Something Bad Jesus Did

[Ben Masada]

Once, I was asked if there was anything bad Jesus did in his life. I thought for a while and the following came up to my mind.

Yes, there was something Jesus did, which I wish he had not done, because it does
not represent well the People he belonged to.

Once a Gentile Canaanite mother was crying after him, asking for her daughter to be cured, and Jesus would not give a damn to her. His disciples told him to do something for that woman or discard her, because she was making them go crazy with her non-stop crying.

What did Jesus say? I haven't come for Gentiles but ONLY for the House of Israel. Then, kept on going and the woman kept on crying and following him.

When he couldn't take any longer, he stopped and told her something more or less in the following terms: Hey, listen, what do you want from me? To cure my daughter Master. No way, I cannot take of the food of the children and throw it unto the dogs.

He meant the Jews for the children, and the Gentiles for the dogs. But only after the woman understood and recognized her condition of dog, by saying that the dogs also feed from the crumbles that fall from the table of the children, Jesus saw that he would never get rid of that woman. So, he changed his mind and cured her
daughter. Then, to erase a little the impression left on her for being forced to recognize her doggy condition, he mentioned something about her strong faith and left.

That was terrible, if we can imagine what that poor mother went through till she got
what she wanted. The text is in Matthew 15:21-28.

Ben:

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

Would you be able to quote your own NT to prove him building a church of Gentiles? I would appreciate. I think Paul was never able to raise a church from scratch.

*sniffs* Smells like… Straw… Interesting. Because, you know, I never said he did.

[faith]

Once, I was asked if there was anything bad Jesus did in his life. I thought for a while and the following came up to my mind.

Yes, there was something Jesus did, which I wish he had not done, because it does
not represent well the People he belonged to.

Once a Gentile Canaanite mother was crying after him, asking for her daughter to be cured, and Jesus would not give a damn to her. His disciples told him to do something for that woman or discard her, because she was making them go crazy with her non-stop crying.

What did Jesus say? I haven't come for Gentiles but ONLY for the House of Israel. Then, kept on going and the woman kept on crying and following him.

When he couldn't take any longer, he stopped and told her something more or less in the following terms: Hey, listen, what do you want from me? To cure my daughter Master. No way, I cannot take of the food of the children and throw it unto the dogs.

He meant the Jews for the children, and the Gentiles for the dogs. But only after the woman understood and recognized her condition of dog, by saying that the dogs also feed from the crumbles that fall from the table of the children, Jesus saw that he would never get rid of that woman. So, he changed his mind and cured her
daughter. Then, to erase a little the impression left on her for being forced to recognize her doggy condition, he mentioned something about her strong faith and left.

That was terrible, if we can imagine what that poor mother went through till she got
what she wanted. The text is in Matthew 15:21-28.

Ben:

Let us re-look at this and give it a different appraisal knowing the facts shall we.

Matthew 15:21-28.

Matthew 15:21-28 (King James Version)

21Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

22And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

28Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

We see that the children of Israel had waited long for the bread of heaven to come to them the word made flesh. Deuteronomy 18:15-20.
The Messiah whom God would put his own words into the mouth of.

It is apparent the jews heard and came for healing because they knew the truth.
The woman not a jew persisted because she knew the truth. Christ shows that she had faith in that truth and so received the good things meant and promised to those jews and all who accept and believe Gods word are truth. She was acting on them. As Cornelius confirms those who do what is right in Gods sight are acceptable to him.Acts 10:34-36.
34.Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35.But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

36.The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

God is the God of all including the gentiles...

Love Faith.xx

[Ben Masada]

Would you be able to quote your own NT to prove him building a church of Gentiles? I would appreciate. I think Paul was never able to raise a church from scratch.

*sniffs* Smells like… Straw… Interesting. Because, you know, I never said he did.

I know. My request was only a way to tell you that Paul acted like the cuckoo bird who would invade the synagogues of the Nazarenes and make churches out of them.

[Ben Masada]

And then there was the time he cast out some demons into a herd of pigs. The pigs all died and the swineherds had part of their livelihood destroyed. Why wouldn't the almighty Son of God not simply just destroy the demons or send them to Pluto?

That never happened. Judaism in the First Century was much more strict than today. For 20 years in Israel, I have never seen a pig but on National Geographic TV programs. It's forbidden for pigs to room around. Fines on owners are the highest. Now, think of herds of swine being fed in public places in the First Century. Not a chance! The problem is that the Gentiles who wrote the NT had almost zero idea about Jewish Culture, and wrote about things that could have never been seen in Israel. The name is Interpolations.

[micatala]

And then there was the time he cast out some demons into a herd of pigs. The pigs all died and the swineherds had part of their livelihood destroyed. Why wouldn't the almighty Son of God not simply just destroy the demons or send them to Pluto?

That never happened. Judaism in the First Century was much more strict than today. For 20 years in Israel, I have never seen a pig but on National Geographic TV programs. It's forbidden for pigs to room around. Fines on owners are the highest. Now, think of herds of swine being fed in public places in the First Century. Not a chance! The problem is that the Gentiles who wrote the NT had almost zero idea about Jewish Culture, and wrote about things that could have never been seen in Israel. The name is Interpolations.

