There are two authors among many, who teach that, Paul in Acts, always, everywhere, went to the Jew first, before going to a Gentile. The late Jesse Clyde Hoover, former pastor of First Baptist Church, Englewood, Colorado says this in his booklet, Why The Gospel Of Christ Should Be Preached And Applied To The Jew First, And Also To The Gentiles: The importance of our theme may be anticipated as we recall that Paul repeatedly uses the term “To the Jew first, and also to the Greek” or “Gentile” in his writings, and and especially in Romans.” ( Page 1 ) Sorry, but this statement is not true. This is an assumed “recall”. Paul does not use this term repeatedly in his writings. Stop reading and get your concordance and check this out. Paul does use the term three times in Romans, 1:16, 2:9 and 2:10. Harry Allen Ironside in his booklet, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth says this: “Going back to Acts then, we notice that after his conversion, Paul is definitely set apart as the apostle to the Gentiles, and yet everywhere he goes, he first seeks out his Jewish brethren after the flesh, because it was God’s purpose that the Gospel should be made known to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile. In practically every city, the same results follow. A few Jews receive the message; the bulk of them reject it. Then Paul turns from the Jews to the Gentiles, and thus the message goes out to the whole world.” ( page 27 ) We shall come back to these quotes in this paper, but first there is the need of defining these terms. Just what are we to understand by these words, To the Jew first and also to the Gentile ?
“To the Jew first” According to Jesus-
The Lord Jesus did model his own teachings. He actively practiced what he preached. Unlike the “Jesus” many claim to take seriously, we find a Jesus, who comes to his own, his own people. John 1:11-12 [We, here, do not discount anyone’s sincerity, we question whether they take their sincerity the extra mile and get to the heart of this matter within this very issue. There seems to be so many Gentiles believers today who request promises and ministry from the Lord, that were never meant for them or offered to them.] The Lord never ministers outside the land of Israel. His life and ministry was in the land of the people and for the people of the land. Only at his birth was he outside the land. The Lord during his ministry in the four Gospels, explains this, in the very story we want to consider as evidence and as a part of the contribution to the answer for this paper’s question in the title.
In Matt. 15:21-28, the story unfolds for our learning. Then Jesus went from there, and departed into the borders of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same borders, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a demon. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not right to take the children’s bread, and cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord; yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master’s table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith; be it unto thee As thou wilt. And her daughter was made well, from that very hour. ( bold type mine)
Notice, that Jesus gives three responses. First, there is a response of silence, to a request by this woman of Canaan. Then, there are two differently worded answers given. The answers are directed to the two different parties in this episode, his disciples first and then to the woman.
The woman in 15:22, repeats a request given previously (15:23b) it would seem, to the disciples. The woman approached from behind Jesus and his disciples. She may have used the trailing disciples behind and following the Lord, as sources to gain her request and then, as mediators between her and the Lord. They were not ignorant of her desires. To this request, “…He answered her not a word.”
Here, the disciples desired to end this seemingly exercise of futility. The disciples wanted him to release her and fulfill her request and by doing so, getting her off their backs, as it were. The disciples end the silence, by asking, beseeching the Lord by their saying, “Send her away, for she crieth after us. HE SAID, NO !, to his disciples, answering:
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
What did the disciples ask of Jesus? Was their request, Send her away, get rid of her or dismiss her from your presence, and if so, does his response match this request? Or, did they ask the Lord, ‘Release her from her burden, the problem with her daughter’ ? This seems to be their approach. And, although this may not seem to be like the Jesus we remember the most, his answer to the disciples ends up to be, “ ‘NO’, my mission, my calling, my sending from the Father, is to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”. This is ‘To the Jew first’ in the ministry of the Lord Jesus in the Gospel records. He is consistent in his teaching ministry.
Concerning the statement to the woman, he said NO, but only as the Lord can say ‘No’with logic, reason, understanding and compassion, but never-the-less without prejudice, or cold heartedness, “…It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” ( See Mark 7:24-30, where Jesus puts the ‘children first’) She agrees with the Lord, but brings up a fact that has an important relationship to her request. Even though it is not good, not meet or suitable to feed the dogs before the children, pets have a way of getting something before their turn arrives. This story is more friendly also, when we see that the ‘dogs’ are really the household ‘puppies’. The Lord recognizes her faith-insight and grants her request. This would be, then, an exception to the general rule of practice, going “To the Jew first”. The emphasis here is on the fact that although Israel may have a historical relationship with God by a covenant, the Lord states that they were lost. They were incapable of bringing blessings/bread (salvation, forgiveness, hope) to others, without first experiencing these things themselves. Therefore, “To the Jew first”.
