«The ‘peculiar benevolence’ the woman finally receives from Jesus in the
story certainly qualifies her as a προσηλυτος.»[1]
The story of Jesus’ exchange with a gentile woman, in Matthew 15:22-28, has fascinated (and scandalized) many. Some feel the text has Jesus insulting her merely for her ethnicity (thus some polemicists even accuse the passage of depicting Jesus as racist). Others, on the other hand, assert that the text is misunderstood, because the Greek word for dog in the text is actually in the diminutive, and thus could be referring to a puppy or pet.[2] This short blog entry, however, will propose a different approach to the text, treating it instead as a subtle allusion to how membership in Israel is determined more by faith than lineage.
Note that, in the text of Matthew, a gentile woman asks for a miracle healing/exorcism, and the disciples ask Jesus that she be sent away. Interestingly, although the disciples asked Jesus to send her away, Jesus does not do so; rather, He responds that He is only sent to the lost sheep of Israel. That immediately begs a question: how does such a statement relate to His refusal to meet their request? In verse 26 He implies that it would not be proper to give something that is meant for the children (i.e. of Israel) to dogs. When the woman shows great humility and faith, she then gets precisely that which Jesus had just insinuated was for Israel.
While many readers are taken aback by her being called a dog, on the question whether such was in reference to her lineage, it is worth noting that descendants of Jacob, too, can get receive the designation of dog (cf. Isaiah 56:11, Proverbs 26:11, 2 Peter 2:22), among other choice words (like worm, cf. Isaiah 41:14).[3] Nonetheless, the implication remains that she is not one of the children, but rather a dog, and what she was asking for was for the children, not for dogs.
Here it may be worth noting how Matthew 3:9 lines up with Galatians 3:29, as the verses show that a person who does not descend from Abraham biologically could still be Abraham’s son, via correct faith. Such can be tied in with how John 8:44 and Romans 9:6 line up with Revelation 2:9, showing that there can be descendants of Jacob who are excluded from Israel, and then one can see what makes a true Jew in Romans 2:28-29 and Colossians 2:11.[4] On a deeper level, if the tree in Romans 11 is understood to be Israel and the woman in Revelation 12 is understood to be Israel, such would mean the true Israel is comprised of believers (i.e. membership in Israel is not based strictly on lineage, which is even an OT concept, as per Ruth 1:16, Esther 8:17 and Judith 14:10).[5]
Once all that is grasped, one may get a different sense of the deep exchange in Matthew 15, where Jesus refuses to send away a gentile woman even though He says He’s only sent to lost sheep of Israel, and where He then gives that woman precisely what He had insinuated only was for Israel. In short, the text can be read as subtly hinting that the woman’s faith brought her into the true Israel (it converted her from being one of the dogs to being one of the children; perhaps it could be said she was one of the lost sheep).
Interestingly, there seems to be somewhat of an analogous concept in the Zohar.[6] The relevant text reads as follows:
כל זמנא דישראל עבדי רעותא דמאריהון הא על פתורא דמלכא אינון אכלי וכל סעודתא אתתקן להון ואינון ממהוא חדוה דלהון יהבי גרמי דאיהו תמצית לעע”ז וכל זמנא דישראל לא עבדי רעותא דמאריהון הא סעודתא לכלבי ואסתלק לון תמצית ככה יאכלו בני ישראל את לחמם טמא בגוים דהא תמצית דגעוליהון אכלי ווי לברא דמלכא דיתיב ומצפה לפתורא דעבדא מה דאשתאר מגו פתורא איהו אכיל דוד מלכא אמר תערך לפני שלחן נגד צררי דשנת בשמן ראשי כוסי רויה תערך לפני שלחן דא סעודתא דמלכא נגד צררי אינון כלבי דיתבי קמי פתורא מצפאן לחולק גרמייהו ואיהו יתיב עם מלכא בענוגא דסעודתא בפתורא
Translation: every time Israel does the will of their Lord, upon the table of the King they will eat, and the whole meal is prepared for them, and from their joy[ous feast], they give bones which have been sucked clean to the workers of foreign worship [or idolaters]. And [likewise] every time Israel does not do the will of their Lord, the meal goes to dogs, and they are given the sucked [bones]. [Hence it is written in Ezekiel 4:13] “thus the children of Israel will eat their bread, defiled among the nations.” That [refers to] the sucked [bones] of their own defilement, which they eat. Woe unto the son of the king who sits and waits at the table of the servant and eats what is left from that table. David, the King, said [in Psalm 23] “You prepare before me a table in the presence of my enemies, You anoint my head with oil, my cup overflows.” [Regarding] “you prepare a table before me,” this is the meal of the King. [Regarding] “in the presence of my enemies,” they are the dogs that sit before the table, waiting for the portion of its bones, and he who sits with the king [does so] with the joy of the meal on the table.
While they are not identical, similar to the approach to Matthew 15 explored above, this Zoharic text posits that the difference between a seat at the table and being treated like (or worse than) a dog is not one of lineage, but rather behavior and practice (within the context of the faith).
***
NOTES:
(1) Glenna S. Jackson, ‘Have Mercy on Me’: The Story of the Canaanite
Woman in Matthew 15.21-28, (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), p. 106.
(2) Cf. the entry for κυναριον in Liddell-Scott’s Lexicon. However, it may be worth noting that the Peshīttā simply uses kalb, an ordinary word for dog.
(3) Also relevant may be Sirach 26:25, though it has questionable manuscript support. The text contrasts a woman who is shameless (αδιατρεπτος) with a woman who possesses shame (εχουσα αισχυνην), and says while the latter will fear the Lord, the former is likened to a dog (with the seemingly obvious implication being that women who do not fear the Lord are likened to dogs).
(4) Also of interest is Galatians 4:24-25, which seems to subtly insinuate that disbelieving Jews are something akin to spiritual Ishamelites.
(5) See also Ephesians 2:12-19, which says that, without Christ, the gentile believers were separate from the citizenship (πολιτεια) of Israel [v. 12], however after accepting Christ they cease to be foreigners, and become instead fellow-citizens (συμπολιται) [v.19].
