>But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel
if matthew was from the pauline branch of christianity, why would he say this?
The womans response seems to aknowledge that jesus did not come for her:
Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table
She is the one who says that crumbs are enough.
So why did matthew include this in his account?
It seems that at the time that happens in the narrative, Jesus hadn’t opened his ministry beyond the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
It would be interesting to note when did Stephen and the Hellenists were welcomed to hear the ministry of Jesus.
Then again, one would think that the Sermon on the Mount/Plain would not have excluded Gentiles.
What do you think?
Bart, someone wants to know
Regarding Matthew 15:25-27 where Jesus tells a woman it’s not right to take bread from children and give it to dogs and the woman replied, crumbs from the Master’s table ARE eaten by dogs.
I said:
It seems that at the time that happens in the narrative, Jesus hadn’t opened his ministry beyond the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
It would be interesting to note when were Stephen and the Hellenists were welcomed to hear the ministry of Jesus.
Then again, one would think that the Sermon on the Mount/Plain would not have excluded Gentiles. So, Jesus could have shared some of his teachings with her as other gentiles had heard his message.
What? Jesus hadn’t healed Gentiles yet in the story–the Roman soldier’s servant?
What do you think?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Why presume that Matthew represents the Pauline branch of Christianity?
Indeed. Matthew (or whoever) was firmly in the camp of those who Paul roundly condemns in his letters.
It’s likely the historical Jesus had no intention of conducting a gentile ministry.
See not only Matthew 15:24 but also Matthew 10:23. If the Parousia was going to occur that quickly there wouldn’t seem to have been time for it.
Because matthew is the oldest written account. Mark removed this bit.
Even if we grant Matthean priority as you wish brenmcg, you still haven’t dealt with the implications of all this. If the historical Jesus limited his ministry to Jews, and believed that the Kingdom would come before his own disciples made it through all the towns of Israel, then what becomes of the necessity of the crucifixion and the need for Paul’s ministry to the gentiles?
The point of the story of the canaanite woman is exploring the implication of the fact the Jesus was sent only to the Jews. Does this mean the canaanite woman does not get the bread of the children? The answer is no that’s not the implication. The canaanite woman also receives the bread meant for the children.
All the apostles have a ministry to the gentiles – not just Paul. But the ministry is first to the Jews. They are given the opportunity first but for the most part it is rejected and the apostles are handed over to governors and the gentiles. As per Matthew 22:8-9 “Then he said to his servants, The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.”
The disciples are to begin their ministry after the crucifixion but they will be persecuted and banished from Judea so they wont be able to complete all the cities of Israel until the son of man returns.
This is the earliest account of christianity but its absent from Luke and Mark, two later versions.
The Sermon on the Mount is Chapter 5.
The Roman Centurion’s servant is healed in Chapter 8.
Matthew 15 – No Samaritan, you’re not the children of my ministry, you’re like a dog in the kitchen
The Gospel of Matthew is not edited well.
Tell us Gentiles were not allowed at the Sermon on the Mount
if Jesus is going to be prejudice.
If you (Bart) are saying Jesus’ position on don’t give children’s food to dogs” means some Gentiles did not come to Jesus until after the resurrection is an erroneous attempt to try to answer the question by what’s in the gospels and Acts of the Apostles.
Even worse: Jesus breaks his prejudice for an officer of the Empire, but is prejudice towards a woman from Canaan (whatsoever you do to the least of my brother/sister).
Jackson thinks that in order to have membership in matthean community one has to become Jewish.
I have not read the book but I think this conclusion is almost certainly correct. It agrees with the sayings in Matt 5: 17-20.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
If you locked Paul and this author in a room they would scratch each other’s eyes out.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert