We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. 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
Category: General
Tags: Bible Interpretation, Cruciform Theology, Paul Copan
Related Reading
If Jesus Is the Whole Point, Then What’s the Point of the Old Testament? (podcast)
Greg considers the role of the Old Testament in Christian faith. Episode 554 http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0554.mp3
The Cross as a Trinitarian Event
On Calvary, the all-holy God fully identified with sinners, suffering the consequences of our sin as though he himself were guilty. While God is never culpable for the evil he allows, he nevertheless assumes responsibility for it by fully identifying with those free agents who are in fact culpable. While the Son alone suffered as…
What I Am, and Am Not, Doing In These Blog Posts
In this post I’d like to try to help some potentially frustrated readers by explaining what I am, and am not, trying to accomplish in this series on the violent portraits of God in the OT. First let me explain something. My forthcoming book, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God, fleshes out and defends a…
A Response to “Are Greg Boyd and I Reading the Same Old Testament?”
Collin Cornell has recently published a review of Cross Vision (CV) and, less directly, of Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG) in The Christian Century. In this post I will respond to the two major objections Cornell raises against these books. Cornell begins by recounting a discussion I had with a woman who was deeply impacted…
The Reformers and the Centrality of Christ
The Christocentric nature of the Church’s hermeneutic approached a zenith in the Protestant Reformation. While Luther and Calvin rejected allegorical interpretation, in theory if not in practice, they nevertheless relied on typology and other creative hermeneutical strategies to discern how Christ was the subject matter of the OT. For Luther, Jesus was “the Word” in…
The Twist that Reframes the Whole Story
Many people read the Bible as if everything written within it is equally authoritative. As a result, people read it along the lines of a cookbook. Like a recipe, the meaning and authority of a passage aren’t much affected by where the passage is located within the overall book. The truth, however, is that the…