Was salvation originally intended to be exclusively for Jews?

[QuantaFille]

A Bible study teacher at my church who leads a lot of women's study groups has been teaching some things that just don't sound right to me. My mother, who attends this woman's classes, has told me that she taught that Jesus died only for the Jews, and that after the Jews rejected him God decided to allow gentiles to be saved after all. She said she's glad the Jews rejected him because if they hadn't, we would have had no hope. I've never heard this teaching before.

Has anyone heard this before? Where does it come from? What do I tell her, or ask her?

[One Bad Pig]

A Bible study teacher at my church who leads a lot of women's study groups has been teaching some things that just don't sound right to me. My mother, who attends this woman's classes, has told me that she taught that Jesus died only for the Jews, and that after the Jews rejected him God decided to allow gentiles to be saved after all. She said she's glad the Jews rejected him because if they hadn't, we would have had no hope. I've never heard this teaching before.

Has anyone heard this before? Where does it come from? What do I tell her, or ask her?

I can see how someone might come to that conclusion from a selective reading of Scripture (Mt. 10:5, John 12:20ff, the lack of proselytizing to Greeks in Acts until after the stoning of Stephen), but one must ignore other passages in order to do so (Luke 2:32, Matthew's (ch. 12) quotation of Isaiah, etc.).

[Sparko]

[One Bad Pig]

Re: faithful remnant -

2 Kings 19:30-31
Is. 10:20-22
Jer. 31
Ez. 6:8
Joel 2:32
Amos 5:15
Mic 2:12
Zeph. 2:7-9
Zech 8:11-12

Sort of a prominent theme.

[mikewhitney]

Jesus was sent in accord with prophecy in connection with the transgressions of the Jews (Rom 5:20-21, Rom 11:26-27). So the prophecies relating to his death on the cross and implied resurrection were in accord with the promises and plan expressed through the prophets. (But many details, such as resurrection of the Messiah, were not 'explained' in prophecy, as far as I can tell.) This would atone for their sin, to those who came by faith. But by aspects not explicit in prophecy, Gentiles were also to be reconciled with God through the Christ.

A remnant was to be saved (Isa 10:20-22). This would fulfill the promises to the forefathers.

The inclusion of Gentiles was mentioned in some scattered passages -- for example the promise(s) to Abraham and some passages mentioned in Romans 15. The role of the Messiah in this was not explicit in scripture, as far as I can tell. But Paul, notably, understood that all people who came by faith in the Messiah would be reconciled to God.

Note that a big element of Paul's ministry to Gentiles was to lead Jews to Christ with the aid of jealousy (Rom 11:14-16).

[Littlejoe]

A Bible study teacher at my church who leads a lot of women's study groups has been teaching some things that just don't sound right to me. My mother, who attends this woman's classes, has told me that she taught that Jesus died only for the Jews, and that after the Jews rejected him God decided to allow gentiles to be saved after all. She said she's glad the Jews rejected him because if they hadn't, we would have had no hope. I've never heard this teaching before.

Has anyone heard this before? Where does it come from? What do I tell her, or ask her?

all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven,

[Jedidiah]

. . . But people forget that God is omniscient. He knew and planned for the Jews rejecting Jesus and set everything up that way to begin with.

Amen Sparky! God knew from the beginning what HE was doing and how HE was going to do it.

[NorrinRadd]

A Bible study teacher at my church who leads a lot of women's study groups has been teaching some things that just don't sound right to me. My mother, who attends this woman's classes, has told me that she taught that Jesus died only for the Jews, and that after the Jews rejected him God decided to allow gentiles to be saved after all. She said she's glad the Jews rejected him because if they hadn't, we would have had no hope. I've never heard this teaching before.

Has anyone heard this before? Where does it come from? What do I tell her, or ask her?

20-some years ago, I heard stuff along those lines from Bob Enyart. Interesting character. Not sure what he's up to now, but back then, he was teaching a combination of Hyper-Dispensationalism + Theonomy + Openness Theology + (I think) Full Preterism.

[Cerebrum123]

20-some years ago, I heard stuff along those lines from Bob Enyart. Interesting character. Not sure what he's up to now, but back then, he was teaching a combination of Hyper-Dispensationalism + Theonomy + Openness Theology + (I think) Full Preterism.

As far as I can tell those are mutually exclusive positions.

[Cow Poke]

A Bible study teacher at my church who leads a lot of women's study groups has been teaching some things that just don't sound right to me. My mother, who attends this woman's classes, has told me that she taught that Jesus died only for the Jews, and that after the Jews rejected him God decided to allow gentiles to be saved after all. She said she's glad the Jews rejected him because if they hadn't, we would have had no hope. I've never heard this teaching before.

Has anyone heard this before? Where does it come from? What do I tell her, or ask her?

The first thing that caught my attention here was that you're getting this information second hand. Not that your mother isn't a good virtuous wonderful person, but she may have missed something in the overall context of the discussion.


I have had times when a third party would come ask me about something I had allegedly said in a sermon or class.. in the case of a sermon, I've been able to allow them to hear what I actually DID say, and that resolved the issue. In the case of a teaching or classroom setting, it's just my word what I actually said.


The only time I've actually hard that seriously discussed is in reference to Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

I think this article by John Piper - To the Jew First, and Also to the Greek - does a good job of handling this.

[NorrinRadd]

As far as I can tell those are mutually exclusive positions.

Ok. I'm not going to dig around to see if I still have his book here.

I know he favored a government of constitutional monarchy with laws closely derived from Scripture. (He was sure the U.S. was soon to crap the bed, and was trying to train leaders to be ready to quickly form a "shadow government.")

I know he believed that the Church didn't start until Paul (Hyper-Dispy), and was essentially "Plan B" (Open Theism).

[Sparko]

Ok. I'm not going to dig around to see if I still have his book here.

I know he favored a government of constitutional monarchy with laws closely derived from Scripture. (He was sure the U.S. was soon to crap the bed, and was trying to train leaders to be ready to quickly form a "shadow government.")

I know he believed that the Church didn't start until Paul (Hyper-Dispy), and was essentially "Plan B" (Open Theism).

He was pretty much essential in causing Theologyweb to be created. I believe. The original owners belonged to Enyart's forum Theology Online and because of their differences with his dispensationalism and with the way his moderators micromanaged the forum, Boom, Cir and Dee Dee decided to start their own forum, Theologyweb.

[Cerebrum123]

Ok. I'm not going to dig around to see if I still have his book here.

I know he favored a government of constitutional monarchy with laws closely derived from Scripture. (He was sure the U.S. was soon to crap the bed, and was trying to train leaders to be ready to quickly form a "shadow government.")

I know he believed that the Church didn't start until Paul (Hyper-Dispy), and was essentially "Plan B" (Open Theism).

I meant the underlined parts specifically. Hyperpreterism and hyper dispensationalism are opposite ends of the spectrum.

[NorrinRadd]

I meant the underlined parts specifically. Hyperpreterism and hyper dispensationalism are opposite ends of the spectrum.

And I realized his eschatology is the part I least remember.

[QuantaFille]

The first thing that caught my attention here was that you're getting this information second hand. Not that your mother isn't a good virtuous wonderful person, but she may have missed something in the overall context of the discussion.

I spoke to my mother tonight, and she assures me that it was pretty clear what was being said, but has promised to approach the teacher and make sure she hasn't misunderstood.