Agreed - His teaching is for all humanity. In John 6 Jesus said He gave His life for the world.
I would like to get your perspective on a particular teaching of Jesus in Matthew 22. Matthew is a Jewish tax collector that accepted Jesus as the Messiah. (The gospel of Matthew is a good read). What is your POV on the case Jesus makes in Matt 22 - when addressing the Sadducees - to prove the future resurrection to a group that opposed Jesus' teaching on that very point?
First there is the challenge made to Jesus by the Sadducees:
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
Then Jesus' response:
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.
So it is easy to see what their point was and how Jesus was responding to it.
But
then it is Jesus' turn to challenge the Sadducees on this very point of the doctrine of the future resurrection:
31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.
QUESTION for you: What do you think the Sadducees thought Jesus' argument was? How would it have appeared to them? What logic did he appear to be using from their POV?
Notice how observers of that debate saw the exchange:
34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question,
Question: IN what way was Jesus' argument considered to be unanswerable as per their statement that He had "silenced the Sadducees"??
======================
And we have this added hint from NT writers about the POV of the Sadducees -
Paul is on trial in a Roman court in Acts 23:
Acts 23:
6 But
when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other
Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men
and brethren,
I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee;
concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!”
7 And when he had said this, a
dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. 8
For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. 9 Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees’ party arose and protested, saying, “We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God.”