Jesus the Racist

Recently, in one fell swoop, an openly homosexual man who has a degree in theology from Moody Bible Institute terminated Christianity as a possible true religion. How? No, not by being a "gay pastor." He accused Jesus of being a racist and then repenting of it later. If Christianity is based on "the perfect Lamb of God" who alone can take away the sins of the world and Jesus was not that man, we're done. We can all pack up and go back to ... well, hell in the end, I suppose.

The "pastor" was referencing the account in Mark when a Syrophenician woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter from a demon (Mark 7:25-30). You remember that somewhat stunning exchange. Jesus told her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Mark 7:27) Wait ... what? Jesus called her a dog? So he was racist and sexist?? (By the way, is "Syrophenician" a race? I don't think so.) Real problems. But is that really what happened?

Jesus offered a metaphor. Jews were not "children" and no one complained that He used that term in His metaphor. By the same token, then, there is no reason to believe that the metaphorical use of the term, "dog," required that He was referring to her as a dog. The function of a metaphor is to compare one thing to explain another. Jews are not children, so the woman is not a dog. Jesus was aiming for a comparison. This woman was to the Jews as a dog is to children. Interestingly, Jesus did not use the word for "dog" here. He used the word for "puppy." The imagery is not that of a wild cur (e.g., Matt 7:6; Php 3:2), but a favorite pet. It was not intended to equate the woman with "puppy;" it was intended to show the priority between the Jews first and then the Gentiles. That is, pet dogs were treasured and fed, just not before the children. Jesus, in fact, would have had a much harsher perspective on Gentiles than "puppies." Paul says that before Christ died and resurrected Gentiles were "separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." (Eph 2:12) "Favorite pet" doesn't seem harsh enough for that reality. No, Jesus didn't call the woman a dog; He called attention to the priority of ministering to the Jews -- doing as His Father commanded (John 15:10).

Now, maybe you think I'm just making that up. Maybe you think I'm just making excuses. Maybe you think the "pastor" did manage to skewer Christ as a racist (and a sexist, I suppose) and was tainted by the sin of the human race as the Huffington Post assures us. I disagree. Notice, first, that the woman didn't disagree with Him. The woman didn't take offense. She concurred. "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." (Mark 7:28) That is, "Yes, I see your analogy and I understand that You are sent first to the Jews. Can you please just throw me a bone?" Second, many conclude that her response changed Jesus's heart. He "repented." "For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter." (Mark 7:29) Assuming this to be "repentance" assumes the intial sin of racism (and sexism). If no such sin occurred (Heb 4:15), then no repentance was needed nor did it occur. Instead, as in the case of the centurion (Matt 8:5-13), Jesus simply responded to the faith that was demonstrated (Matt 15:28). She "passed the test," so to speak. "Right answer," Jesus seems to say.

Most people have no interest in maintaining the integrity of Christianity in general or the Bible in particular. That's because most people hate the light (John 3:19). That a man who identifies with the category of people that Scripture says have no part in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10) would accuse Jesus of sin, then, would not be an issue. "Jesus was wrong? No problem. We all make mistakes. Even he had to repent of a sin or two." The Bible doesn't subscribe to this notion. The concept of a sinful savior is contradictory to God's justice. And this serves as a great lesson for us all that if we discover something in Scripture that contradicts the basic truths of Scripture, the need is not to jettison the Bible; the need is to realign our thinking.