If I ever call correctly, she's the only person in the Gospels to effectively correct Jesus. She basically informed him that he was missing the mark, and he repented.
Some of this is taken from an RC Sproul sermon, but this is an instance where understanding Jewish culture is key to showing that Jesus wasn't racist or sexist in this statement. The language used qualifies "dogs" in his statement as "little dogs", dogs that *were* allowed into the household. During dinner, these dogs only ate after the family, and could not eat the human food until the meal was complete. However, if crumbs fell to the floor, the little dogs were allowed to eat those before their feeding time.
The implication of his statement is that the Jewish people, God's children, eat first or are given first access to Christ, and the time for the Gentiles to 'eat' will come later. However, if 'crumbs' fall to the floor, like Christ's miraculous power, the Gentiles are allowed to eat them up.
And even her response makes it clear that she understands the illustration. Translated from metaphor, "Yes, Lord; I understand that you're not here for us Gentiles yet, but we can still be blessed by your power." She shows remarkable faith and wit in that response.
It's great to face these challenging passages and dive into them, but your ultimate conclusion that Jesus *was* racist and that the woman 'changed her mind' is, unfortunately, heretical. You make great pains to bring up how Jesus is fully man and how that *must* mean he made mistakes here and there, but it's only by his sinless nature that salvation means anything at all. Jesus cannot be the Savior and yet still be *racist*.
An adage of mine is that we are all heretics to someone else. The Bible is replete with evidence of God changing God’s mind: from His regretting creating the world in the Flood Story, to Abraham’s wager with God for sparing Sodom. You also have Moses convincing God not to kill the Israelites on their way into the Promised Land when they had disobeyed God again.
It is not heresy to say that Jesus changed his mind. RC Sproul may have been correct in saying that the dogs were little dogs, but in my opinion the Syrophoenician woman was simply acknowledging her role in society as being the foreigner, but using that clever bit of logic to persuade Jesus to help her anyways.
If we take Jesus totally out of the picture and put someone else in his place, doing and saying the same things Jesus said, would we consider that to be racist?
My personal answer is yes. Learning, making mistakes, etc. is all part of being human. Jesus was human. I am ok with the humanness of Jesus.
God does not change his mind. This is the danger of pulling too much humanity into divinity. The examples you choose are of Anthropopathism (where the writers used human language to explain difficult concepts about God) and conditional declarations. In the Flood example, it helps us understand the sorrow God feels about sin. If he truly regretted humanity's existence in the human sense, we would not still be around today. And to the Conditional example, Jeremiah 18:7-11 says "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, ‘This is what the Lord says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions’” Change of course is reliant on us repenting or going to Him.
Similarly, if we remove Jesus from the story and replace him with any other human, it would be seen as a racist statement. I agree with that. The issue, though, is that Jesus is not any other human. He is the Son of God, divine, sinless.
You also say that we shouldn't separate Jesus from his humanness- and again, I agree. But He should also not be separated from his divinity. He is the God-Man. He speaks in turns of phrases and statements that seem odd to us but in studying the word and using the context of the day we can understand what he says as our Lord.
Jesus cannot be racist, because then He is not the Christ.
If you take comfort in that, then so be it; however regret is often an aspect of changing one’s mind.
When God was portrayed in Exodus 32 as regretting saving the people of Israel from Egypt, God told Moses that God would make a great nation out of Moses and destroy Israel. Moses convinced God not to do this.
That is a definite example of a Bible passage showing God changing God’s mind.
Exodus 32:14: “Then the Lord changed his mind about the terrible things he said he would do to his people.”
In searching for the character of God, it is important to note the consistency and then the inconsistency. God is consistent in his character and purpose, as it says in the Jeremiah passage. God extends warnings to His people so that they turn back to Him, or else they will be destroyed. If His people repent, he will stay the hand of destruction and allow their continuation. He doesn't change His mind, His purposes are set. Whether or not we follow His command is up to us.
In the Exodus passage, then, we can apply that consistency and see how it affects the reading. If God is consistent everywhere else, why would he be inconsistent here? He announces that He will punish the Israelites for their disobedience, but Moses comes as a mediator. Moses goes boldly to entreat the Lord, to paraphrase Ephesians. As mediator, Moses reminds the Lord of his promise to preserve the Israelites, how He brought them out of Egypt. Will he just destroy them here? The announcement of a punishment is what the Israelites deserve for turning away from their protector, and yet, Moses' humility in repentance is what stays the hand of destruction because God rewards repentance and faith.
Jeremiah says “Whenever I promise something and you are presumptuous, I will judge you. And whenever you sin and I threaten judgment and then you repent, I will receive you.” The Israelites ignored God's promise and were to be judged. But due to Moses' repentance, God receives it. The phrase 'changed his mind' is another one of the human phrases to help us understand God that doesn't give us the full picture. God is consistent, but we have to work to see that through careful study.
It it helps you to think of God that way, then so be it. The Bible can be used to support any position one wishes because it does not speak with one voice.
