish hearers than disparaging of Samaritans and Gentiles. Thus He says to His Jewish hearers:

After Jesus healed ten lepers, only one, a Samaritan, returned to thank God. To which Jesus says:

The Samaritans considered Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be their forefathers and religious leaders. They also acknowledged Moses to be God's prophet, the Torah to be God's Holy Book, and awaited the coming of the Messiah.

At the time of Jesus, however, the Jews did not consider the Samaritans to be among the true Children of Israel because they had become mixed with foreigners. Open hostility existed between Jews and Samaritans, nourished by several centuries of differences. The Jew, John Hyrcanus, destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerazim in 128 B.C. About 8 A.D. some Samaritans desecrated the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. John summarized the situation well: "For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans" (John 4:9). Did the Jews even equate Samaritans with demons? (John 8:48)

At the time of Jesus the Jews were ruled by the Romans. Generally they abhorred the Romans and other Gentiles as idolaters, rejected by God, wicked and unclean. Despite earlier Judaistic tendencies to include Gentiles in the final glory of Israel, later Judaism awaited the vengeance of God upon the Romans in particular, the Gentiles in general.

However, Jesus sharply separates Himself from His fellow Jews who despise both Samaritans and Gentiles. He rejects any hatred of one nation for another nation; nor does He allow vengeance by one nation against another. Vengeance is the prerogative of God (Luke 18:7; Romans 12:19). Moreover, as the New Testament accounts frequently show, He wants no part in establishing a kingdom of Israel according to Jewish expectation; He is concerned with establishing the kingdom of God. He seeks to free from Satan, not Rome.

In the light of Jewish relations with Gentiles and Samaritans a series of Jesus' words and acts become intelligible and meaningful. In the account of the Good Samaritan the Samaritan, not the Jewish priest or the Levite, demonstrates the true meaning and practice of love for the neighbour, i.e., if the Jews wish to know the meaning of love for the neighbour, their Samaritan enemy offers them a good example (Luke 10:29-37). Jesus rebukes His own disciples who seek revenge against those Samaritans who refused to welcome them in their village (Luke 9:55). He wonders why only one of the ten lepers, now healed, fails to give Him thanks; to which Luke adds, laconically: "Now he was a Samaritan" (Luke 17:16), i.e., not a child of the Kingdom but an outsider gives thanks. As noted below, He praises the faith of two Gentiles, whose faith, he suggests, the Jews should emulate.

Neither hate nor vengeance but repentance: This is what Jesus wants the Jews to practise. When Jesus is told that Pilate (the Gentile ruler) has massacred some Galileans (Jews), He tells His reporters to repent in order that they may avoid a similar fate. Both the prophet John the Baptist and Jesus reject any Jewish claim to be superior or to be in possession of an inherent merit or worthiness by virtue of being Jewish; they simply summon the Jews to repentance (Matthew 3:2; 4:11). John's crushing statement:

is echoed by Jesus' words of judgement upon those Jews who, despite Jesus' many works among them, remain unrepentant:

By rejecting hatred and revenge, by citing good actions of some Samaritans and Gentiles and by summoning the Jews to repentance and love, Jesus incurred the wrath of many of His countrymen. Along this same pattern He once reminded His countrymen in His own town of Nazareth of two Old Testament incidents: During a famine in Israel the prophet Elijah aided not the widows of Israel but a widow at Zarephath (a Gentile); a little later the prophet Elisha helped not the lepers of Israel but the leper Naaman (a Gentile). Hearing these incidents, Jesus' own countrymen became furious with Him. (Luke 4:25-28)

Our point here, however, is not the furious response. Rather, it is to recall that God directed both of these prophets, great prophets of God to the Children of Israel, to help individual Gentiles. Do not these prophets supply an Old Testament precedent for Jesus' action among a few individual Samaritans and Gentiles?

One of these actions concerned the Canaanite woman, to whom, as already noted, Jesus had said: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Let us cite the whole incident to put both the words of Jesus and His action in proper perspective, since at least some Muslims have chosen to quote only these words but to ignore their context:

In addition we cite the passage regarding Jesus and the Roman centurion:

While reiterating our agreement with Muslims that Jesus said that He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, we note also that 1. Jesus healed both Gentiles in need of healing; 2. Both the centurion and the woman realized their unworthiness before Jesus. What is explicit in the account of the Canaanite woman is implicit in the account about the centurion: Jesus' ministry is to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Both were fully aware that they did not belong to the house of Israel and that Jesus had the right to reject their requests;⁸ 3. Both demonstrate a faith which was unparalleled among the Children of Israel. It is this kind of faith that Jesus looked for and which He honored. Such a faith always receives what it wants, for it wants God's will (John 15:7, 1 John 5:19);⁹ 4. Jesus told neither of them to follow Him.

