23But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” 24But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”
Jesus’ response to the request of a Gentile woman to heal her daughter was silence.
15:23
But He answered her not a word.
Jesus’ response to the woman was to answer her “not a word.” By not acknowledging her need, Jesus appeared indifferent to her person. However, Jesus always had a reason for what He did. Here, it may have been to test her faith.
And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.”
Jesus’ disciples urged Him to send her away because they deemed her request as impertinence. She made too much noise for them and got on their nerves! She couldn’t take “no” for any answer.
15:24
But He answered [the disciples] and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Jesus reminded His disciples that the purpose of His mission at this time was for Israel (10:6). It was not right that He would offer salvation to the Gentiles before the Jews. Jews had a privileged status before God because of His unconditional covenants with them. Later, He would launch a mission to the Gentiles.
15:25
Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”
Undaunted, the woman persisted in her request. She had so little light but such great faith.
PRINCIPLE:
Faith is the cause of worship.
APPLICATION:
At the heart of adoration is belief in the person we admire. That attitude produces persistence. This attitude refuses defeat or discouragement. This kind of dead earnestness results in passion about the object of worship.
Jakob, it is important to keep the unconditional covenants of the OT in mind. Jesus as the Messiah came to fulfill those covenants to the Jews. The first purpose of Jesus was to do that mission. Samaritans were 1/2 Jew and 1/2 Gentile. They were deemed by Jews as non-authentic Jews, as half breeds. The apostles were to go only to the lost sheep of Israel (Mt 10:6; 15:24) because Jesus's kingdom message was for God's covenant people. Thus, the command to the disciples was not an overarching command not to go through the geographical area of Samaria but to not put their focus on the Samaritans, the 1/2 Jews. When Jews went north to south or vice versa the shortest route was to go through Samaria. Jesus and His disciples going through Samaria was the most felicitous way to go north to Galilee but still the Samaritans were not the focus of the main mission of Jesus and His disciples. After the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews, Jesus then turned His focus to reach the people of any nation. God then changed the focus of a specially chosen people, the nation Israel, to the church. Although the church did not begin until acts 2 the official rejection of the Jewish leaders, when they attributed Jesus ministry to the devil, was the turning point of shifting the message away from the Jews. In the Tribulation God will again focus His attention on reaching the Jews and fulfilling the unconditional covenants of the OT.
Dr. Grant,
Just a quick question, I have heard people use this statement to justify their opinion that Jesus went to India (even though there is no evidence that He did) to rescue the supposed ten lost tribes living there; is this (their opinion) totally false, or does it hold some weight? Thanks!
Jakob, yes, and some believe that the 10 lost tribes went to Britain–British Israelism. As you say, there is not one shred of evidence for this biblically.
Dr. Grant,
I have one more question. Since there is no evidence biblically, does that suggest that there could be some non-biblical evidence? Thanks! Also, I'm assuming you mean 'yes', their opinion is totally false.
Jakob, the hypothetical "could" is possible for almost anything. The probability is almost nonexistent. I have looked at the so called data and it is highly convoluted. It is easy to twist certain facts to mean what you want them to mean. Yes, their opinion is not verifiable.
Dr. Grant,
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute. I have read from some websites that when Jesus said that He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, that He means geographically lost, i.e. dispersed. These people then say that because of this, He must have gone to all the other dispersed Jewish tribes in the world, and they claim that these tribes were residing in Afghanistan and India. Is there any basis for this claim, Biblical or non-Biblical? Were all 12 tribes still in Judea when the Messiah came to them? These people purporting this idea have a legitimate claim, or did they sorely misinterpret the text and the facts? It seems to me that Jesus was talking about spiritually lost Jews, because He was just talking to a Samaritan woman who was probably an idol worshiper. How should I respond to these groups? Thanks!
*Do these people purporting…. etc. my bad. I made a typing mistake and for some reason could not get back to where I wanted to change my question.
Jakob, it is difficult to argue a negative. If there is no credible evidence for such an idea as British Israelism, or one of its contemporary doctrines, then the onus of proof lies on the one making the assertion, not the one denying that the doctrine is true.
By the time Christ came the diasporas of Israel had returned to the land. Israel had gone away from God for 400 years in the period between the Old and New Testaments. That is why Israel was "lost." Jesus came to set up His kingdom if Israel were to accept Him but they rejected Him. There was no reason for Israel to reject the Messiah. The five unconditional covenants even remain true to our day. That is why the Messiah will come again to claim Israel as His own. When Israel officially rejected Him as a nation, then Jesus turned to the Gentiles.
Dr. Grant,
I know this may seem off topic, but I'll bring it back around. In 2007, the Discovery channel aired something called the Jesus Family tomb, claiming that the remains of Jesus Christ were found, but this has been thoroughly debunked by creditable scholarship and archeology. Also, in Kashmir, India, there is a tomb belonging to a man named "yuz asaf", which is claimed to be translated as "son of Joseph", or "leader of the healed". The tomb is dated back to about 100 A.D. These people claim that Jesus went to India after supposedly surviving His crucifixion, taught the lost tribes in India (which I now know were not there), and then died around the age of 120. Nearly every website I looked at regarding this topic claims that this tomb legitimately belongs to Jesus, and they use the name "yuz asaf" to prove it. I am having a hard time finding a credible website that disproves this audacious claim, and would appreciate if someone with real scholarship (not fake scholarship, like most of these people who make this claim have been proven to have) could help shed some light on this topic. It's a very puzzling issue to me, and I have not been able to reach a conclusion on it yet using non-Biblical resources. Thanks!
Jakob, I am going to send you a document that partly deals with his issue.
Dr. Grant,
Thanks for the document. I can now say that all the hubbub of Jesus traveling East is 100% speculation, with nothing grounded in fact, and nothing more than that. Thanks again!
DEAR SIR, I WAS A HINDU BY BIRTH, AND LORD CHOSE ME AS A LOST SHEEP. I AM LEARNING BIBLE / COMMENTARY FOR SOME MONTHS USING YOUR WEB. IT IS VERY HELPFUL AS IAM IN A INFANT STAGE IN LEARNING. THANK YOU F0OR YOUR SERVICE.
CAN YOU PL. SEND ME THE DOCUMENT WHICH YOU HAVE SENT TO MR.JAKOB.
Dr. Grant,
Following your reply to Jakob concerning British-Israelism, I've read an article titled "US & UK in Prophecy" claiming UK people as descendants of the tribe of Manasseh while the US were descendants of Ephraim. Is there any truth to that? If none, can you plese give us any extra-Biblical study debunking such claim?
Thank you and God bless!
Raul
Raul, the onus of proof is not on those who deny British-Isralism but upon those who make the assertion. If you look at their so-called proofs, it is highly vacuous and without proper documentation. In logic you can't prove a negative so that is why the onus lies on those to make such outlandish claims.