(6) Vol. II, 152B, or parshat Terūmah, paras. 488-489, in the Sūlam.
Categories: Islam
Blogging Theology 
If Jesus was speaking Aramaic to the woman then the puppy argument fails as I understand there is no diminutive form in that language: ie he called her a “dog”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greetings Paul
Hebrew does have an ability to create diminutive forms of nouns, and Jewish Aramaic does employ Hebrew terms, so I suppose it is possible that if Jesus spoke in Aramaic, He could have theoretically used something like kalbīt (though I know of no evidence of the word ever being used in ancient Jewish texts; a word of the same spelling is found a few times in the Babylonian Talmud, in reference to a fish not a dog, and even that is sometimes spelled differently [keylbīt or kīlbīt]). Moreover, I don’t know to what extent Jesus might use a Hebrew word in an Aramaic discussion with a gentile (though, who knows to what extent this nonJewish woman was already enmeshed with the local Jews). If someone were to claim that in Aramaic, feminine constructions could also be diminutive constructions, I would see such as unhelpful, insofar that it proposes a word that could just as easily be a feminine construction (female dog!).
On the other hand, Mark 7:26 seems to explicitly describe her as Hellenized (i.e. she is Greek, but non-Greek by birth?), so the conversation may very well have been in Greek.
Ultimately, while I’m not entirely certain either way, my gut feeling leans towards your position and away from the puppy explanation. But God knows best.
LikeLike
So you ar saying that non – Jews did not speak Aramaic?
Also, what was the cultural view of dogs in Palestine at that time? Did Jews have dogs as pets or were they seen as unclean animals.? This will help us understand what Jesus meant when he called her a “dog” (according to Matthew).
LikeLike
Greetings Paul
Of course I don’t claim non-Jews did not speak Aramaic. On the contrary, Aramaic spread right across Asia (hence why, for example, centuries before, Ashoka had a stone written partly in Aramaic, and placed in what is now Pakistan). What I was doing was offering a counterweight to the speculation that Jesus would use such a construction as kalbit in a discussion with a non-Jew (as Jewish Aramaic can differ from non-Jewish forms of Aramaic).
As for dogs in Palestine, I have not looked into the subject. I know Tobit has a passage implying that he had a dog living with him (cf. Tobit 6:2, but start reading from chapter 5), and I recall Talmud Bavli has bits referring to one making bread to feed to their dog, but neither of those sources are situated in specifically Palestine. Whatever the case, I doubt ancient Jews treated dogs in the exalted ways Americans do today, but they probably kept them around (e.g. for hunting or guarding). It is at least interesting that both the NT and the Zohar (and various other Rabbinic texts) seem to take it for granted that in various settings, one might be eating and have a dog nearby.
As for in what sense it was meant, I assume it was meant as less than a member of Israel (i.e. it distinguishes between dogs and children).
LikeLike
Mr. Giron,
I think the argument entails that the woman ALREADY had faith when she sought Jesus’ help, so his insult would indeed be racist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
i don’t think jesus thought she was capable of faith. notice that she is not dealt with kindly and when she continues to beg like a dog she has to hear once “i came only for the jews”
then when she is begging on her knees , she hears “it is not right to take the humans bread and cast it to the little animals”
why has matthew done an increase on mark?
i think the “great is your faith” is just to say “you got me lady, you made me realize that you are capable of clever rebuttal”
and i think matthew knew this because his source mark says “women for SUCH A RESPONSE….”
LikeLike
“I think the argument entails that the woman ALREADY had faith when she sought Jesus’ help, so his insult would indeed be racist.”
they will say he was “testing” her great faith, i don’t think jesus knew that an animal/gentile was capable of great faith.
quote :
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.’ But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, ‘Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.’ he answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of 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 masters’ table.’ Then Jesus answered her, ‘Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.’ And her daughter was healed instantly. (Matthew 15:22-28)
Jesus began with a myopic vision: he was sent only to care for Israelites. The Canaanite “dogs” were out of his purview. But it wasn’t until he was confronted with one of these dogs, face to face, that he discovered, to his surprise, that they are humans too, and dignified, even in their despair, capable of greater faith even than the so-called “faithful.”
He was tempted in all ways as we are, tempted to see the Other as less dignified, less worthy, less faithful, less capable of faithfulness, less inclined to tolerance. He was tempted to see the Other as Other, rather than as Self. At first, he couldn’t see his own people, couldn’t see himself, in her. But confronted with that Other, Jesus learned. He learned to sympathize. To sympathize with the enemy. Jesus learned.
LikeLike
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.’ But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, ‘Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.’ he answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of 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 masters’ table.’ Then Jesus answered her, ‘Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.’ And her daughter was healed instantly. (Matthew 15:22-28)
Jesus began with a myopic vision: he was sent only to care for Israelites. The Canaanite “dogs” were out of his purview. But it wasn’t until he was confronted with one of these dogs, face to face, that he discovered, to his surprise, that they are humans too, and dignified, even in their despair, capable of greater faith even than the so-called “faithful.”
He was tempted in all ways as we are, tempted to see the Other as less dignified, less worthy, less faithful, less capable of faithfulness, less inclined to tolerance. He was tempted to see the Other as Other, rather than as Self. At first, he couldn’t see his own people, couldn’t see himself, in her. But confronted with that Other, Jesus learned. He learned to sympathize. To sympathize with the enemy. Jesus learned.
..
LikeLike
the above quote was written by thom stark 4 years ago. i don’t think jesus was “testing ” her “great faith” i think he didn’t know she was capable of “great faith”
LikeLike
“Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us”
here is something interesting about this from ibn anwars article :
Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us
http://unveiling-christianity.net/2016/03/16/jesus-messiah-world/
“The following verse (v. 23) notes that Jesus simply ignores her begging and even his disciples who were with him “erotoun” (implored) their master to help her…”
does this then imply that the woman should be sent away with the childrens bread/miracle?
are the disciple showing more mercy and kindness than jesus?
LikeLike
Well, this story is similar to the story of the woman with 12 years bleeding. In Mark 5, the woman touches Jesus’ cloak thinking “If I touch his clothes, I will be healed”, which duly happens; and after much insistence in finding out who touched him, Jesus says “Your faith has healed you”. For the Canaanite women he says “Woman, you have great faith. You request is granted”.
