David gets into the Telegraph. 
The Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) has published a Lenten reflection that portrays Jesus as a racist who saw the error of his ways after being challenged by the Canaanite woman in Matthew’s Gospel. The ACoC was long ago taken over by politically correct bores but, as Anglican Samizdat notes, this “reflection” turns Jesus into a sinner – in Christian terms, a pretty basic heresy. Here’s the reflection. Sick-bags at the ready:
“… a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, ‘Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.’ He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the houseof Israel.’ But she came and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ He answered, ‘It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ She said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.’ ” – Matthew 14:22-27
This not a story for people who need to think that Jesus always had it together, because it looks like we’ve caught him being mean to a lady because of her ethnicity. At first, he ignores her cries. Then he refuses to help her and compares her people to dogs.
But she challenges his prejudice. And he listens to her challenge and grows in response to it. He ends up healing her daughter. What we may have here is an important moment of self-discovery in Jesus’ life, an enlargement of what it will mean to be who he was. Maybe we are seeing Jesus understand his universality for the first time.
Or maybe not. Maybe someone has been on a “racism awareness course” and decided to redefine the divinity of Jesus in a way that flatters ethnic sensibilities. How very Anglican. How very Canadian.
I shall leave it to you to correct the ‘reflection’, you know you want to.
The devotional errs in suggesting that Jesus had it wrong. Also, the passage is from Matthew 15, not Matthew 14.
It seems to me, though, that snarky comments about sick-bags and racism-awareness rather miss the point of this story where Jesus deliberately expands the scope of his ministry to include a demon-possessed/mentally ill woman from a different ethnic and religious group.
Noli, they were quoting Matthew from memory having sold off all the Bibles to pay down the deficit. You think they would have remembered that is walking on water thing, which has no basis in scientific fact. end snark
I shall leave it to you to correct the ‘reflection’, you know you want to.
Oh alright:
This meditation makes a number of important points:
Jesus did not “always have it together”. This is modern vernacular for saying Jesus was not sinless.
Jesus was prejudiced against a woman because of her race. The woman in question points out his error, Jesus becomes enlightened and understands his “universality for the first time.” Thus, Jesus was not God, made mistakes and had to be set straight. The reference to “understanding his universality” is undoubtedly an attempt to point out that, once the woman corrected him, Jesus came to the light as proscribed by 21st Century liberalism: inclusivity is all encompassing, paramount and – well, god.
This is an officially sanctioned document from the ACoC: it denies both Jesus’ divinity and the fact that he is sinless. The ACoC seems to be going out of its way to present itself as a non-Christian organisation; I think it has succeeded.
The more the ACoC pushes rubbish like this, the more people will draw the same conclusion, I hope.
This stuff is right out of the national church anti racism push. We had a conference for clergy in our diocese and this is exactly from one of the studies we did. The point was, Jesus was a racist but he could change, so you can too, white Anglo-Saxon native oppressing clergy.
Of course if Jesus is a sinner then we are lost – and I am pretty sure racism is a sin. But this also cuts to the heart of the BCP Communion service and the prayer of humble access.
They butcher the context for their agenda.
Ok. So we have suitably kicked the pulp out of the ACoC perspective on this. We’re good at that. But what alternative view are we presenting? What is ANiC’s teaching on this passage? Because this is surely one of the passages that many seekers point to and say: “do i really want to follow someone as nasty as this guy?”
So, let’s hear it. What is the correct teaching of this passage?
Sean,
I doubt that ANiC has an official interpretation of this passage.
Here are interpretations by some popular commentaries.
Matthew Henry:
The dark corners of the country, the most remote, shall share Christ’s influences; afterwards the ends of the earth shall see his salvation. The distress and trouble of her family brought a woman to Christ; and though it is need that drives us to Christ, yet we shall not therefore be driven from him. She did not limit Christ to any particular instance of mercy, but mercy, mercy, is what she begged for: she pleads not merit, but depends upon mercy. It is the duty of parents to pray for their children, and to be earnest in prayer for them, especially for their souls. Have you a son, a daughter, grievously vexed with a proud devil, an unclean devil, a malicious devil, led captive by him at his will? this is a case more deplorable than that of bodily possession, and you must bring them by faith and prayer to Christ, who alone is able to heal them. Many methods of Christ’s providence, especially of his grace, in dealing with his people, which are dark and perplexing, may be explained by this story, which teaches that there may be love in Christ’s heart while there are frowns in his face; and it encourages us, though he seems ready to slay us, yet to trust in him. Those whom Christ intends most to honour, he humbles to feel their own unworthiness. A proud, unhumbled heart would not have borne this; but she turned it into an argument to support her request. The state of this woman is an emblem of the state of a sinner, deeply conscious of the misery of his soul. The least of Christ is precious to a believer, even the very crumbs of the Bread of life. Of all graces, faith honours Christ most; therefore of all graces Christ honours faith most. He cured her daughter. He spake, and it was done. From hence let such as seek help from the Lord, and receive no gracious answer, learn to turn even their unworthiness and discouragements into pleas for mercy.
