Jesus Cleanses the Temple of His Body Like an Aggressive Moose

J

Jeff Wickham

New member
Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He was not here to simply hand out miracles to unrepentant people, but to set up a kingdom where former sinners were restored to submission to God. Those who submit to Christ are united to Him as members of His body, and in this sense they become part of Israel, since Jesus is part of Israel. And by her faith, this woman showed that she was one of those lost sheep of Israel. She ascribed to Jesus the position of Lord, Son of David, and master, and to herself, a position of submission.

The Bible does not include nuances of action or voice. But there must have been something about the way Jesus responded to the woman that kept her hope alive, for she kept crying out after them. Maybe He slowed His pace a bit, maybe it was the way He glanced at her, and when He finally spoke, maybe it was the loving tone in His voice. And looking further back in the story, it is curious that Jesus went to a foreign country in the first place. It may be that He went there specifically to encounter this lost sheep of Israel.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Arthur Brain said:
So was it a compliment then, or an insult? Bear in mind your post of #37 in that regard. Does it feel good and edifying for you to act immature and name call in turn?
Click to expand...
For the umteenth time... Jesus contrasted His people (i.e., the children) with the dogs (i.e., gentiles). Since that woman was a gentile, she falls into the dog category. She accepted that designation and was willing to accept the scraps that fall from the children's table. The Lord called her faith great because of that.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
For the umteenth time... Jesus contrasted His people (i.e., the children) with the dogs (i.e., gentiles). Since that woman was a gentile, she falls into the dog category. She accepted that designation and was willing to accept the scraps that fall from the children's table. The Lord called her faith great because of that.
Click to expand...

And for the umpteenth time in turn Jesus wasn't simply calling the woman a dog. He wasn't insulting her with a derogatory term as when people use the term "dog" to describe someone today. Something else to consider is how dogs were regarded at the time. Often they would be regarded as unclean and scavengers, certainly amongst Jews but not among Greeks where they were domesticated and regarded with fondness. even Jesus' use of the word denotes something more akin to puppy that would have resonated with the woman who was probably used to having dogs as pets around the house.

The only times where Jesus is blunt and insulting is with regards to what you yourself have acknowledged as "His own people", the religionists of the time, those puffed up with their own legalism and self righteousness and in no uncertain terms either. Otherwise Jesus taught how prejudice against people based on race/creed has no real place. The Samaritans were regarded with mistrust and the parable of the Good Samaritan showed that such judgement is misplaced in itself. While others, including a priest walk away from a man in dire need of help, the one to come to his aid is the one that his audience probably thought was the least likely to help.
 
P

popsthebuilder1

New member
Arthur Brain said:
And for the umpteenth time in turn Jesus wasn't simply calling the woman a dog. He wasn't insulting her with a derogatory term as when people use the term "dog" to describe someone today. Something else to consider is how dogs were regarded at the time. Often they would be regarded as unclean and scavengers, certainly amongst Jews but not among Greeks where they were domesticated and regarded with fondness. even Jesus' use of the word denotes something more akin to puppy that would have resonated with the woman who was probably used to having dogs as pets around the house.

The only times where Jesus is blunt and insulting is with regards to what you yourself have acknowledged as "His own people", the religionists of the time, those puffed up with their own legalism and self righteousness and in no uncertain terms either. Otherwise Jesus taught how prejudice against people based on race/creed has no real place. The Samaritans were regarded with mistrust and the parable of the Good Samaritan showed that such judgement is misplaced in itself. While others, including a priest walk away from a man in dire need of help, the one to come to his aid is the one that his audience probably thought was the least likely to help.
Click to expand...
Your effort is noted friend.

peace

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Arthur Brain said:
And for the umpteenth time in turn Jesus wasn't simply calling the woman a dog. He wasn't insulting her with a derogatory term as when people use the term "dog" to describe someone today. Something else to consider is how dogs were regarded at the time. Often they would be regarded as unclean and scavengers, certainly amongst Jews but not among Greeks where they were domesticated and regarded with fondness. even Jesus' use of the word denotes something more akin to puppy that would have resonated with the woman who was probably used to having dogs as pets around the house.
Click to expand...
So that's why Jesus would not say even a single word to her at first? That's how to treat a cute little puppy?