So both women must had faith for the miracle to occur, which fits the synoptic narrative “Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move.” Matthew 17:20
But the difference is what you mentioned, his disregard for the Canaanite woman’s initial pleading and his insult which could only be understood as racist.
LikeLike
Greetings Ibn Awad and Robster
***
Ibn Awad wrote:
«I think the argument entails that the woman ALREADY had faith when she sought Jesus’ help, so his insult would indeed be racist.»
I would at least agree that she already had faith, though, perhaps like God wanting Abraham to actually attempt to kill his son (when God already knew Abraham’s heart), Christ wanted a more public demonstration of that faith (via a show of pronounced humility, as humility is a part of being grafted into the true Israel, à la Romans 11:18-20). Ergo, this need not be seen as a comment on her lineage (or “race”).
Moreover, while this was not entirely explicit in my blog entry, above, I would nonetheless say that the Matthean reading, in which Christ responds to a request to send her away by saying He was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, can be understood as containing within it an acknowledgment (or allusion to) her faith (i.e. she is one of the lost sheep, which becomes more clear when she receives what was rightly Israel’s). Of course one might ask, if she was already one of the sheep/children, why hit her with the apparent insult? It is interesting to note that Christ neither outright denies her nor directly calls her a dog. His statement can be read as a general assertion that what she is asking for is for the children, not dogs (thus if she is one of the dogs, she cannot have it). She demonstrates humility, and receives what is only for Israel (ergo she is not one of the dogs, though she may have been one).
***
Robster wrote:
«notice that she is not dealt with kindly and when she continues to beg like a dog she has to hear once “i came only for the jews”»
But that was a response to the disciples, not her. As has already been noted, it can easily be read as meaning that she is one of the lost sheep (hence why He is not sending her away; rather He is about to bestow what is Israel’s upon her, after she is led to show her humility).
Robster asked:
«why has matthew done an increase on mark?»
It is far from clear to me that Matthew has “done an increase on Mark”. Mind you, I do not simply assume Mark was Matthew’s source for common stories between them (and in cases where they differ, like here, it could easily be explained that both are simply distilling portions of another body of tradition).
Taking a look at the stories in Mark and Matthew…
…we certainly have material in Matthew not found in Mark, but I do not think this is terribly different from the sort of repetition in variant form we find even in the Qur’ān. For comparison’s sake, here is a corresponding chart for two accounts of the angelic annunciation:
[On a side note, if one wishes to claim that’s actually recounting two separate events, while I feel such an answer strains credulity, anticipating such a reply, I also made a similar chart for the Qur’ānic accounts of Iblīs and Adam, which I think are undeniably referring to a single event.]
Now I raise these Qur’ānic accounts because I think we can find common ground. Clearly we have repetition in variant form, but one possible explanation might be that these accounts put forth fragments of a single conversation (e.g. while one account has a person say one thing, and another account has that person say something different, it could be the case that they said both things in the actual exchange). If we can agree on that for Qur’ān, it would seem we could propose the same for the Marcan and Matthean accounts of the dog-children exchange (i.e. pretty much everything recorded is what was said, though each did not include certain statements [perhaps for the sake of brevity?]).
LikeLike
Mr. Giron,
Another healing miracle done to a gentile was the account of the centurion’s servant mentioned in Matthew 8. Jesus was ‘amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith”; and accordingly the servant was healed. Jesus did not require the centurion to show humility nor did he insult him. What’s the difference between the centurion and the Canaanite woman to merit such difference in treatment? Would he have dared to insult a Roman soldier?
Secondly, the accounts of the angels speaking to Mary in the Quran are indeed separate. The narrative in chapter 3 mentions angels in (plural) who give glad tidings to Mary, then in Quranic style, the narrative immediately skips to Jesus speaking to Israel. In chapter 19 it is a single angel (probably Gabriel) who appears as a man and gives glad tidings, then Mary conceives Jesus and the story continues. But I agree, narrative omissions are not necessarily contradictions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greetings Ibn Awad
Ibn Awad wrote:
«Another healing miracle done to a gentile was the account of the centurion’s servant mentioned in Matthew 8. Jesus was ‘amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith”; and accordingly the servant was healed. Jesus did not require the centurion to show humility»
To be fair, Jesus is under no obligation to treat every single person the same. I previously gave the example of God leading Abraham to believe he should kill his son. I think we can agree that plenty of people have not been tested in such a stark way. Some people are in the middle of war zones or famines, while others live in comfy suburbs just down the street from a market loaded with fresh produce. Some people watch as their little children die slowly and painfully from cancer, while others have healthy children who outlive them. If we can agree that not everyone is tested in the same way, then this woman being pressed into a public show of humility which others are not need not be a problem.
Ibn Awad wrote:
«What’s the difference between the centurion and the Canaanite woman»
Perhaps the difference is God’s will. Perhaps the story of al-Khidr in surat al-Kahf has relevance here, insofar that people can be treated differently for reasons which are not going to always be fully apparent to you or me.
Ibn Awad wrote:
«the accounts of the angels speaking to Mary in the Quran are indeed separate.»
I think this becomes more difficult when we read surat Al `Imran 3:47 and sura Maryam 19:20. If these are two accounts, in one of them she is asking for an explanation which has already been given to her previously. But I suppose that is possible (as incredulity can persist when seemingly unthinkable things are proposed).
Regarding the plural and singular constructions, note that surat Al `Imran 3:47 gives the response from the angel in the singular (qala). Even here, I think the accounts could be conflated into a single narrative (e.g. the angels announce something, and then a single angels speaks, et cetera).
Ibn Awad wrote:
«But I agree, narrative omissions are not necessarily contradictions.»
Al7amdulillah
LikeLike
There’s a Muslim scholarly opinion (stated by great scholars like Ibn Hazm), and which I subscribe to, that Mary was a prophetess – “Nabiyya” (as was Moses’ mother). That would mean that contact with angels would usually not be once in a lifetime. There’s also a third (separate?) instance of angelic communication with Mary at 3:42-43.
