Bird M.F. - Jesus and The Gentiles AfterJeremias. Patterns and Prospects (CBR 2005)

http://cbi.sagepub.
com
Currents in Biblical Research
DOI: 10.1177/1476993X05055641
2005; 4; 83 Currents in Biblical Research
Michael F. Bird
Jesus and the Gentiles After Jeremias: Patterns and Prospects
http://cbi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/83
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Currents in Biblical Research Additional services and information for
http://cbi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://cbi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by Alvaro Pereira on January 25, 2008 http://cbi.sagepub.com Downloaded from
[CBR 4.1 (2005) 83-108]
DOI: 10.1177/1476993X05055641
2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks CA and New Delhi)
JESUS AND THE GENTILES AFTER JEREMIAS:
PATTERNS AND PROSPECTS
Michael F. Bird
University of Queensland
Brisbane, Australia
mfbird@telstra.com
ABSTRACT
Joachim Jeremiass study, Jesus Promise to the Nations has signi-
cantly impacted scholarly estimations of Jesus view of the Gentiles.
This study briey surveys earlier works, critiques Jeremiass position,
identies other contributors who have either followed Jeremias or have
tried to erect an opposing viewpoint. As such, the validity of Jeremiass
conclusion is challenged particularly against the backdrop of an emerg-
ing alternative whereby Jesus view of the Gentiles is constructed in
the context of Jewish restoration eschatology.
In 1956 Joachim Jeremias published his monograph Jesu Verheissung
fr die Volker (ET Jesus Promise to the Nations [1958]), which argued
that Jesus envisaged the Gentiles being saved at the eschaton and by
God. Consequently, Jesus did not embark on a Gentile mission nor did
he authorize his disciples to engage in one, but saw the salvation of the
Gentiles as programmed to occur at a specic co-ordinate in salvation-
history.
Afrmation of Jeremiass study has become commonplace in several
strands of New Testament research. In Matthean studies, particularly
when discussing Mt. 8.11-12, reference to or acceptance of Jeremiass
view by commentators is nearly ubiquitous. The inuence of Jeremias is
clearly apparent in Gnilkas comment:
Gott selber wird in letzter Stunde die Vlker zum Sion rufen und ihnen
das Heil anbieten. Einen aktiven missionarischen Einsatz impliziert der
Gedanke nicht. Im Gegensatz zur zentrifugalen Missionbewegung
84 Currents in Biblical Research 4.1 (2005)
verluft die Vlkerwallfahrt zentripetal, auf ein Zentrum hin (Gnilka
198688: I, 303).
A similar impact is discernible in historical Jesus studies as epitomized
recently by Dunn:
The picture which emerges is one in which Jesus did not envisage a
mission to the Gentiles, but took for granted the likelihood that Gen-
tiles would be included in Gods kingdom (Dunn 2003: 539; cf. Meyer
1979: 167-68).
It is certainly a tribute to Jeremias that his study, now nearly 50 years
old and a mere 84 pages in length, still commands wide assent in many
quarters of New Testament study. However, the landscape of New Testa-
ment research has changed signicantly since Jeremias wrote. Many of
the points that Jeremias assumed, such as the existence of a pre-Christian
Jewish mission, have been largely contested (McKnight 1991; Riesner
2000). The Third Quest for the historical Jesus has made concerted
efforts to understand Jesus via the grid of Jewish restoration eschatology
(e.g. Sanders 1985; Wright 1996; McKnight 1999). From a methodologi-
cal standpoint, critics seem less condent about the use of signs of Ara-
maic as a criterion of authenticity which Jeremias used extensively (Meier
1991: 178-80; Porter 2000: 89-99; Evans 2002: 445-46). It is also gener-
ally recognized that there was a broader constellation of views about the
fate of the Gentiles in Second Temple Jewish literature than Jeremias
envisaged (Sanders 1992: 289-98). In view of that, it is the aim of this
study to examine the viability of Jeremiass conclusions about Jesus and
the salvation of Gentiles against the backdrop of recent discussion.
Unfortunately space necessitates restrictions on the scope of the topic and
it will not engage debates about the place of the Gentiles in the theology
of the individual Evangelists (cf. Wilk 2002), but focus instead on the
domain of the historical Jesus as that was Jeremiass primary interest in
his monograph. The way in which the study will proceed is by: (1) high-
lighting antecedents to Jeremias; (2) evaluating Jeremiass own position;
(3) identifying recent trends that have emerged since Jeremias wrote; and
(4) analyzing a promising alternative.
1. Antecedents to Jeremias
Early-twentieth-century German thought wrestled with the question of
whether Jesus was a universalist or a particularist. According to Harnack
(19045) and Goguel (1933), Jesus had no vision of Gentile salvation,
BIRD Jesus and the Gentiles after Jeremias 85
though he did exhibit an implicit universalism. Spitta (1909) saw Jesus as
a universalist; indeed, as even the rst Gentile missionary. Schweitzer
(1998) understood Jesus as universalistic in orientation, but particularist
in demonstration. Meinertz (1925) perceived a shift from implicit to ex-
plicit universalism in Jesus thought, a universalism that was prosecuted
by the post-Easter church. (See surveys in Sundkler 1937: 1-9; Hahn
1965: 26-29; Ker 1988; McKnight 1992: 259-60; Schnabel 1994: 38-39;
2002b: 324-25.)
Sundkler (1937) argued that the question of whether Jesus was a par-
ticularist or a universalist rests on a false antithesis. Jesus did not conceive
of his relationship with the Gentiles in horizontal dimensions of universal-
ism, but vertically via the matrix of salvation history. Jerusalem is the
epicenter of the universe and what happens there affects the whole world.
The ministry of the Messiah would lead to, la rgnration cosmique
(Sundkler 1937: 38). This leads to Sundklers dictum, Il tait universali-
ste justement parce que, seulement parce quil tait particulariste
(Sundkler 1937: 36, original italics).
Munck (1959) suggested that Jesus prohibition against going to the
Samaritans and Gentiles is actually a veiled form of universalism. This
apparent particularism is in fact an expression of his universalism it is
because his mission concerns the whole world that he comes to Israel. It
is a question of representative universalism of the same kind we shall nd
later in Paul (Munck 1959: 271, 276-79).
Manson (1964) contended that the gospel is rst for Israel but not only
for Israel. Manson asks, What sort of mission is it that must be restricted
in this way? (Manson 1964: 4). He surmises that, Jesus saw the imme-
diate task as that of creating such a community within Israel, in the faith
that it would transform the life of his own people, and that a transformed
Israel would transform the world (Manson 1964: 23-24).
2. Jeremias: The Promise and its Problems
Jeremias commences his study in the rst section by making three nega-
tive conclusions (see summary in Jeremias 1971: 245-47):
1. Jesus pronounced a stern judgment upon the Jewish mission
(Jeremias 1958: 11-19). Following works by Schrer, Moore
and Bamberger, Jeremias thinks that the Judaism of the post-
Maccabean period was a missionary religion. He argues, Jesus
thus came on the scene in the midst of what was par excellence
the missionary age of Jewish history (Jeremias 1958: 12). Yet
in this context the only explicit statement about mission attrib-
uted to Jesus is one where he condemns the proselytizing efforts
of the Pharisees in Mt. 23.15 (cf. Bird 2004a).
