My exegesis on the Gospel for the Second Sunday after Trinity, Year A, Matthew 9:35-10:23 continues.

Part 1 has the full reading and exposition for Matthew 9:35-9:38. Part 2 discusses Matthew 10:1-2, especially the Apostles Peter and Andrew, who were brothers as well as James and John, the sons of Zebedee. Part 3 covers the lives of Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James of Alphaeus and Jude Thaddaeus.

Today’s post discusses Matthew 10:4-6:

10:4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.

10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,

10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

In 2015, I wrote an exegesis based on Matthew Henry’s commentary for Matthew 10: parts 1 and 2, which may also be of interest.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur (as specified below).

We have two more Apostles to cover, Simon the Cananaean and Judas Iscariot.

So far, we have seen that Jesus certainly called a motley crew to be His ambassadors. Each man in this august group of twelve had a personality that is unique from the others. None had any formal qualifications. None of them was famous. However, Jesus saw that each had his special gifts to bring to ministry, which, apart from Judas, would come to full fruition at the first Pentecost to the end of their lives.

The ministry described in Matthew 10 is but a trial run for what was to follow after Jesus ascended in glory, returning to heaven.

The Apostles were listed in every Gospel in three groups, from those to whom Jesus was closest to those whom He knew somewhat less well.

Simon the Cananaean and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him (verse 4), are the last on the list.

This could be because of their religious zealotry.

Of this Simon — not to be confused with Simon Peter, who was the Twelve’s overall leader, if only because of his bold personality — Matthew Henry’s commentary states (emphases mine below):

Simon is called the Canaanite, or rather the Canite, from Cana of Galilee, where probably he was born; or Simon the Zealot, which some make to be the signification of Kananites.

John MacArthur describes the Zealots, who were striving for an earthly messianic kingdom, overthrowing the Romans:

You have in your Bible, perhaps, the word Canaanite, that is an unfortunate transliteration of the word Canaan.  Kananaios, really.  And the assumption that it referred to Canaan, geographically.  That is not true.  It comes from a root qanna, which means to be jealous, or to be zealous for the law.  In Luke he is called Simon the Zealot, zlts, and this is just another word meaning the same thing: Simon the man full of zeal, Simon the Zealot.  And it may mean that he was actually identified with a party in Judaism known as the Zealots, and that when he became a disciple they didn’t change that name; he must have continued to manifest the same kind of fiery, passionate zeal that he had when he was a Zealot.  There were four basically dominant groups within Judaism: Pharisees, they were the rightest, they were the fundamentalists, legalists.  Then, there was the Sadducees, and they were the liberals.  Then, there was the Essenes and they were the mystics, the ascetics, the monastics out in the caves.  And then, there were the Zealots.  They were the political-oriented group, they were the terrorists, they were the guerrillas, they were the brigands.  They went around looting, and burning, and murdering.  A group of them within the Zealots were known as Sicarii from sicae, sword.  They were the assassins.  And they had revolted against the Roman domination.  In fact, they really were born out of the Maccabean period.  Whether by name or not, we can’t be sure.  But out of the Maccabean period when the Jews were led by Judas Maccabeus to revolt against the Greek power, there were statements made about being a revolutionary and standing to defend the covenant of God, particularly in 1 Maccabees there’s some stuff about that. 

And it seems as out of that, came a sort of a politically-oriented kind of terrorist approach that became later known as the Zealots.  They found a leader in New Testament times by the name of Judas, another, as I say, very common name.  And under this Judas of Galilee, they began seditious acts, and all over the land these things were going on.  In fact, if you could see the rest of history, as you read the New Testament, there would be little interludes going on all over the place led by the Zealots that the Romans are putting out like little fires.  They would murder here, murder there, plunder, burn, anything they could do.  Much like you see in the Middle East today with guerrilla-type engagements.

… It’s very possible that Simon was a member of the Zealots.  He is called Simon the Zealot.  He was a terrorist engaged in guerrilla warfare. 