One can classify events as separate based on chronology. In Chapter 19, after the angel in human form speaks to her, verse 22 says “fa-hamalat-hu”- “so she conceived him”. “Fa” in arabic indicates an incident in close succession, meaning that she conceived him shortly after she spoke to the angle in human form. This is not apparent in Chapter 3, as the narrative immediately skips to Jesus as an adult, with no mention of the nativity.
LikeLike
Greetings again, Ibn Awad
Ibn Awad wrote:
«There’s a Muslim scholarly opinion (stated by great scholars like Ibn Hazm), and which I subscribe to, that Mary was a prophetess – “Nabiyya”»
That’s beautiful. Eusebius similarly referred to Mary as a prophetetss (he even interpreted Isaiah 8:3 –perhaps somewhat allegorically?– as referring to Mary). Far more recently, Pope Benedict XVI (admittedly before he became Pope, back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) had a section on Mary as prophetess, in his 1980 book, Maria: Kirche im Ursprung (later translated into English as Mary: The Church at the Source).
Ibn Awad wrote:
«That would mean that contact with angels would usually not be once in a lifetime.»
To be clear, while I was (and remain) somewhat doubtful, I conceded that reading the texts as two events could be possible (it would just require incredulity on Mary’s part, which, as I said, is possible). So what follows is merely me offering my thoughts, not any sort of attempted refutation.
Ibn Awad wrote:
«In Chapter 19, after the angel in human form speaks to her, verse 22 says “fa-hamalat-hu”- “so she conceived him”. “Fa” in arabic indicates an incident in close succession, meaning that she conceived him shortly after she spoke to the angle in human form. This is not apparent in Chapter 3, as the narrative immediately skips to Jesus as an adult, with no mention of the nativity.»
I’ve long been reluctant to read too much into fa, as I noticed years ago (during discussions on Qur’anic embryology) that surat al-Haj 22:5 and surat al-Mu’minun 23:14 refers to the same transition from nuTfa to `alaqa to muDgha, but the former employs thuma for the transitions while the latter employs the prefixed fa. From that I got the impression that thuma and fa were interchangeable (though I suppose perhaps it could be argued that the latter is still for brief transitions while the former leaves the question of precise timeframe open?).
As for the transition in surat Al `Imran, I would see that as more leaving the question open than necessitating a different event from what was described in sura Maryam. But God knows best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
it says he did not answer her a word.
then his disiples beg him to help her
but he told them “i ONLY came for the lost sheep”
interpretation two
the desiples beg him SEND her away because they ALREADY know that jesus did not come for little dogs.
then in order to send her away, he tells her directly ” i only came for israel”
notice that after she hears the response she clearly gets even more emotional and does the ACT of begging even more, but this time on her knees?
it seem quite obvious that “i was sent only to the lost sheep” was directed to her, not his desiples.
LikeLike
I agree with brother Ibn Awad. The woman already showed great faith, so there was no reason for her to be turned away. It was only after she acknowledged her low position that Jesus helped her. This explains why Luke’s gospel does not have this story, while both Mark and Matthew’s gospels do.
LikeLike
To be fair, she is never actually explicitly turned away. As for Jesus helping her after her show of humility, note that, at least in the Matthean reading, Jesus can be understood has subtly alluding to her being from among the lost sheep before she did such.
As for why Luke does not include the story, as has been noted before, there are people you personally know well, whose motivations for a certain things are unknown to you, so it would be a bit presumptuous to think you can know the motivations of a person you never met, from a paradigm you have no direct experience with. You don’t know what his methodological or pedagogical intentions were, you don’t know what his initially intended audience was, nor do you know how he understood the resources that were (or would be) available to that audience.
If we’re speculating, another possibility is that he knew (or at least believed) his initially intended audience either already heard the story, or would soon receive the story from another source headed their way, so he decided it was unnecessary to included it in the text he was preparing.
LikeLike
. . . membership in Israel is determined more by faith than lineage.
true
Also the context shows that Jesus main purpose was to rebuke the disciple’s racial hatred/ ethnic self-worship / prejudice of other ethnicities, because Matthew 15:21-28 comes right after the lesson about the evil thoughts within the heart of mankind – Matthew 15:18-20 (see the Mark 7:20-23 parallel where pride / arrogance/ conceit is included – all hatred and racial prejudice / bias against others comes from pride and arrogance.
“The following verse (v. 23) notes that Jesus simply ignores her begging and even his disciples who were with him “erotoun” (implored) their master to help her…”
This is wrong, because the verse does not say that; rather:
But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.”
The disciples needed to learn the lesson about internal sins in the heart, including pride, arrogance, racial hatred or prejudice.
LikeLike
Jesus turned her away initially, so he was going along with the prevailing Jewish-centric attitude among Jews. No amount of mental gymnastics will change that.
LikeLike
Nope; He was testing the disciples, as the context shows with the pericope right before it.
LikeLike
Nope, your attempt to sugarcoat the clear refusal by Jesus will not fool anyone. It’s no wonder Luke doesn’t have the story in his gospel.
LikeLike
No; your clear refusal and stubbornness to see the context and Matthew 15:18-20/Mark 7:20-23 proves you are wrong.
LikeLike
No, your clear deception and stubbornness shows that you are wrong.
LikeLike
We will let the readers who are honest and look at the whole context, which is what I am doing, decide who is being deceptive and stubborn.
LikeLike
Sure, and I would think that those who haven’t been brainwashed will see through the apologetic gymnastics of people like you. 🙂
LikeLike
QuranAndBibleBlog wrote:
«Jesus turned her away initially»
I see no text which requires the conclusion that He turned her away. Could you elaborate on what textual indicators you feel necessitates such a conclusion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
” No amount of mental gymnastics will change that.”
