I struggle with the meaning of this one:

[Mark Doble]

What does this mean...

24 And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. 25 But immediately a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And he said to her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 28 But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." 29 And he said to her, "For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter." 30 And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone. Mark 7:24-30

[Hans Deventer]

Mark,

I think Jesus' main mission was to proclaim the gospel to the Jews. They would spread it, as indeed it happened after Pentecost. He did not come to the Romans or the Greek, He came to "his own". Yet, often, "his own people" rejected Him and He found more faith among the heathens! As was the case with the centurion (Luke 7).

Even more, this is one of those cases where people plead with God, and He actually changes His mind! Think about Hezekiah, who received a similar word from the Lord
ISA 38:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."

It also reminds me of
LK 18:1 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: "In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, `Grant me justice against my adversary.' 4 "For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, `Even though I don't fear God or care about men, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually wear me out with her coming!' 6 And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"


I think the story is very encouraging. We should indeed "always pray and not give up".

[Billy Cox]

To Jews of the time the woman and her family were no better than dogs. The woman's statement fits with Jesus' belief that salvation is available to all. It is also a statement made devoid of any pride because she would rather have healing for her daughter than to stand up for her own ethnic dignity.

[David van Beveren]

To Jews of the time the woman and her family were no better than dogs. The woman's statement fits with Jesus' belief that salvation is available to all. It is also a statement made devoid of any pride because she would rather have healing for her daughter than to stand up for her own ethnic dignity.

I think Mark's concern is not what the woman said, but what Jesus said.

As I understand Hans, Jesus 'actually changes His mind' on the spot.

My question to Hans is: If Jesus is Love, why such a rude reaction in the first place, using the language of his adversaries (about we the holy people of God and they the heathen dogs).

Or is this my 20th century well civilized mind. :p

[Hans Deventer]

My question to Hans is: If Jesus is Love, why such a rude reaction in the first place, using the language of his adversaries (about we the holy people of God and they the heathen dogs).

Or is this my 20th century well civilized mind. :p

First, the 20th century wasn't civilized, so we'll drop that one :basic03

According to the Beacon Bible Commentary, the word kunarioi, dogs, does not refer to "vicious scavenger dogs of the street", but to little house dogs of children. Those dogs were most certainly loved. But it remains true, the children of Israel were elected by God for a special purpose, the other nations were not. That remains a fact that Jesus did not hide.

[David van Beveren]

First, the 20th century wasn't civilized, so we'll drop that one :basic03
Ok, what about social acceptable language :)

According to the Beacon Bible Commentary, the word kunarioi, dogs, does not refer to "vicious scavenger dogs of the street", but to little house dogs of children. Those dogs were most certainly loved. But it remains true, the children of Israel were elected by God for a special purpose, the other nations were not. That remains a fact that Jesus did not hide.

Hence the gentiles are already inside the house? Mmm... interesting idea.

[Sharon Isley]

Is it possible that this was a test? I too had wondered why it appears that Jesus was being rude, but we don't know the tone in which He said this. Was He sneering? I doubt it. Perhaps He said it with a smile and a gentle tone, encouraging her to press the issue. I don't know really, except that in the end, her faith in His grace and mercy proved to be sincere, and it touched His heart.

[Adam Wallis]

the fact that this is not an eye-witness account of Jesus' words. These are gospel accounts, of which there are many and the two that we have (Matthew and Mark) dont have exact duplicates of this story. They were written around 40-50 years after this had taken place and there was already a body of believers struggling with how to live amidst all different kinds of people, w/ different gods, social practices and certainly various modes of prejudice and religious bias.

In either Matt 15 or Mark 7, the writers make the point that this woman was not a member of lost sheep of Israel. In one story, she is a Gentile/Syrophonecian and in the other she was from Canaan. But in both cases Jesus gave the answer that every good Jew who would have originally heard this Gospel would have had in mind. But the story ultimately tells the story of Jesus extends the boundaries of his salvation to "the dogs." Any first century Jewish community would have roared w/ pride in one instance in this story, but then quieted in humility and shock at a Gentile who gained the favor of the Messiah. If we remember that this is a written communication about the person of Jesus and that it was most likely a largely Jewish community who heard it, we will also remember that we are third party participants and not the audience to whom somebody is reporting the exacts events. But even if these were the exact events, surely the overall picture of the grace of God and forgiveness in Christ in scripture would categorically exclude the interpretation that Jesus actually thought of some set of people as dogs.

blessings,
adam

[Joel Merrill]

Is it possible that this was a test? I too had wondered why it appears that Jesus was being rude, but we don't know the tone in which He said this. Was He sneering? I doubt it. Perhaps He said it with a smile and a gentle tone, encouraging her to press the issue. I don't know really, except that in the end, her faith in His grace and mercy proved to be sincere, and it touched His heart.
Yes, this is what I have always heard and thought. I can't even imagine Jesus being rude, especially over something like a mother needing help for her child. Think of when the woman touched the hem of Jesus garment and was healed. He asked, "Who touched me?" He knew very well who touched him and but he wanted her to come forward. Jesus knew what the mother would say and he wanted the others around him and us to hear her faith.