2. Jesus forbade his disciples during his lifetime to preach to non-
Jews (Jeremias 1958: 19-25). Jeremias nds in Mt. 10.5-6 and
Mt. 10.23 a deliberate prohibition of any kind of missionary
activity orientated towards Gentiles and Samaritans. He inter-
prets the pre-resurrection mission sayings about the preaching
of the gospel to the nations in Mk 13.10; 14.9 as referring to a
pre-Pauline notion of gospel as found in Rev. 14.6-7. There the
gospel that is preached is not a human proclamation, but is an
apocalyptic event, namely, the angelic proclamation of Gods
nal act (Jeremias 1958: 23). The ministry of James, Peter and
John to the circumcision (Gal. 2.9) conrms that the limitation
was even kept in the post-Easter period.
3, Jesus limited his own activity to Israel (Jeremias 1958: 25-39).
The presence of Gentiles in Palestine meant that, The question
of whether he [Jesus] should direct his activity towards Gentiles
cannot have been avoided by Jesus (Jeremias 1958: 26). How-
ever, in Mt. 15.24 Jesus purposely rejects the notion that his
ministry includes the Gentiles because he was sent only to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel. The stories of healings of Gen-
tiles do not in any way deny this basic point but are recognizable
exceptions. Jeremias rejects the idea that Jesus, after rejection
in Galilee, embarked on a subsequent Gentile mission. Further-
more, Jesus remained within the boundaries of Eretz Israel
throughout his entire ministry.
In section 2, Jeremias offers three positive conclusions:
1. Jesus removes the idea of vengeance from the eschatological
expectation (Jeremias 1958: 41-46). In contrast to popular ex-
pectations for the destruction of the nations, Jeremias argues
that Jesus held a far more positive estimation of their fate. In
Lk. 4.16-30, Jeremias attributes Jesus rejection by the audience
as being due to his omission of the reference to the destruction
of the Gentiles from his reading of Isa. 61.1-2. Jeremias sur-
mises that, Jesus detaches the nationalistic idea of revenge from
the hope of redemption (Jeremias 1958: 43).
2. Jesus promises the Gentiles a share in salvation (Jeremias 1958:
46-51). At several points Jesus intimates that Gentiles possess a
lot in salvation, for instance Jeremias asserts that the certainty of
Gentile salvation is afrmed by Jesus contrast between Israel-
ites and Gentiles in many sayings, e.g. Mt. 8.11-12. Jeremias
perceives Jesus, like John the Baptist, as attacking the view that
ethnicity guaranteed salvation. In fact, at the nal judgement
the distinction between Israel and the Gentiles would disappear
(Jeremias 1958: 49). Continued resistance to Jesus message
would result in Israel being excluded and Gentiles being in-
cluded in Gods saving designs.
3. The redemptive activity and lordship of Jesus includes the Gen-
tiles (Jeremias 1958: 51-54). In Jeremiass estimation, the mes-
sage of salvation offered to the Gentiles is incomprehensible
unless it is rooted in Jesus consciousness of his own authority.
Assuming the authenticity of certain christological titles, Jere-
mias asserts that Jesus role as the Son of man, Messiah, Son of
David and Servant of Yahweh all imply a certain relationship to
the Gentiles, as both ruler and savior. The inclusion of the Gen-
tiles is wholly bound up with the fact that he is the fulller of
Scripture (Jeremias 1958: 53).
At this juncture it appears that Jeremias has built a deliberate contra-
diction into his account, viz., Jesus consciously conned his mission and
that of disciples to Israel while at the same time he promised Gentiles a
portion in the coming kingdom of God. In section 3, Jeremias attempts to
bring this paradox to a workable resolution. The solution he proffers lies
in Mt. 8.11, I say to you, that many shall come from the east and the west,
and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of heaven.
The temporal setting of this momentous event occurs when the Patriarchs
are risen and seated at the divine banquet. Jeremias writes, The fact that
the Gentiles participate with the patriarchs in the Messianic feast indicates
that they have been incorporated into the people of God at the consumma-
tion of all things (Jeremias 1958: 63). After examining several other scat-
tered sayings he concludes, Thus we see that the incorporation of the
Gentiles into the Kingdom of God promised by the prophets, was ex-
pected and announced by Jesus as Gods eschatological act of power, as
the great nal manifestation of Gods free grace (Jeremias 1958: 70,
original italics).
Accordingly, the purported contradiction between Jesus exclusive
ministry to Israel on the one hand, and his promise of Gentiles partici-
pating in the kingdom on the other hand, are suitably resolved when one
understands the salvation-historical drama as being played out in two
successive stages. First, the call of Israel by Jesus, and second the redemp-
tive incorporation of the Gentiles by God (Jeremias 1958: 71). Jeremias
anticipates the question: why did Jesus draw such a sharp distinction
between his mission to Israel and Gods nal summons of the Gentiles?
Jeremias nds the answer in the explanation given by the early church,
that is, two necessary preconditions needed to be met. First, the promises
to Israel, as the children of the patriarchs, have to be fullled prior to the
incorporation of the Gentiles. In addition, the salvation of the Gentiles
can only follow from the cross where the Servant of Yahweh dies for the
sins of many. Jesus redemptive mission was to fulll these two condi-
tions (Jeremias 1958: 71-73). In Jeremiass own words, Jesus preaching
to Israel was the precondition, his death for countless hosts rendered
possible, and his parousia will bring into being, the people of God of the
New Age, and the Kingdom of God over the whole world (Jeremias
1958: 73).
In a postscript Jeremias makes a brief note about the relevance of his
thesis for modern-day missions. (1) He observes that mission is a su-
premely theocentric act. People can do nothing since God alone saves. (2)
Jeremias afrms the value of mission as an eschatological act of God and
a sign of the period between Easter and Parousia. Mission is a partial ful-
llment of the divine intent and represents an eschatology in the process
of realization (Jeremias 1958: 74-75; 1971: 247).
There are perceptible strengths in Jeremiass study. First, the salvation-
historical framework that Jeremias borrows and develops from Sundkler
is correct. Any strict bifurcation between seeing Jesus as advocating par-
ticularism or universalism evaporates once Jesus is understood as operat-
ing within the story of Jewish eschatological hopes. Second, Jeremias also
presents Jesus as one who appropriates and applies the Old Testament
hopes to his contemporary situation. Third, the shape of Jeremiass argu-
ment possesses an air of plausibility since Jesus is situated in a thoroughly
Jewish context as one who ministers to Israel, but continued to hold out
hope that the kingdom may eventually include the nations.
There remain, however, several contestable matters. First, his accep-
tance of the existence of widespread missionary activity in Second Tem-
ple Judaism is highly debatable (see bibliography in Bird 2004a: 118-19,
nn. 8-9 and discussion in Riesner 2000: 211-20; McKnight 1991). There
was a constellation of attitudes to Gentiles in rabbinic and diasporan
literature. Such diversity generated a host of practices towards non-Jews
ranging from contempt to conditional acceptance. To be sure, some Gen-
tiles did attach themselves to Judaism as sympathizers (God-fearers or
God-worshippers) and some even went as far as becoming proselytes.