👍🏼
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Also the context shows that Jesus main purpose was to rebuke the disciple’s racial hatred/ ethnic self-worship / prejudice of other ethnicities, because Matthew 15:21-28 comes right after the lesson about the evil thoughts within the heart of mankind – Matthew 15:18-20 (see the Mark 7:20-23 parallel where pride / arrogance/ conceit is included – all hatred and racial prejudice / bias against others comes from pride and arrogance.”
go and ask a greek speaker. they are not racist towards the woman at all. they are only pissed because of her constant begging. they actually tell jesus to HELP her.
and they did not LEARN jack shit because they would LEARN in public how to HANDLE a non- jew. the woman would end up calling herself and her people DOGS which are SLAVE of the jews. jesus’ did not WATCH what came out of his mouth and it caused a woman to refer to her self and her little daughter as ANIMALS (female dogs? ) in order to win a cure.
LikeLike
Denis – “I see no text which requires the conclusion that He turned her away. Could you elaborate on what textual indicators you feel necessitates such a conclusion?”
““First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.””
This is Mark’s version. This seems to be saying “wait your turn and then you can have the scraps”. Meanwhile, her daughter was suffering.
Matthew changed it up a little by having Jesus stay silent until the disciples asked him to send her away. In contrast to Ken’s interpretation, I think the disciples were actually urging Jesus (pbuh) to do what the woman asked so she would stop bothering them. This is clear from Jesus’ reply to the disciples:
“Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.””
Why would he have said “I was sent…” after the disciples asked him to send her away? He must have understood their request to “send her away” as saying “help her”, which is why he responded with “I was sent…” He was initially refusing both the woman and the disciples. Thus, I see a deliberate turning away from the poor woman.
LikeLike
Matthew 15 and Mark 7 are to be interpreted in the light of the whole context, as the verses / pericope before shows – the issue of washing one’s hands and eating foods – the issue in Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark 7:1-23 (Mark 7:19 – “by saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean”) The point about the Canaanite / Syro-Phoenician woman is directly related to the lesson Jesus was giving to His disciples in the earlier verses and paragraph – God is accepting all cultures into His family by faith (as Denis article shows) and the Jews are to no longer consider the other ethnic people groups / nations/ Gentiles as unclean, etc, and they are not under the food laws of the Mosaic law. There are parallels in Acts chapters 10 – 11 – food, other cultures, and the inclusion of the Gentiles (the nations, the ethnic people groups) into the people of God. God gives Peter a lesson to eat all kinds of foods, Peter refuses, “by no means Lord, I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean” (Acts 10:14) – The Lord said to Peter, “What God has cleansed , no longer consider unholy” (Acts 10:15) The rest of Acts 10-11 is about the outreach to Cornelius, who came from a Roman pagan background and God is showing that pagans can be cleansed and saved and brought into the family of God. Acts 10:28 – Peter said, “God has shown me that I should no longer call any man unclean or unholy.” They looked down upon other cultures because of their foods and the Jewish kosher laws and cleanliness laws kept them separate from reaching out to the Gentiles.
So, taken together, we see that Jesus’ real intension is to test the disciples’ racial and cultural prejudice and racial pride. Jesus’ statements about “dog” and “only sent to the lost sheep of Israel” etc. are using prevailing Jewish ideas and prejudices in order to test the disciples. The covenant started with Israel, but is now extending to all the nations, as was intended all along (Genesis 12:3; 22:18; Psalm 67; 87; Isaiah 49:6).
Acts 10:43 – “everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness.”
The other Jews in the audience, when they saw the conversion of Cornelius (a Roman “God-fearer” from a pagan background, said, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” They were amazed.
The Matthew 15 / Mark 7 passage is showing the same thing – God loves all cultures (even the Canaanites who were one of the worst in paganism in the OT) and by repentance and faith, they can enter into the community of the people of God. (as Denis has demonstrated in his article)
Jesus was also testing the woman’s faith – she did not complain or whine about “racism” or being called a dog, but her humble attitude shows true repentance and a recognition of her pagan and unclean background and false religion – she didn’t complain or have self-pity or cry about “you Jews and your Jewish priviledge”, or complain about past perceived injustices. Her answer showed she was humble in that she recognized that the pagan religion was wrong and from a Jewish perspective they called them “dogs” because of the unclean foods and separation laws. But the diminiutive point of a small dog (in Greek) rather than a wild street dog is a valid point – they were still “second class”. But the point of the story is that now God is making people from other cultures “first class”, equal with the believing Jewish people, by faith in Christ – as in many other passages such as the ones Denis mentions, and also Ephesians 2:11-22, Colossians 3:9-11; Revelation 5:9; 7:9.
LikeLike
Greetings Faiz
Faiz wrote:
«““First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.””
This is Mark’s version. This seems to be saying “wait your turn and then you can have the scraps”. Meanwhile, her daughter was suffering.»
It would mean that if she is a dog rather than a child, then she cannot have what she asked for, at that time. But then within seconds she is given precisely what she asked for, thus leading to the conclusion that she was not actually a dog.
Faiz wrote:
«Matthew changed it up a little»
The Matthean version provides more information, but even some of the uniquely Matthean material could be seen as hinted at in Marcan text. For example, her receiving what she requested, which at that time was only for the children (i.e. the sheep) reveals that she was one of the sheep.
Faiz wrote:
«the disciples were actually urging Jesus (pbuh) to do what the woman asked so she would stop bothering them. This is clear from Jesus’ reply to the disciples:
“Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.””
Why would he have said “I was sent…” after the disciples asked him to send her away?»
And easy answer to your question was already given in the body of the blog entry: he was refusing to meet their request, precisely because she was one of the sheep (as others have noted, her faith already made her part of Israel). You may not like that interpretation, but the fact that Christ then gives her what He said was only for the children corroborates the view that she was one of the sheep after all. Her faith played a role in making her eligible, and she already had that faith at the start, ergo she was already one of the sheep (hence the plausibility of Christ refusing to send her away because He was sent to the lost sheep).
LikeLike
Jesus deliberately was silent in order to test the disciples on the lesson of the heart and racial pride. (Matthew 15:18-20; Mark 7:20-23)
LikeLike
How do you know he was deliberately silent in order to test the disciples? Did Jesus inform you that in a vision?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was the holy spirit…
LikeLiked by 3 people
Because of the context of the lesson on the heart and pride and internal attitudes and thoughts – Matthew 15:18-21; Mark 7:20-23, and that interpretation makes the whole story consistent with Jesus’ character in the rest of the gospels – His compassion on every one He met. And all the points that Denis Giron brought out also confirm this.