It might be interesting for you to know that they were so anti-Roman that they wouldn’t even give a thought about murdering a Roman, but they were so anti-Roman that anybody of their own countrymen, even a Jew of their own countrymen who would in any way side with Rome, they would also assassinate.  Finally, in 70 AD the Romans had to put a stop to all of it, and so they came and destroyed Jerusalem.  And Josephus says writing in his “Antiquities,” that the key reason for the destruction of Jerusalem was the activity of the Zealots.  The Romans got so tired of fighting these little seditious things all over the place, they decided to come in and just destroy the whole operation.  And if they could just destroy Jerusalem, they would then move from there.  And they did.  They destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and they moved out, they slaughtered people in 985 towns in Galilee.  They just obliterated the nation, and the Zealots were the thorn in their side that finally brought this about.

Now, there was a leader after 70 AD of the Zealots by the name of Eleazar, and he led the Zealots in continuing plunder.  There were just a few left, but they were going everywhere, doing what they’d always done.  They finally found a retreat where they could hide.  The place was Masada, and the Zealots were located in Masada.  From there, they would move out to do their guerrilla type activity.  And this of course is later than the time of Simon.  Do you remember how it all finally ended?  The Romans finally took Masada, and the Zealots, not wanting to lose their life to their despised and hated Roman enemy, committed suicide.  And Josephus writes in “The War of the Jews” that Eleazar summoned the people together, and made a flaming speech in which he urged them to slaughter their own wives and children and then commit suicide.  They took him at his word; they tenderly embraced their wives, kissed their children, and then began the bloody work.  960 perished.  Only two women and five children escaped by hiding in a cave … Those were not the normal Jewish people.  Those were the political terrorists, and they would kill themselves before they would let a Roman take their life.  That’s how deep their hatred was.

Returning to Simon:

He is listed, will you notice?  He is listed right before what name?  Judas Iscariot.  It’s interesting to me, but they probably went together.  Maybe there were two-by.  When they went out two by two, it was he and Judas, because Judas had the same kind of political orientation, didn’t he?  And it may well have been that they came in on the same ground, on the same level, figuring, boy, this Jesus could really aid our cause.  And Simon could have been the betrayer, and you would have named your children Judas, not Simon.  But Simon believed, and was transformed.  Judas did not, and so no one names anything Judas. 

Simon became Christ’s man.  Think of how wonderful it must have been for him to get along with Matthew, who collected taxes for the Roman government.  I wonder if he ever had just little anxieties about Matthew.  Well, the Lord uses all kinds of unqualified people, doesn’t He?  He can use you and me. 

Of his ministry and death, Wikipedia says:

Muslim tradition says that Simon was sent to preach the faith of God to the Berbers, outside North Africa.^[22]

In art, Simon has the identifying attribute of a saw because according to tradition he was martyred by being sawn in half.^[11]

He is buried in the same tomb as Jude Thaddeus, in the left transept of the St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, under the altar of St. Joseph.

Now we come to the final Apostle, Judas Iscariot, about whom I wrote in 2012, explaining why Psalm 109 is the Iscariot Psalm, and again in 2017.

Henry injects a philosophical note about him:

Judas Iscariot is always named last, and with that black brand upon his name, who also betrayed him; which intimates that from the first, Christ knew what a wretch he was, that he had a devil, and would prove a traitor; yet Christ took him among the apostles, that it might not be a surprise and discouragement to his church, if, at any time, the vilest scandals should break out in the best societies. Such spots there have been in our feasts of charity; tares among the wheat, wolves among the sheep; but there is a day of discovery and separation coming, where hypocrites shall be unmasked and discarded. Neither the apostleship, nor the rest of the apostles, were ever the worse for Judas’s being one of the twelve, while his wickedness was concealed and did not break out.

MacArthur wrote his seminary thesis on the man who betrayed Christ, and, as far as I am concerned, he is the final authority on this sad, condemned man.

