> Was Jesus sent to the Jews only?

[_ALI_]

Salam all
I was chatting with a Christian, giving him all the verses inwhich Jesus said that he was sent to the Jews only. He quoted this verse
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19)
He said that "all nations" prove that Jesus wsa sent to everyone. How do I reply? Any thoughts?

[Assad]

Thank you for your post.

It is important that you first recognise the contradictions which exist in this verse in the biblical context.

As for your query: It is clear that Jesus said "..for I have been sent to the lost sheep to Israel" which specifically mentions the Jesus objective i.e. to bring the Jews back to guidance. Had Jesus mission be univeral, Jesus would never have said this.

Further lets see what bibles commentary have got to say for this:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations-rather, "make disciples of all nations"; for "teaching," in the more usual sense of that word, comes in afterwards, and is expressed by a different term.

Another thing to note is that in Bible , If you look at biblical context than you will notice that most passages make references to Gentiles and also at times make distinction between Gentiles and Non Gentiles. The word used "all nation" in no way proof that this means "entire world".

You should wait for some more reponses inshallah, I will do some more finding and let you know.

Regards

[Assad]

(This could be relevant for you to understand the context of this verse)

1.2.2.1 Matthew 28:19

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to "Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union," does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity.
Further, the "Great Commission" as narrated in the Gospel of Mark, bears no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark 16:15). As we shall see in chapter two, Christian historians readily admit that the Bible was the object of continuous "correction" and "addition" to bring it in line with established beliefs. They present many documented cases where words were "inserted" into a given verse to validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor of the Toronto Star says:
"All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words - baptism was 'into' or 'in' the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read 'baptizing them in my name' and then was expanded to work in the dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: 'The church of the first days did not observe this world-wide commandment, even if they new it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion.'"

"For Christ's sake," Tom Harpur, p. 103
This is confirmed in 'Peake's Commentary on the Bible' published since 1919, which is universally acclaimed and considered to be the standard reference for students of the Bible. It says:


"This mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the Trinitarian formula was original at this point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.)."


For example, these Christian scholars observed that after Jesus allegedly issued this command and then was taken up into heaven, the apostles displayed a complete lack of knowledge of this command.
"And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;...'"
Acts 2:38.
These Christian scholars observed that it is extremely unlikely that if Jesus had indeed specifically commanded his apostles to "baptize in the name of the father and the son and the holy Ghost" that the apostles would later disobey his direct command and baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ, alone.
As a final piece of evidence, it is noted that after the departure of Jesus, when Paul decided to preach to the Gentiles, this resulted in a heated debate and a great difference of opinion between him and at least three of the apostles. This would not be the case if Jesus had, as claimed, openly commanded them to preach to the Gentiles . So we notice that not only does this verse never claim that the three are one, or even that the three are equal, but most scholars of Christianity today recognize that at the very least the last part of this verse ("the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost") was not originally part of the command of Jesus but was inserted by the church long after Jesus' departure.




Source: Misha'al Abdullah Al-Kadhi

[Assad]

Here is what brother Osama Abdullah has got to say:

Jesus also said: "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.' (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 10:5-6)"



These are the words of Jesus in the Bible. It is quite obvious that Jesus was NOT sent to Mankind and Christianity isn't a religion for Mankind. Even if Jesus did die on the cross for people's sins, he didn't do it for all nations' sins, but for the Jews alone who believed in him.
And when Jesus told his disciples to go "to all nations" and teach them the words and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit (Mathew 28:18-20), it is obvious that "all nations" is a mistranslation, because in the Middle East, the words for "People" and "Nation" are the same word.


Very Important Note: It is important to know also that nations as we know them today in countries were very few back 2000 years ago. People for the most part were divided into either "tribes" or "empires"; like the Persian and Roman Empires for instance, which both spread in land as far as what we call today North Africa, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and India. Nations as we know them today existed in few places only. Arabs for instance weren't called "The Arab Nation", because they were divided into 365 pagan tribes, each tribe worshiping their idol god(s) which were different than the others.

So if Jesus told his disciples to go to "all people", then this simply means to all of the people of Israel, because he "was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel", and NOT to anyone else, because THERE WERE ALMOST NO NATIONS AROUND HIM AND VERY FEW NATIONS WORLD-WIDE! We are clearly left with a crystal clear contradiction between the Christian Missionaries of today and what Jesus said.

[Assad]

Here is what I got from IslamReligion website.

Christ Jesus was one more prophet in the long line of prophets sent to guide the astray Israelites. As Christ Jesus so clearly affirmed, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) When Jesus sent the disciples out in the path of God, he instructed them in such a manner as to leave no uncertainty in this regard, for he told them, “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6) Throughout his ministry, Jesus was never recorded as having converted a single Gentile, and in fact is recorded as having initially rebuked a Gentile for seeking his favors, likening her to a dog (Matthew 15:22-28 and Mark 7:25-30). One wonders, what does that mean now, for those who have taken Jesus to be their ‘personal savior’ and presume to speak in his name?

You can read more here: Pauline Theology - The Religion of Islam

[_ALI_]

Salam
Thanks Acid! You've been a really great help.

[IslamicReplies]

There is good reason to doubt Jesus really said this because:

Matthew 28:19 - NKJV Footnote:
"Matthew 28:19 M-Text omits therefore."

Matthew 28:19 - DBY Bible Footnote:
The word 'therefore' has very doubtful authority.


Part of a sentence of Matthew 28:19 is part of the next verse (Matthew 28:20) which the earliest manuscripts do not contain.

Matthew 28:20 - Amplified Bible Commentary:
"Matthew 28:20 Some manuscripts do not contain this ending."


Bruce Metzger - Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament - Pg. 61:
"After aivw/noj most manuscripts, followed by the Textus Receptus, terminate the Gospel with avmh,n, reflecting the liturgical usage of the text. If the word had been present originally, no good reason can be found to account for its absence from the better representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western text-types."


In the future, maybe the discovery of even earlier manuscripts than we have now may prove the last few verses in Matthew 28 to be a later addition. The discovery of earlier manuscripts in the past have proved other verses to be later additions by scribes.