LikeLike
I must confess that I have found your explanation of this verse most absurd (sarcasm alert). It does seem so out of touch with reality that I find myself DOUBTING IF YOU DO BELIEVE THEM YOURSELF.
Perhaps you have not thought of it so carefully, however Osama Bn Laden, Hitler and their cohorts could be justified and made saints via such a methodology. All that needs to be done is simply re-interprete some of their statements to mean “We are only testing our disciples. They afterall can see how easy it is to get killed following our footsteps”.
LikeLike
you don’t see the obvious connection to racial pride in heart, that Jesus exposes as sinful? (In Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 15:18-20) and the connection to food – Mark 7:19 and God’s mercy and grace going to the Gentiles (non Jews) – see all of Acts chapters 10-11 ??
It is obvious that you have not even tried to think through passage in its context of all of matthew 15 and Mark 7 and the connection between food and non-Jewish cultures (the nations, the ethnic people groups) and that Jesus is showing that true cleanliness is NOT by following food or culture laws that keep people from respecting and loving each other in different cultures (eating their food, accepting hospitality, giving hospitality; accepting their cultural foods, etc.) – rather true cleanliness is in the heart when the heart is changed and their is repentance and the heart is freed from the legalistic food and cultural laws and all racial hatred is repented of, along with the other sins in the list right before this story / pericope/ historical event. The Canaanite women/ Syro-Phoneician woman event has to be interpreted in light of the verses before, and also Acts chapters 10-11 gives another example of the same issue – food, culture and reaching out to a different people group with the gospel.
LikeLike
“you don’t see the obvious connection to racial pride in heart, that Jesus exposes as sinful? (In Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 15:18-20) and the connection to food – Mark 7:19 and God’s mercy and grace going to the Gentiles (non Jews) – see all of Acts chapters 10-11 ??”
that RACIAL pride was still there
https://turchisrong.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/james-patrick-holdings-intentional.html
but maybe it had nothing to do with race BUT OBEDIENCE to yhwh? yhwh said to be a good jew you had to LISTEN to him and do his rituals.
even king asa did the rituals of yhwh
“Asa’s heart was fully committed to the LORD all his life.”
“It is obvious that you have not even tried to think through passage in its context of all of matthew 15 and Mark 7 and the connection between food and non-Jewish cultures”
in the eyes of moses righteousness could only be obtained by obeying the instructions of yhwh
glenna jackson says
the story of the canaanite woman, therefore, is not merely a description of the rewards of faith, as it has been viewed in tradition history, BUT IT IS A REINFORCEMENT OF JEWISH LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTAINING IN THE MATTHEAN COMMUNITY
so the woman is only getting help because she is ACCEPTING being slave of the children and in the acceptance has to ACCEPT THE RITUALISMS AND LEGALISM .
GLENNA JACKSON DESTROYS YOU COMPLETELY
” (the nations, the ethnic people groups) and that Jesus is showing that true cleanliness is NOT by following food or culture laws that keep people from respecting and loving each other in different cultures (eating their food, accepting hospitality, giving hospitality; accepting their cultural foods, etc.) ”
yhwh said to OBEY him ,you need to keep what is holy to him. yhwh says you can only truly love yhwh by doing his instruction.
“– rather true cleanliness is in the heart when the heart is changed and their is repentance and the heart is freed from the legalistic food and cultural laws”
jews done legalisms all the time and this is what was said about them
“Asa’s heart was fully committed to the LORD all his life.”
”
and all racial hatred is repented of, along with the other sins in the list right before this story / pericope/ historical event. The Canaanite women/ Syro-Phoneician woman event has to be interpreted in light of the verses before, and also Acts chapters 10-11 gives another example of the same issue – food, culture and reaching out to a different people group with the gospel.”
that was not meant for the woman. the reason we know that was not meant for the woman because WHEN NO gentile is AROUND jesus has NEGATIVE view about them. even when no gentile is around jesus calls them PIGS and dogs (animals)
now i would like to know why anyone would refer to a woman as a little BITCH /ANIMAL to teach a lesson about how to KEEP the heart clean?
CALLING someone an ANIMAL, THEN THE person ACCEPTS she is an animal IN PUBLIC and then she is ABUSED infront of DESIPLES who are, in acts, STILL CLINGING to the idea that EATING with gentiles on the SAME TABLE IS A crime.
https://turchisrong.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/james-patrick-holdings-intentional.html
HOW DOES CALLING HER A BITCH IN FRONT OF deciples who are idiotic, mean that jesus was WATCHING what came out of his mouth? jesus gave them ammunition on how to MISHANDLE non-jews.
LikeLike
Here it may be worth noting how Matthew 3:9 lines up with Galatians 3:29, as the verses show that a person who does not descend from Abraham biologically could still be Abraham’s son, via correct faith. Such can be tied in with how John 8:44 and Romans 9:6 line up with Revelation 2:9, showing that there can be descendants of Jacob who are excluded from Israel, and then one can see what makes a true Jew in Romans 2:28-29 and Colossians 2:11.[4]
excellent
Also:
Genesis 12:3c
Genesis 22:18
Psalm 67
Psalm 87
Isaiah 49:6
LikeLiked by 1 person
Genesis 12:3c
through you, all the families of the earth will be blessed”
Genesis 22:18
” in you and in your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed”
Psalm 67
“O God, bless us . . . in order that Your ways may be known in all the earth; You salvation among all the nations; let the nations praise You O God, let all the nations praise You.”
Psalm 87
this one and that one was born in her
Philistines, Ethiopia, Babylon, Tyre, Rahab (Canaan or possibly Egypt)
This one was born there – (some from all of these Gentiles nations, most were the mortal enemies of Israel, are going to be “born in her” (in Zion) – this is why the apostle Paul alludes to this in Galatians 4:26 – “the Jerusalem above, she is our mother” – the phrase of Galatians 4:26 is in the Lxx of Psalm 87.
When God registers the peoples
Isaiah 49:6
“I will make you a light to the nations.”