This phenomenon was signicant enough to prompt umbrage from Greco-
Roman authors (Dio Cassius, Hist. 57.18.5a; Seneca, De Superstitione
cited in Augustine, Civ. D. 6.11; Tacitus, Hist. 5.5; Juvenal, Sat. 14.96-
106; Suetonius, Domitian 12.2). Although reaching a conclusion is con-
tingent upon how one denes mission and conversion (McKnight 1991:
4-7; 2002: 1-25; Svartvik 2000: 333-34; Riesner 2000: 221-23; Dickson
2003: 7-10), the evidence seems to indicate that at no time did Jewish
activity amongst Gentiles erupt into a deliberate and concerted prosely-
tizing mission (cf. McKnight 1991). There was no Jewish counterpart to
the Pauline mission. Moreover, Jeremias assumes that Second Temple
Judaism and primitive Christianity were both engaged in an active mis-
sion to the Gentiles. In which case, Jesus distinctiveness lies in his rejec-
tion of such a mission. This appears to be an overly radical application of
the criterion of double dissimilarity and consequently Jesus becomes a
free-oating iconoclast, who is articially insulated from the practices of
Judaism and the beliefs and praxis of early Christianity. McKnight notes a
further contradiction in Jeremiass argument. Jeremias contends for the
existence of a pre-Christian mission to win over the Gentiles, but then
goes on to maintain that Jesus and Judaism looked forward to the inclu-
sion of the Gentiles at the eschaton. These two points do not square neatly
together (McKnight 1991: 3).
Second, Jeremiass appeal to the ministry of Peter, John and James to
the circumcision as further proof of Jesus limited purview of Israel is
not wholly correct. Jewish Christianity was not typied by a restriction of
mission activity to Israel, but only that Jewish scruples should not be
offended within the conduct of the Gentile mission (Acts 15) and holding
out a continuing hope that Israel may yet respond (Romans 911 and per-
haps Q). Even if one discounts the evidence from Acts, Peter is reported
as journeying to Antioch (Gal. 2.11-14), Corinth (1 Cor. 1.12; 3.22; 9.5)
and according to tradition eventually Rome (1 Pet. 5.13; 1 Clement 5;
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.25.6). If his principal task was to minister to
Jewish Christians in the major population centers of the Mediterranean,
interaction with Gentiles was inevitable hence the controversy at Antioch.
Likewise, the Judaizers that Paul had to contend with seem to have fo-
cused their attention on Pauls Gentile converts (Gal. 6.13; Acts 15.5).
The ministry of the apostle John, in later Christian tradition, was also asso-
ciated with the area of Asia Minor, which conceivably involved mixed
Jewish and Gentile congregations.
Third, the interpretation that Jeremias forces onto Mk 13.10; 14.9 con-
cerning the apocalyptic proclamation of the gospel by angels reads too
much into the text. To the contrary, the proclamation of the gospel by the
church was, in a sense, an apocalyptic event since it occurs amidst the
nal tribulation and preaching itself is a sign of salvation and a warning
of judgment (Bird 2004b: 131). Paul saw his ministry of proclamation as
absorbing the messianic woes (Col. 1.24) and would eventually result in
the inclusion of Gentiles and Jews into the eschatological people of God
(Romans 911).
Fourth, Jeremias fails to recognize the role of agents other than God
who are active in bringing the Gentiles into salvation. Israel was the agent
of God par excellence who were called to be a kingdom of priests (Exod.
19.6; cf. Philo, Vit. Mos. 1.149; Spec. Leg. 1.97; 2.162-63). The Psalter
often exhorts his readers to praise God among the nations (e.g. Pss. 9.11;
18.49; 45.17; 57.9; 67.2-7). Even if the ministry of Jonah was exceptional,
he was still a prophet sent to Gentiles. Dickson identies in Isaiah several
passages that ascribe Gods prophetic call to the nations as utilizing human
agency to accomplish it (Isa. 2.2-3; 45.18-23; 66.18-19; Dickson 2003: 20-
22). The Servant of Yahweh, regardless of whether he is an individual or
corporate gure, is meant to be a light to the Gentiles in Isa. 42.6 and
49.6. The notion that the Gentiles are saved by God without recourse to
human agency cannot be sustained.
Fifth, Jeremias depends largely on his interpretation of Mt. 8.11-12 for
this argument to hold water. The problem is that the Lucan parallel in Lk.
13.28-29 does occur in a literary context analogous to Matthews setting
of the meeting with the centurion. The juxtaposition of the story of the
centurion in Mt. 8.5-10 and the logion of Mt. 8.11-12 may thus be the
result of Matthean redaction and not necessarily of the historical Jesus.
One should not dismiss too quickly the possibility that Jesus uttered such
a penetrating and controversial saying such as Lk. 13.28-29/Mt. 8.11-12
on more than one occasion or that such a saying made its way to other
parts of the Jesus tradition. Even so, Lukes failure to include the logion
in his parallel story of the centurion in Lk. 7.1-10 indicates that the story
of the centurion and the saying about the eschatological banquet may not
have been linked together in Q. In which case the combination of the two
elements would stem from Matthean redaction and indicate his view of
the inclusion of the Gentiles.
This conclusion vindicates Allisons complaint that, Whether NT exe-
getes are discussing Jesus, Q, Matthew or Luke, they almost always under-
stand those coming from east and west to be Gentiles while the sons of the
kingdom are accordingly identied with Jews (Allison 1989: 158). Allison
points out that there is no substantial evidence that the many (Matthew)
or the they will come (Luke) are unequivocally identied as Gentiles.
Instead Allison and others advocate that the phrase east and west is more
readily correlated with the Jews of the diaspora. This is reinforced by the
corresponding language that is found in passages such as Ps. 107.2-3 [LXX
106.2-3]; Isa. 43.5; Zech. 8.7-8; Bar. 4.36-37; 5.5; 1 Enoch 57.1; Pss. Sol.
11.1-3, which all focus on the restoration of Israel or regathering of the
diaspora. If so, the original referent in the logion was to the eschatological
regathering of Israel rather than to the eschatological pilgrimage of the
nations (Davies and Allison 198897: II, 27-29; Allison 1989; 1997: 176-
91; 1998: 141-45; Sanders 1985: 219-20; Nolland 198993: II, 735-36;
Malina 1996: 18; but cf. Theissen 1991: 45; Jeremias 1971: 246-47). If
Allisons point holds, it constitutes a near coup de grace to the argument
of Jeremias.
Sixth, Sanders criticizes Jeremias for picturing Jesus preaching to
Israel as a matter of form, but has Jesus still knowing that Israel would be
destroyed and the kingdom pass to the Gentiles. It raises the question of
why Jesus went to Israel in the rst place (Sanders 1987: 227-32). Sand-
ers is correct in that many commentators have read Rom. 1.16 back into
Jesus life as a program for his own mission.
Seventh, if the Gentiles are to be saved by God at the eschaton, the
mission of the church (ancient and modern) seems unnecessary. It means
that the origin of the Gentile mission owes its existence far more to the
early churchs eschatology (Thompson 1971; Barrett 1988: 71), a product
of the Hellenistic church (Kasting 1969) or alternatively to cognitive dis-
sonance (Gager 1975: 38-39), than it does to Jesus view of the kingdom.
Jeremias tries to avoid this objection by introducing a realized eschatol-
ogy into the early church where the resurrection of Jesus meant that the
eschaton had burst in allowing the Gentiles to join the church, or else
perceiving God as immanently active through the mission of the church.
Yet there remains the problem of why the early church should take up an
activity reserved for God (Hahn 1965: 29) and adopt the unprecedented
centrifugal mission. What is more, a realized eschatology was not the
innovation of the early church but is apparent, to some degree, in Jesus
ministry (Lk. 11.20; cf. Jeremias 1972: 230). In which case, Jesus minis-
try provides an equally good setting to link eschatology with the inclusion
of the Gentiles regardless of how it might relate to his mission to Israel.
3. Jesus and the Gentiles in Scholarship After Jeremias
Following Jeremias in the Salvation-Historical Approach
Of the specic works that have followed Jeremias, several are worth not-
ing in their renement of Jeremiass argument.
