3 Nevertheless, the saying in Matt 10:5 addresses geography more than ethnicity, restricting the mission primarily to Galilee (see Gundry, Matthew, 185; Manson, Sayings, 179; cf. Jeremias, Promise, 19 n. 3).
4 Some doubt that it originated with Jesus’ teaching, though not necessarily regarding it as incompatible with Jesus’ teaching (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 212-21).
6 See e.g., Schnabel, “Mission,” especially 58; Bird, Gentile Mission, passim, esp. 3, 26-29, 172, 177; Simon, “Acts of Philip,” 69-70. I leave aside the question of whether he viewed Gentiles as pure during his mission, before an end-time ingathering; many would answer this question less optimistically (see Mk 7:27; more strongly and perhaps traditionally, Matt 15:24-26; note also what seems likely a question [possibly an objection] in Matt 8:8, though not in Lk 7:6).
10 Pace Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 220; Allison, “East.” Strong evidence supports Matt 8:11-12// Lk 13:28-29 as an authentic saying of Jesus (Semitisms and background in Jeremias, Promise, 55-62).
11 Matthew may draw Jesus’ words here from another context (whether or not the context of Lk 13:28-29 is original) to reinforce the point that this story prefigures the Gentile mission, which Jesus endorsed in advance (France, “Exegesis in Practice,” 260).
12 The context is explicit in Matthew; similarly, Luke’s addition of “north and south” probably is meant to recall the recent “the queen of the south” and Nineveh (Lk 11:30-31).
14 E.g., Is 56:3-8. For the end-time ingathering of Gentiles in Jewish sources, see the data in Jeremias, Promise, 56-61; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 213-15. Theissen, Gospels in Context, 45 suggests uncertainly that both Diaspora Jews and Gentiles could be involved.
15 Is 25:6-8 is the biblical source (so also Sanders, Figure, 185). Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:27-28 tentatively object that no single passage in the Hebrew Bible has both nations coming to Zion (Is 2:2-4) and then banqueting (25:6-8). This objection, however, ignores the synthetic way Jesus and others of his day read Isaiah; why would Jesus’ view of this aspect of the future, in contrast to his eschatology more broadly, be bound to a single text? Even if he drew from only a single text, his understanding of that text would be informed by others. For Jewish expectation of the messianic banquet, see e.g., 4 Macc 13:17; 1 En. 70:4; 3 En. 48A:10; Test. Asher 7:7; Test. Benj. 10:6-9; m. Ab. 3:16-17; 4:16; b. Ber. 34b; Sanh. 98b; p. Taan. 4:2, §12; Gen. Rab. 62:2; Ex. Rab. 45:6; 50:5; Lev. Rab. 13:3; Num. Rab. 13:2; Ruth Rab. 5:6; Pesiq. Rab. 41:5, 48:3; cf. Marmorstein, Merits, 46, 59, 120, 135; Bonsirven, Judaism, 244; Koenig, Hospitality, 16. Many find it also at Qumran (1QSa [=1Q28a] 2.11-12, 19-21; Priest, “Messiah”; but contrast Smith, “Begetting,” 224).
16 Cf. Matt 5:47; 6:7, 32; 18:17; although these are plausibly directed toward Matthew’s Jewish audience, at least one of these sayings is “Q” material (Lk 12:30), hence some of the other examples potentially might be, since Luke has reason not to emphasize them. Matthew includes an earlier prohibition against mission to Gentiles (Matt 10:5), but modifies it by the larger context of his gospel (Matt 10:18; 24:14; 28:19).
17 Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 111-46, shows at length that Luke sees Israel’s restoration especially through the lens of Isaiah. But given the diverse understandings of Gentiles’ fate (Donaldson, Gentiles, 52-74), sometimes even from Isaiah, it would not be surprising if Jesus’ disciples initially remained confused.
18 Lk 9:52-55; 10:33; 17:16-18 (though Luke has a clear interest in Samaritans, this seems to stem from the Samaritan church, which in turn could have been justified from genuine teachings of Jesus; Acts 1:8; 8:1, 5-25; 9:31; 15:3); Jn 4:1-43. Cf. cautiously Meier, “Samaritans.”
19 He refers to “other sheep” (Jn 10:16), who may refer to Gentiles (see Keener, John, 818-19); within the narrative world itself Jesus reaches Samaritans, who acknowledge him as “savior of the world” (Jn 4:42; cf. 12:20). He does not specifically articulate a Gentile mission, however, perhaps because of his Jewish focus or perhaps because it was no longer debatable by the time he wrote (Gentiles may have seen themselves as converts to this Jewish movement in any case; cf. Keener, John, 175).
24 Even in Acts 15, the compromise probably involved treating Gentiles as God-fearers observing levitical laws for strangers in the land, or the Noahide laws. Not everyone would have agreed with Paul’s approach of treating them as full proselytes without circumcision.
25 Paul saw his Gentile mission’s eschatological role in Israel’s history as forcing the rest of Judaism to recognize that it was the Jesus movement that was successfully implementing the eschatological ingathering of Gentiles, hence leading them to faith in Jesus (Rom 11:11-14; cf. Nanos, Mystery, 18, 249-50). He would have regarded subsequent Gentile Christianity’s anti-Semitism as a failure compromising the direction of his own mission.
26 I say “many” because even Acts suggests that many of the believers in Jerusalem, influenced by their local culture’s nationalistic shift under and after Agrippa I, seem to have moved in a different direction. They apparently became increasingly sensitive to the criticisms of Paul’s movement (Gal 4:29; 5:11; 6:12; cf. Rom 3:8), including that it might ultimately lead even to Jews abandoning the law (Acts 21:20-21).
27 Matthean redaction adds to the attribution of Jesus’ Spirit-empowerment (Matt 12:28), but in a context that already suggested it (Matt 12:24, 32 with Mk 3:29-30); Lukan redaction adds it to Jesus’ teaching in Lk 11:13, undoubtedly foreshadowing the Pentecost narrative.