New Bible Commentary:
The issue of defilement now recurs in a more practical form. Jesus, the Jewish teacher, had moved into Gentile territory and was confronted by a Gentile woman with a demon-possessed daughter. The dialogue which resulted focused on the question of how far a Gentile might expect any benefit from the Jewish Messiah (Son of David).
The story is closely similar to that of the centurion’s servant (8:5-13), not only in that faith was rewarded by a healing word spoken from a distance, but also in the racial tension which put that faith to the test. By describing the woman as a Canaanite, Matthew sharpens the issue. The Canaanites were the traditional enemies of Israel in the OT.
Jesus’ discouraging silence (23) was followed by an even more daunting statement of the Jewish focus of his mission (24; cf. 10:5-6). His words seem to have left no room for hope, but the woman persisted with a simple appeal for help, only to be confronted by a yet more wounding saying, comparing Gentiles with dogs (which for the Jews were unclean animals).
The language seems incredibly harsh, especially when spoken by the same Jesus who had earlier welcomed the faith of the Gentile centurion as a pointer to Gentiles sharing in future in the blessings of Israel. Perhaps cold print conceals an element of irony, even playfulness, in Jesus’ tone. At any rate, he was confronting her with the sort of language a Gentile could expect to hear from a Jew, and her faith rose to the test. Her reply in v 27 recognized the priority of his mission to Israel but, nonetheless, claimed an extension of that mission to Gentiles. She had thus perceived the plan to which God had been working ever since the call of Abraham (Ge 12:1-3), and which would in due time extend the church outside the bounds of Israel. For this faith she was appropriately rewarded.
New Unger’s Bible Handbook:
He ministers to a Gentile. After having been rejected by His own, Christ had hinted of His wider ministry to Gentiles (Mt 12:18; cf. Isa 42:1-4). Now began a precursive fulfillment. As the rejected son of David, He ministered to a non-Israelite of Phoenicia, here called ‘the region of Tyre and Sidon’ after its two principal seaports. The ‘dogs’ were Gentiles, outside the sphere of Jewish spiritual privilege denoted by ‘the children’s bread.’ When the Canaanite woman addressed Him as ‘Lord,’ and took the place of humble faith, as it were, among ‘the little dogs,’ she obtained her request. This episode prefigured Gentile salvation in this age.
Taylor’s Concise Bible Commentary:
Tyre and Sidon (15:21) were located in Phoenicia, a Mediterranean coastal region north of Galilee. Why did Jesus make this woman beg? Was she asking for a Messianic blessing (“Son of David,” 15:22)? Jesus’ silence raised a response from his disciples: “send her away” (15:23). They responded with the assumption that the benefits brought by Jesus were exclusively for the Jews and thus failed to respond with compassion. Jesus’ statement “I was sent only to help the people of Israel” (15:24) seems to support the disciples’ request to send her away. Yet Jesus intended to meet her need. In 15:24 he was simply clarifying the scope of his commission; he had been sent only to Israel. Jesus clarified the priorities that exist in any household (15:25-26). Children were always fed as a priority before the pets of the household. Jesus did not intend to insult the woman by calling her a dog; rather, he used a form of the word dog that meant “pet.”
After clearly enunciating the priority that the Israelites took in his ministry, Jesus went on to teach the disciples and the woman that the Gentiles would also see benefits from his presence. Her claim to blessing was through the Abrahamic covenant, which promised that all nations would be blessed through Israel (cf. Ge 12:3). After making his point about priority in the messianic ministry, Jesus healed her. The location, Tyre and Sidon, might have influenced Jesus’ actions. Jesus waited until it was crystal clear that the woman would participate by faith in the blessing he would give her. For other examples of Jesus healing Gentiles, see Mt 4:24; 8:5-13,28-34.
NIV Study Notes:
15:22 Canaanite. A term found many times in the OT but only here in the NT. In NT times there was no country known as Canaan. Some think this was the Semitic manner of referring to the people of Phoenicia at this time. Mark says the woman was “a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia” (7:26; see note there). Son of David. See note on 9:27; shows that this pagan woman had some recognition of Jesus’ Messianic claims. demon-possession. See Mk 1:23; Lk 4:33 and notes.