There was also a Roman Centurion who came to Jesus on behalf of his servant in Matt 8:5. The Centurion was a gentile and I'm sure his servant was also.


Joel

[Bruce Carriker]

Think of when the woman touched the hem of Jesus garment and was healed. He asked, "Who touched me?" He knew very well who touched him and but he wanted her to come forward. Jesus knew what the mother would say and he wanted the others around him and us to hear her faith.

Joel

Are you sure Jesus knew these things? Just how much of being God did he lay aside to become man? When the disciples asked when he was coming back, his answer was, "Don't have a clue. Only my father knows." SO....was he brushing them off, or did he really not know? And if he didn't know that, what else did he not know.

We know that Jesus got tired...at least I'm assuming that's why he was sleeping on the boat. We know that he got hungry. God gets neither sleepy, nor hungry. So, again, how much of being God did Jesus lay aside to become man? Are you sure Jesus knew the things you suggest he knew?

[Sharon Isley]

It is possible, there are times that He clearly knew things, such as when He knew what the Pharisees were thinking about Him. I would think that this knowledge, not being something that a man could have, must have come from the Holy Spirit. So He may have known. Or He may not have known. I guess it would depend on whether or not it was knowledge He needed to have. *shrugs*

[Joel Merrill]

Are you sure Jesus knew these things? Just how much of being God did he lay aside to become man? When the disciples asked when he was coming back, his answer was, "Don't have a clue. Only my father knows." SO....was he brushing them off, or did he really not know? And if he didn't know that, what else did he not know.

We know that Jesus got tired...at least I'm assuming that's why he was sleeping on the boat. We know that he got hungry. God gets neither sleepy, nor hungry. So, again, how much of being God did Jesus lay aside to become man? Are you sure Jesus knew the things you suggest he knew?
The idea of the Trinity has always been hard for man to comprehend. I'm sure not a great theologian. However I've heard it all of my life and from different sources that Jesus was all man and all God all at the same time. I don't think it could be any other way. There are numerous places where the scripture indicates that Jesus knew what people were thinking and what was going to happen. When Satan tempted him in the desert, Satan knew that he could do much more than what he was doing. There are many good reasons for Jesus to keep a lot of what he knew to himself. If he was always going around telling people what they were thinking pretty soon everyone would be afraid of him.

Jesus wanted people to have faith in him. We all know the definition of faith in the book of Hebrews. If we believe because of what we see, that is not faith. Jesus had to preform miracles to fulfill prophesy and to prove to some who he was but I believe it was always a delicate balance between doing too many miracles and not doing as many as he would like.

One of the reasons Jesus sometimes told people who he had healed not to tell anyone and why he moved about secretly sometimes is because he didn't want people believing him only for his miracles. He wasn't going to become a circus act. That is why he didn't preform miracles for the pharisees when they asked him too. I think, Jesus in his mercy would have liked to preform more miracles.

I wonder about the places where the scripture says he couldn't preform miracles because of their unbelief. Could it be that he knew that those people would treat him like a circus act and not believe in him for who he was? Could it be that it wasn't that he wasn't able to preform miracles, it was that he couldn't because the people would have the wrong reaction if he did? In that case, he knew their thinking and the future. They were still free to do as they pleased but he knew what they would do if he would have preformed miracles there.

I can except the idea of the Trinity but there are other things about why God in his knowledge and wisdom does things the way he does that I am not wise enough to understand. The scripture doesn't say why Jesus said that only the Father knows the time of the second coming. Jesus knew what the end times would be like. It would have been a bad idea for him to give them a date. Maybe that was just his way of saying there is a plan but I can't tell it to you that?

Joel

[Sharon Isley]

Joel, I guess my understanding - and goodness knows this could surely be wrong! - is that Jesus was fully God, but God who chose to become man. He struggled with the same things we do, and I can't understand how He could do that and still have at His disposal all of His divine powers.

