What was Jesus talking about? ( Israel, disciples, children, Jesus, woman, dogs?) (Gospels, hell)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel
I usually don’t give my opinion on most subjects, but I really wanted to address something that troubled me while reading through a thread a few days ago. Anyway, a poster was referring to a verse in Matthew 15:22-28. The poster used verse 24 to support his/her belief that Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Now, I can understand why someone might believe that the verse was saying that and even now I’m not 100 percent it wasn’t, but I do have reason to believe it wasn’t though. Well, after reading I wasn’t sure this person was correct so I begin searching and my search brought me to this conclusion; Matt 15:24 most likely isn’t supporting the fact that Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel but actually is saying quite the opposite. The reasons I believe this way is as follows:
1. It doesn’t really go with Jesus’ actions in the gospel. None of his actions actually showed a mission gear toward only the lost sheep of the house of Israel
2. Well, taking in the context of that part of the chapter. The verse before Matt 15:24 says that the disciples told Jesus to turn the woman away and if I’m not mistaken the next verse, verse 24, would be Jesus’ reply to what they said. Because of that, I believe verse 24 was most likely another rebuke to the disciples
3. Lastly, grammatically I don’t believe the verse was saying Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When I look at the words “I am not sent but unto”, it seems to me if you look at it as Jesus saying “I am sent only” you take away the negative in the sentence (the word not). IMO, the only word that should be taken as only is the word but. So it seems to me it you wanted to update the word to a more modern/understandable sentence Jesus said “I am not sent only unto”, which of course is the opposite of being sent only unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Well, that’s just the way I was looking at the verse. I’m no bible scholar and if the Greek could give more insight into what Jesus said I wouldn’t know, but I believe I have some solid points and I wanted to address what I saw as the issue someone might have with the verse.
I don't believe that's what was meant either Jchance.....I think you're spot on in your conclusion. I see this is your first post so welcome to the forum!! I'm looking in my NIV study Bible and this is how it is phrased (still don't think they got it right)
Matthew 15:24
"He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
There are no notes on 15:24 but it does refer back to Matthew 10:6 where it says:
Matthew 10:6
"Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel".
I think in whatever thread you're speaking of, they took it completely out of context.
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel
I usually don’t give my opinion on most subjects, but I really wanted to address something that troubled me while reading through a thread a few days ago. Anyway, a poster was referring to a verse in Matthew 15:22-28. The poster used verse 24 to support his/her belief that Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Now, I can understand why someone might believe that the verse was saying that and even now I’m not 100 percent it wasn’t, but I do have reason to believe it wasn’t though. Well, after reading I wasn’t sure this person was correct so I begin searching and my search brought me to this conclusion; Matt 15:24 most likely isn’t supporting the fact that Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel but actually is saying quite the opposite. The reasons I believe this way is as follows:
1. It doesn’t really go with Jesus’ actions in the gospel. None of his actions actually showed a mission gear toward only the lost sheep of the house of Israel
2. Well, taking in the context of that part of the chapter. The verse before Matt 15:24 says that the disciples told Jesus to turn the woman away and if I’m not mistaken the next verse, verse 24, would be Jesus’ reply to what they said. Because of that, I believe verse 24 was most likely another rebuke to the disciples
3. Lastly, grammatically I don’t believe the verse was saying Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When I look at the words “I am not sent but unto”, it seems to me if you look at it as Jesus saying “I am sent only” you take away the negative in the sentence (the word not). IMO, the only word that should be taken as only is the word but. So it seems to me it you wanted to update the word to a more modern/understandable sentence Jesus said “I am not sent only unto”, which of course is the opposite of being sent only unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Well, that’s just the way I was looking at the verse. I’m no bible scholar and if the Greek could give more insight into what Jesus said I wouldn’t know, but I believe I have some solid points and I wanted to address what I saw as the issue someone might have with the verse.
God bless
I believe you are mistaken...if you check it in the original Greek it says that he was sent only to Lost house of Israel...which doesn't include everyone else...so, what it actually says is correct.
And I would also disagree with your assessment that Jesus actions were geared towards others (of the non-jewish persuasion...this did not happen until Paul)...Jesus may have included others in his miracles, i.e., samaritans (but they also were part of the house of Israel at one time). Can you provide scripture where his actions were towards the non-jews...as far as I can see, this didn't happen until Paul started preaching.