Caird takes it as axiomatic that Jesus message was addressed to the
history, politics, aspirations, and destiny of the Jewish nation (Caird
1965: 5). The problem is not that Jesus was a particularist and the Church
was universalist, but rather the opposite. There is a tacit universal under-
lying Jesus message. The Son of man was one who would subdue the
nations. The triumphal entry enacted out the prophetic vision of Zech.
9.9-10 and in doing so conjured up the image of a world ruler. Jesus cri-
tiques the nation for cherishing its own sanctity rather than being a light
to the nations (Caird 1965: 12-13; 1994: 394-95, 397-98). Jesus claimed
that that affronted Jews would look on to see Gentiles participating at the
Messianic banquet. Yet this does not square with the fact that in Acts, the
most pro-Gentile book of the New Testament, the Church was initially
devoid of concern for a Gentile mission (Caird 1955: 84; 1965: 12; 1994:
393-94). Additionally, the Gentile mission was prompted, not by Jesus
teachings, but by the experience of the Spirit (Caird 1955: 64-66). Caird
nds a resolution in Jesus preaching of the Day of the Lord and the
kingdom of God which signaled that God would soon summon the
nations. The mission to the Gentiles would only happen after Israel had
received the gospel and the winning of the Gentiles belonged to the
period of universal restoration (Caird 1965: 13-15; 1994: 396).
Hahn broaches the topic in his study of mission in the New Testament
(1965). His criticizes Jeremias for bruising the nerve that connects the
pre-Easter activity of Jesus with the post-Easter Church (Hahn 1965: 29).
Jesus mission was directed at Israel but did not follow the conventional
boundaries within Israel permitting him to minister to outcasts, Samari-
tans and even Gentiles (Hahn 1965: 29-33). The enabling factor is pres-
ence of the kingdom which leads far beyond every particularist horizon
and implies, In working for the salvation of all Israel Jesus works for the
salvation of the whole world. As the kingdom dawns, it draws for the
Gentiles too and the moment for their coming and worshipping is within
reach (Hahn 1965: 33). Passages such as Mt. 8.11-12 are said to show
that Jesus understood his work among Israel from a universalist point
of view, and as initiating a complete annulment of the particularist Heils-
geschicte in view of the eschaton (Hahn 1965: 36). Jesus was not a mis-
sionary to the Gentiles, but the promises for the nations and the narratives
of Jesus acceptance of individual Gentiles cannot be torn apart. Hahn
contends, Thus Jesus message and works in Israel became a witness
among the Gentiles, and still more: the eschatological event already
began to be realized, salvation came within direct reach of the Gentiles
(Hahn 1965: 39).
According to Scobie, Jesus conned his mission to Israel, and Matthew
and Luke ascribe explicit missionary commands only to the risen Jesus.
Concurrently, Jesus afrmed the entry of non-Jews into the kingdom and
rejected a narrowly nationalistic view of salvation. There were undoubt-
edly instances when Jesus accepted Gentiles and gave them a share in
salvation in the present. This acceptance, as with Hahn, is possible because
of a partially realized eschatology. It was the Hellenists, however, who
saw the resurrection of Christ as the decisive event that prompted their
mission and provided the historical and theological link with Paul (Scobie
1984: 59-60).
No Place for a Gentile Mission in Jesus Eschatology
One view is that Jesus apocalyptic expectation for the imminence of
kingdom implied that there was no interim period for a Gentile mission.
Wilson (1973: 28; cf. Vermes 1993: 214-15) suggests that Jesus main-
tained a positive hope for the Gentiles and this hope would be fullled
in the apocalyptic events of the End-time. However, Jesus also believed
that the Parousia was imminent so that there was no room for a historical
Gentile mission.
The validity of this approach is contingent upon what one makes of
Jesus eschatology. Rowland, who is highly sympathetic of consistent
eschatology, does not see a lack of space for a Gentile mission in Jesus
eschatology. Rowland comments, Jesus did not envisage a religious
system independent of Judaism. He may have prepared for the existence
of a sect within Judaism as a temporary measure during the short period
before the kingdom of God came by delegating his authority to preach
and act on Gods behalf (Rowland 1985: 153). Second, in Judaism there
already was a tradition of having to deal with the delay of Gods eschato-
logical saving purposes. Jewish thinking could also accommodate the
inauguration of the kingdom over a period of time, in and through multi-
ple events (e.g. Jubilees 23; 1 Enoch 91.12-17). As a result, the immi-
nence of the kingdom in Jesus teaching does not necessarily require the
imminence of the whole eschatological scenario (Witherington 1999:
265). Third, comparison with other contemporary Jewish movements in
the rst century shows that there is no disparity between holding intense
eschatological beliefs and establishing a visible community. The Teacher
of Righteousness founded or re-founded a community at Qumran, follow-
ers of John the Baptist persisted after his death, and Judas the Galilean
established a somewhat loose revolutionary movement with his descen-
dents and their followers that outlived him.
No Concern for the Gentiles or a Gentile Mission in View of Jesus
Mission to Israel
An additional view that has become increasingly popular (cf. Kasting
1969; Meier 19912001: II, 309-17, 660; III, 251-52) is that Jesus was so
xated on the restoration of Israel that he did not express any particular
viewpoint about the salvation of the Gentiles or a Gentile mission. Malina
argues that, Jesus did not care at all about the Gentiles nor did he foresee,
foretell, forebode the coming of Gentiles into the theocracy God would
soon found in Jerusalem (Malina 1996: 15-16). Pesch perceives in Jesus
no real concern for Gentiles; instead Jesus missionarische Praxis zielt
nicht darauf, neue Gemeinden zu bilden, sondern ganz Israel zu erneuern
(Pesch 1982: 26). Meinertz (1925) and Bosch (1959; 1969; 1991: 29-31)
see Jesus limiting his mission to Israel but holding out the possibility of
Gentile inclusion in the future, an inclusion that began with the resurrec-
tion and the post-Easter church.
Hengel posits a qualied continuity between the pre-Easter mission of
Jesus and the post-Easter mission of the disciples (Hengel 1983: 60-62).
However, Hengel supposes that the salvation of the Gentiles and the
prospect of a Gentile mission lay outside his eld of vision, which was
concentrated on Israel (Hengel 1983: 62). What can be surmised from
the Gospels is that, rstly, Jesus exhibited some degree of openness
towards non-Jews which is proximate to his concern for the am ha-ares.
Secondly, Jesus could contrast Gentiles and Samaritans with the obsti-
nacy of Israel. Consequently, Jesus constitutes the ultimate starting point
for the later mission (Hengel 1983: 63-64; cf. Bosch 1959: 16-17; 1991:
30-31), but not its inception.
Sanders asserts that Jesus focus on Israel meant that he was not di-
rectly concerned with the Gentiles (Sanders 1985: 68; 1993: 192). Yet
Sanders notes that, Jesus does seem to have made a denite gesture in
favor of including Gentiles in the kingdom, although he may well have
envisaged their inclusion at the eschaton. According to Sanders, it is
virtually certain that Jesus conducted no Gentile mission and restricted
his preaching to Israel and it is probable that the predictions of a Gentile
mission are inventions of the early church (Sanders and Davies 1989:
312).
Jesus hope for the kingdom ts into the long-standing and deeply held
hopes among the Jews, who continued to look for God to redeem his
people and constitute a new kingdom, one in which Israel would be
peaceful and secure, and one in which Gentiles would serve the God of
Israel (E.P. Sanders 1993: 193).
The debates concerning the entrance of Gentiles into early Christianity
are only explicable if Jesus did not utter any explicit opinion concerning
them (Sanders 1985: 220-21). In sum, the overwhelming impression is
that Jesus started a movement which came to see the Gentile mission as a
logical extension of itself (Sanders 1985: 220, original italics).
