From Jim McGuiggan... Jerusalem first!

Jerusalem first!

The first wave of Christians was Jewish. In their thousands they came to take on them the name of Jesus in repentance and baptism and before long James was able to say there were hosts of Torah-observant Jews that had trusted in Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 2:36-41 and elsewhere with Acts 21:20). 

Christ’s command to the apostolic group was that they were to begin preaching in Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria and then to the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8 and compare Luke 24:46-47 with Acts 2:1-40). It wasn’t long either before we hear that Phillip had gone to Samaria to proclaim Jesus as Lord and Saviour (Acts 8:5, 12-17) and then he careered down to meet a high-ranking official of the Egyptian court—a God-fearer after the Jewish style—returning from worship at Jerusalem and on his way back to Egypt (8:26-40). From there Philip preached his way up the coast to Caesarea, which at some point he made his home (8:40 and 21:8). 

But since the gospel was to go out from Jerusalem, move through Judea and Samaria and then to the other parts of the earth—what are we to say of those righteous people (Jews as well as Gentiles) that the gospel had not yet reached?  

Imagine this: a godly and faithful Jewess is present on Pentecost when Peter first proclaimed the gospel about Jesus Christ. She now believes in God’s new work in Jesus Christ and gladly receives the gospel and is baptized, taking Christ’s name on her (Acts 2:37-41). She has now experienced forgiveness in Jesus Christ. She usually comes with her godly and faithful widowed mother but this year the mother was ill and couldn’t make the trip. The daughter has heard and become obedient to the gospel but the mother has neither heard it nor has she taken on her the name of Jesus. What are we to say? One is “saved” and the other damned? 

Before Peter got up to speak the good news both mother and daughter were at peace with God and now one is right with God and the other is not? Both were right with God before Peter spoke and now one is “lost” though she has not changed in heart toward God? That makes no biblical or moral sense. The mother has not obeyed the gospel as her daughter has done but it is not that she rejected it—it simply hasn’t yet been offered to her!  

Had the mother been a decadent non-lover of God we would rightly call her lost. But this Jewish mother reveres, cherishes and serves God with her heart. As yet she hasn’t been offered the gospel which others far away in Jerusalem were offered just a few hours earlier. Should we conclude that as soon as Peter spoke Acts 2:38 that the absent mother (and a host like her) automatically became damned? Did God at that moment consider this mother (and a host like her) “disobedient to the gospel”? Would he have described her as one who has “not obeyed the gospel”? 

Keep in mind that the gospel had not yet gone to the regions beyond Palestine because that was the will of God. “Begin at Jerusalem!” But what of the God-fearing and righteous people who lived half a world away while the apostles worked in Jerusalem? 

It doesn’t really help to say, “Well, all I know is: salvation comes to people only through Jesus Christ!” I believe that is true but it doesn’t help us with the questions generated above about those righteous and God-fearing people who hadn’t yet heard.   

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.