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel
I usually don’t give my opinion on most subjects, but I really wanted to address something that troubled me while reading through a thread a few days ago. Anyway, a poster was referring to a verse in Matthew 15:22-28. The poster used verse 24 to support his/her belief that Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Now, I can understand why someone might believe that the verse was saying that and even now I’m not 100 percent it wasn’t, but I do have reason to believe it wasn’t though. Well, after reading I wasn’t sure this person was correct so I begin searching and my search brought me to this conclusion; Matt 15:24 most likely isn’t supporting the fact that Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel but actually is saying quite the opposite. The reasons I believe this way is as follows:
1. It doesn’t really go with Jesus’ actions in the gospel. None of his actions actually showed a mission gear toward only the lost sheep of the house of Israel
2. Well, taking in the context of that part of the chapter. The verse before Matt 15:24 says that the disciples told Jesus to turn the woman away and if I’m not mistaken the next verse, verse 24, would be Jesus’ reply to what they said. Because of that, I believe verse 24 was most likely another rebuke to the disciples
3. Lastly, grammatically I don’t believe the verse was saying Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When I look at the words “I am not sent but unto”, it seems to me if you look at it as Jesus saying “I am sent only” you take away the negative in the sentence (the word not). IMO, the only word that should be taken as only is the word but. So it seems to me it you wanted to update the word to a more modern/understandable sentence Jesus said “I am not sent only unto”, which of course is the opposite of being sent only unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Well, that’s just the way I was looking at the verse. I’m no bible scholar and if the Greek could give more insight into what Jesus said I wouldn’t know, but I believe I have some solid points and I wanted to address what I saw as the issue someone might have with the verse.
God bless
You have the correct understanding of the passage based on the comparing of the whole Word of God to Jesus' actions to the Gentiles who came to Him and were healed, saved, and delivered. The man who had the "legion of demons" and was delivered by Jesus was a Gentile, across the sea, where the Gentiles lived.
Jesus was sent to be the "Light to the Gentiles" -the nations- also. That is all prophesied through the inspired Scriptures, beginning in the writings of Enoch the prophet the seventh from Adam, to all the inspired prophets, and to the Oracles committed to the namesake people of the New Man name.
The person who gave a wrong twist to the passage may be indoctrinated with a very bad doctrine called Mid Acts Dispensationalism, which twists Paul's words and makes Paul the chosen spokesman to Gentiles [though they deny Paul's teachings in almost all aspects], and makes the Gentiles superior to the namesake people, and even claims that the Gentiles will inherit heaven, but Israel will only inherit earth below. It is a diabolical doctrine that comes from the pit of hell. I long ago dubbed it "MAD" doctrine, and they do not believe that Jesus Christ came to bring "Grace" to Israel, and that Jesus Christ did not even know that Paul would be called to bring a different gospel to the Gentiles! -they are truly "MAD".
I don't believe that's what was meant either Jchance.....I think you're spot on in your conclusion. I see this is your first post so welcome to the forum!! I'm looking in my NIV study Bible and this is how it is phrased (still don't think they got it right)
Matthew 15:24
"He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
There are no notes on 15:24 but it does refer back to Matthew 10:6 where it says:
Matthew 10:6
"Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel".
I think in whatever thread you're speaking of, they took it completely out of context.
The offer was to be to the Jews first, and also to the Gentiles, from the beginning, that is what the Word said. So to begin with the Jews is the Scriptural way, but the offer was then given to "whosoever will" all through Jesus ministry in person on earth, and many Gentiles came to Jesus for healing, deliverance, and for miracles, while He walked the land, and received them.
When Jesus sent them to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", He came after that to the Gentile Samaritan woman, and spent two days in the Samaritan/Gentile/Goym city, and many believed in Him there, who were not of the house of Israel, but of the nations/the Gentiles.
Thank you for the replies and the welcome (Ilene). And yes I was thinking along those lines yeshuasavedme. Bear with me everyone; I am new to posting so sorry if I make a mistake.
Hi Christy girl,
Yes you’re right I may be mistaken again I am no Greek expert. But if Matthew 15:24 can be worded: But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then I guess my question would be which way are these words being utilized. (I apologize if it seems I am persisting with a dead point, but it’s just that I’m not sure if you meant I was wrong in my assessment of the words used or the words themselves are wrong.)
That being said the way I see it the words can be utilized in two different ways. The statement either runs straight through or there is a comma between the word sent and the word but.
1. IMO if the sentence runs straight through, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then I think I have a point because without the break, the comma, it’s not exactly clear what should be done about the negative (the word: not) that's in the sentence.
2. But if there is a break, I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then to me it seems Jesus is making a statement (I am not sent) and then giving a condition to that statement (but unto the lost sheep…) and that IMO would work perfectly with the idea that he was only sent for those certain lost sheep. I hope that makes sense. That’s my understanding any way; mind you I’m not an English prodigy either. Plus if translating the words from Greek gives you something totally different, then the above is all a moot point, LoL.
And I can’t come up with one clear verse that states that Jesus was geared toward non Jews besides through miracles and healing. To be honest, I believe I overstated that a tad bit. But, in my opinion, Jesus’ ministry to the Non-Jewish people might have been his miracles as well as his death on the cross. I think what I meant was something like what yeshuasavedme stated and the relationship between Jew and gentile as described in Romans. If you look at it the same way the apostle Paul describes in Romans than by default Jesus came for both Jew and gentile.
Jesus was called to go to Israel only because that was the answer of prophecy of the ages being fullfuled , but Jesus did go on a trip to Sidon and Tyer in the country of Phoenicia and had many Miracles there but no one would repent and Jesus cursed the cities to be Judged beyond anything you can imagine..... Apostle Paul was called to the Jews and then to the Greeks...... The eleven disciples were called to send the gospels to all nation baptizing them, to the ends of the earth..... Many people say that Jesus called that women a dog In Matthew 15:26 but they take the verse out of context......; See in Matthew 15:22 the Woman said``MY daughter is grievousely vexed with a devil`` In Matthew 15: 26 Jesus prophesized about the case.``It is not meet to take the childrens bread and cast it to the dogs``literally the mother was tormenting her child..... and Jesus heals her daughter in Matthew 15:28.....