My belief is that He became like the rest of us - fully man. And all that He knew, and did, He did by yielding Himself completely to the will of His Father, and allowing the Holy Spirit to do His work through Him. In other words, He was to absolutely perfect model of complete obedience and submission. His life is a model of what all of ours can be if we also submit completely to Him.

What do you think?

[Bruce Carriker]

The Trinity is indeed a tough nut to crack. If anyone thinks they've done it, please share here, as the rest of us would like to know. :)

I don't disagree with most of what you write, Joel. And I wasn't suggesting that you were wrong in your earlier post...just throwing out something to think about.

The two great heresies of our time are to make Jesus too much God (and forget that he was fully man) and to make him too much man (and forget that he was also God). In our tradition, I think we've chose to err on the side of "too much God", as if that is somehow the lesser of the two possible errors. I know I'm more comfortable erring there, but it still might be an error.

Some of the man-God questions I have:

If Jesus knew that Lazarus was coming back in just a few minutes, why did he cry at the news of his death?

When Jesus prayed, why didn't he just answer his own prayers the way he wanted?

When Jesus cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", why did he do that? If he knew everything, then he knew he wasn't foresaken. So, why the big emotional show? Obviously he couldn't casually look down and say to Mary, John, and the few others gathered, "Don't worry. I'll see you in three days." Then their continued belief would not have been a true exercise of faith. But couldn't he just have died quietly?

Could Jesus have sinned if he wanted to? The Bible says he was tempted "in every way" like you and I are tempted. For him to be tempted like you and me, giving in to the temptation had to be an option. Otherwise, it was just a big charade and he really WASN'T tempted like you and me.

And here's the Wesleyan question...if we can still have tempers and be sanctified, why couldn't Jesus have a temper? In fact, I think his actions in the temple show that he did have a temper.

If Jesus could not sin...if Jesus had no temper...if Jesus always had perfect knowledge about everything...then we have a gnostic, docetist Christ - one who was not really man, but only appeared to be man.

Rather than reading my own biases into the Scriptures, I try very hard to read what's there. When Jesus asks a question, I try very hard to get past the immediate assumption that he's only asking for the benefit of those around him, unless the context of the passage clearly indicates that to be the case (such as narratives about his teaching). When Jesus prays, I try very hard to operate from the perspective that he was praying the same way you and I pray, not knowing what God's response to our desires will be.

I very much prefer a God who became just like us and conquered sin and death, to a God who only appeared to become like us, and never really had to "conquer sin and death, but only appeared to do so for the benefit of our limited brains.

Finally, "fully God and fully man" are confessions of the early church. And while they are supported by Scripture, those words are not in Scripture in exactly that form anywhere that I can recall. So I'm not exactly sure what that means. But for me, it doesn't diminish Jesus in any way to say that when he became human, there were certain parts of his God-likeness that he voluntariily laid aside for a time. As Sharon points out, perhaps there were times that the Holy Spirit DID give him Divine knowledge about people or events, but I don' t know that we're required to assume that was always the case.

[Billy Cox]

That is the underlying question of the doctrine of the Trinity. Nearly all of the discussion comes down to Jesus and the nature of his relationship to God.

It's not too hard to think of the Father and Holy Spirit as one, but Jesus is the fly in the analogy so to speak.

This is really important to Wesleyans. If we err on the 'Jesus was more God than man' side, we in effect deny the possibility of holiness during this lifetime. Christ as fully man and fully God is the seal of authenticity on the availability of holiness to us now.

How about a classic song example to illustrate the wrong point of view on Jesus.

The cattle are lowing,
The Baby awakes,
But little Lord Jesus,
No crying he makes.

Yeah, right...and he was born potty-trained and speaking King James English too.

[Joel Merrill]

The Trinity is indeed a tough nut to crack. If anyone thinks they've done it, please share here, as the rest of us would like to know. :)

I don't disagree with most of what you write, Joel. And I wasn't suggesting that you were wrong in your earlier post...just throwing out something to think about.

The two great heresies of our time are to make Jesus too much God (and forget that he was fully man) and to make him too much man (and forget that he was also God). In our tradition, I think we've chose to err on the side of "too much God", as if that is somehow the lesser of the two possible errors. I know I'm more comfortable erring there, but it still might be an error.

Some of the man-God questions I have:

If Jesus knew that Lazarus was coming back in just a few minutes, why did he cry at the news of his death?

When Jesus prayed, why didn't he just answer his own prayers the way he wanted?

When Jesus cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", why did he do that? If he knew everything, then he knew he wasn't foresaken. So, why the big emotional show? Obviously he couldn't casually look down and say to Mary, John, and the few others gathered, "Don't worry. I'll see you in three days." Then their continued belief would not have been a true exercise of faith. But couldn't he just have died quietly?

