Roman Centurion vs the Canaanite women

[Lee]

In the book of Mathew 8: 5-13 Why did Jesus decide to help the Roman Centurion, but in Mathew !5: 23-25 he did not want to help the Canaanite Women set her daughter free any thoughts.

 

[Josheb]

In the book of Mathew 8: 5-13 Why did Jesus decide to help the Roman Centurion, but in Mathew !5: 23-25 he did not want to help the Canaanite Women set her daughter free any thoughts.

Since scripture is silent on the "why," any answer offered will be speculative. However, I will suggest the answer lies in the fact the history of Canaanites and Israeli relationships informs the answer. The Canaanites were not supposed to exist. God had commanded the Hebrews to kill everyone in the promised land the Hebrews did not do so. As a result, the Canaanites were an enduring corruption in the land. Prior to the exodus God had given the land of Canaan to Abraham. Before that we learn Canaan was the son of Ham, the man who sodomized his father, Noah, after God had washed the planet clean and as a result Noah cursed Canaan. That woman brought a lot of history with her.

The Romans were just as thoroughly pagan and idolatrous, but 1) they were not the concern of God's plan for God's people other than 2) as an agent of God for the judgment and disciple of the Israel. There was certainly resentment among the Jews for the occupying force but from Jesus' perspective they'd been sent there by God because of the disobedience of the Jewish people.

I will also suggest the Centurion's response of knowing he can do nothing and the authority and power are all Jesus' stands in contrast to the Canaanite's effort to get healing through her own effort, approaching Jesus in her own might whether he wanted to be approached or not.

 

[EarlyActs]

Since scripture is silent on the "why," any answer offered will be speculative. However, I will suggest the answer lies in the fact the history of Canaanites and Israeli relationships informs the answer. The Canaanites were not supposed to exist. God had commanded the Hebrews to kill everyone in the promised land the Hebrews did not do so. As a result, the Canaanites were an enduring corruption in the land. Prior to the exodus God had given the land of Canaan to Abraham. Before that we learn Canaan was the son of Ham, the man who sodomized his father, Noah, after God had washed the planet clean and as a result Noah cursed Canaan. That woman brought a lot of history with her.

The Romans were just as thoroughly pagan and idolatrous, but 1) they were not the concern of God's plan for God's people other than 2) as an agent of God for the judgment and disciple of the Israel. There was certainly resentment among the Jews for the occupying force but from Jesus' perspective they'd been sent there by God because of the disobedience of the Jewish people.

I will also suggest the Centurion's response of knowing he can do nothing and the authority and power are all Jesus' stands in contrast to the Canaanite's effort to get healing through her own effort, approaching Jesus in her own might whether he wanted to be approached or not.

Good attention to detail.

Another thing you may notice in the themes of the gospel narratives is that there is no Zealot-like hostility toward Rome by Jesus and followers, even though two disciples were formerly zealots. Notice John the B telling people not to react hostile to soldiers who seek assistance.

Contra: I kind of don't understand how the Canaanites still endure at that time, especially given what the Macabbean purge was like. Also what is the relation between Cana and Samaria? But I don't find the woman appealing to her own merit or status, just a distraught woman, overwhelmed.

 

[Josheb]

Good attention to detail.

Another thing you may notice in the themes of the gospel narratives is that there is no Zealot-like hostility toward Rome by Jesus and followers, even though two disciples were formerly zealots. Notice John the B telling people not to react hostile to soldiers who seek assistance.

That is true but I'm not sure that has anything to do with the difference in response between the Centurion and the Canaanite.

Contra: I kind of don't understand how the Canaanites still endure at that time, especially given what the Macabbean purge was like. Also what is the relation between Cana and Samaria? But I don't find the woman appealing to her own merit or status, just a distraught woman, overwhelmed.

Disobedience. The command to eradicate those living in the land applied only to those living in the land. Any part of Canaan and any Canaanites not living in the promised land at that time would not have been killed. It is therefore readily possible form any of the various peoples to have descendants - and every one of them very real and symbolic examples of adverse influence.

 

[EarlyActs]

That is true but I'm not sure that has anything to do with the difference in response between the Centurion and the Canaanite.

Disobedience. The command to eradicate those living in the land applied only to those living in the land. Any part of Canaan and any Canaanites not living in the promised land at that time would not have been killed. It is therefore readily possible form any of the various peoples to have descendants - and every one of them very real and symbolic examples of adverse influence.

Jesus attitude toward Rome was to show there was no armed opposition like there was at the time of the census. .

So you are saying Canaanites moved back in from other area, for ex., maybe they fled and came back? I kind of doubt the Mac purge would miss that. But it is possible.

 

[Josheb]

Jesus attitude toward Rome was to show there was no armed opposition like there was at the time of the census.

Relevance to the question of why the willingness with the Centurion and not the Canaanite?

So you are saying Canaanites moved back in from other area, for ex., maybe they fled and came back? I kind of doubt the Mac purge would miss that. But it is possible.