MacArthur devoted a whole sermon to Judas in 1981, excerpted below:

He is isolated.  He is lonely.  He is alone.  His name is Judas Iscariot.  He is a horrifying, colossal misfit.  He is the epitome of disaster.  He is the vilest, wickedest man the Bible knows anything about, and he is our subject this morning.  He is listed last, you’ll notice, in verse 4.  And he is always listed last, and with a comment about his betrayal, because that was his brand and will be for all time.  The dark story of Judas is a blight on the page of human history.  Although there is much we know, there is much mystery and darkness surrounding Judas that perhaps we’ll never know.  His name became a byword for betrayal.  His name is so despised that it is not used in human society though its meaning is full of loveliness.

There are 40 verses in the New Testament in which there is a reference to the betrayal of our Lord, and in each of them there is the implication of the incredible sin of this man, Judas.  In fact, in Dante’s passage through hell, Judas is depicted as occupying the lowest level of hell, fit only for Lucifer himself, and Judas is not even allowed to rise to the caverns of the rest of the damned.  He is so deep in the pit.  After the mention of his death in the first chapter of Acts, he disappears from holy Scripture, never to be mentioned again.

MacArthur tells us more about what we think of as his last name, Iscariot:

First of all, his name.  Judas, a common name.  Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus in verse 3 is also called Judas.  It is simply a form of Judah, the land of God’s people.  Some say the root of it means Jehovah leads, and others think the root of it might refer to one who is the object of praise.  But, what a paradox either way.  If it means Jehovah leads, there never was one who was more obviously led by Satan than was Judas.  If it means one worthy of praise, there is never, there has never lived one more unworthy of praise than Judas.  So, he is a very, very enigmatical man even in terms of his name.  It says his name is not only Judas but Iscariot.  What does that mean?  Basically it comes from two terms: ish, meaning man; and Kerioth, meaning town.  He was a man of the town of Kerioth.  That is simply a geographical identification.  Why is it that Judas is identified geographically, and the other 11 are not?  It’s important, because he is the only non-Galilean.  He is the only Jew from the southern section.  He is the only Judean Jew.  All of the rest came from Galilee.  And this may indicate to us that from the very beginning, Judas was never really one of the boys.  Also, the southern Jews felt themselves greatly superior to the rural Jews of the north, and would have looked down on them.  And consequently there may have been a certain amount of pride involved which deepened as time went on.

23 miles south of Jerusalem, 7 miles from Hebron was a little group of tiny villages.  They were built near farms where the people cultivated the soil.  As the little villages congregated together and grew, they became one little town, and that little town became known as Kerioth.  And in Joshua chapter 15 and verse 25 it is mentioned.  And it was that little village that gave birth to this man.  Seven miles from Hebron, a little child was born that was one day to be the most hated human being who ever lived.

MacArthur points out what probably went on in Judas’s mind as an Apostle and how Jesus knew it:

… I hasten to add that the call of Judas is not recorded in the Bible.  We meet him the first time right here in this list, and we don’t know how he got in the group.  I mean, we know the Lord called him in, but we don’t know any of the circumstances.  We know he wanted to be involved, but we don’t know how it was that he attached himself to Jesus.  Apparently, he was attracted to Jesus, that’s obvious.  He followed Him.  He stayed with Him.  And he stayed with Him longer than a lot of the other false disciples who bailed out much earlier than this.  In fact, in John 6, you remember last week I said that there were many disciples who followed Jesus, but when He demanded total commitment out of them it says, “And many of His disciples walked no more with Him.”  But the 12, it says, remained.  So, even when Jesus called for all-out commitment, even when He said you must eat My flesh and drink My blood, even when He made total demands on them and many of them left, Judas stuck it out.  He stayed.  And so, he was definitely attracted to Jesus. 

I don’t think he was particularly attracted by the spiritual, I think he was attracted on the selfish level.  I don’t think it was really Jesus alone that drew him; I think it was what Jesus could do for him that drew him.  He saw the power of Jesus, and he believed that this man would bring the Kingdom.  And he was not interested in the Kingdom for the Kingdom’s sake or for Christ’s sake; he was interested in the Kingdom for what he might gain from it if he were on the inner circle.  So, he’s totally motivated by selfishness.  But nonetheless he followed, in a half-hearted way.  So, in one sense from his side, he chose to follow Jesus.  But on the other side, from Christ’s perspective, he was chosen to follow.  And there you have the same paradox of human choice and divine sovereignty that you have in salvation.  We come to Christ, we choose to believe in Christ and yet we are chosen before the foundation of the world by Him.  That’s a paradox.  That is a theological problem ultimately solved in the mind of God.  Christ chose Judas; Judas chose Christ.

Now, one thing is certain: Jesus knew Judas would betray Him, and that is why He chose him.  Jesus knew the plan, you see.  You say, “How did He know the plan?”  Well, He knew the plan for one thing because He was omniscient; He knew everything.  And the very beginning, John 6 verse 70, when it says, “Many went away and the 12 remained,” Jesus at that early time said: “One of you is a,” what?  “Devil.”  So, from the beginning He knew.  And He knew because of what the Old Testament said.  The Old Testament predicted that one of His own would betray Him …

Betrayed by His own familiar friend for 30 pieces of silver.  The New Testament simply records the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesied.  So, when Jesus chose Judas, He knew he was the betrayer, and He knew the prophecies about His betrayal, so He understood the entire plan.  And He chose him because of that plan.

MacArthur explains the paradox of the plan and the betrayal:

Now, listen to me, you have here the paradox.  You say, if it’s in the plan then is Judas responsible?  Yes.  You say, well, how can God predetermine this, set up the plan, make all the prophecies, pull it off, fit Judas in, and then hold Judas responsible?  That’s exactly what God does.  How He can do that, I don’t understand because the infinite mind of God is beyond my own … On the one hand it is determined; on the other hand Judas is responsible.  So it is in salvation.  If you’re saved, it’s because it was determined before the foundation of the world; and if you’re lost, you’re responsible.  And if you can’t resolve those two don’t feel bad.  No one else who ever lived can either.

Remember that the other Apostles were not aware that one of them had betrayed Jesus:

Do you remember how they responded?  Did they say, “Is it Judas?”  No.  Every one of them said, “Is it I?”  Why?  They had no more reason to suspect Judas then they had reason to suspect themselves.  They knew better about themselves and they assumed better about Judas.  He was a fantastic hypocrite.  He was so good at it, they elected him treasurer of the group.  That’s right.  They gave him the money.  That’s how much they trusted him. 

The only time we have a record of him speaking is when Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, broke the bottle of expensive nard (perfume) and anointed Jesus. Judas complained:

It’s interesting to me that he never has a word to say until he complains about the waste of money in Bethany, the whole biblical record, the whole three years he’d ever open his mouth, I’m sure he really guarded his mouth well to keep the ruse up …

The hate had taken over.  What started as attraction, and love, and fascination had turned to hate.  Because Jesus didn’t do what he expected, and he became more frustrated and more frustrated, until he had this love-hate, and finally it was hate, wasting that on this One, in whom I have invested three wasted years.

MacArthur says he was a devout but a political Jew, similar to the Zealots in their goal of setting up a messianic kingdom involving the overthrow of the Romans:

He was probably young, a somewhat devout Jew, a zealous Jew, a patriotic Jew who didn’t want the Romans to rule, and he saw an opportunity to follow this man.  He believed this man was the Messiah, and that He would set up a Kingdom, and the Kingdom would be earthly, and He would overthrow Rome.  And He would push the conquerors out, and He would reestablish the Kingdom of Israel.  And days of prosperity and glory would come again.  And for him it was all earthly, and it was all crass and it was all materialistic, and it was all something you could hold in your hand.  And he saw the possibility of getting in on the gravy train.  He was never really drawn by the person of Jesus to believe and to love Jesus.  He only saw Jesus as a means to an end, to gain for himself.

And you know, he could put it off a little, because at the beginning he didn’t join the group for money because they were poor.  But he figured if he hung around long enough, after the revolution, he would get in on it.  He was willing to make the investment of a few years for a dividend that he thought would be tremendous.