So Jesus was using a Greek approach and not that of a Jew? Right after Jesus said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

You need to find some better commentaries.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
So that's why Jesus would not say even a single word to her at first? That's how to treat a cute little puppy?

So Jesus was using a Greek approach and not that of a Jew? Right after Jesus said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

You need to find some better commentaries.
Click to expand...

You need to rethink if you still insist that Jesus was simply calling the woman a dog, although I suspect that you probably won't.

You need to read that particular commentary before you're in any position to criticize it as well. It makes much more sense than your simplistic reduction of the event.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Right Divider said:
So that's why Jesus would not say even a single word to her at first? That's how to treat a cute little puppy?

So Jesus was using a Greek approach and not that of a Jew? Right after Jesus said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

You need to find some better commentaries.
Click to expand...

I'm impressed that he actually seems to have read it.
 
P

popsthebuilder1

New member
Right Divider said:
So that's why Jesus would not say even a single word to her at first? That's how to treat a cute little puppy?

So Jesus was using a Greek approach and not that of a Jew? Right after Jesus said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

You need to find some better commentaries.
Click to expand...
Dogs are loyal to their master


It was not insult, but a test which she passed with flying colors.

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
To you, it's always the other guys that need to "rethink" their position.
Click to expand...

Not always at all. There's been plenty of times where I've had to re-evaluate or rethink my own through the years, even if I still retain an original position overall. I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm always right in any given debate and have conceded good arguments when they've been made that have challenged me over the years on here and elsewhere.

I think you should look again at your contention that Jesus was simply calling the woman a dog because there's so much to support that there was far more to the event than that. But it's up to you.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Arthur Brain said:
Not always at all. There's been plenty of times where I've had to re-evaluate or rethink my own through the years, even if I still retain an original position overall. I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm always right in any given debate and have conceded good arguments when they've been made that have challenged me over the years on here and elsewhere.

I think you should look again at your contention that Jesus was simply calling the woman a dog because there's so much to support that there was far more to the event than that. But it's up to you.
Click to expand...
There is a reason that Jesus was contrasting "the children" with dogs. Maybe someday you'll learn about it.

  • There was a reason why Jesus would not even say a SINGLE word to the woman at first.
  • There was a reason why Jesus said that He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
  • There was a reason why Jesus referred to gentiles as dogs.
  • There was a reason why Jesus regarded her only after she announces that the "dogs" would accept the scraps that fall from the children's table.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
There is a reason that Jesus was contrasting "the children" with dogs. Maybe someday you'll learn about it.

  • There was a reason why Jesus would not even say a SINGLE word to the woman at first.
  • There was a reason why Jesus said that He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
  • There was a reason why Jesus referred to gentiles as dogs.
  • There was a reason why Jesus regarded her only after she announces that the "dogs" would accept the scraps that fall from the children's table.
Click to expand...

Maybe there's a reason why you stubbornly refuse to reconsider your position and still insist that Jesus simply called the woman a "dog". I've learnt much about the event that makes a lot more sense than your contention, especially in light of the cultures of the time and Jesus' teaching in other areas.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Arthur Brain said:
Maybe there's a reason why you stubbornly refuse to reconsider your position and still insist that Jesus simply called the woman a "dog". I've learnt much about the event that makes a lot more sense than your contention, especially in light of the cultures of the time and Jesus' teaching in other areas.
Click to expand...
Why would Jesus not even say a single word to this woman?

Mat 15:22-23 KJV And, 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. (23) But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.​

Why is that?
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
Why would Jesus not even say a single word to this woman?

Mat 15:22-23 KJV And, 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. (23) But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.​

Why is that?
Click to expand...

Well, who knows why exactly? Maybe to test the persistence of the woman or to show something to the disciples who were the ones showing ongoing signs of discomfort at her continual presence. One way or the other it doesn't support Jesus simply calling her a "dog".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top