Should we be surprised that Jesus followed the precedents of Elijah and Elisha in helping Gentiles, especially Gentiles of such faith? By abiding by His practice that He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, should He have ignored their pleas? It does seem possible that these exceptions proved His rule of limiting His ministry to the house of Israel.¹⁰

Further we should note Jesus' additional words to His disciples after He has instructed them to "go nowhere among the Gentiles, and ... the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel":

Again we are faced with the paradox: Jesus sends His disciples exclusively to the lost sheep of Israel; yet before them (in their synagogues) and the Gentiles they "bear testimony". Is this testimony simply a judicial testimony, words issuing from the disciples before kings and judges in the form of a court defense only?

2. The Universality Of Jesus' Ministry

Even if this were the case, still an abundance of evidence in the Gospel accounts indicates an understanding of a more positive participation of the Gentiles in God's Kingdom and the role of Jesus in this Gentile participation. This understanding is related to a host of references in the Old Testament regarding the future destiny of the Gentiles:

This outreach among the Gentiles is closely bound with the mission of the Servant of the Lord:

It is further said about this servant that

The Gospel accounts identify this servant as Jesus in unmistakable terms (Matthew 12:15-21). After Jesus has spoken to His disciples about His own suffering and the greatness of service, He concludes:

He dies

It is to these sheep that Jesus refers when He says:

Jesus, the Son of Man, will return as king to judge all nations:

The following words of Jesus at least partially summarize the direction and content of the series of Old Testament passages noted above:

Jesus' concern for the Gentiles, apart from immediate confrontation with them, is indicated in the following passage:

Jesus is disturbed by the business transacted in the Temple. In fact it is transacted in the outer court of the Temple, the first part of the Temple into which anyone coming into the Temple had first to enter. Beyond the outer court Jews alone can proceed. Yet precisely this outer court is reserved for the Gentiles to worship God.¹¹

By cleansing the Temple Jesus acts more for Gentile worship of God in peace than against the transaction of business by various vendors, as His quotation from the Old Testament suggests.¹² Moreover this quotation from the prophets Isaiah (56:7) and Jeremiah (7:11) provides him with authority to act. His action takes on greater significance when He refers to Himself as the Temple which the Jews will destroy and which He will raise again in three days, or when He states that He is greater than the Temple. (John 2:19-22; Matthew 12:6)

It is thus clear that Jesus limits His ministry and that of His disciples, as long as He was on earth, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. At the same time His ministry has eternal significance for the Gentiles also. Can these two conclusions be reconciled?

3. The Resolution Of The Tension

The resolution of this tension (or contradiction, as some would see it) can be found within both the Old and New Testaments. By speaking firstly of the Children of Israel, the Old Testament hints at a sequence in the Servant's activity:

First the Children of Israel and then the Gentiles. The New Testament is quite explicit about a time sequence: the time before the climactic events of Jesus' ministry (His Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension) and the time established by and following after the critical events in Jesus' ministry, a ministry which the living and ascended Messiah even now continues. Prior to these events themselves Jesus described them as "the hour," "His hour" (John 8:20; 12:23, 13:1, 17:1). Before these events Jesus limits His ministry and that of His disciples to the Children of Israel. After these events His disciples are to be witnesses to all nations. Thus the crucified and risen Messiah addresses His disciples:

Peter observes this sequence when he addresses the Jews shortly after Jesus' ascension:

Soon after, Paul and Barnabas echo only what Peter has indicated about this sequence:

Thus also the Letter to the Romans reads:

This sequence, first to the Jew and then to the Gentile, is followed consistently by the early Church, as reported in the Book of Acts. No doubt, members of the early Church, composed of sons and daughters of Abraham, disputed among themselves about the position of the Gentiles in this new community. Yet the dispute focussed more on the conditions to be laid upon convert Gentiles (e.g., should they be circumcised?) than on the need to witness to them. Indeed the Book of Acts exhibits a vigorous Christian ministry among Samaritans and Gentiles. As this ministry antedates the conversion of St. Paul, it is clear - contrary to the opinion held by some Muslims - that St. Paul did not initiate Christian mission among Gentiles, however much he contributed to it.¹³

Why some Muslims have selected and isolated the "limiting texts" of Jesus' ministry without reference to a multitude of other texts which indicate His eventual ministry among the Gentiles is best known to them and God. Presumably their purpose is to contrast Islam as a universal religion with Christianity as a national religion. The previous Scriptures, they might say, have been lost or at least thoroughly distorted. At best, they might continue, only parts of these Scriptures remain; from these remnants it is evident that Jesus was sent only - "only" in an absolute, not a relative, sense - to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; on the other hand, of all Holy Scriptures the Qur'an alone has been preserved by God in its pristine purity and therefore it alone, as it also testifies, can be truly universal.