By the use of the word “first”, there is every indication that bread/blessings are to come to all, Jews as well as the Gentiles. The significance of this story is that God has a plan and he is working the plan. The problem with so many believers today is, they have not given the needed effort to grasp an understanding of this plan as unfolded in simple terms in this episode. We are all prone to read our own understanding and perspective into every situation in the Bible that we may be presently studying. We apply, before we properly interpret.
“To the Jew first” According to Jesus’ Apostles/disciples in the Gospels-
Earlier in Matthew’s Gospel record, Jesus commissioned his followers in 10:5-6: These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to lost sheep of the house of Israel. ( bold type mine)
Here are clear, specific directions, orders and/or commissioning for these followers of Christ, who were being trained and directed in Jesus’ ministry. Here we have “To the Jew first, only, alone.”
In these two passages, Matt. 10 and Matt. 15, we have a ministry to the house of Israel, the Jews, with the Lord and his disciples in complete harmony. This model continues into the ministry of the Apostles in the early Acts, but does not include the ministry of Paul.
“To the Jew first” According to Hoover and Ironside-
They say, Paul’s ministry is to the Jew first and also to the Gentile in Acts. Hoover tries to make Romans 1:16 teach that Paul followed this verse as a pattern in Acts. Ironside says that the record of Acts shows this to be true. This paper will endeavor to show that this view is inaccurate, incorrect and superficial, more of a traditional “hand-me-down” assumption, unsupported by a study of Paul’s ministry in Acts.
“To the Jew first” According to Luke, in Acts 1-9-
Peter and the twelve never go to any Gentiles in Acts 1-9. This fits the pattern of Jesus’ ministry and the twelve’s ministry in the Gospel records. The basic ministry of the Lord Jesus in the Gospel records was to the Jewish people, the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the children of Israel. So, in Acts 1-9 Peter and the twelve continue this pattern of ministry as performed in the Gospel records. They continue to have this same ministry, a ministry ‘To the Jew first’. This is truly ‘To the Jew alone’ or ‘To the Jew only’ in all practical out-workings.
Basically, they continue their ministry as Jesus first sent them out as found in Matt. 10:5-6. It is like Matthew 28:19-20 was never given to them or acknowledged by them as far as a Gentile ministry is concerned. We also note that Peter goes to Cornelius’ house, in Acts 10-11, not on the basis of Matt. 28, but by a very, once-for-all-kind-of special sending, a special vision as Peter confirms in Acts 15:7. God made a choice long after the Pentecost of Acts 2, to have Peter go to a Gentile. It was to be Peter’s mouth that would be used to create the sounds by which the Gentiles would hear the gospel. This is the first, last and only recorded time in Acts that any of the twelve Apostles at any time at any place preached to Gentiles. This is very significant, for those who are seeking the truth of what happened in Acts. This is very significant for those taking Jesus seriously, in the Gospel records as well as taking him serious in his continuing ministry through his Apostles in early Acts.
A careful reading of Acts 1-9, substantiates and supports a true reading and understanding of these chapters, that Samaritans and Gentiles were not reached according to a plan as is claimed by someone’s interpretation of Acts 1:8 or Matthew 28:19-20. Peter does not lead an evangelistic crusade into Samaria, clutching a key to open the door for the Samaritans. Neither does Peter bring keys (cf. Matt 16:18-19) to Pentecost in Acts 2 or Caesarea in Acts 10. Peter is a Johnny-come-lately in Samaria, since Philip was there preaching first, before Peter and John get there. The ‘reason’ Peter and John were sent ( and not just Peter only, with ‘keys’) to Samaria was, to find out what actually happened when these Samaritans received the word of God ( cf. 8:14) and as mouths of two witnesses, they would confirm what has happened. Peter and John were these two designated witnesses for verification. Their coming was not a mission to open any doors with any key in Samaria. We have already seen how Peter explains Acts10-11 on the basis of a special sending (other than Acts 1:8) and special vision. (cf. Acts 5:31; 11:17-18;15:7-11).