15:26 children’s. “The lost sheep of Israel” (v. 24). bread. God’s covenanted blessings. dogs. Gentiles. Jesus’ point was that the gospel was to be given first to Jews. The woman understood Jesus’ implication and was willing to settle for “crumbs” (v. 27). Jesus rewarded her “great faith” (v. 28).
15:28 Jesus was pleased with the woman’s reply (v. 27). It revealed not only her wit but also her faith and humility. Woman. See note on Jn 2:4.
Thank you, David and Peter, for including this ‘reflection’ on the blog. It is a super example of the faulty approach to Scripture prevalent in the ACoC, which has lead to her recent heretical conclusions about faith and doctrine.
In this approach, the Bible is considered an ancient somewhat embarrassing text written by the early church. Some of it is quite beautiful. Some of it is confusing. Some of it just doesn’t cut it in the face of our superior modern learning. So scholars spend time sorting it all out for us and, in the meantime, we just make what use of it we can, cutting here, adjusting there and reinterpreting it in the light of our current idea of what is good. When we encounter a challenging passage like this one about the Canaanite woman, we do our best but the final judgement is ours. As in the ‘reflection’, even the person of Jesus is not immune from our superior eye.
This is not the Christian way. As Christians we read Scripture acutely aware of our human weakness which can distort our understanding. And as Christians we have gained a growing certainty about the perfect and wise character of our God whose Word this is. With these two things in mind, both our weakness and his goodness, we allow the Scripture to stand over us and correct us, not the other way around.
I think we should always ask ourselves when we read Scripture where we stand in relation to it. Let’s ask: “Who is in authority here?”
Hmmm… It’s interesting that in some Gospel passages, Christ presents with knowledge of distant or future events and insight into the secret thoughts of others. In other passages, though, he presents as having only limited human knowledge, e.g. Who touched my cloak? How many loaves do you have?
Questions like that could be dismissed as mere rhetorical devices except that, during his earthly ministry, Jesus himself indicated that he didn’t share his Father’s omniscience: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mt 24:36)
And while the story of boy Jesus teaching in the temple demonstrates that he had preternatural wisdom, we are also told that it was incomplete because it grew and developed as the boy matured into a man (Lk 5:2).
I think they were rhetorical devices. In Matthew Jesus was talking specifically about the end times.
But then He humbled Himself to become one of us. In doing so, perhaps He intentionally limited Himself in certain ways?
Peter [#11],
Yes, that’s how I’ve understood this; as in:
but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. Phil 2:7.
Very different from saying that Jesus sinned or that he was not 100% God while being 100% human, though.
Further to what David just said [#12], read the previous verse in the NRSV:
[Christ Jesus] who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited (Philippians 2:6)
Jesus was God but refused to exploit that fact. That clearly implies that Jesus “always had it together” and didn’t need to “discover” anything about himself.
It’s interesting that the author from whose work this rubbish was adapted has a website called “The Geranium Farm” (www.geraniumfarm.org). That should tell us something for a start…
#13 Scott
“Jesus was God but refused to exploit that fact. That clearly implies that Jesus “always had it together” and didn’t need to “discover” anything about himself.”
In our zeal to uphold the divinity of Christ against those who would deny it, let’s not lose sight of Jesus’ full humanity. In becoming incarnate as a man, he voluntarily took on all our human frailties. So in the Gospels we find that he grew weary and required sleep as on the boat, thirsty and required drink as at the well in Samaria (and again at his crucifixion). While fasting in the wilderness, he grew hungry and was tempted to turn stones into loaves of bread, but he refused to access that divine power for such a selfish purpose. And of course, during the passion we see him anxious, sorrowful, troubled, injured, in great pain, and ultimately… dead.
The Bible gives us very clear pictures of baby Jesus wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in the manger, and of adult Jesus going about his ministry with just one brief glimpse of precocious boyhood. During the intervening years, though, wouldn’t he necessarily have passed through all of the developmental stages of human growth, from responding to his mother’s smile, crawling, walking, speaking and developing self-awareness, empathy, going through puberty, and so forth? Or did he learn to walk without falling? Did he just start speaking one day in perfectly formed sentences? When Joseph put carpentry tools in his hands, did young Jesus promptly construct an impeccable piece of furniture without practice?
We know that Jesus did not sin. Does that mean he never made honest mistakes?
No it doesn’t – but racism isn’t an honest mistake.