I could be wrong, but I think the area where this occurred, referred to as the Gerasenes was a mostly Gentile area at that time, or at least not under Jewish religious control. The people doing the herding certainly were probably Gentile.

[Ben Masada]

And then there was the time he cast out some demons into a herd of pigs. The pigs all died and the swineherds had part of their livelihood destroyed. Why wouldn't the almighty Son of God not simply just destroy the demons or send them to Pluto?

That never happened. Judaism in the First Century was much more strict than today. For 20 years in Israel, I have never seen a pig but on National Geographic TV programs. It's forbidden for pigs to room around. Fines on owners are the highest. Now, think of herds of swine being fed in public places in the First Century. Not a chance! The problem is that the Gentiles who wrote the NT had almost zero idea about Jewish Culture, and wrote about things that could have never been seen in Israel. The name is Interpolations.

I could be wrong, but I think the area where this occurred, referred to as the Gerasenes was a mostly Gentile area at that time, or at least not under Jewish religious control. The people doing the herding certainly were probably Gentile.

Gadarenes. Gadara is a town on the eastside of the Sea of Galilee. Just prior to the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon, you are right, the place was inhabited by Gentles only. It was part of the Galilee of the Gentiles, alluded to in the Scriptures. The town was known as a place of evil spirits or demons by the Gentiles. Jews don't believe in such things. But many of the unlearned among the Jews did get some of the influence. But later, with the repopulation of the area by the returnees from Babylon, the area became Jewish again. That's the time Isaiah refers to as the light that the People who walked in darkness saw. (Isa. 9:1)

It could be that the gospel writer is referring to the time of the Gentiles prior to the repopulation by the Jews, that he brought up to a modern event in the time of Jesus with the purpose perhaps to enhance Jesus' Divine authority acknowledged by even demons. Parabolical therefore.

[kayky]

The Roman legion garrisoned in Jerusalem in the first century had as their symbol the boar. Some think this story was a joke at their expense.

[SpiritQuickens]

Once, I was asked if there was anything bad Jesus did in his life. I thought for a while and the following came up to my mind.

Yes, there was something Jesus did, which I wish he had not done, because it does
not represent well the People he belonged to.

Once a Gentile Canaanite mother was crying after him, asking for her daughter to be cured, and Jesus would not give a damn to her. His disciples told him to do something for that woman or discard her, because she was making them go crazy with her non-stop crying.

What did Jesus say? I haven't come for Gentiles but ONLY for the House of Israel. Then, kept on going and the woman kept on crying and following him.

When he couldn't take any longer, he stopped and told her something more or less in the following terms: Hey, listen, what do you want from me? To cure my daughter Master. No way, I cannot take of the food of the children and throw it unto the dogs.

He meant the Jews for the children, and the Gentiles for the dogs. But only after the woman understood and recognized her condition of dog, by saying that the dogs also feed from the crumbles that fall from the table of the children, Jesus saw that he would never get rid of that woman. So, he changed his mind and cured her
daughter. Then, to erase a little the impression left on her for being forced to recognize her doggy condition, he mentioned something about her strong faith and left.

That was terrible, if we can imagine what that poor mother went through till she got
what she wanted. The text is in Matthew 15:21-28.

Ben:

"The irony in this story is often misunderstood, and for that reason, vs. 27 is taken as an undisguised indication that Jesus is a racist, or in some way hesitant about including Gentiles in His mission. At best, He is ambivalent, and is here "speaking to Himself as well as the woman." Lane's analysis is particularly undiscerning: the woman would not have understood the reference to Gentiles as "dogs." "The table is set and the family is gathered. It is inappropriate to interrupt the meal and allow the household dogs to carry off the childre's bread." Thus the saying betrays personal reasons why Jesus is dismissingf her request for help. He and His disciples were "at table," i.e., at rest, and it was for this reason only that they had come to the district (p. 262).

If this were the meaning of the saying, the first part of vs. 27 would not make any sense: "Let the children first be fed." And clearly this is to discount the building significance of the section as a whole, each story of which in one way or another reaffirms the extension of salvation to the Gentiles. Mark would hardly have placed this story here if he understood its meaning as a banal assertion of Jesus' need of rest, or even as an assertion that her faith must be purified of superstition, as Lane goes ont o say. This comment represents a challenge as well to the notion that the saying is to be taken at face value. Mark could hardly have included it here if that were the case. Jesus' use of the diminutive, "house dogs"...is often noticed, but that only softens and does not eliminate the severity of the saying. On the surface of it, this is a rejection of the woman's appeal because she is a Gentile.

The point of this discussion is that the saying is ironic. To read only what lies "on the surface of it" is to misread it. It is instead to be read as a bit of tongue-in-cheek. This is irony of a special kind. Clavier called it "ironie d'épreuve." In English, it is peirastic irony. Peirastic irony...is a form of verbal challenge intended to test the other's response. It may in fact declare the opposite of the speaker's actual intention. An excellent example is to be found in Genesis 19.2, in which the angels of the Lord test the seriousness of Lot's offer of hospitality by declaring the opposite of their true intentions: "No, we will spend the night in the street."