LikeLike
And none of this changes the fact that the woman was rejected for being a Gentile and called a lowly dog.
LikeLike
Jesus only did that in order to use the prevailing Jewish racial prejudice as a lesson in order to test the disciples and rebuke the racial prejudice and pride and arrogance, which was the lesson in the earlier pericope, see context and verses right before it in Matthew 15:18-20; Mark 7:20-23
LikeLike
She was not rejected, the “dog” comment and “only for the house of Israel” comments were meant to test, not to be absolute for all time kind of thing.
LikeLike
Brief notes …
LikeLike
“Matthew 15 and Mark 7 are to be interpreted in the light of the whole context, as the verses / pericope before shows – the issue of washing one’s hands and eating foods – the issue in Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark 7:1-23 (Mark 7:19 – “by saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean”) The point about the Canaanite / Syro-Phoenician woman is directly related to the lesson Jesus was giving to His disciples in the earlier verses and paragraph – God is accepting all cultures into His family by faith (as Denis article shows) and the Jews are to no longer consider the other ethnic people groups / nations/ Gentiles as unclean, etc,”
i didn’t see anywhere that she became an equal with the children. i didn’t see any where that the woman became an ERRAND girl . slaves can get help too as long as they come out with clever responses
why don’t you go and read glenna jackson?
SHE thinks that the woman had to ACCEPT jewish LAWS and rituals. lol
her interpretation of the story is that she had to follow jewish law. but even SLAVES followed jewish law
read isiah 14-1-2
” and they are not under the food laws of the Mosaic law. ”
matthew clearly judizes the story and he omitted “all foods are clean”
“There are parallels in Acts chapters 10 – 11 – food, other cultures, and the inclusion of the Gentiles (the nations, the ethnic people groups) into the people of God. God gives Peter a lesson to eat all kinds of foods, Peter refuses, “by no means Lord, I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean” (Acts 10:14) –”
pete clearly forgot that it was him who had asked for clarification . actually in acts lot of the stories in the synotpics go missing.
the interesting one is that peter clearly did not have ANYTHING from jesus about eating ALL foods, he needed a private vision . tHAT FICTION mark created about “he declared all foods clean” never reached the ears of the author of acts.
” The Lord said to Peter, “What God has cleansed , no longer consider unholy” (Acts 10:15) The rest of Acts 10-11 is about the outreach to Cornelius, who came from a Roman pagan background and God is showing that pagans can be cleansed and saved and brought into the family of God. Acts 10:28 – Peter said, “God has shown me that I should no longer call any man unclean or unholy.”
hmmm, wasn’t that what “great commission ” was all about ? didn’t he already know this stuff?
the woman clearly was not INVITED in jewish home because she was “gentile animal” which was lawless.
think about it, pete even forgot “send her away….”
”
They looked down upon other cultures because of their foods and the Jewish kosher laws and cleanliness laws kept them separate from reaching out to the Gentiles.”
so did jesus christ.
“So, taken together, we see that Jesus’ real intension is to test the disciples’ racial and cultural prejudice and racial pride. ”
it is jesus’ RESPONSE which prompt woman to say that she was SLAVE of the children. this would include slave of the disciples because disciples were part of the children.
“Jesus’ statements about “dog” and “only sent to the lost sheep of Israel” etc. are using prevailing Jewish ideas and prejudices in order to test the disciples. ”
look at the way the recipient receives his food. it receives by having it cast at it. this is how jesus wants to fix prejudices of disciples? and can you tell me what IMPROVEMENTS the disciples went through BEFore luke fixed things in acts? can you tell me the changes ? can you tell me when jesus went out and said all gentiles can eat food next to the gentiles BEFORE author of acts created acts?
”
The Matthew 15 / Mark 7 passage is showing the same thing – God loves all cultures (even the Canaanites who were one of the worst in paganism in the OT) and by repentance and faith, they can enter into the community of the people of God. (as Denis has demonstrated in his article)”
only until a gentile can come out with a clever rebuttal.
“Jesus was also testing the woman’s faith – she did not complain or whine about “racism” or being called a dog,”
response :
In this story, Jesus never agrees to the equality of gentiles, or the equality of women, or the equality of gentile women with Jewish men. Jesus called the woman a dog. And she made her point by agreeing with him, not saying that she deserved equality or fairness, but merely begging for crumbs.
It is a very, very common thing for someone who is oppressed to have to placate and pretend to agree with the oppressor in order to gain some small benefit. And that’s what we see happen here.
Once she had admitted to and agreed with his understanding of her place in the world, a dog who can at most expect crumbs, Jesus gave her what she begged for.
It does him no harm to show a bit of kindness to a lesser person who acknowledges their subordinate nature.
But there is no evidence that his behavior patterns changed in the long-term to reflect a change in belief and a letting-go of prejudice.
Jesus did not then reach out to other Gentiles in his lifetime. He did not, in his lifetime, work to send apostles to Gentile communities.
This incident was an aberration in his behavior, a single time when, on a whim, he decided to indulge an inferior person who amused him with her clever response but did not challenge his privileged world-view.
The woman may have bested Jesus in this argument, in the sense that she convinced him to give her what she desperately needed.
But she did not best him by arguing for her equality. And she did not best him by convincing him that she was equal. She did not best him by arguing for fairness. She did not convince him to treat gentile women, as a group, fairly.
Saying that a dog may claim crumbs that fall from the table is a very, very different thing from saying that a dog is equal to a human child eating at the table. She used the time-honored technique of the oppressed and enslaved of flattering their oppressor in order to gain favor.
