Did Jesus Teach Racism? [Matthew 15:23]
By Daniel Miessler on May 30th, 2007: Tagged as Atheism | Jesus | Judaism | Religion
We’re all familiar with the occasional maulings that take place during language translation, and most of them are harmless enough to be ignored. There’s one in the Bible, however, that is so massive that very few people know about it, and those that do rarely speak of it.
Love your neighbor as yourself. — Jesus 22:36-40As it turns out, this extremely famous quote is not at all what it seems. The word “neighbor” is an incorrect translation of the original word — reyacha. Rather than mean “a fellow human”, which is how most Christians are taught to accept the word “neighbor”, reyacha actually means “fellow Jew“.
Fellow Jew.
Jesus was in fact Jewish (contrary to popular belief) and he was telling his followers to be kind to fellow Jews. This teaching doesn’t say to go out and love those that weren’t like them. That’s a contrived, feel-good translation based on modern morality. It wasn’t about brotherly love and open acceptance. It was about not mistreating those within your own special group.
Interestingly enough, this is a tenet (unspoken or otherwise) of Jewish culture, and it has been for some time. In fact, Jews are often criticized precisely for this behavior. I’d argue that it’s not so much that they treat others poorly, but more so that they treat each other better.
And that’s the interesting part — Jesus was promoting the same negative behavior that we see within religion today — the idea of grouping together and only looking after your own.
Some may say that Jesus taught a more open kindness in the good Samaratin story, but it matters not if there are clear cases where he teaches the opposite. And that’s the point — people take what they want from the Bible; if it exemplifies poor moral character there will inevitably be those that emulate that behavior.Example: In Matthew 15:23 a Canaanite (non-Jewish) woman is trying to get help from him. He says, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” And when she pleads, “Lord help me!” Jesus says,
It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.So, the food was for the Jews, and a Canaanite was asking for it. That, to Jesus, is analogous to the family dog being fed food intended for human children. I think this meets even the highest standard for racism. To be fair, Jesus actually ends up healing her daughter after she says, “yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”, but I’d argue that this doesn’t help matters much.
To me, the following serves as a good summary of the encounter:
- Woman asks for help.
- Jesus says he only helps Jews.
- She begs him.
- He says it’s not right to give human food to dogs.
- She says, “Ok, I’m a dog, but dogs get scraps from their masters!”
- He acknowledges that her faith (and submission) is strong and heals her daughter.
Conclusion
So what does all this mean? What’s my purpose in pointing this out? Simple, really: I’m illustrating why we shouldn’t get our morality from the Bible. Here we have Jesus being racist against non-Jews, other places he’s being rude to his mother, and in another random case he kills a fig tree for no reason. But then he’s also espoused some of the most beautiful language ever written.The only path for a modern, moral person is to pick and choose from the Bible — embracing the good within it and pretending the horrible parts don’t exist. And that’s the point: decent Christians already have an innate moral compass that guides them through these decisions. My hope is that we as humans will one day start listening to it instead of ancient and dogmatic texts that do far more harm than good.:
--
Wow, you have just destroyed the faith of hundreds of millions Christians and brought down the entire religion with your wisdom and insight.
Comment by Joshua — 5/30/2007 @ 1:10 pm
IF this is an accurate translation and interpretation (which it may or may not be - meaning is not distinct from context), it is certainly not the only place in the Bible that Jesus is shown as extending kindness (or encouraging the extending of kindness). Your conclusion “Jesus didn’t say anything …” does not follow from your interpretation of this particular phrase.
(Think of me as a guardian of logic.)
Comment by Carl M — 5/30/2007 @ 1:34 pm
From the commentary of the passage you linked to:
Likewise, the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Lev 19:18; compare Lev 19:34; Mt 5:43; Rom 13:9) expresses a general principle, though its original context applied it to a more specific situation.
It appears that you are not claiming anything that isn’t already known.
— I will resist the urge to point out that we have a president who seems not to understand that “human rights” apply to all humans. (somehow the passage you quoted — and your interpretation of it — made me think of this)
Comment by Carl M — 5/30/2007 @ 1:43 pm
Setting this verse aside…Jesus’ behavior contradicts what you are saying. Everything he did promoted love towards people of all backgrounds. Read the parable of the Good Samaritan. Read the story of the woman at the well. He encourages the apostles to preach the gospel to “all the world and every living creature”…. Perhaps it would be best just to go through and read all four gospels again and see if you’re theory holds up with his ministry.