In response, there is no reason to suggest that simply because Jesus
mission was to Israel that he had no answer to the Gentile question.
Davies contends that the most crucial question facing rst-century Juda-
ism was that posed by the Gentile world (Davies 1976: 547). Also a more
plausible case can be made for the authenticity of sayings such as Mk
13.10 than Sanders acknowledges (cf. Wilson 1973: 18-28; Schnabel
2002b: 326). For the most part, the pro-Gentile Evangelists seem highly
restrained in their use of material relating to the Gentiles. Wright also
notes that in Jewish thinking the fate of the world was intrinsically bound
up with the fate of Israel. When God did what he was going to do for
Israel, there were real and necessary consequences for the surrounding
nations (Wright 1992: 268; 1996: 308-309). Jrgen Becker comments
similarly, Anyone in Early Judaism who spoke of Israels nal salvation
could hardly omit the subject of Israel and the nations (Becker 1998:
314; cf. McKnight 1999: 106). Consequently, it is difcult to maintain
Jesus silence on the topic when his praxis and message presupposed if
not promoted an answer to the Gentile question.
Jesus as Active Initiator of the Gentile Mission
Another proposal comes from those who nd in Jesus ministry a deliber-
ate attempt to include the Gentiles in his kingdom mission and to actively
foreshadow a later mission to the Gentiles. A somewhat eccentric varia-
tion of this view comes from Falk (1985) who creatively proposes that
Jesus was a Hillelite Pharisee who attempted to proselytize Gentiles into
following the Noachide commandments.
A more plausible presentation of this position comes from Eckhard
Schnabel (1994; 2002a: 42-45; 2002b: 324-75; cf. too Barnett 1999: 169-
70), who accepts the priority of Israel in Jesus mission, but still sees the
Gentile mission already embedded within Jesus mission. Schnabel works
backwards from the early church to Jesus and points out that the move-
ment initiated by Jesus saw the Gentile mission as an entirely natural
venture (Schnabel 1994: 41). When examining the Gospels, Schnabel
wholly admits that they are full of mission theology. The Gospels are
exceptionally eager to demonstrate a tangible connection between a con-
cern for the Gentiles and Jesus. Yet this nexus between Jesus and mis-
sion among the Gentiles cannot simply be ascribed to the aetiological
interests of the Gospel writers (Schnabel 1994: 47). Schnabel analyzes
the various stories of Jesus encounters with the Gentiles and Jesus say-
ings concerning Gentiles (Schnabel 1994: 49-57), and infers that although
Jesus did not seek out Gentiles (Schnabel 2002b: 377), the basis of the
Gentile mission is entrenched in his concern for outsiders (Schnabel 1994:
57-58). Schnabel concludes:
We conclude, therefore, that the Gospels portray Jesus as ministering
to Israel with salvation-historical priority as the people of God. At the
same time his ministry was not conned to Jews but extended beyond
the boundaries dened by the Sinai covenant. His encounters with Gen-
tiles indicated, sometimes quite clearly, that the gospel of the kingdom
of God establishes a new covenant community which encompasses
Jews and Gentiles alike. In anticipation of things to come Jesus spoke
of a future universal mission of his disciples, the prole of which he
delineated after his death and resurrection (Schnabel 1994: 58; cf.
2002a: 45).
Several critical remarks may be raised against this position. First, some
may accuse Schnabel of being somewhat uncritical regarding the authen-
ticity of certain texts. Many would see the various sayings about Gentiles
in the Gospels as being placed onto the lips of Jesus or else perceive the
miracles as allegories of the success of the Christian mission (Sanders
and Davies 1989: 312; Crossan 1991: 328). That is not to say that the
conclusion that Schnabel draws is necessarily false, but a more rigorous
periscope-by-pericope and logion-by-logion study needs to be carried out
with specic attention paid to issues of tradition-history and criteria of
authenticity. Second, the stories of the encounters between Jesus and
Gentile gures seem rather ad hoc and exceptional. Moreover, they usu-
ally commence on a negative footing (e.g. Mk 7.27; Mt. 8.7) and at the
initiative of the Gentile, hence the surprising outcomes. Although the
Evangelists clearly understand such encounters as a paradigm for the later
Gentile mission, it remains an open question as to whether the historical
intention of Jesus in such meetings was to foreshadow such a mission.
Third, Schnabel postulates a compelling case for continuity between Jesus
and the early church on the subject of the Gentile mission. What he fails
to elucidate is the extent of and reason for the discontinuity between Jesus
and the early church. For instance, if Mt. 8.11-12 is evidence of Jesus
view of the salvation of the Gentiles, then how does one explain the
transition from a centripetal to a centrifugal view of mission? (cf. Dunn
1991: 118; Scobie 1992: 301-305; Tan 1997: 239; Bird 2004b: 133).
Fourth, one can also detect a somewhat global bias in his view of Jesus
mission to Israel. He identies the priority of Israel in Jesus ministry, but
such a ministry seems to be dened in view of the later Gentile mission.
Thus, much like Jeremias, it is tacitly supposed that Jesus rst ministered
to Israel because the Gentiles would be saved at a later time. One could
be forgiven for getting the impression that the mission to Israel was
almost a salvation-historical bottleneck that had to be entered before the
real mission to the world got underway. Rather, I would be prepared to
argue that the historical Jesus went to Israel for no reason other than he
was a prophet sent to Israel. However the Gentiles may gure into Jesus
aims and intentions, they must clearly be subordinated to his overarching
concern to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt. 10.5-6;
15.24).
4. New Directions in Current Research
The failings of the eschatological and quasi-agnostic approach are prompt-
ing a reappraisal of the relationship between restoration eschatology,
Jesus, and the Gentiles. What I shall briey articulate is the direction
that this research appears to be taking on several issues. It may not have
reached a consensus yet, but an emerging view is that the salvation of
the Gentiles was intimately bound up with the restoration of Israel. This
affords a positive estimation of the Gentiles by Jesus and posits a quali-
ed continuity between the pre- and post-Easter mission. It is a position
that resonates with works by Manson, Caird, Hahn, Schnabel, Wright,
Barnett, and McKnight.
1. The starting point is that it has become widely acknowledged that
Jesus was a Jew who ministered to other Jews. The negative statements
in the Gospels concerning Gentiles (Mk 7.27; 10.41-45; Mt. 6.7; 7.6; Lk.
12.30-31/Mt. 6.32-33) belong to a core of authentic tradition. They are too
embarrassing to be creations of the early church and Jesus plausibly
shares a negative evaluation of pagan beliefs and practices as echoed in
sapiential, apocalyptic and rabbinic traditions. Furthermore, it is ubiqui-
tous in the Jesus tradition that Jesus stressed the priority of Israel, a
thought identiable in Q (Lk. 22.30/Mt. 19.28), Paul (Rom. 15.8), Mark
(Mk 7.27), Matthew (Mt. 10.5-6; 15.24), Luke (Acts 3.25-26), and John
(Jn 4.20-22). The sayings tradition is conrmed by Jesus action in calling
twelve disciples (Mk 3.13-16) and that he never moved outside of Eretz
Israel. There is no justication for seeing Jesus as shifting to a more
universal outlook after the purported Galilean crisis. As far as is known
his concern for Israel remained the constant focus of his ministry and
never yielded to a more universal outlook.