“To the Jew first” According to Luke, Paul in Acts 9-28
Will we find that Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, carries out his mission just as the Lord Jesus did in the Gospel records and just as Peter and the twelve did in the Gospel records and early Acts 1-10 ? Will we find that Paul is a practicing ‘apostle to the Gentiles’ only after he ministers to “Jews first’? Will we find that Paul follows Romans 1:16 as his commission as the Apostle of the Gentiles ? Can we find this pattern in every place and in every city where Paul preached ? Let us re-read and study the Acts and find out.
“To the Jew first” according to Paul’s conversion
Paul’s conversion, calling and commission are recorded in Acts 9, Acts 22 and Acts 26. Paul is actually called an ‘apostle’ by Luke only in Acts 14:4 and 14. In none of these chapters is the word ‘apostle’, as a noun, used as part of Paul’s calling or commission, and becoming a title or ‘office’ ( never-the-less this authority is there). So, we ought not miss the idea in these words, “…for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.” Acts 9:15. That seems to be very official. Luke records the words of the Lord here, which do not go out of the way to place ‘Israel’ before the ‘Gentiles’ as would seem necessary to make Paul’s ministry conform to the ‘To the Jew first” claim from Romans 1:16. As we will look at this verse later, hopefully we will see that there is no real ‘connection’ of this verse, with what Paul was doing in Acts. This is an improper ‘reading into Acts’ as very poor exegesis. We have already seen “To the Jew first” in the ministry of the Lord in the Gospel records, in the ministry of his Apostles in the Gospel records and then in their ministry in early Acts. It does not continue with Paul.
Acts 22:10 speaks about Paul going to Damascus and being told “…all things which are appointed for thee (Paul) to do.” Acts 22:14-15 makes reference to “The God of our fathers hath chosen thee (Paul), that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.” This is a very general and generic witness, ‘..unto all men’. As Paul continues his testimony here, he mentions that the Lord appeared in a trance to him while in Jerusalem. In this context, the Lord commands Paul to leave Jerusalem, since no one there will receive his testimony and as Paul resists, the Lord says, “Depart, for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” 22:18-21 The word ‘send’ is a combination of a word for ‘apostle’ and ‘out’ as ‘one sent forth’. Here, then is the idea expanding and becoming more clear as more details are given, that Paul has official standing as he is sent ‘to all men’.
Then, in Acts 26, we have Paul’s testimony concerning his confrontation with Christ. The Lord says to Paul, ‘But arise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make( appoint) thee a minister(attendant) and a witness both of these things which thou seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom (now) I send thee’ 26:16-17 The word, ‘send’ is a verb, but, again a word for ‘apostle’, making the sending official. So, Paul is verbally an apostle, a sent one. We want to note that ‘now’ is not in the best texts and could/should not be used as if Paul is sent now in Acts 26 and not before. The sending here includes “the people”, who are the people of Israel and also the Gentiles. Paul never ministers under the so-called, ‘great commission’. This commission here is his very own. As the ‘Apostle of the Gentiles’, a ministry to Jews is always in view, but never in the words, “To the Jew first”.
Paul continues (26:20) his testimony and makes reference again to his past record as being faithful to the heavenly vision of Acts 9. He retells here, the places where he has given witness, Damascus, Jerusalem, the coasts of Judaea and to the Gentiles. The listing here was not given as proof texts that Paul in deed, went ‘To the Jew first’ and then, to the Gentiles, listed last. We need to note again, that as the ‘Apostle of the Gentiles’, the mission includes the Jew and is not exclusive in reference to a ministry to the Gentile. But in balance with this, we find no real support in these conversion story recounts, that Paul must minister to Jews ‘first’, before ministering to Gentiles. If we read superficially, we might feel that the phrase “Apostle of the Gentiles” is exclusive for the Gentiles and possibly then, excludes the Jew. Neither scenario fits Paul’s ministry.
A faulty reading and faulty deductions about Acts 28:28, might imply that with the rejection by the Jews of Rome, Paul will now (after Acts 28 ) start a new ministry and be sent unto the ‘Gentiles’. How unfortunate is a reading of this kind. The verse actually says that the salvation of God was (already)sent unto the Gentiles. The prison epistles verify this, as Paul teaches about reaching, teaching and blessing both Jew and Gentile during all of his ministry, from the very beginning.
This ‘serious’ study, will be continued in the next papers, dispelling, hopefully, these clouds of doubt and confusion that arises from inconsistent views on this issue as we have glanced at the statements of Hoover and Ironside. They are sincere and serious, but this writer believes they are sincerely mistaken in this particular area.
To be continued