He hardly sounds like promoting kindness only within one circle of race.
Comment by Jamie Barnes — 5/30/2007 @ 1:45 pm
True, Carl. I fixed it.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 5/30/2007 @ 1:58 pm
This post is a travesty of the teachings you attempt to pervert.
Even if what you say is true, even if, you completely forget the story of the good Samaritan. Off the top of my head, a lawyer of the Torah asked Jesus to define what he meant by neighbor.
Jesus response was: “A certain man fell to thieves while making a journey to Jericho. They stole his clothes, hurt him bad, and ran off. By chance, a priest passed him on the road, seeing the traveler hurt, and went on his way. A Levite passed him in the same way. But a Samaritan passed and saw this man. He wrapped his wounds, took him to an inn and payed the innkeeper to take care of him. Which of these three do you think was the traveler’s neighbor?”
The lawyer replied, “The Samaritan that showed mercy, of course.”
Jesus responded, “Go, and do likewise.”
Whether or not the quote is a “mistranslation,” as you put, matters not. Jesus taught us to love everyone as our neighbor.
Comment by Matt — 5/30/2007 @ 2:05 pm
Comment by Sid — 5/30/2007 @ 2:14 pm
Mat 24;:14, Mat 25:32, Mat 28:19, Mar 11:17, Mar 13:10, Luk 24:47, Acts 17:26 Rom 1:5, Rom 16:26 Gal 3:8 Rev 7:9 Rev 15:4. I understand how you got confussed about the verse, but the bible clearly teaches the opposit, Jesus himself showed compassion towards everyone. The bible needs to be read, you can’t just take one verse twist a little and say that is what the entire bible teaches. But you probably only did it to be funny or something. I laughed!
Comment by flood — 5/30/2007 @ 2:32 pm
Example: In Matthew 15:23 a Canaanite (non-Jewish) woman is trying to get help from him. He says, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” And when she pleads, “Lord help me!” Jesus says,
So, the food was for the Jews, and a Canaanite was asking for it. That, to Jesus, is analogous to a dog being fed food intended for humans. I use the label “racist” very sparingly, and that my friends is racist.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 5/30/2007 @ 2:38 pm
Try from Matthew 15:23 and put it all in context.
But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
I would never think I would say this, but you have let your personal views get in the way of your quest for knowledge and understanding. If you are going to take something you have to put it in context and not just the piece that you want.
Comment by Ken — 5/30/2007 @ 2:55 pm
Okay the Cannaanitish woman was non-jewish, you are correct… but so was a Samaritan. And thus the teaching from the very verse you used about the mis translation (which was not) was that after Jesus said it, a lawyer then asked ‘who is my neighbor’ and he went on to teach the parable of the good Samaritan. So, the verse you pulled, if completely read in context, is the proof text you are wrong in your statement. As for your ‘racist’ example… Did he heal the woman’s daughter? Yes! Now, you have to take things in the Bible as they are… a jewish Messiah sent to a Jewish people. But he healed/served non-Jewish people on a regular basis. He was making a point. The religion and nation are inter-twined and cannot be separated. There is a certain truth. God dealt with the Jew’s in the old testament and in the start of the New Testament. And then when the Jews rejected their Messiah the door was opened to the Gentiles. So, it was the fulfillment of exactly that. But it was stated to make the point. But, note, He did heal the girl.
BTW - Christ was not crucified for breaking the law… He was setup… that is why they had false accusers. He did break the Pharisee’s policies but never broke Jewish law.
Comment by Rick — 5/30/2007 @ 2:58 pm
Take a closer look at Matthew 15:23. Leaving out the end of this story is to ignore what Jesus came to do.
“”It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly” (Matthew 15:26-28).
Keep in mind that Jesus is the image of the invisible God and is right to do what He did. She didn’t deserve to have her daughter healed, but through Christ she had great faith and so it was done as she desired.
Comment by Darren Jennings — 5/30/2007 @ 3:03 pm
If Jesus was racist…why then would he encourage his disciples to take the good news to the Gentiles as well? Jesus and his apostles were clear on salvation people available to all people. That is one of the basic principles of the new testament…that God has opened his Kingdom up to both Jew and Greek ( or any other person who would call upon his name ) Jesus harshest words were directed at the Jewish priests and Pharisees.
Comment by Jamie Barnes — 5/30/2007 @ 3:27 pm
Thank you to all the commenters above this point. You’ve exposed my sloppiness and I have since corrected it. I totally agree that taking things out of context is utterly shameful; my only consolation is that I did so truly on accident rather than as an attempt to deceive.