If I ever call correctly, she's the only person in the Gospels to effectively correct Jesus. She basically informed him that he was missing the mark, and he repented.
And that’s what makes this so difficult to comprehend, especially if one believes that Jesus is perfect.
Some of this is taken from an RC Sproul sermon, but this is an instance where understanding Jewish culture is key to showing that Jesus wasn't racist or sexist in this statement. The language used qualifies "dogs" in his statement as "little dogs", dogs that *were* allowed into the household. During dinner, these dogs only ate after the family, and could not eat the human food until the meal was complete. However, if crumbs fell to the floor, the little dogs were allowed to eat those before their feeding time.
The implication of his statement is that the Jewish people, God's children, eat first or are given first access to Christ, and the time for the Gentiles to 'eat' will come later. However, if 'crumbs' fall to the floor, like Christ's miraculous power, the Gentiles are allowed to eat them up.
And even her response makes it clear that she understands the illustration. Translated from metaphor, "Yes, Lord; I understand that you're not here for us Gentiles yet, but we can still be blessed by your power." She shows remarkable faith and wit in that response.
It's great to face these challenging passages and dive into them, but your ultimate conclusion that Jesus *was* racist and that the woman 'changed her mind' is, unfortunately, heretical. You make great pains to bring up how Jesus is fully man and how that *must* mean he made mistakes here and there, but it's only by his sinless nature that salvation means anything at all. Jesus cannot be the Savior and yet still be *racist*.
First of all, thanks for your comments.
An adage of mine is that we are all heretics to someone else. The Bible is replete with evidence of God changing God’s mind: from His regretting creating the world in the Flood Story, to Abraham’s wager with God for sparing Sodom. You also have Moses convincing God not to kill the Israelites on their way into the Promised Land when they had disobeyed God again.
It is not heresy to say that Jesus changed his mind. RC Sproul may have been correct in saying that the dogs were little dogs, but in my opinion the Syrophoenician woman was simply acknowledging her role in society as being the foreigner, but using that clever bit of logic to persuade Jesus to help her anyways.
If we take Jesus totally out of the picture and put someone else in his place, doing and saying the same things Jesus said, would we consider that to be racist?
My personal answer is yes. Learning, making mistakes, etc. is all part of being human. Jesus was human. I am ok with the humanness of Jesus.
God does not change his mind. This is the danger of pulling too much humanity into divinity. The examples you choose are of Anthropopathism (where the writers used human language to explain difficult concepts about God) and conditional declarations. In the Flood example, it helps us understand the sorrow God feels about sin. If he truly regretted humanity's existence in the human sense, we would not still be around today. And to the Conditional example, Jeremiah 18:7-11 says "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, ‘This is what the Lord says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions’” Change of course is reliant on us repenting or going to Him.
Similarly, if we remove Jesus from the story and replace him with any other human, it would be seen as a racist statement. I agree with that. The issue, though, is that Jesus is not any other human. He is the Son of God, divine, sinless.
You also say that we shouldn't separate Jesus from his humanness- and again, I agree. But He should also not be separated from his divinity. He is the God-Man. He speaks in turns of phrases and statements that seem odd to us but in studying the word and using the context of the day we can understand what he says as our Lord.
Jesus cannot be racist, because then He is not the Christ.
If you take comfort in that, then so be it; however regret is often an aspect of changing one’s mind.
When God was portrayed in Exodus 32 as regretting saving the people of Israel from Egypt, God told Moses that God would make a great nation out of Moses and destroy Israel. Moses convinced God not to do this.
That is a definite example of a Bible passage showing God changing God’s mind.
Exodus 32:14: “Then the Lord changed his mind about the terrible things he said he would do to his people.”
In searching for the character of God, it is important to note the consistency and then the inconsistency. God is consistent in his character and purpose, as it says in the Jeremiah passage. God extends warnings to His people so that they turn back to Him, or else they will be destroyed. If His people repent, he will stay the hand of destruction and allow their continuation. He doesn't change His mind, His purposes are set. Whether or not we follow His command is up to us.
In the Exodus passage, then, we can apply that consistency and see how it affects the reading. If God is consistent everywhere else, why would he be inconsistent here? He announces that He will punish the Israelites for their disobedience, but Moses comes as a mediator. Moses goes boldly to entreat the Lord, to paraphrase Ephesians. As mediator, Moses reminds the Lord of his promise to preserve the Israelites, how He brought them out of Egypt. Will he just destroy them here? The announcement of a punishment is what the Israelites deserve for turning away from their protector, and yet, Moses' humility in repentance is what stays the hand of destruction because God rewards repentance and faith.
Jeremiah says “Whenever I promise something and you are presumptuous, I will judge you. And whenever you sin and I threaten judgment and then you repent, I will receive you.” The Israelites ignored God's promise and were to be judged. But due to Moses' repentance, God receives it. The phrase 'changed his mind' is another one of the human phrases to help us understand God that doesn't give us the full picture. God is consistent, but we have to work to see that through careful study.
It it helps you to think of God that way, then so be it. The Bible can be used to support any position one wishes because it does not speak with one voice.