////
”
but her humble attitude shows true repentance and a recognition of her pagan and unclean background and false religion – she didn’t complain or have self-pity or cry about “you Jews and your Jewish priviledge”, or complain about past perceived injustices. Her answer showed she was humble in that she recognized that the pagan religion was wrong ”
before she refuted jesus, she could have RECEIVED guidance on her pagan way of life which she and her daughter were born into. no where does the story say that she was deep into her pagan way of life.
the pattern we see from jesus is
silence + silence plus INDIRECT addresss , then FULL WHACK ABUSE of her ILL SICK daughter who he called “LITTLE dog”
quote :
“It is not proper to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Dogs (κυναριοις) is Jesus’ Jewish hate term for Gentiles ( Matt. 7:6 “κυσιν “). Finally Jesus heals her daughter, but only after he extracts from her a verbal confirmation before his disciples and the people watching that only the Jews have God’s blessing and she and her daughter are indeed dogs (notice the play on words here θυγατηρ (young girl) with κυναριοις (small dog)).
quote :
and from a Jewish perspective they called them “dogs” because of the unclean foods and separation laws. But the diminiutive point of a small dog (in Greek) rather than a wild street dog is a valid point – they were still “second class”. But the point of the story is that now God is making people from other cultures “first class”
lol, “let the children FIRST be fed….”
LikeLike
Denis – It would mean that if she is a dog rather than a child, then she cannot have what she asked for, at that time. But then within seconds she is given precisely what she asked for, thus leading to the conclusion that she was not actually a dog.
Response – That is a non-sequitur. There is no indication that she was not actually a dog. In fact, there is every indication that she was. She showed her faith, yet she was still called a dog.
Denis – And easy answer to your question was already given in the body of the blog entry: he was refusing to meet their request, precisely because she was one of the sheep (as others have noted, her faith already made her part of Israel). You may not like that interpretation, but the fact that Christ then gives her what He said was only for the children corroborates the view that she was one of the sheep after all. Her faith played a role in making her eligible, and she already had that faith at the start, ergo she was already one of the sheep (hence the plausibility of Christ refusing to send her away because He was sent to the lost sheep).
Response – That doesn’t make any sense. Why would Jesus refuse to help her because she was not one of the “lost sheep”? Her daughter was still suffering was she not? So what difference does it make?
Jesus only helps her after she accepts her lowly position. The disciples even urged him to help her, and he refused. None of the assumptions being made by you and other Christians have no support in the text. If the matter required such interpretations, then why didn’t Mark or Matthew explain the real meaning? Both of them were used to inserting editorial comments to help their readers understand what was being said. Why didn’t they do that here?
LikeLike
So she is already faithful , she is already fully jewish in jc eyes, but he makes her beg for crumbs on her knees anyways . she should have got the cure when she said “help me” cos she was already fully Jewish .
LikeLike
all these christian apologists are forgetting that this is suppose to be “price of peace”
“compassionate”
and “ever helpful”
man-god
but we know what he said “let the children eat first” animals MAY get crumbs. but by that time, her daughter would already be dead.
LikeLike
“you don’t see the obvious connection to racial pride in heart, that Jesus exposes as sinful? (In Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 15:18-20) and the connection to food – Mark 7:19 and God’s mercy and grace going to the Gentiles (non Jews) – see all of Acts chapters 10-11 ??”
that RACIAL pride was still there
https://turchisrong.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/james-patrick-holdings-intentional.html
but maybe it had nothing to do with race BUT OBEDIENCE to yhwh? yhwh said to be a good jew you had to LISTEN to him and do his rituals.
even king asa did the rituals of yhwh
“Asa’s heart was fully committed to the LORD all his life.”
“It is obvious that you have not even tried to think through passage in its context of all of matthew 15 and Mark 7 and the connection between food and non-Jewish cultures”
in the eyes of moses righteousness could only be obtained by obeying the instructions of yhwh
glenna jackson says
the story of the canaanite woman, therefore, is not merely a description of the rewards of faith, as it has been viewed in tradition history, BUT IT IS A REINFORCEMENT OF JEWISH LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTAINING IN THE MATTHEAN COMMUNITY
so the woman is only getting help because she is ACCEPTING being slave of the children and in the acceptance has to ACCEPT THE RITUALISMS AND LEGALISM .
GLENNA JACKSON DESTROYS YOU COMPLETELY
” (the nations, the ethnic people groups) and that Jesus is showing that true cleanliness is NOT by following food or culture laws that keep people from respecting and loving each other in different cultures (eating their food, accepting hospitality, giving hospitality; accepting their cultural foods, etc.) ”
yhwh said to OBEY him ,you need to keep what is holy to him. yhwh says you can only truly love yhwh by doing his instruction.
“– rather true cleanliness is in the heart when the heart is changed and their is repentance and the heart is freed from the legalistic food and cultural laws”
jews done legalisms all the time and this is what was said about them
“Asa’s heart was fully committed to the LORD all his life.”
”
and all racial hatred is repented of, along with the other sins in the list right before this story / pericope/ historical event. The Canaanite women/ Syro-Phoneician woman event has to be interpreted in light of the verses before, and also Acts chapters 10-11 gives another example of the same issue – food, culture and reaching out to a different people group with the gospel.”
that was not meant for the woman. the reason we know that was not meant for the woman because WHEN NO gentile is AROUND jesus has NEGATIVE view about them. even when no gentile is around jesus calls them PIGS and dogs (animals)
now i would like to know why anyone would refer to a woman as a little BITCH /ANIMAL to teach a lesson about how to KEEP the heart clean?
CALLING someone an ANIMAL, THEN THE person ACCEPTS she is an animal IN PUBLIC and then she is ABUSED infront of DESIPLES who are, in acts, STILL CLINGING to the idea that EATING with gentiles on the SAME TABLE IS A crime.
https://turchisrong.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/james-patrick-holdings-intentional.html
HOW DOES CALLING HER A BITCH IN FRONT OF deciples who are idiotic, mean that jesus was WATCHING what came out of his mouth? jesus gave them ammunition on how to MISHANDLE non-jews.
LikeLike
ken , an Orthodox Jew thinks he is obeying his god when he keep kosher laws.
you want to tell the Jew that his heart is full of sin so he can eat what ever he likes.
my question is, are you anti Semite?
would a Jew consider your words anti Semitic? You might think foods laws are no problem, a Jew would say his God told him what is holy and unholy. even the pals of your human god stuck to Torah over the claims of jesus, read acts.
and it is proven now that what we eat does have an effect on our thoughts. Jesus didn’t know about germs ( he used to keep his hands unwashed) and what foods can do to the mind.
LikeLike