In fact, the later part that I’ve now included further supports my point.
At any rate, I appreciate the input and I have modified the text substantially based on your feedback. Here’s a short summary:
- Full context of the encounter with the woman
- Adjusting the text about Jewish culture
- Removed the claim that Jesus never addressed helping those outside the group
…additional input is welcomed. I have no interest whatsoever in advancing a point based on shoddy or incorrect evidence, and I appreciate all attempts to point out any issues regarding sloppiness in this regard.
Thanks much,
-Daniel
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 5/30/2007 @ 4:20 pm
> If Jesus was racist…why then would he encourage his disciples to take the good news to the Gentiles as well? Jesus and his apostles were clear on salvation people available to all people. That is one of the basic principles of the new testament…that God has opened his Kingdom up to both Jew and Greek ( or any other person who would call upon his name )
That’s my point; it’s inconsistent. There he’s being inclusive, and in the story above he’s clearly not.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 5/30/2007 @ 4:43 pm
To truly understand you would have to have a grasp far greater than anyone can type on this blog. You would have to have a knowledge of the entire bible as a whole and the relationship between God and the Jews. Is a man bigoted for loving his children more than the neighbors kids? That is the best short example. God’s people were the Jews. And he loved them. Not to the exclusion of the ‘Greeks’ but clearly ‘more’. But it is not what you originally implied. And kudos for owning up to it.
He was not being racist. He was making a point, and drawing out a lesson for us to learn from.. it is faith and not works alone that please God. Such as the pharisees taught in that day.
More later perhaps… gotta run, sorry if the thoughts are not well elaborated.
Comment by Rick — 5/30/2007 @ 4:51 pm
Jesus showed compassion towards everyone?
How does this follow with Matthew 18:6? There is no compassion there. In fact, I would say that his teaching there applies to me. I find his suggestion disgusting!
How does this follow with his treatment of the money changers in the temple? Is the whip/scourge he made with his own hands a special “scourge of compassion”? Give us a break please.
How does this follow with his lack of criticism of slave masters whom beat their slaves? Ignore the beating aspect for now. Jesus is hailed as a man who possessed and taught a great morality. Yet, he failed utterly to criticize owning another human.
He failed utterly to criticize the notion of punishing someone eternally for a finite transgression.
The list does entail far more than these examples. The point being, that there is certainly room for criticism of the teachings of Jesus as reported in the Bible. All too often with this subject, we cherry pick. I see it all the time.
Jesus said some nice things, and some not so nice things. But, so did/do a lot of people. Jesus certainly is not the omni-benevolent wonder-man that so many people seem to try and con others into believing.
Comment by WonTon — 5/30/2007 @ 5:15 pm
You are right, Jesus was not compasionite on all people. But the determining factor was heart and not race.
As for the ‘lack’ of morality due to the lack of condemning… if the teaching of eternal punishment and the exceptence of slavery (which by the Jewish law had regulations on treatment) were acceptable by God (according to Jewish law) then why WOULD Jesus condemn the actions in His teaching that He allowed in His law? I do fully believe that Christ was God in flesh (John 1:1, 1 Tim 3:16, 1 John 1:1: read them in context, I am not twisting it) so… it would have been inconsistant. And the slavery of the Jews over others was more of an indentured servant by the way we use the words today due to our slavery methods.
Comment by Rick — 5/30/2007 @ 6:11 pm
Rick:
If I question the teachings of Jesus, causing a child to have doubts(one common interpretation of Matthew 18:6), I fully disagree that it would be better for me to be killed. I find that teaching of Jesus to be disgusting. It is also anti-intellectual. In my heart is not anything malevolent when I question authority, in this case the authority of Jesus. Yet, he would still assert that I would be better off killed. Sorry Jesus, you take yourself far too seriously. Let’s not forget that he is only one of a horde of people that claim, or about whom is claimed, a similar status as his. How many son’s of Gods have there been? How many “True” prophets have there been?
Regarding slavery in the Bible, nonsense! There were absolutely slaves in the sense that we understand the word today. Some slaves were owned as a possession, whom could be inherited just like other possessions “you can use them as permanent slaves”(http://bible.cc/leviticus/25-46.htm).
I, and billions of other people on the planet, criticize slavery as an aberration of humanity. Thus the morality of the Jesus and Bible deserves criticism. His teachings are as open to criticism as any other “son of God/true prophet”. There’s a difference though. I’m not claiming that one who would cause a child who believes in critical thought to stumble, would be better off being tied to a post and shot.
