Did Jesus Exclude Gentiles?
Joseph Francis Alward
November 12, 1997

Yes, he did.

Jesus told his followers that they were to teach the word of God only to the chosen few: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles....but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."  (Matthew 10:7)

St. Paul tells the Ephesians, "So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. (Ephesians 4:17-18)

E-Mail Alward              Home Page


The Hebrews' Messiah Expectations

The Hebrews long had expectation of an heroic messiah of mythic proportions--a saviour--who would break the chains which enslaved them. When Jesus appeared and was aggressively promoted as the true messiah, the Jews initially were attracted by his charisma and message of salvation and promise to escort them to the kingdom of heaven on doomsday. They were special, Jesus said, for there would be no hope or preached promises to anyone other than God's chosen people--the Jews. According to Saint Matthew, thus spake Jesus to his disciples: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles....but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel....I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."  (Matthew 10:7, Matthew 15:24)

Jesus emphasized the imminence of the end of the world and the arrival of the kingdom of heaven for the Jews: "And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand....Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the son of Man be come." (Matthew 10:5-6, 23)  Thus, the end of the world would come so soon that Jesus' disciples would not even have time to spread the word to all of the Jews in the cities of Israel. But, as the years went by without the coming of the son of God and his promised apocalypse, many Jews stopped listening to the apostles. Fearing loss of priestly power, the church fathers took matters into their own hands.

Forging New Rules for the Gentiles

The church fathers decided to expand their influence by extending Jesus' promise of salvation to the ones ignored by Jesus--the pagan Gentiles-- the uncircumcised. Joseph Wheless, in "Is It God's Word?," explains:

The gentiles were the superstitious pagans of Palestine, Asia Minor, and parts thereabouts; they were steeped in belief in all the fables of all the gods of the heathen world. They knew nothing of the Jewish Scriptures or of the promised Messiah; they had no critical sense in religion, but, like Paul and his converts, believed all things and hoped all things. A new God was to them just one more god among many.

The Gentiles were ripe for harvesting, and so the priestly fathers apparently appended the following verses to the end of Matthew's gospel:  "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."  (Matthew 28:19-20).  What a remarkable turn-around this is:  just eighteen chapters earlier, in Matthew 10.5, Jesus was telling his disciples, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles."!

Apostles' Actions Expose the Deception

As will be shown below, the apostles did not know that Jesus had evidently changed his mind and decided to allow Gentiles into the kingdom of heaven. They could not know it because, as we have already alleged, Jesus' mind was changed only in the lying imaginations of the forging fathers. Damning proof of this is offered below, where we begin by looking closely at the behavior of Simon Peter.

A Doubting Peter Agrees to Meet Gentiles

While in a trance, Peter had a vision that he should meet with the Gentiles. His doubt about the meaning of this vision is strong evidence that Jesus never told his disciples to convert the Gentiles: "Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean." (Acts 10:9-17). Meanwhile, a Gentile centurion from Caesarea named Cornelius had a revelation that he should meet with Peter to be converted to the all-Jewish sect (Acts 10:1-9). Learning of this, Peter, still doubtful, met with Cornelius and his household. As further proof that Peter knew nothing of Jesus' command to his disciples to teach and baptize those of all nations, we have these words from Peter to Cornelius and his family: "Ye know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation." (Acts 10:17-28)

Peter, however, also told Cornelius that a revelation had tentatively led him to "perceive that...he that feareth [God], and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:34-35). Thus, it is only through a revelation--not the fraudulent "teach all nations" command by Jesus-- that Peter was able to "perceive" that God would accept righteous Gentiles. This is virtually certain proof that Peter never heard Jesus' tell him and his disciples to "teach all nations", and therefore that the final verses of Matthew and Mark are late forgeries.

The Apostles Were Angry at Peter

The apostles also evidently did not know anything about an alleged command by Jesus to "go, teach all nations....preach the gospel to every creature", because they were upset that Peter had embraced the Gentiles: "And when Peter had come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision, contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." (Acts 11:2, 3)  Peter defended himself, explained his trance vision and Cornelius's revelation, and the speaking in tongues, and then told the apostles,  "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us,....what am I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11:4-18).  If the apostles ever had heard the son of God urge the acceptance of the Gentiles, and if they had actually "preached everywhere"--as alleged by Matthew and Mark, they surely never would have questioned Peter's meeting with the Gentiles.

As if the foregoing were not proof enough of the cynical forgeries of the church fathers, we discuss below further incriminating comments by learned authorities.

Council of Trent: The Word of God

Concerning the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

The combination of so many peculiar features, not only of vocabulary, but of matter and construction, leaves room for doubt....it is not at all certain that Mark did not write the disputed verses. It may be that he did not; that they are from the pen of another inspired author....Catholics are not bound to hold that the verses were written by St. Mark. But they are canonical Scripture, for the Council of Trent [2],....[defined] that all parts of the Sacred books are to be received as sacred and canonical......Hence, whoever wrote the verses, they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic. [3]

Now isn't this remarkable? According to the inspired fathers at the Council of Trent, whoever wrote the disputed verses, they are inspired even if they are fake. Constrained as the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia were by the demands of doctrinal adherance, it is remarkable how much is revealed by the words above, which conform to the letter of the church law, but surely not the spirit in their near-confession of the forgeries in Mark.

Hear also the words of the New Standard Bible Dictionary, and the Encyclopedia Biblica, as quoted by Joseph Wheless in "Forgery In Christianity": Mark 16:9-20  "has against it the testimony of the two oldest [related manuscripts] [4], which close the chapter at verse 8. In addition to this is the very significant silence of Patristic literature as to anything following verse 8" [5], and Mark 16:9-20 "is admittedly not genuine." [6]

[1]  Late Addition to Mark
[2] Council of Trent, northern Italy; called by Pope Paul III.  The council met over three sessions between 1545-1563 to deal with doctrinal and administrative problems. Tradition, along with the Bible, was accepted as a source of faith.
[3] Catholic Encyclopedia, ix, 677-679
[4] Uncial manuscripts: Siniatic and Vatican.
[5] New Standard Bible Dictionary, p. 551.
[6] Encyclopedia Biblica, ii, 1880.