Noli [#15], Nothing in what I said implies that I’ve lost sight of Jesus’ full humanity.
I would put it like this: at no time during his life here on earth was Jesus ever out of his Father’s will.
#17 Sorry, Scott. Didn’t mean to give offense but I’m thinking through your point that Jesus didn’t need to “discover” anything about himself and challenging your view in light of our Lord’s full humanity, which I presume included growing up, cognitive development, and discovering self-awareness. This is supported by St. Luke, who tells us at the conclusion of the boy Jesus story that, although precocious for his age, Jesus’ wisdom was not yet fully formed in childhood but that he “progressed in wisdom and age and favour before God and men.” (Lk 2:52… NOT Lk 5:2 as I wrote earlier by mistake).
I find it difficult to accept that he might have had it “wrong” in Matthew 15: perhaps he WAS sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But maybe Jesus’ understanding of his messianic mission developed and expanded as he “progressed in wisdom.”
NA (#19), I think the parable of the wedding feast (see especially Matt 22:1-10) casts more light on Matt 15. I don’t claim to completely understand the “fully God, fully man” paradox, but I accept it as truth.
Noli [#19], I see that my comment #13 was imprecisely worded and has caused confusion, and for that I apologise. I found the suggestion that Jesus harboured ethnic prejudice before his encounter with the Canaanite woman so repellent that my statement rejecting that suggestion was overly broad. I intended to refer to Jesus’ gospel ministry, not to his childhood or other events in his life that are not discussed in the New Testament.
John K [#18] puts it better than I did:
at no time during his life here on earth was Jesus ever out of his Father’s will.
At the same time, Noli, I can’t go along with the “perhaps … maybe” at the end of your comment. I remember watching a few conversations in seminary among students discussing “What did Jesus know and when did he know it?”, none of which resulted in any definite conclusions. Such conversations are pointless, IMHO, because there is no specific information in Scripture. There is only the vague reference to the 12-year-old Jesus increasing in wisdom, which you have already cited, but St Luke indicates no time frame.
It seems to me that, if the Holy Spirit wanted us to have specific information about Jesus’ cognitive development, the gospel writers would have included such in the New Testament. For myself, I prefer not to speculate about events in Jesus’ life that the Bible does not mention.
Or…
Perhaps there was no insult at all. Jesus may have had a very high opinion of dogs. ;>)
Some people just assume too much.
#21 Scott
“It seems to me that, if the Holy Spirit wanted us to have specific information about Jesus’ cognitive development, the gospel writers would have included such in the New Testament. For myself, I prefer not to speculate about events in Jesus’ life that the Bible does not mention.”
Point taken regarding the ultimate futility of non-Biblical speculation about how much Jesus knew, exactly when. Best stick with what the Bible actually says.
Took a Lenten read through the Gospel of Mark this weekend with an eye towards how Jesus’ earthly ministry developed: where he went and to whom he ministered. Very interesting as a lay person to look at the story of Jesus’ life from a fresh perspective, as I’d never given much thought to how Jesus’ ministry evolved over time.
What I found, though, is that the scope of Jesus’ work progressively expands. He starts out preaching to folks in Capernaum and the surrounding region of Galilee. In chapter 2 he reaches out locally to tax collectors and sinners like Matthew. By chapter 3, his fame has attracted people to Galilee from southern Judea, Idumea, Tyre, and Sidon, who come hear him preach and see him perform miracles.
He begins his ministry beyond Galilee in chapter 5 when he crosses over the lake to the country of the Gerasenes, where he casts out the demon “Legion.” This freaks the Gerasenes out so much that they beg Jesus to go back home, so he returns to Galilee where for the first time in Mark’s gospel he ministers to women, healing one with an unclean discharge, then reviving the daughter of Jairus.
In chapter 6 he’s rejected by people in his hometown, but his fame continues to spread so that Herod becomes aware of his ministry and a group of scholars up from Jerusalem question him. He embarks on a more ambitious foreign trip in chapter 7, this time to Tyre and Sidon, where he applies his healing ministry to a non-Jewish woman, a Greek Syrophoenician.
He continues to travel around in chapter 8 to Dalmanutha, Bethsaida, and Caesaria, then returns home to Capernaum in chapter 9 before heading off in chapter 10 through the region of Judea and beyond Jordan on his final way to Jerusalem via Jericho and Bethany.
As Scott points out, it’s pointless to speculate about how pre-meditated the expansion of Jesus’ ministry might have been, but there definitely seems to be a progressively more-inclusive arc to it, in the Gospel of Mark, at least.
