EXCLUSIVENESS.—The term is here employed to denote that Christ’s earthly ministry was confined to the people of Israel. The passages bearing on the subject leave no doubt that Christ regarded the Messianic mission entrusted to Him by the Father as limited to the Jewish nation, and in practice He kept within the limits imposed by the Divine decree. Only on one occasion do we find Him crossing the borders of the Holy Land into heathen territory (Mark 7:24), and on that occasion His object was not to extend the sphere of His work, but to secure an interval of rest and leisure for the private instruction of His disciples. When the Syrophœnician woman, seizing the opportunity presented by His presence in the neighbourhood, appealed to Him to heal her demoniac daughter, He justified Himself at first for refusing by the statement, ‘I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matthew 15:24). At an earlier date, in His instructions to the Twelve in view of their missionary journey, the area of their work was sharply defined in the words, ‘Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matthew 10:5-6). It has been alleged that this restriction of His work was occasioned by want of sympathy with those outside the Jewish pale, in proof of which appeal is made to some of His sayings, such as those in which He characterizes Gentiles as ‘dogs’ (Matthew 15:26 ||), directs His disciples to treat an impenitent offender as ‘an heathen man and a publican’ (Matthew 18:17), and enjoins them to ‘use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do’ (Matthew 6:7).

The fact of Christ’s attitude of aloofness toward the Gentile world throughout His earthly ministry is quite evident. In explanation of it various considerations have to be taken into account. (1) His vocation as ‘a minister of the circumcision’ (Romans 15:8) led Him to avoid as far as possible work among Samaritans and Gentiles. As the Messianic King, who came in fulfilment of OT prophecies, His appeal would naturally be, in the first instance, to ‘His own’ (John 1:11). (2) The whole history of the Jewish people having been a preparation for the Kingdom of God, He recognized in its members ‘the children of the kingdom’ (Matthew 8:12). By virtue of possessing the oracles of God, Israel alone was fitted to appreciate the message of the Kingdom, which could not be presented to the world at large without a preparatory training, involving more or less delay. (3) To secure a favourable reception for His message it was necessary to avoid, as far as possible, arousing the prejudice and alienating the sympathy of His Jewish hearers, who would have resented any teaching or practice tending to place Gentile communities on a level of privilege with themselves (Luke 4:25-29). (4) The shortness of His earthly ministry made it imperative that He should restrict the field to be evangelized, and not be diverted from His immediate purpose of establishing the Kingdom among the chosen people by the claims of those outside, however urgent and undeniable. (5) Assuming that the Kingdom was destined ultimately to be universal, its triumph among the Jews would evidently be the most successful method of securing its extension to other nations. As a matter of fact, it was Jewish adherents who afterwards became the agents of spreading it among the Gentiles.

Among the reasons why Gentiles were excluded from the scope of Christ’s personal ministry, want of sympathy cannot be included. The evidence, instead of proving want of sympathy, is all the other way. He granted the request of the Roman centurion who sought the healing of his servant, eulogizing at the same time his faith as something without a parallel even in Israel (Matthew 8:10). The apparent coldness of His demeanour toward the Syrophœnician woman was due to the embarrassing nature of her petition, which required Him to violate the principle by which His conduct had been governed hitherto. He was anxious to help, if He could do so without sacrificing the interests of those who had the first claim upon His services. The term ‘dogs’ has been objected to on the ground that it is insulting. The woman herself did not view it in this light, and her quick wit turned it into an argument in her own favour. The term (κυνάρια), moreover, does not denote the ownerless dogs which act as scavengers in the East, but the household pets which serve as the children’s playmates. The scruples which led Christ to withhold for a moment the help sought, were in the end overcome by the woman’s faith, which won His cordial approval.

There is no trace of racial or religious bias in Christ’s references to the heathen. Any repugnance implied in His language is toward what is evil in their system or in their conduct. It is their method of prayer with which He has no sympathy, and which He stigmatizes as unworthy of imitation. Their lives were often such as to make close association with them unadvisable, and the impenitent offender is regarded as on a par with them in this respect. Christ’s attitude toward publicans, who are bracketed with heathen, was anything but unsympathetic; and if He felt toward heathen in the same way, they were objects not of dislike, but of the deepest compassion. See also artt. Gentiles, Missions.

W. S. Montgomery.

Bibliography Information
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Exclusiveness'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/e/exclusiveness.html. 1906-1918.

Bible Dictionaries Exclusiveness

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Bible Dictionaries
Exclusiveness