When Jesus announced His betrayal, He was extremely polite, perhaps honouring, one might say. John 13 describes a sop — a piece of bread dipped in something edible. We dip sops in olive oil at trendy restaurants. This is the same thing, although Jesus probably dipped the sop in a fruit and nut paste:

… it was common in the Orient to honor a guest and the meal, and the one who was the honored guest would be the one to whom the host gave the sop.  The host would dip it and give it to the honored guest.  And He said the one to whom I give the sop, he it is that betrays Me.  And He dipped the sop and gave it to Judas.  And at that very moment He was honoring him, He was respecting him, He was showing love to him, He was lifting him up.  It was an act, I think, of affection.  It was an act of love.  Beside teaching him, and teaching him, and warning him, He actually honored the man.  He was ever-reaching to that man.  But he never responded.

When did Judas decide to betray our Lord?

MacArthur says it was on the day we call Palm Sunday:

… I believe that the final thing that just destroyed Judas finally, was the triumphal entry.  When Jesus rode into the city, and it was, “Hosanna to the son of David,” and palm branches at His feet, and all the praises, and everybody acknowledging Him as the Messiah, and He rides in, and Judas has got to be in the back saying, “This is it.  It’s going to happen today.”  What a set up.  Jesus gets off the donkey and gives a speech.  This is His speech: “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone.”  I’ll have to die.  And I believe that literally devastated, that was the last straw that Judas could handle.  It wasn’t going to happen.  And I think that made it finally clear to him.

You see, the other disciples started where he started.  But the Lord lifted them to a spiritual plain.  Judas never got there … The others became uncorrupted and he became more corrupted, more greedy.  He had at the root of his character, a terrible, terrible passion, and he never was willing to relinquish it.  And so, like Goethe’s “Faust,” sold his soul to Mephistopheles.  Judas sold his soul to hell itself …

And some people have tried to ascribe to him a good motive; you cannot ascribe to Judas a good motive any time in any way for two reasons.  “One,” Jesus said, “One of you is a devil; two, before he betrayed Him Jesus said, ‘And Satan entered into him.’“ There was nothing good about him.  He was wretched.

Judas never asked God for forgiveness because Satan had entered him. He never expressed his remorse to God over the betrayal, the greatest in history:

Jesus said, “Judas went to his own place.”  Right where he belonged.  The tragedy of this man’s life can be summed up in the words of our Lord who said in Matthew 26:24: “It would’ve been better for that man if he had never been born.”  And that’s the way it will be for people who reject Christ. 

We move on to our Lord’s commission — instruction, command — to the Apostles.

They were to go nowhere among the Gentiles or the Samaritans (verse 5) but rather among the lost sheep of Israel (verse 6).

We know our Lord commented on the state of the souls of Israel at the beginning of this reading, which was from Matthew 9. Jesus was physically pained to know that they had no true religious shepherd. The Pharisees did nothing for the people in enlightening their understanding of scriptural truths.

MacArthur says:

… in verse 36. One day, one time, as Jesus stood on the edge of a hill and surveyed the crowd beneath Him, “He was moved with compassion.” He was wrenched internally. “Because they were faint” – or weary. Literally, they were beaten, bruised. They had been ripped from limb to limb by their own leaders, who had imposed upon them a false, legalistic system of religion that denied the truth of God. “And they were scattered abroad, as sheep without a shepherd.” Jesus saw the vastness, the lostness of the multitude, and said to His disciples, “The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few.” As you know from the study of that text, what He means by the harvest is the judgment, for harvest in Matthew is judgment, when God puts in the sickle and reaps. And He could see this mass of lost, disoriented, weary people, moving as if they were some great group of criminals toward an inevitable judgment.

Henry explains not going to the Gentiles or the Samaritans:

The Gentiles must not have the gospel brought them, till the Jews have first refused it. As to the Samaritans, who were the posterity of the mongrel people that the king of Assyria planted about Samaria, their country lay between Judea and Galilee, so that they could not avoid going into the way of the Samaritans, but they must not enter into any of their cities. Christ had declined manifesting himself to the Gentiles or Samaritans, and therefore the apostles must not preach to them … This restraint was upon them only in their first mission, afterwards they were appointed to go into all the world, and teach all nations.