Perhaps someone could show me where in the Holy Bible that it directly and specifically states that discrimination is a sin? God discriminates all the time. None of us are made exactly the same. Some have greater physical strength. Some have an easier time learning. The Hebrews have always been God’s chosen people. Equality, and the obtuse idea of having to treat everyone the same, are secular ideas. I can tell you that I will not treat my son the same as I treat my daughters. Does that make me a sinner?
I think the meaning of the passage in question is simply this. God makes available to all people his Love, but we have to act, sometimes decisively and forcefully, in order to receive that Love. Some of us have to try a little harder.
I don’t agree. Every one of us, for our entire lives, have been loved by God. Some of us might have more repenting to do, but that is a separate issue.
Kate (#25), can God love and hate a person at the same time? How do you handle Psalm 5:5, Hosea 9:15 and Malachi 1:3 (quoted in Romans 9:13)? Given my reformed perspective I disagree with “. . .but we have to act, sometimes decisively and forcefully, in order to receive that Love. Some of us have to try a little harder.” (#24), as it makes salvation dependent on our own works. That said, I also must accept that there are some passages of Scripture that seen to lean in this direction.
I think it is unholyness (is that a word?) that God hates, not the people. We are all loved by God, but we are not His children until we turn to Him in repentance.
Hello Kate (25) and Warren (26)
Perhaps I did not choose my words accurately enough, and thus what I meant and what was understood are not quite the same. Please be so kind as to allow me to make a slight clarification/correction.
Instead of saying “in order to receive that Love” I should have said “in order to accept that Love”
That God does Love all people (including the worst of sinners) is something that I think we can all agree upon. But isn’t a relationship with God a “two way street”? Are we not guided / taught to “give up our sinful ways and follow (God)”? Doesn’t God call us to change ourselves so that we move closer to him?
If we can “accept” God’s love without having to do anything, than can we continue committing the same sins we have been guilty of most of our lives, without Confession or repentance?
We can’t do it in our own strength, though. I’ve prayed “Lord, I don’t want to do this, I can’t do this, but I am willing to be made willing” more times than I can count!
Kate (27), are you suggesting, for those who do not repent, that God will love them into hell? Is it fair to take those verses that Warren (26) mentioned and reinterpret them to make them fit our modern notion that “God loves everyone”? If we can do that with these verses, wouldn’t it be fair to speculate the “racist” angle which began this exchange?
Also, if Jesus’ understanding/wisdom “evolved” during his time on earth, I guess we, who have had our understanding darkened (Eph 4:18), are all still in need of a lot more evolution. I look forward to the time when we no more “look through the glass darkly” and can understand fully what God had in mind for all of history.
[30] ML
To be fair to Kate, it isn’t mutally exclusive to love your children and accept that they need to bear the responsibility for their actions.
Peace,
Jim
That is sort of what I am saying, except that we choose hell, by not choosing God. There is an old Christian saying that goes “the doors to hell are locked on the inside”. Even if we choose not to be His, he still loves us. How could He not? He is love.
Just couldn’t keep this to myself.
On the way into work this morning I saw painted on the side of small town general store a picture of Jesus nocking on the door of someone’s home. This picture reinforced for me the point I made earlier. God offers His Love, but we must do something to accept it. In the picture, someone would have to open the door in order to receive Jesus into their home and their life. Jesus does not force himself onto anyone. He offers, and it is up to us whether or not to accept.
Knocking at the door is also an image of Covenant. In the ancient covenant traditions, specifically the threshold covenant still practiced in some parts of the world today, when a person is invited into a home and they step over the threshold the owner of the home and guest enter into covenant with each other. A thief in Biblical times would never enter through the door of a home.
ML & Kate (27 & 32)
This month’s issue of First Things has an article by Anthony Esolen: The Freedom of Heaven and the Freedom of Hell, which touches on this subject, using Dante’s Divine Comedy. He says
“But readers of Dante’s Inferno who have traveled with him all the way to the bottom know that the essence of one’s sin is made manifest in the punishment—that the punishment is the sin repeated endlessly and inexorably. And appropriately so. Thomas Aquinas, in justifying the eternity of hell, notes that mortal sin is an infinite and self-defining act of enmity against the peace of the City of God. Such sinners long for immortality, he says (quoting Gregory the Great), so that they might sin forever—for, even more than they love life, they love the sin to which they have given their lives.
The punishment is the sin repeated endlessly and inexorably. In essence, doing what we think we love to do, but with no benefit. There are echoes of Romans 1 in this.
[35] Jim
Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed your post. Thanks.
Peace,
Jim