2. Jesus is remembered for contrasting faithful Gentiles of antiquity
with the present faithlessness of Israel. This includes contrasts with Nine-
veh, the Queen of Sheba (Lk. 11.29-32/Mt. 12.38-42), and even Sodom,
Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon (Lk. 10.12-15/Mt. 10.15; 11.20-24). Catch-
pole (1993: 243) states, All of these adverse comparisons with Gentile
personnel belong to a mission to Israel and have high claim to go back to
Jesus himself. The purpose of such sayings does not seem to be that of
opening up for the inclusion of the Gentiles; instead it comprises Jesus
rhetorical rejoinder to the rejection he faced and is an attempt to call Israel
to faith in him as Gods prophetic agent. The corollary is that salvation is
no longer tied to ethnicity or the inviolability of Israels election, but is
possible for anyone, even the most heinous of pagans from Israels past,
who respond to Gods messenger. Furthermore, Jesus likens his ministry
to that of the activity of Jonah and Solomon who were known, among
other things, for their interaction with Gentiles. One observes in these two
gures examples of centrifugal (Jonah goes to Nineveh) and centripetal
(Queen of Sheba comes to Solomon) activity with respect to Gentiles. It
would be reading too much into the account to nd in these passages a
modus operandi for mission, but it does create a precedent for how Gen-
tiles may be addressed by a renewal movement.
3. In another tradition unique to Luke (Lk. 4.16-30), Jesus enters a
synagogue and cites Isaiah 61, where after he soon appeals to Gentile
characters in Namaan, the Syrian (2 Kgs 5) and the widow of Zarephath
(1 Kgs 17), in light of his rejection by the crowd. Luke 4.25-27 (about
Elijah and Elisha) is widely regarded as being pre-Lucan (cf. Bultmann
1963: 32, 116). Some argue that the passage functions to legitimize Jew-
Gentile fellowship (e.g. Bovon 2002: 156) or else to provide a justica-
tion from the Old Testament for the Gentile mission (e.g. Fitzmyer 1981
85: I, 537). But another perspective can be offered which makes perfect
sense in the context of Jesus ministry.
First, Jesus cites Isaiah 61 in his sermon but omits the reference to the
day of vengeance of our God, which invokes outrage from his audience
(Jeremias 1958: 43-45; Meyer 1979: 167; McKnight 1992: 260). Second,
James Sanders (1993) detects in the passage an example of prophetic
criticism, that is, trying to manufacture a certain meaning not by reinter-
preting a passage but by setting together two passages in order to under-
mine competing interpretations. In this case, the juxtaposition of Isaiah 61
with the Elijah and Elisha narratives functions to undermine a traditional
view of election where judgment is reserved for those outside the elect
community. To the contrary, Jesus audience has rejected the prophetic
messenger, resulting in a dramatic redenition of who Israel is. The iden-
tity of the captives to be set free is said to include traditional outsiders:
widows, women, lepers and even Gentiles who respond to Jesus. Even
more intriguing is that one again encounters the dual modes of centrifugal
(Elijah going to the widow) and centripetal (Namaan coming to Elisha)
activities.
4. Several parables highlight the possibility of Gentiles joining the
restored Israel. In the parable of the mustard seed in Mk 4.30-32 (= Lk.
13.18-19/Mt. 13.31-32; Gos. Thom. 20), it is stated that when the mustard
tree matures birds of the air can nest under its shade. The tree arguably
represents the nation of Israel or else the kingdom of God and the refer-
ence to birds is most likely an indication of the inclusion of the Gentiles
(cf. Ezek. 17.22-24; 1 Enoch 90.30; 4 Ezra 5.26). Jeremias argues that
since the word |ooo|qvouv (to nest) is used in Zech. 2.11 (LXX2.15)
and Jos. and Asen. 15.6 with reference to the incorporation of the Gen-
tiles, it is a technical term for the incorporation of the Gentiles into the
people of God (Jeremias 1972: 147). There may be enough inter-textual
echoes to validate an oblique reference to Gentiles joining a restored Israel
(cf. Wright 1996: 241). If that restoration is gradually becoming a reality,
or if the kingdom is in some sense present (Mk 1.15; Lk. 11.20), then the
immediate possibility of Gentile inclusion becomes tenable. The authen-
ticity of the unit seems probable since birds was not a term used to refer
to Gentiles in the early church and the parable would contain a deliber-
ately ambiguous protest against Jewish nationalism. McKnight rejects
such a view and suggests that the parable concerns how the inauspicious
and insignicant beginnings of the kingdom, comprising a small band of
Galileans, will eventually envelope the whole nation (McKnight 1999: 97-
98). To be sure, the primary point of the parables of Mark 4 is that the
reality of the kingdom should not be mistaken with its mundane appear-
ance. Even so, there still remains the possibility that Gentiles are envis-
aged as participating in the restored Israel on the grounds that in Jewish
literature birds more readily symbolizes Gentiles than Jews.
In the parable of the great banquet (Lk. 14.15-24/Mt. 22.1-14/Gos.
Thom. 64) the alternative guests invited to the banquet may potentially
include Gentiles as those normally marginalized by Jewish society. The
parable coheres with Jesus recurrent motif of eschatological reversal and
with banqueting metaphors that are found elsewhere in the Jesus tradition.
If the parable is taken to denote the invitation to Israel and the wider (and
unnished) task of inviting many normally excluded, such as Gentiles,
then one could be justied in asking, as Marshall does, Can such an out-
look be assigned to Jesus? It is by no means impossible (Marshall 1978:
590). Since the ethnicity of the later invitees is never specied, such a
conclusion must remain highly tentative.
5. Jesus announcement of the end of Israels exile held signicant
implications for the inclusion of the Gentiles. Wrights contention that in
Second Temple Judaism there was pervasive belief of a continuing exile
has qualied validity (Wright 1992: 268-71; 1996: 209). Exilic language
colors certain texts (e.g. Isaiah 4066; 2 Macc. 1.27-29; Tob. 14.5-7; CD
1.4-11, etc.) but it operated most likely as a metaphor for the incomplete-
ness of restoration rather than as a dominating meta-narrative (cf.
Downing 2000; Bryan 2002: 12-20). Allisons argument that Lk. 13.28-
29/Mt. 8.11-12 referred to ingathering of the diaspora is highly persua-
sive, but that does not eliminate a tangible connection with the inclusion
of the Gentiles. Several texts make a correlation between the salvation of
the Gentiles and the return of the diaspora (Jer. 3.17-18; Isa. 66.20-21;
Zech. 8.7-8, 20-23; Tob. 13.5, 11; 14.5-7; 1 Enoch 90.33; Pss. Sol. 17.26,
31; T. Benj. 9.2). Bruce Chilton comments, Jesus shared the Zecharian
vision that Israels gathering would draw in those beyond Israel (Chilton
1996: 82).
6. The more explicit predictions of a future preaching mission attrib-
uted to Jesus should be understood as a sequel to his own mission in an
unspecied future context. The memory of Jesus call to discipleship car-
ried with it the call to participate in his mission as indicated by numerous
sayings (Mk 1.17; 3.14; Lk. 10.2/Mt. 9.37-38; Jn 4.35; Lk. 9.60) and the
mission discourses (Mk 6.7-13, 30-31 [= Mt. 10.5-14; Lk. 9.1-6]; Lk.
