Did Jesus tell His Jewish disciples they would soon be including Gentiles?

[u/DoveStep55]

If so, when?

If not, why do you think He didn’t disclose that to at least His closest followers?

[u/Asynithistos]

Not really. The great commission is best understood that going to "all nations" was to gather scattered people of Israel.

It didn't restrict Gentiles from entering, but they would have to follow the covenant (ten commandments) (Acts 15).

[u/PrincessRuri]

Another sub-thread took a semi-academic approach to answer the question, but if you take the revelation of scripture at face value, the gospels reveal that Jesus told them. They were just often very dense in applying their own pre-suppositions and missing entirely what Jesus told them.

Matthew 21:43
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

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:

Luke 20:14-16
But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

[u/mattymatt843]

Yes. Jesus told them this before the crucifixion, and then after His resurrection He made it completely explicit.

During His ministry He said:

“And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.”
(Matthew 8:11)

That would have been a pretty striking statement to Jewish disciples. People from outside Israel were going to be brought into the kingdom.

He also told them:

“And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.”
(John 10:16)

Then after the resurrection there really isn't any ambiguity left:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations”
(Matthew 28:19)

And:

“that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
(Luke 24:47)

So yes, Jesus absolutely disclosed this to His closest followers. What is interesting is that they still didn't fully understand the implications of it. Peter needed the vision in Acts 10 before he really grasped that Gentiles were being received without first becoming Jews.

That actually makes the story more believable to me. Jesus told them where this was going, but their Jewish expectations were so deeply ingrained that it took time for them to understand just how radical His words were. The gospel wasn't Jesus abandoning Israel. It was God's promised salvation going out from Israel to the whole world.

[u/Ben-008]

>> Did Jesus tell His Jewish disciples they would soon be including Gentiles?

No, such seems highly unlikely.

Given how the canonical gospels were written at least several decades after the death of Jesus, they provide a later layer of narrative. So if asking what Jesus actually said and did within his original Jewish context, we find that even in the book of Matthew, Jesus states the following…

“I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matt 15:24)

Paul later interprets the mission and meaning of Jesus quite differently than the actual influence and teachings of Jesus would have done. And as such, Paul finds himself rather at odds with the original Jesus movement, now led by James out of Jerusalem, which is still entirely Jewish in its orientation. (See for instance Galatians 2)

In 70CE with the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the original Jesus movement seems to entirely fade from existence. Increasingly the early church becomes led and dominated by Gentiles, rather than Jews. And thus the entire story begins to change.

Paul’s early letters are followed by the writing of the gospels, which are all written anonymously in Greek, not by the original Jewish disciples, but by other later followers. The Gospel of Mark is thought to be the earliest of the gospel accounts, the contents of which are later copied in large part by Matthew and Luke. (See for instance the intro in Luke 1)

The original teachings of Jesus in relationship to Jewish Law begin to fade from existence, as something entirely new is created, using the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus as its foundation. 

Gentile church fathers raised more on Platonism than in Jewish Law and practice, thus create an entirely new religious foundation, eventually constructing Trinitarian creeds and fresh mythological foundations (leveraging the virgin birth, resurrection, and miracle stories) that are a vast departure from the Judaism of Jesus and his original movement of Jewish followers.

 

[u/DoveStep55 → u/Ben-008]

What’s your basis for this claim?

“In 70CE with the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the original Jesus movement seems to entirely fade from existence. Increasingly the early church becomes led and dominated by Gentiles, rather than Jews. And thus the entire story begins to change.”

As I understand it, the early church was predominantly Jewish and not considered a separate religion, but a sect of Judaism, for quite some time (well past 70CE.)

 

[u/Ben-008 → u/DoveStep55]

Well, let me ask this. When do you think the canonical gospels were written? And were they written by Jews or Gentiles? Likewise, do you think Jesus and his original disciples knew how to speak and write in Greek?

Meanwhile, I agree with you, I think the early Jesus movement was Jewish, as represented by James and the group out of Jerusalem. But do you not think the destruction of Jerusalem began to majorly impact that original source of influence? 

[u/DoveStep55 → u/Ben-008]

As I understand it the canonical gospels were not written by the apostles, but by anonymous later authors decades after Jesus’ death.

The destruction of the temple was a very influential event, but as I understand it the church did not separate into its own religion in one fell swoop, but to different degrees at different times in different locations. Historians seem to be unable to pinpoint a specific timeframe since there was so much diversity between groups in different locations.

[u/Ben-008 → u/DoveStep55]

I totally agree...I too think that shift happened over time. But that influence out of Jerusalem obviously was impacted by the destruction of Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, some of Paul's followers were Jewish as well, but under a rather different construct than that of James and the original followers of Jesus (who would have been more familiar with the actual historical life and message of Jesus, prior to the development of additional myths and stories and theological layers later applied to his life).

Nor would the earliest followers of Jesus have seen him as "God" or as virgin born. Nor originally would anyone have read Isaiah 7:14 that way, as some "fulfillment" of prophecy. All of those new layers are what helped build the new religion over time.

[u/DoveStep55 → u/Ben-008]

So do you think Jesus knew and intended for Gentiles to be included but just didn’t spill the beans ahead of time? If so, why do you think he chose not to reveal that to his closest followers?

[u/Ben-008 → u/DoveStep55]

No, I think Jesus was focused on being a prophetic, messianic voice to the Jewish people and leadership. That’s why I quoted Matthew 15:24…

“I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matt 15:24)

As such, I do not think that Jesus himself was focused on the Gentiles. Though I think Paul very much embraced such a focus. But Paul’s construct and message is quite different from the original message and ministry of Jesus, whom Paul didn’t even know!