MacArthur discusses the structure of the rest of Matthew 10, the latter part of which is in the reading for the Third Sunday after Trinity (Year A):

The instruction that He gives the disciples is for a short-term mission. But as you flow through the chapter, you find that as it progresses, He releases to them information that will be good for them for all the life of ministry they have, and will stretch beyond them to every other person the Lord ever sends anywhere. Some of it is very defined and confined, and some of it is very broad …

By the way, the chapter is divided into three parts. The first section begins in verse 5 and ends at verse 15 with the statement, “Verily I say unto you.” And that section talks about the task of the missionary, the task of the apostle, the task of the one sent. The second section goes to verse 23 and ends, “Verily I say unto you,” and that talks about the reaction to the one sent. The third section goes to verse 42 and ends, “Verily I say unto you,” and that talks about the cost to the one being sent. So we’re going to learn about the task, the reaction, and the cost of being a disciple sent in the name of Jesus Christ.

MacArthur points out the parallel account of this divine commission to the Apostles in Mark 6:

By the way, Mark 6, in a comparative passage, in verse 7 tells us He sent them two by two. I think there is a reason why. For one thing, they would be companions in times of possible loneliness. For another, they would be strength to one another in times of temptation. For another, they would be an encouragement in times of despondency and persecution. For another, they could relieve each other in the matter of preaching and healing, which would be going on all the time. And for another, it was known well to them that the testimony of anyone was confirmed in the mouth of two or three witnesses. So the Lord sent them two by two. And it probably only lasted a few weeks, but they were still the ambassadors of Christ, officially sent.

MacArthur explains the command involved in this holy mission:

… you’ll notice that it says He not only sent them but He commanded them. That is a very interesting word, paraggellō. The word really demands an awful lot of attention … But it means basically to give orders. But if you study that word and trace it through its usages in the Greek language, you find some very interesting things. For example, first and foremost it is a military word. It means a superior giving orders to an inferior; it is a command issued to soldiers. That we see in its secular usage. It is an aggressive, definitive statement of absolute behavior that requires obedience. That is its primary use in a military way. Secondly, it is used in legal terms. There are some papyri that have been discovered in which this paraggellō verb is used of summoning a man to court. In other words, he is bound by the law; he is bound by legal injunction against him to obey and respond.

We also find in some secular sources that the word is used of an ethical concept. It is used, for example, as Aristotle teaches morals or ethics to his students. They become binding on the basis of the integrity of the individual. When you learn what is ethically right, you are bound to that, if you have any character. Then it is what you might call a technique word. It is a word to define certain technique. For example, it is used of the rules of grammar or the rules of oratory or the rules of literary composition. It is a word then that defines exactly how something is to be done. And fifthly, it is a medical term. It is used of a doctor prescribing something for someone who is sick, instruction for one who wants to be well.

Now let me sum it up. Here is a word that is a word of military command; you don’t have any choice but to respond. Here is a word that is a word of legal obligation; you have no choice but to respond. Here is a word of ethical standard; you have no choice but to respond. Here is a word of technique, which means if you’re going to do it right, this is the way to do it; you have no other way to respond. It is also a word of medical prescription; if you want to be well, you do it this way. It is a word, then, that in every dimension binds upon man a response.

And as you trace the word in the New Testament, and it is used 30 times at least, you find that it is repeatedly used as the standard Christian term for instruction. In Luke 5:14, Jesus used it to instruct a leper. In Luke 8:29, He used it to give command to an evil spirit to come out of a demoniac. In Luke 8, He used it to instruct Jairus. In Luke 9, He used it to command His disciples. It’s used in the book of Acts of the command of the Sanhedrin’s to Peter and John. It’s used in Acts 15 of the command of the Pharisees to observe the ceremonial law. It’s used by Paul in his writing to Timothy. It’s used as he talks about what widows ought to do. It’s used in the pastoral epistles. It’s used many places. It’s just the word that means we are bound to respond.