10.1-12/Mt. 10.1-42; cf. Hahn 1965: 41-46). Following Jesus entailed
participation in a missionary eschatological community (Riches 1980:
107; cf. Hengel 1983: 61-62; Dunn 2003: 559). Consequently, any future
missionary activity is not a whole new event (Hengel 1983: 61). In this
context Mk 13.10 (And the gospel must rst be proclaimed to all nations)
needs to be understood as continuation of the initial mission. Bosch (1959:
132) believes that if Jesus envisaged the existence of a church [or should
we say renewed Israel] and since there cannot be a church [Israel] with-
out a mission, it is only a small step to Mk 13.10. The utterance does not
predict the existence of a Gentile mission with a distinctive non-torah
adherence policy for Gentiles. All that is mandated by the saying is that
Jesus disciples can expect to be persecuted by pagan authorities because
of their preaching activities. Within the course of this proclamation the
gospel of the kingdom will be preached to Gentiles.
7. Jesus encounters with Gentiles are exceptional events that demon-
strate Jesus willingness to cross boundaries. Jesus journeys to Gentile
areas in the Decapolis and northern Palestine were probably more to hide
than to minister. The plausibility of such encounters is established by the
ethnic composition of Palestine (Chancey 2002: 174) and the fact that
there is a paucity of references to Gentiles in the Gospels which arguably
shows a deliberate act of restraint on the part of the Synoptic Evangelists
on inventing material where Jesus ministered to Gentiles (Sanders and
Davies 1989: 308). The encounters signify that Jesus is willing to cross
ethnic boundaries (though at times with hesitation, cf. Mt. 8.7; Mk 7.27)
where faith is exhibited. In a cultural system dened by holiness, sacred
space, purity and delement, Jesus interaction with Gentiles undercuts the
traditional Jew-Gentile barriers. Jesus ministry was directed to sinners a
designation often used of Gentiles (Ps. 9.17; 1 Macc. 2.44, 48; Pss. Sol.
1.1; 2.1-2; Gal. 2.15). Jesus is remembered for accepting Gentiles as Gen-
tiles in light of their faith towards him and, because it was never dened
further, such actions set the agenda for future debates about Gentiles at an
embryonic stage of the messianic movement.
8. The cleansing of the Temple is a symbolic action of judgment against
an apostate and obsolete institution (Mk 11.15-17). What was meant to be
a house of prayer for all nations had in fact become a den of terrorists.
The word iqoq , is used which regularly meant bandit (BAGD, 594)
as opposed to |it q, (thief). Thus, Jesus censures the Temple for fail-
ing to draw the nations to Zion, and instead, it had become an icon for
Jewish nationalism(cf. Caird 1994: 396-98; Wright 1996: 419-21; Borg
1998: 182-89; Bird 2004a: 132; 2004b: 129-30). If Israel would not be a
light to the nations and if the Temple would not be a house of prayer
for nations, then Jesus and his followers would appropriate for them-
selves these roles through the eschatological activity breaking in at the
present time (Wright 1996: 329, 444).
9. A connection can be made between the restoration of Israel and the
eschatological inclusion of the Gentiles. Three premises are worth exam-
ining: (a) Jesus aim to restore Israel. (b) When Israel was nally recon-
stituted the Gentile world would participate in the blessings of Israel. (c)
Jesus believed that this restoration, though not complete, was gradually
becoming a reality amongst his followers who comprised the vanguard of
the renewed Israel. The logion in Mt. 8.11-12/Lk. 13.28-29 should be
analyzed in light of this. Many were already joining the reconstituted
Israel that Jesus was forming around him, bringing with it benets for the
Gentiles as a foretaste of the eschatological banquet. If so, it becomes
entirely conceivable that Gentiles can become recipients of Jesus min-
istry in so far as they are embryonic beneciaries of the eschatological
restoration of Israel. As Israels restoration becomes more and more of a
reality, it becomes all the more possible for Gentiles to experience the
blessing of Israels salvation. Thus, there is no need to project the salva-
tion of Gentiles to the eschaton since Jesus announcement of the restora-
tion of Israel was already opening up the path for Gentiles to join the
reconstituted people of God. This is conrmed by the encounter of Jesus
and the Syro-Phoenician woman in Mk 7.24-30. Jesus initially rebuffs her
request for healing for her daughter with a strongly worded statement that
it is not right to give the bread of children to dogs (though perhaps
uttered with a smile and designed to invite her witty reply; Caird 1994:
395). The woman shrewdly retorts that even dogs eat the crumbs of
children which both acknowledges the priority of Israel in Jesus mission
but also implies that Israels blessings can, even in limited ways, extend
to Gentiles in the present. Rhoads paraphrases the womans response,
Even now I and my daughter at the margins (should) benet from just
one exorcism from among the many benets for the Jews (Rhoads 1994:
357).
5. Conclusion
The challenge for the historian of Christian origins is in establishing how
Jesus ministry, centered on Israel, created a movement that saw a mis-
sion to the Gentiles as a natural extension of its own activity. The extent
to which that openness towards Gentiles and the mandate to preach to
them goes back to Jesus is genuinely problematic. Caird candidly re-
marked, The question of Jesus approach to the Gentiles is yet another
acute problem for the historical theologian (Caird 1994: 393; cf. Hahn
1965: 26). Apart from a few short articles, very few studies have tackled
this problem since Jeremiass landmark monograph. This lacuna in schol-
arship is probably attributable to either the assumption that Jeremiass
study has suitably answered the question, or else that the Gospels do not
give us an adequate picture of Jesus view of the Gentiles since they are
so overlaid with the mission theology of the early church. Both approaches
strike me as dissatisfying. In light of recent scholarship, Jeremiass posi-
tion no longer appears tenable. However, the more recent trend of seeing
Jesus as essentially uninterested in the Gentiles fails to recognize the role
of Israel before the nations and the implications that the arrival the king-
dom would have for Gentiles.
A far better approach that is gaining momentum is one which recog-
nizes the aims and intentions of Jesus as being orientated towards the
restoration of Israel, but to understand the concept of restoration in Second
Temple Judaism in such a way that it necessarily involves the Gentile
world in some form (be it subjugation or salvation). Jesus interpretation
of Israels sacred scriptures, his debates with contemporaries, oblique say-
ings, symbolic actions, and encounters with certain gures remembered in
the Jesus tradition may potentially yield enough evidence upon which to
map his central convictions concerning the Gentile world. One may then
be able to understand why Jesus sent his disciples only to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel (Mt. 10.6) but also why birds would soon nd them-
selves sheltering in the nest of the kingdom of God (Mk 4.32).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allison, Dale C. Jr.
1989 Who will Come from East and West? Observations on Matt. 8.11-12 Luke
13.28-29, IBS 11: 158-70.
1997 The Jesus Tradition in Q (Harrisburg: Trinity).
1998 Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis: Fortress).
Barnett, Paul
1999 Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Barrett, C.K.
1988 The Gentile Mission as an Eschatological Phenomenon, in W. Hulitt Gloer
(ed.), Eschatology and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of George Ray-
mond Beasley-Murray (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson): 65-75.
Becker, Jrgen
1998 Jesus of Nazareth (trans. James E. Crouch; New York: W. de Gruyter).
Bird, Michael F.
2004a Matthew 23:15 The Case of the Proselytizing Pharisees, JSHJ 2: 117-37.
2004b Mission as an Apocalyptic Events: Reections on Luke 10:18 and Mark
13:10, EQ 76: 117-34.
Borg, Marcus
1998 Conict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (Harrisburg, PA:
Trinity Press International, 2nd edn).
Bosch, David J.
1959 Die Heidenmission in der Zukunftsschau Jesu: Eine Untersuchung zur
Eschatologie der Synoptischen Evangelien (Zrich: Zwingli Verlag).
1969 Jesus and the Gentilesa Review after Thirty Years, in Peter Beyerhaus
and Carl F. Hallencreutz (eds.), The Church Crossing Frontiers: Essays on the
Nature of Mission: In Honour of Bengst Sundkler (Uppsala: Gleerup): 3-19.
