We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded by your direct support for ReKnew and our vision. Please consider supporting this project.
When Jesus Referred to Canaanites as “Dogs”
Last week I discussed Paul’s harsh language regarding his opponents, the worst example being his reference to certain opponents as “dogs” (Phil 3:2). I suggested that such language simply reflects the fact that Paul wasn’t perfect, as he himself admitted. Several people pushed back on this suggestion by pointing out that Jesus once referred to Canaanites as “dogs.” If Paul’s reference reflects his imperfection, doesn’t the same apply to Jesus? Today I will explain why I think it does not.
This strange episode is found in Matthew 15:21-28. Here we find a Canaanite woman pleading with Jesus to free her demonized daughter (v. 22). Jesus initially ignored her and his disciples urged him to send her away (v. 23). Despite this, and despite the fact that Jesus reminded her that Jews looked down on Canaanites as “dogs” (v.26), the lady persisted. As a result, Jesus praised this woman’s “great faith” and then granted her request (v. 28).
Now, some NT scholars who don’t accept the biblical witness to Jesus’ sinless nature (Heb 4:15) argue that this episode indicates that Jesus shared his Jewish culture’s racist view of Canaanites. And if Jesus actually intended his comment to disparage the Canaanites, I see no way of avoiding their conclusion. Moreover, since racism is a sin, we would have to consider the biblical claim that Jesus was sinless to be mistaken. On the other hand, if we accept that Jesus was without sin, we simply cannot believe Jesus intended his remark to disparage Canaanites. And in this case, it is incumbent upon us to explain what Jesus did intend by his remark.
To discern what Jesus was up to, we need to recall that Jesus was a descendant of King David (Matt 1:6), the paradigmatic, mighty warrior king at the height of Israel’s glory. We need to remember as well that the name “Jesus” is the Greek version of “Joshua” in Hebrew. In this light, some have argued that this exchange between the contemporary “Joshua” and a descendent of those whom the ancient Joshua attempted to exterminate suggests that Matthew intends this story to be read against the background of the conquest narrative.
Read in this light, it becomes apparent that by extending mercy to a descendent of the people whom the ancient Joshua had shown no mercy, this contemporary Joshua is subverting the “show no mercy” command of the conquest narrative. Hence, Philip Jenkins argues, in this exchange the story of the attempted annihilation of the Canaanites “comes full circle, and the extermination order is repealed” (Laying Down the Sword [HarperOne, 2011], 241).
This interpretation helps explain why Jesus tested the woman’s faith by bringing up the Jewish stereotype of Canaanites as “dogs,” which was itself part of the legacy of the conquest narrative. Engaging in what some have called “prophetic theater,” Jesus dramatically exposed the racial hostility that lingered from the violent conquest in order to dramatically reveal that faith in his barrier-crossing mercy overcomes this hostility and frees people from its demonic oppression.
In short, Jesus was role-playing when he referred to Canaanites as “dogs,” and he was doing this with the loving motive of freeing people from the racist curse that had persisted since Joshua’s bloody conquest of the land of Canaan. I can frankly see no similar motive at work in Paul’s disparaging reference to his theological opponents, which is why I conclude that Paul’s reference to “dogs” reflects his imperfection while Jesus’ reference does not.
Photo on VisualHunt
Does Jesus’ Abandonment on the Cross Destroy the Trinity?
In my previous blog I argued that Jesus’ experience of God-forsakenness on the cross was genuine and that, as a matter of fact, there was a genuine abandonment of Jesus by the Father on the cross. In fact, I am convinced that a good deal of our theology hangs in the balance on our affirming…
How the Church is Tempted to “Do Good”
The previous post spoke of God’s call to the church to be resident aliens: a holy, distinct people who are set apart and peculiar when compared to the patterns of the world. The holiness of God’s kingdom is cruciform love, which constitutes our distinct witness to the world. Preserving this holiness and resisting the Devil’s…
Endorsements for Crucifixion of the Warrior God
Greg has gotten some really great endorsements for his upcoming Crucifixion of the Warrior God, so we thought we’d share them with all of you. If you want to learn more, you can go here. Enjoy! “We now have a plenitude of studies preoccupied with the vexed question of the violence of God in the Bible.…
Divine Accommodation and the Cross: where Calvin was onto something
Over the last few posts, I’ve been arguing that the cross represents the thematic center of everything Jesus was about. Hence, rather than striving to have a “Christocentric” theology — which is so broad it means next to nothing—we ought to sharpen our focus by striving for a “cruciform” theology. I then offered some suggestions…
Modern Theologians and the Centrality of Christ
During the twentieth century the development of a Christocentric reading of the Scriptures—which is crucial to understanding what I argue in Crucifixion of the Warrior God—surged in the wake of Karl Barth’s publication of his Romans commentary in 1916. It was justifiably described as a “bombshell” that fell “on the playground of the theologians,” demolishing…
Do We Read Bible-Violence to Children? (podcast)
Greg on children and Bible violence. Episode 658 http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0658.mp3