... And I can’t come up with one clear verse that states that Jesus was geared toward non Jews besides through miracles and healing. To be honest, I believe I overstated that a tad bit. But, in my opinion, Jesus’ ministry to the Non-Jewish people might have been his miracles as well as his death on the cross. I think what I meant was something like what yeshuasavedme stated and the relationship between Jew and gentile as described in Romans. If you look at it the same way the apostle Paul describes in Romans than by default Jesus came for both Jew and gentile.
There was no comma in the original. That is added by the translators and translators are not inspired and translate according to ignorance of context at times and bias at times.
There are many verses that show Jesus came for the Jew first, and for the Gentile equally. I mean, lots -and lots and lots- running through the inspired Scriptures about His Person and His work for the salvation and adoption into His New Man name of whosoever will believe, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.
When Paul was called as an apostle [little a] to the Gentiles, Barnabas, a disciple of Jesus who was brother to John Mark's mother and uncle to John Mark was equally called for the same purpose. Their anointing for that call was given to them through the believers in the Antioch Church, a Gentile Church, mainly, which was already in being when Saul was saved.
The Gaderene was a Gentile who had the legion of demons cast out of him. He went back to his people and told what God had done for him, so that when the preachers later came preaching, after Jesus rose from the dead, there were many already prepared to receive Jesus there because of the Gentile who was delivered from the demons.
The Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 is a Gentile. She believed on Jesus and so did the entire city of the Samaritans, where Jesus and His disciples spent two days after they returned from going to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel". Now that they had done that, the Gentiles could have the Gospel preached to them, and they did.
Quote:
The Samaritans
John 4:
39 From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, "He told me all the things that I have done." 40 So when the Samaritans came to Jesus, they were asking Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. 41 Many more believed because of His word ; 42 and they were saying to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world." 43 After the two days He went forth from there into Galilee. 44 For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country. 45 So when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did in Jerusalem at the feast ; for they themselves also went to the feast.
The Roman Centurion was a Gentile, and Jesus healed his servant.
Jesus did in fact call the Canaanite woman a "dog", a term for a prostitute at that time, and she came back with a comment of faith in Jesus that pleased Him, and she got what she wanted, and probably got salvation to boot, because she had met Jesus and He had helped her, totally.
The multitudes in Matthew 15, who came to hear Jesus [the second time that He multiplied the loaves and fishes to feed them] included the mass of local Gentiles, who were not Jews, and they "glorified the God of Israel" because of Jesus' miracles.
Decapolis [Where the man who had the legion of demons possessing him] was where Gentiles dwelled, and many came from Decapolis and many Gentiles also came from Galilee of the Gentiles to hear Jesus and to receive healings and deliverances from Him.
Last edited by yeshuasavedme; 08-10-2010 at 06:15 PM..
I believe you are mistaken...if you check it in the original Greek it says that he was sent only to Lost house of Israel...which doesn't include everyone else...so, what it actually says is correct.
And I would also disagree with your assessment that Jesus actions were geared towards others (of the non-jewish persuasion...this did not happen until Paul)...Jesus may have included others in his miracles, i.e., samaritans (but they also were part of the house of Israel at one time). Can you provide scripture where his actions were towards the non-jews...as far as I can see, this didn't happen until Paul started preaching.
Peter already preached to the Gentiles before Paul/Saul was even saved. Also, the Church at Antioch was composed of Jews and Gentiles -lots of Gentiles- and that is where Paul remained to worship God at, but Paul did not convert those Gentiles to Christ. Also, Barnabas was equally called as an apostle to the Gentiles, and received the anointing from the Gentile Church at Gentile Antioch at the same time as Paul.
The Samaritans were not and are not part of the House of Israel, and were Gentiles -"of the world". The Samaritans and Jesus separates them, in John 4, from inclusion in Israel. Jhn 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.Jhn 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.Jhn 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
Jhn 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Jhn 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Only those who continued as Jacob's seed were the House of Israel.
I believe you are mistaken...if you check it in the original Greek it says that he was sent only to Lost house of Israel...which doesn't include everyone else...so, what it actually says is correct.
And I would also disagree with your assessment that Jesus actions were geared towards others (of the non-jewish persuasion...this did not happen until Paul)...Jesus may have included others in his miracles, i.e., samaritans (but they also were part of the house of Israel at one time). Can you provide scripture where his actions were towards the non-jews...as far as I can see, this didn't happen until Paul started preaching.
The Samaritans were non-Jew...they did not adhere to the religion founded by Solomon with the help of the sons of Levi, Napthali and Dan...recorded in 1 Kings chapter 7-12.
Jew is short for Judaism..."the 1st "organized religion" and Solomon (the son of David from the tribe of Judah...with the lion standard/flag) is its founder.
All Jews are Hebrews/Israelites...but not all Israelites are Jews.
Peace!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