Could Jesus have sinned if he wanted to? The Bible says he was tempted "in every way" like you and I are tempted. For him to be tempted like you and me, giving in to the temptation had to be an option. Otherwise, it was just a big charade and he really WASN'T tempted like you and me.

And here's the Wesleyan question...if we can still have tempers and be sanctified, why couldn't Jesus have a temper? In fact, I think his actions in the temple show that he did have a temper.

If Jesus could not sin...if Jesus had no temper...if Jesus always had perfect knowledge about everything...then we have a gnostic, docetist Christ - one who was not really man, but only appeared to be man.

Rather than reading my own biases into the Scriptures, I try very hard to read what's there. When Jesus asks a question, I try very hard to get past the immediate assumption that he's only asking for the benefit of those around him, unless the context of the passage clearly indicates that to be the case (such as narratives about his teaching). When Jesus prays, I try very hard to operate from the perspective that he was praying the same way you and I pray, not knowing what God's response to our desires will be.

I very much prefer a God who became just like us and conquered sin and death, to a God who only appeared to become like us, and never really had to "conquer sin and death, but only appeared to do so for the benefit of our limited brains.

Finally, "fully God and fully man" are confessions of the early church. And while they are supported by Scripture, those words are not in Scripture in exactly that form anywhere that I can recall. So I'm not exactly sure what that means. But for me, it doesn't diminish Jesus in any way to say that when he became human, there were certain parts of his God-likeness that he voluntariily laid aside for a time. As Sharon points out, perhaps there were times that the Holy Spirit DID give him Divine knowledge about people or events, but I don' t know that we're required to assume that was always the case.
I don't really have time to answer this like I would like to. I am not erroring in either direction. I'm saying that the miracle of the trinity was that he was both at the same time. That is what has always been so hard to understand and explain. He definitely was tempted in all ways and could have sinned.

I don't know all of the answers and I could be wrong but here are my thoughts on your questions. Could it be that he loved Lazarus so much that just the thought of him dieing was too much? Perhaps he was thinking of the suffering he went through or the grief the others were going through? I don't know, I am just a man and I don't have the wisdom of God or any special revelation that you don't have.

As far as him answering his own prayers I think he did many of them. This is another mystery of the trinity. In the trinity there are three persons but they are all one. There is no way for us to fully understand that. My guess is that Jesus was separated physically from the Father so he had to communicate to him. I think Jesus also did many things as an example to us and his prayer life could have been one of those things although not the main reason.

The topic of Jesus on the cross is too big of a subject to talk about here. As a human he was in the most extreme pain. I believe he could have called 10,000 angels like the song says but I could be wrong. I'm sure you know that he was quoting Psalm 22:1. If you read that Psalm it is amazing (for lack of a better word) to think of Jesus on the cross as you read that Psalm. He had tried to tell his disciples that he was going to raise from the dead in 3 days but they didn't understand him at the time.

Jesus had to have been capable of sin otherwise his temptation would have been meaningless to us. Anger is not sin. No emotion or feeling is right or wrong. What we do with our emotions and feelings are what make them right or wrong. Jesus was angry several times in scripture and of course not everything he did is recorded. Throwing the money changers out of the Temple was definitely done in anger. It even looks like he lost his temper and lost control. As man, he had no right to do that but as God he did.

This is the way I believe and what makes sense to me but I'm sure not going to say I'm absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. It is a good topic to discuss.

Joel:basic01

[Marsha Lynn]

It is possible, there are times that He clearly knew things, such as when He knew what the Pharisees were thinking about Him.

Not to brag, but I think that if I had been sitting in that room and heard Jesus say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven," and seen the raised eyebrows and the looks exchanged by the Pharisees in the room, I could have easily told you what they were thinking, too. Jesus certainly didn't have to evoke any supernatural powers for that one. I think all the situations where Jesus "knew what they were thinking" fall into that sort of pattern. It's not that he was a mindreader as much as that he was a people-reader.

In the hem-of-the-garment story, I think that Jesus was really asking who touched him. The disciples' answer was that he was in the middle of a jostling crowd and a bunch of people were touching him at the moment in question. He was looking for the one who received healing and I think it was a genuine question. As his eyes searched those of the people around him, the woman realized that there was no way she could meet his gaze and not have him guess her secret, so she confessed. He could read people because he studied them and knew them. I don't think he could read minds in a supernatural sense. There is no need for that kind of power when you can look into people's eyes and see their soul.

Marsha