There are clues that that is exactly how Mark understands this saying. The first - and to my mind this would be sufficient in itself - is the location of the story here in this series of affirmations of the Gentile mission. The second is the wit evident in the construction of the saying itself. This involves seaveral word-plays. The contrast btween the "children" - surely a Jewish term - and the "dogs" - a Jewish epithet fo Gentiles - the introduction of the scene of a family at table, the use of the term b"bread" (which for Mark's readers has by now become overcoded with eucharisticd overtones), all combine to suggest just such a challenge, a riddle to be solved, a witticism requiring a wittier response.

The woman's answer is brilliant. It extends the metaphor by adding theelement of crumbs, and by placing the dogs under the table. IN the process, it overturns the implication of the first part of vs. 27.Crumbs fgall to the dogs, and do so intentionally. "If ther dogs eat the crumbs under the table, they are fed at the same time as the children." IN this remark Lane is absolutely correct (p. 263)."-Irony in Mark's Gospel, pages 150-151.

[Ben Masada]

"The irony in this story is often misunderstood, and for that reason, vs. 27 is taken as an undisguised indication that Jesus is a racist, or in some way hesitant about including Gentiles in His mission. At best, He is ambivalent, and is here "speaking to Himself as well as the woman." Lane's analysis is particularly undiscerning: the woman would not have understood the reference to Gentiles as "dogs." "The table is set and the family is gathered. It is inappropriate to interrupt the meal and allow the household dogs to carry off the childre's bread." Thus the saying betrays personal reasons why Jesus is dismissingf her request for help. He and His disciples were "at table," i.e., at rest, and it was for this reason only that they had come to the district (p. 262).

If this were the meaning of the saying, the first part of vs. 27 would not make any sense: "Let the children first be fed." And clearly this is to discount the building significance of the section as a whole, each story of which in one way or another reaffirms the extension of salvation to the Gentiles. Mark would hardly have placed this story here if he understood its meaning as a banal assertion of Jesus' need of rest, or even as an assertion that her faith must be purified of superstition, as Lane goes ont o say. This comment represents a challenge as well to the notion that the saying is to be taken at face value. Mark could hardly have included it here if that were the case. Jesus' use of the diminutive, "house dogs"...is often noticed, but that only softens and does not eliminate the severity of the saying. On the surface of it, this is a rejection of the woman's appeal because she is a Gentile.

The point of this discussion is that the saying is ironic. To read only what lies "on the surface of it" is to misread it. It is instead to be read as a bit of tongue-in-cheek. This is irony of a special kind. Clavier called it "ironie d'épreuve." In English, it is peirastic irony. Peirastic irony...is a form of verbal challenge intended to test the other's response. It may in fact declare the opposite of the speaker's actual intention. An excellent example is to be found in Genesis 19.2, in which the angels of the Lord test the seriousness of Lot's offer of hospitality by declaring the opposite of their true intentions: "No, we will spend the night in the street."

There are clues that that is exactly how Mark understands this saying. The first - and to my mind this would be sufficient in itself - is the location of the story here in this series of affirmations of the Gentile mission. The second is the wit evident in the construction of the saying itself. This involves seaveral word-plays. The contrast btween the "children" - surely a Jewish term - and the "dogs" - a Jewish epithet fo Gentiles - the introduction of the scene of a family at table, the use of the term b"bread" (which for Mark's readers has by now become overcoded with eucharisticd overtones), all combine to suggest just such a challenge, a riddle to be solved, a witticism requiring a wittier response.

The woman's answer is brilliant. It extends the metaphor by adding theelement of crumbs, and by placing the dogs under the table. IN the process, it overturns the implication of the first part of vs. 27.Crumbs fgall to the dogs, and do so intentionally. "If ther dogs eat the crumbs under the table, they are fed at the same time as the children." IN this remark Lane is absolutely correct (p. 263)."-Irony in Mark's Gospel, pages 150-151.

Are you by any chance implying that Jesus meant by "children" that his disciples and himself were at the table? How could the term "Gentiles" be restricted to the opposite of Jesus and his disciples, and not the Jewish People in general?

How could Jesus possibly have a set of requirements for Gentiles to be elligible to his favors, when he had a precedent agenda of Gentile exclusion? Every time he sent his disciples on a mission of evangelization, he would forbid them to visit Gentiles or even enter a Samaritan town. (Mat. 10:5)

Why would Jesus use the Peirastic irony on a Gentile if, according to his agenda, there was no place for Gentiles in the first place?

All my life as a Jew, I have never heard that to consider Gentiles dogs was a Jewish epithet. The first time I read of a Jew referring to Gentiles as dogs is here from the words of Jesus himself of all people. Extremely ironic.

I don't believe that that mother had time and a place in her mind to get ironic with Jesus in her reply. Her strategy was to agree with Jesus vis-a-vis her purpose to get her daughter healthy.