Is Jesus is Just for the Gentiles?

At first glance, there’s something very heartwarming and appealing in the notion that Jesus is God’s saving light for the nations, even if He isn’t the Messiah of the Jews. The idea reminds us of the fact that God’s compassion is by no means limited to the well-being of Israel; His concern extends to all humanity. In His love and grace, God has provided a light to the Gentiles so that the nations will not be left to grope hopelessly in the dark—forsaken, despairing, and lost. Rather,

There will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish . . . Galilee of the Gentiles . . . The people who walk in darkness will see a great light; those who live in a dark land, the light will shine on them. (Isa. 9:1–2)

According to this argument, Jesus is the Father’s provision for the Gentiles, not for the Jews. He’s the Savior of the nations, so that God’s salvation “may reach to the end of the earth” (Isa. 49:6). What we often call the Great Commission was God’s commandment to take the good news only to the nations. That’s why Jesus said, “Go into all the world” (Mark 16:15) and “make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:19).

But there are a number of weaknesses to the argument that God’s mandate to “go into all the world” excludes the Jewish people. In the first place, the argument overlooks the normal, inclusive way that the Bible often uses certain words. For example, in Exodus 4:22, God says, “Israel is My son, My firstborn.” The title is an expression that describes Israel’s election by God, the nation’s “chosenness.” The text literally says “son,” but that doesn’t mean that women are excluded. Are only Israel’s males among the chosen people of God? No, certainly not.

Similarly, in the first chapter of the book of Isaiah, God voices His heartbreak over our national disobedience by declaring, “My people do not understand. Alas, sinful nation . . . sons who act corruptly” (Isa. 1:3, 4). Commonsense and context tell us that “sons” includes all people, not just males.

This inclusive use of certain words in the Hebrew Scriptures is carried over in the New Testament as well. For ex-ample, 1 Timothy 2:5 tells us that there is “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Here again, “men” means all people, including women and children.

Then there’s the problem presented by the disciples’ understanding of Yeshua’s words. Did they think that Yeshua was telling them to proclaim the gospel only to non-Jews? No, not at all. As the body of Messiah expanded geographically, beyond the borders of ancient Israel, Jewish people were always included among the nations or nationalities that the missionaries sought to reach. Even when the apostle Paul declared in Corinth, “we are turning to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46), he still continued to proclaim the gospel “to the Jew first” whenever he moved on to start his work in a new city.

But perhaps the strongest challenge to the idea that “all the world” and “all the nations” excludes us Jews is found in the words of Jesus Himself. Shortly before His ascension, He told His disciples, “you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Had He meant to limit their gospel proclamation just to non-Jews, then why didn’t He leave very Jewish Jerusalem and Judea out of the picture? To avoid confusion, why didn’t He say, “you shall be My witnesses just to the Gentiles of Jerusalem and Judea”?

The people of Israel certainly constitute one of the nations of the world. And as the apostles carried the gospel to the nations, they never excluded the Jewish people from their evangelistic activity. I suspect that a person would have to be pre-committed against Jewish evangelism in order to believe that exclusion was the intention behind Yeshua’s words.