And so when you realize you’re commissioned by the Lord Jesus Himself, and that you have no choice but to respond, because you are a soldier and He is the commander; because you are drawn into the court and He is the judge; because you are the one who is to live the life, and He is the one who sets the moral standards; because you can only carry out the task, He’s the one who determines how it is to function; because you’re the patient and He is the doctor, you respond. And I say this so many times when I talk to men in the ministry, what God wants in a ministry is not your creativity and innovation. What He wants is your obedience.

MacArthur has more on why Jesus wanted the Apostles to focus on the Jews:

… in verse 6 He says, “But instead, you go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Now may I add that this is not a permanent command. This is a very dispensational statement, a very narrow statement, limited to this time and place and this the plan of God … what I want you to see out of it is that it illustrates how God gives people very clear objectives, very central focus, very limited mission.

… Don’t be confused. The Lord has already made it abundantly clear that He will reach Gentiles. In fact, in the Old Testament, all you need to do is read the prophet Isaiah, and you will find in chapter 49 and in chapter – several places in the 50’s where he says Jerusalem will carry the message to the nations. He loved the Gentiles.

You say, what about the Samaritans? Does He got something against the Samaritans? No. The Samaritans were okay, but the Jews hated them – absolutely despised them. It was one thing to be a Gentile. You couldn’t help that. You were born a Gentile. I mean you just sort of were a Gentile. Tough luck. But to be a Samaritan is to be a corrupted person, because a Samaritan was a half-breed, and they reflected the intermarriage of the Jew with the Gentile, which was a crime unforgivable in the minds of many Jews. Jesus didn’t have a problem with that. You see, the first woman that Jesus ever announced His Messiahship to was a Gentile woman living in the city of Sychar who had a handful of husbands and was living with a man who wasn’t her husband …

… By the way, the Samaritans had fomented the hatred, because 20 years before the time of Christ, the Samaritans had stolen into the temple in the middle of the night during Passover and thrown dead men’s bones all over the temple enclosure, which polluted it. And so there was just a terrible hatred at that point in time. And there were lots of problems in going to a Samaritan town and lots of problems in going to a Gentile town, particularly for this little group of unqualified guys.

Now let me give you three reasons why I believe He told them not to go there. Number one I call the special place of the Jews – the special place of the Jews. They were just God’s chosen people and they were the ones to whom the covenants and the promises were given and the law. And so in the line of God’s plan, it was that the kingdom was to be first offered to them. That’s all … And they are the people through whom the rest of the world is to be blessed. They are the tents of Shem, through whom all the nations are blessed.

“Salvation is of the Jews,” it says in the New Testament. That doesn’t mean it’s only for them. It means it comes through them. They were to be the emissaries, the witnesses. Jerusalem was to be the launching point for evangelism. Jerusalem was to be the place where the nations came to see the Messiah. They were to be His witness people, so He said, “Go there first” … Now I promise you something. If they had gone first to the Gentiles and the Samaritans, the Jews wouldn’t have listened to them. So the special place of the Jews was the first reason. 

The second one I call the special problem of the Twelve. They were hardly up to this task, reaching their own people, to say nothing of trying to reach the Gentiles and the Samaritans, whose culture they did not understand that well, whose biases and prejudices they could not have overcome easily. They were not equipped for that. Do you know that nothing every really cracked open the Gentile world, with the exception of Peter’s confrontation of one God-fearing man named Cornelius, nothing ever made a dent in that world until a man came along by the name of Paul? …

Thirdly, and less important than those two, I think the third reason they were sent to only the Jews was because of the special point of attack. Any commander knows that you just can’t do everything. You can’t be like the man who jumped on his horse and rode of madly in all directions. You have to have specifics. The possibilities were varied, and He gives them a specific target. “Just do this. Go to Galilee, and go to the Jews, who are the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” By the way, the phrase ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ simply refers to the Jews … So our Lord Himself reflects to them what was His own specific mi