It's common to see Matthew scholars frame an expansion of missions to Gentiles in Matthew as a "leveling" that challenges Israel's identity as a sacred nation and treats Israel as no more or less special than any other nation and therefore no more or less worthy of missions. 1/

There's obviously a lot to talk about with missionary activity to Israel and how can be understood as pro or anti-Jewish, but I can't help but think that the idea that an expansion to Gentiles must be a demotion for Israel has a "this is your brain on money" smell.

I think we're conditioned to think of anyone's gain as someone's loss because we think economically in terms of scarcity.

But there's no reason to think Matthew thinks missionary work is a scarce resource. He tells the disciples in Matthew 9 to pray for more missionaries. He's recruiting.

I don't think there's a good reason to think Matthew necessarily has the same scarcity-based zero-sum view of the world that modern western scholars have.

In fact, the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15 actively challenges Jesus' own expression of scarcity. What do you mean you can't give bread to the dogs under the table? There's bread on the floor! The kids are throwing bread everywhere!