Sorta. There are Americans all over the world, yes? If a pile of nukes got dropped all over the US and all of us here on the continent died would Americans cease to exist? The Macs weren't perfect. Neither was their purge. Do you think the land was purified by the Maccabeans to the point of perfection?

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Contra: I kind of don't understand how the Canaanites still endure at that time, especially given what the Macabbean purge was like.

The Bible has a much broader definition of Canaanites than modern scholarship. For instance, in Genesis 10 the Hittites and Amorites are listed as Canaanites.

 

[Josheb]

The Bible has a much broader definition of Canaanites than modern scholarship. For instance, in Genesis 10 the Hittites and Amorites are listed as Canaanites.

Yep.

But for the purposes of this op's inquiry the effect is the same. The woman was not a Jew. She may have been a Hittite from the land of Canaan, or an Amorite from the land of Canaan, but the relevant history still applied and (speculatively) provides some answer to the question asked.

I suppose once we read the history of those pagan people, we could rightly wonder why the woman wasn't stoned on the spot and then see that there's another reason for God judging Israel (and how much they so desperately needed the anointed one).

 

[EarlyActs]

The Bible has a much broader definition of Canaanites than modern scholarship. For instance, in Genesis 10 the Hittites and Amorites are listed as Canaanites.

But is this true at the time of the conquest?

 

[EarlyActs]

Yep.

But for the purposes of this op's inquiry the effect is the same. The woman was not a Jew. She may have been a Hittite from the land of Canaan, or an Amorite from the land of Canaan, but the relevant history still applied and (speculatively) provides some answer to the question asked.

I suppose once we read the history of those pagan people, we could rightly wonder why the woman wasn't stoned on the spot and then see that there's another reason for God judging Israel (and how much they so desperately needed the anointed one).

Didn't the population shifting of the Romans including the census debacle make this a silly question? I'm sorry but I'm not aware of the old pre-existing nations being much of an issue about who is who in Judea in Christ's time, and I'm saying that with a master's in NT background and several decades reading since.

Considering that 4 empires have swept the area, since the Davidic reign and the Macs, I think the place is a jumble of foreigners.

 

[EarlyActs]

Josheb wrote:
why the willingness with the Centurion
Because the Christian mission wanted to mend bridges with Rome and make use of its reach.

 

[Josheb]

Didn't the population shifting of the Romans including the census debacle make this a silly question?

No

I'm sorry but I'm not aware of the old pre-existing nations being much of an issue about who is who in Judea in Christ's time...

If that were true, then every gospel mention of ethnicity loses much of its significance. The Good Samaritan loses. So too does the account of the woman at the well.

...and I'm saying that with a master's in NT background and several decades reading since.

I do not care.

That's a very foolish, self-aggrandizing, fallacious appeal to authority. There are a lot of very intelligent, very practiced, and very well-educated Christians in this forum, so let me encourage you to NEVER think the letters after a name have any worth here. Maybe someday in the future we'll assemble all the educated folks so we can all whip out our bona fides and see who can pee the furthest. We'll all bow down to that guy and consider every word he posts the measure of all we have to say . Until then, certainly, someone with a "Masters in NT background" knows the importance of...

Philippians 2:3-7
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Assume everyone is reading the posts with humility and Php. 2:3 in mind.

I'm not aware of the old pre-existing nations being much of an issue about who is who in Judea in Christ's time...

Why then does scripture mention any of it? Certainly, there were a variety of people from the northwest and southwest in Israel. Aside from the Roman Centurion, why is it only those ethnicities within Israel are mentioned in the gospels. No Greeks, Egyptians, Ethiopians, barbarian, Gauls, etc.

• Why was the Canaanite woman's ethnicity mentioned if it wasn't relevant?
• Why the Centurion's?
• Why did Jesus compare the Canaanite woman to a dog?
• Why mention her being a dog and not a member of the house of Israel?
• What is the relevance in mentioning the ethnicity of the woman at the well?
• Shall we look first to scripture for those answers, or extrabiblical sources?

The Old Testament informs the New Testament, and the best first tool for interpreting scripture is scripture itself. That's Hermeneutics 101!

Considering that 4 empires have swept the area, since the Davidic reign and the Macs, I think the place is a jumble of foreigners.

(josh shakes head)

So much for bloodline!

The Jews worked at ethnic purity and considered it with hubris ("we have Abraham as our father")? Hundreds of years in foreign lands and four empires sweeping the area didn't adulterate the Jewish bloodline. Neither was it the main cause of Jerusalem's diversity (and it was diverse). What made Jerusalem diverse was its position as a hub in the international trade routes. That position brought people from all over the (known) world to Israel and Jerusalem.

But that has nothing to do with the Canaanite woman to whom Jesus would say, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." If those words are true and that "only" is to be taken as a command from his Father, then Jesus disobeyed his Father and abdicated his ability to be the foreknown perfect sacrifice. Jesus compares her to a dog! If she wasn't a dog, then he just violated a host of Mosaic Laws and his own teachings and thereby again rendered himself unable to be the sinless sacrifice. Jerusalem was ethnically diverse..... but the house of Israel was homogenous.