I reiterate, this is only the tip of the iceberg concerning the criticism of Jesus and his morality.
Comment by WonTon — 5/30/2007 @ 6:48 pm
yes it was slavery, but the fashion in which they were treated was my point. That if the Jew who owned the slave did in fact follow the law his treatment was more to the standard that I think most would picture an indentured servant… not a ’starving, beaten half dead’ slave.
As for the teaching of Matt 18:6, it does not say doubt but rather if you offend one that believes. The offense is not defined by causing to doubt. And it was not shot… it was drown.
You have the freedom and right to question. You have the freedom and right to do a lot of things I would advise you not do. But that is your right. And I respect them. And it does not bother me that you do not like the personage of Jesus. But I do find it interesting that you attack him morals. But hey, it is just your thoughts on morals, which is of coarse in no shape definitive so… it is your interpretation of right and wrong. Someone elses could be that it is not immoral to kill and steal. But hey that is his belief. But I, as a Christian, do believe in absolutes in morals and truth. So, we disagree and happily do so.
Night.
Comment by Rick — 5/31/2007 @ 12:46 am
I have read much of the Bible and I admire and respect the teachings of Jesus. However, I never liked the fact that Jesus used a dog as an analogy for a gentile. He could have just as easily said:
It is wrong to feed your children’s friend when your children are hungry, or something to that extent.
I don’t think it so ok to refer to someone of another race as a “dog”, because it implies that they are less human. It does get the point across, and the point of the story is NOT that gentiles are loved by God less than jews, that is the point of the Old Testament. The point is that Jesus saw the faith of the gentile and forgave her sins and saved her daughter.
Why Jesus and God consider one race god’s children and another basically animals is very hard for me to answer. After all, aren’t we all animals? What do jews posses that gentiles do not? Are they really children of god and we are nothing more than animals?
Comment by Tim — 7/27/2007 @ 1:50 pm
I believe I can help, Tim. The answer is that man wrote that racism into the Bible — not any omnipotent being. The reason God seems so mean and hateful is because we made him in our image, not the other way around.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 7/27/2007 @ 8:55 pm
Daniel,
You are so wrong, where do you get ideas like this? I guess there have been confused, ignorant people like yourself around for centuries. Whether you are a believer or not your interprepation is foolish. Realize the history of the time period. The Cannanites were brutal enemies of the Jews, the reference would have raised eyebrows to the Jewish reader in the first century. Realize Matthew was intended for a Jewish audience. The Gospel writers were not writing a biography, they were trying make the spread the story of Jesus and convince their readers. Jesus was a Jew and preached to Jews. The children are a reference to Israel and the dogs are Gentiles. The words are metaphors! The woman realizes Jesus is the Christ and knows his message is for everyone. Even the enemies are entitled to the grace of God if they recognize him! Clearly you do not see God and see Racism, hate and other crazy ideas. And by the way, the whole love your neighbor interprepation you talk about is also crap. Love your neighbor was a common Jewish precept taught in the Temple it was nothing new for a Jew to speak it. The revolutionary idea Jesus espouses was to love your enemy! That was the controversial message, the Pharisees did not agree. I have some suggestions for you– read from both sides, it will give you more insight.
Comment by John — 8/18/2008 @ 4:34 am
Did Jesus teach racism? That was your question. Answer - no. Jesus came first for Israel, yes. In saying that He only came for the people of Israel, Jesus was saying that the rest of the World would get to hear the Gospel of Christ, His mission was to the people of Israel first. When Jesus responded with Matthew 15:26 with the statement that it isn’t good for people to feed animals instead of there own children. The term dog that was used in this verse meant “a little dog, a puppy,” —Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. However, if you want to think that Jesus was calling this non-Jew a dog, then you have missed the very lesson Jesus was trying to teach.
This woman however, did not miss the point … in fact she used what Jesus said to show her true heart. “A proud, unhumbled heart would not have borne this; but she turned it into an argument to support her request. The state of this woman is an emblem of the state of a sinner, deeply conscious of the misery of his soul. The least of Christ is precious to a believer, even the very crumbs of the Bread of life.”—Matthew Henry Concise
When on your search for knowledge, pray that God will show you the spiritual meaning of the Bible; if you are not saved, then that should be your first step on the road to wisdom.
Comment by Jamey — 8/19/2008 @ 12:40 am