1991 Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis Books).
Bovon, Franois
2002 Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 (trans. Christine M.
Thomas; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Bryan, Steven M.
2002 Jesus and Israels Traditions of Judgment and Restoration (SNTSMS, 117;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Bultmann, Rudolf
1963 The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh; New York: Harper
& Row, rev. edn).
Caird, George B.
1955 The Apostolic Age (London: Duckworth).
1965 Jesus and the Jewish Nation (London: Athlone).
1994 New Testament Theology (ed. L.D. Hurst; Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Catchpole, David R.
1993 The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
Chancey, Mark A.
2002 The Myth of Gentile Galilee (SNTSMS, 118; Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press).
Chilton, Bruce D.
1996 Pure Kingdom: Jesus Vision of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Crossan, John Dominic
1991 The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San
Francisco: Harper).
Davies, W.D.
1976 From Schweitzer to Scholem: Reections on Sabbatai Svi, JBL 95: 529-58.
Davies, W.D., and Dale C. Allison, Jr.
198897 The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark).
Dickson, John P.
2003 Mission Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities:
The Shape, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission (WUNT,
2.159; Tbingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck]).
Downing, F.G.
2000 Exile in Formative Judaism, in idem (ed.), Making Sense in (and of) the First
Christian Century (Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press): 148-68.
Dunn, James D.G.
1991 The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and their Signi-
cance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM Press).
2003 Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making. Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans).
Evans, Craig A.
2002 Life of Jesus, in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), A Handbook to the Exegesis of the
New Testament (Boston and Leiden: Brill): 427-75.
Falk, Harvey
1985 Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (Mahwah, NJ:
Paulist).
Fitzmyer, Joseph
198185 The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (2 vols.;
AB; New York: Doubleday).
Gager, John G.
1975 Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Gnilka, Joachim
198688 Das Matthusevangelium (2 vols.; HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder).
Goguel, Maurice
1933 The Life of Jesus (trans. Olive Wyon; London: Allen & Unwin).
Hahn, Ferdinand
1965 Mission in the New Testament (trans. Frank Clarke; London: SCM Press).
Harnack, Adolf von
19045 The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (2 vols.; trans.
James Moffatt; London: Williams & Norgate; New York: G.P. Putnams
Sons).
Hengel, Martin
1983 The Origins of the Christian Mission, in Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in
the Earliest History of Christianity (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM
Press): 48-64.
Jeremias, Joachim
1956 Jesu Verheissung fr die Volker (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer).
1958 Jesus Promise to the Nations (trans. S.H. Hooke; SBT, 24; London: SCM
Press).
1971 New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (trans. John Bowden;
London: SCM Press).
1972 The Parables of Jesus (trans. S.H. Hooke; London: SCM Press).
Kasting, H.
1969 Die Anfnge der urchristlichen Mission: Eine historische Untersuchung
(Mnchen: Kaiser).
Ker, Donald
1988 Jesus and the Mission to the Gentiles, IBS 10: 89-101.
Malina, Bruce J.
1996 Jesus and the Gentiles, unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Context Group in Portland, Oregon.
Manson, T.W.
1964 Only to the House of Israel? Jesus and the Non-Jews (ed. John Reumann;
Philadelphia: Fortress).
Marshall, I. Howard
1978 The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Exeter:
Paternoster).
McKnight, Scot
1991 A Light Amongst the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second
Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress).
1992 Gentiles, in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall (eds.),
DJG (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press): 259-65.
1999 A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
2002 Turning to Jesus: The Sociology of Conversion in the Gospels (Louisville,
KY: Westminster/John Knox).
Meier, John P.
19912001 A Marginal Jew (3 vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday).
Meinertz, Max
1925 Jesus und die Heidenmission (Mnster: Aschendorff, 2nd edn).
Meyer, Ben F.
1979 The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press).
Munck, Johannes
1959 Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (trans. Frank Clarke; London: SCM Press).
Nolland, John
198993 Luke (3 vols.; WBC; Dallas, TX: Word Books).
Pesch, Rudolf
1982 Voraussetzungen und Anfnge der urchristlichen Mission, in Karl Kertelge
(ed.), Mission im Neuen Testament (Freiburg: Herder): 11-70.
Porter, Stanley E.
2000 The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discus-
sion and New Proposals (JSNTSup, 191; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press).
Rhoads, David
1994 Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman in Mark: A Narrative-Critical Study,
JAAR 62: 343-75.
Riches, John
1980 Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism (London: Darton, Longman &
Todd).
Riesner, Rainer
2000 A Pre-Christian Jewish Mission, in Jostein dna and H. Kvalbein (eds.), The
Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (Tbingen: Mohr [Paul
Siebeck]): 211-50.
Rowland, Christopher
1985 Christian Origins (London: SPCK).
Sanders, E.P.
1985 Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press).
1987 Jesus and the Kingdom: The Restoration of Israel and the New People of
God, in idem (ed.), Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church: Essays in Honor of
William R. Farmer (Macon, GA.: Mercer University Press): 225-39.
1992 Judaism: Practice & Belief 63 BCE 66 CE (London: SCM Press).
1993 The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin).
Sanders, E.P., and Margaret Davies
1989 Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press).
Sanders, James A.
1993 From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4, in James A. Sanders and Craig A. Evans (eds.),
Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Traditions in Luke-Acts (Min-
neapolis: Fortress Press): 46-69.
Schnabel, Eckhard J.
1994 Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles, in Joel B. Green
and Max Turner (eds.), Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and Christ (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans): 37-58.
2002a Israel, the People of God, and the Nations, JETS 45: 35-57.
2002b Urchristliche Mission (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus).
Schweitzer, Albert
1998 The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (trans. W. Montgomery; Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press).
Scobie, Charles H.H.
1984 Jesus or Paul? The Origin of the Universal Mission of the Christian Church,
in Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd (eds.), From Jesus to Paul: Studies in
Honour of Francis Wright Beare (Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier Univer-
sity Press): 47-60.
1992 Israel and the Nations: An Essay in Biblical Theology, TynBul 43: 283-305.
Spitta, Friedrich
1909 Jesus und die Heidenmission (Giessen: Alfred Tpelmann).
Sundkler, Bengst
1937 Jsus et les paens, Arbeiten und Mitteilungen aus dem neutestamentlichen
Seminar zu Uppsala 6: 1-38.
Svartvik, Jasper
2000 Mark and Mission: Mk. 7:1-23 in its Narrative and Historical Contexts
(ConBNT, 32; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell).
Tan, Kim Huat
1997 The Zion Tradition and the Aims of Jesus (SNTSMS, 91; Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press).
Theissen, Gerd
1991 The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition
(trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Thompson, James W.
1971 The Gentile Mission as an Eschatological Necessity, ResQ 14: 18-27.
Vermes, Geza
1993 The Religion of Jesus the Jew (London: SCM Press).
Wilk, Florian
2002 Jesus und die Vlker in der Sicht der Synoptiker (Berlin: W. de Gruyter).
Wilson, S. G.
1973 The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS, 23; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Witherington, Ben
1999 Jesus the Seer: The Progress of Prophecy (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Wright, N.T.
1992 The New Testament and the People of God (COQG, 1; Minneapolis: Fortress
Press).
1996 Jesus and the Victory of God (COQG, 2; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).

Bird M.F. - Jesus and The Gentiles AfterJeremias. Patterns and Prospects (CBR 2005)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Bird M.F. - Jesus and The Gentiles AfterJeremias. Patterns and Prospects (CBR 2005)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

http://cbi.sagepub.

S-ar putea să vă placă și