I think the place is a jumble of foreigners.

"Foreigners" isn't the question. At Passover and Pentecost Jews from every nation assembled in Jerusalem. All of them from foreign lands, but all of them Jews. Not Canaanites. Canaan was in Israel! Jesus was in the region of Tyre and Sidon and the Canaanite woman was from that area. Jesus was the foreigner! The Canaanite wasn't a foreigner in the land, but she was not of the house of Israel. The Centurion was (in all likelihood) a foreigner in the land AND not of the house of Israel. The fact of the text is it makes note of her ethnicity, and it does so for a reason - even in a city that was a jumble of foreigners.


Or maybe God inspired the authors to put a few unnecessary and meaningless words in His gospels like, "Canaanite".

Considering that 4 empires have swept the area, since the Davidic reign and the Macs, I think the place is a jumble of foreigners.

So..... on one hand I am supposed to think there aren't any pagan or Gentile ethnicities in Israel because the Maccabeans purged the land BUT on another hand, I'm supposed to believe four empires (three of which swept through Israel before the Maccabean purge) jumbled what was purged? Which is it? Was it purged or jumbled?








That's a lot of mistakes in one post (one question and two sentences)! I'll do this: if you acknowledge in writing your errors thinking your Masters makes a difference and scripture mentioning Old Testament ethnicity didn't matter then I'll delete this entire post. No excuses, defenses, ifs, and, or buts. Brief and concise. Do that and I'll delete the entire post. I'll check back in the morning.

 

[Josheb]

Josheb wrote:
why the willingness with the Centurion
Because the Christian mission wanted to mend bridges with Rome and make use of its reach.

That's probably true to a small degree. If the tradition is true, then maybe the Centurion of Matthew 8 was the same guy to whom Paul was chained when he spoke the gospel in Caesar's court. However, given the fact Nero was covering Christians in pitch, lighting them afire while still alive and using them as streetlights, I'm not sure "mending bridges" is an accurate qualifier.

 

[EarlyActs]

That's probably true to a small degree. If the tradition is true, then maybe the Centurion of Matthew 8 was the same guy to whom Paul was chained when he spoke the gospel in Caesar's court. However, given the fact Nero was covering Christians in pitch, lighting them afire while still alive and using them as streetlights, I'm not sure "mending bridges" is an accurate qualifier.

I can't do more than one topic per post. When there are 15 it just gets lost.

 

[EarlyActs]

That's probably true to a small degree. If the tradition is true, then maybe the Centurion of Matthew 8 was the same guy to whom Paul was chained when he spoke the gospel in Caesar's court. However, given the fact Nero was covering Christians in pitch, lighting them afire while still alive and using them as streetlights, I'm not sure "mending bridges" is an accurate qualifier.

AT the end of the day, we still want to know why John the B did not seek hostility with Roman soldiers: because Christians are not Judaistic zealots.

 

[EarlyActs]

I can only do one topic per post, thanks.

You wrote:
If that were true, then every gospel mention of ethnicity loses much of its significance.

I see the very opposite. It makes fantastic because the same message was getting out regardless.

 

[EarlyActs]

I only do one topic per post, thanks.

You wrote:
That's a very foolish, self-aggrandizing, fallacious appeal to authority. There are a lot

I'll come help you burn all books then. It seems that after all that time, I would have heard your view. You don't sound secure about it, but maybe I missed something.

 

[EarlyActs]

I do one topic per post, things get lost.

You wrote:
Why then does scripture mention any of it? Certainly, there were a variety of people
I was referring to going back to just the removal of Nephilim and Canaanites nations. I'm not aware of people in the NT thinking: 'gosh, we've got to get that taken care of.' Plenty of ethnicities are mentioned, and yes Greeks are mentioned as coming to Him, not the reverse.

 

[EarlyActs]

I only do one topic per post, for better conversation.

You wrote:
the house of Israel was homogenous.

I don't think so. You mentioned the lack of bloodline. Exactly. Jesus told them it no longer mattered because it is the Israel that is by faith that matters, as was true the moment before Abraham 'believed God and was justified by faith.'

 

[fastfredy0]

In the book of Mathew 8: 5-13 Why did Jesus decide to help the Roman Centurion, but in Mathew !5: 23-25 he did not want to help the Canaanite Women set her daughter free any thoughts.

Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give God, Or what does He receive from your hand? 8 “Your wickedness affects only a man such as you, And your righteousness affects only a son of man [but it cannot affect God, who is sovereign]”

If you're looking for some aspect of a person that operates independently of God (deism) as the reason for an answer to your question your are looking in the wrong place. At most reasons like "the Roman Centurion treated the Israelite's well" is a secondary cause; God being the first cause. God does what He pleases for His pleasure and glory. God and His actions are not ever an EFFECT; His actions are always a First Cause. (See Law of Causality)