d-ray

I don't know about the rest of you, but I had a very strict religious upbringing, and one of the things I learned was that Jesus was able to save us from our sins because he never committed any himself. Yet when I read Matthew 15:21-28 and its parallel passage in Mark 7:24-30, I have to wonder.
This is the story about the woman who came to Jesus because her daughter was tormented by a devil. Jesus and the disciples didn't want to have anything to do with her because she wasn't a Jew. (In Matthew Jesus tells her, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." --which raises some questions about who's to be saved and who isn't. But Mark doesn't have him saying that, so maybe he didn't: we can let Matthew and Mark argue about that, since it's a side issue for now.)
But Jesus does tell her, "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to little dogs." This strikes me as a bit unkind: we're talking about a woman who's concerned about her daughter who is ill, and Jesus insults her because she's not a Jew. Is it a sin to call someone a bad name because they're of another race?
According to the editors of the Jerusalem Bible, who are very conservative Christians, in the eyes of the Jews, all other people were dogs. So they say, "The conventional nature of this expression and the diminutive form used [that is, he called her a "little dog" as opposed to an ordinary dog] lessen the insult of it in Jesus' mouth."
That may be, but an insult is still an insult. And is it lessened simply because people say it all the time, rather than just on the odd occasion? And as far I'm concerned, as far as insults go, a racial taunt, however much it might be lessened, is a serious one.
It's true that in the end Jesus did grant her wish when she said, "Even little dogs eat the scraps that fall from the master's table"--that is, when she accepted her inferior status and when she came up with a line that he couldn't answer. It still seems to me the insult was uncalled for in the beginning. So did Jesus sin?
Do I hear someone ask, "What exactly do you mean by sin?" The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as "(a) the breaking of divine or moral law, esp. by a conscious act; (b) such an act; (c) an offence against good taste or propriety." Now I would accept that definition, but I'm not sure it gets us anywhere. Even if we agree that sin is breaking divine or moral law, we can disagree about what acts specifically constitute a breaking of divine or moral law. E.g. some people are very much anti-drink and some are not. My own church was, which raises a bit of a problem about Jesus' own consumption of wine. And if we can argue about what is against divine or moral law, we can certainly argue about what constitutes an offence against good taste or propriety.
No, I think it better to take Christianity on its own terms. Would Christians in general consider it a sin to insult someone because of their race? I certainly think my good old church of days gone by would have. After all, whatever about divine or moral law, good taste or propriety, a racial taunt does seem to offend against such principles as "Love your neighbor as yourself," and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So, did Jesus sin, or am I just nitpicking?:huh:

No Robots

We see here Christ's distinction between the spirit and the body, between the spiritual Israel and its physical analog. He knows that the spiritual commitment he demands of all is only accessible to the few. He identifies this few as the true Israel, the spiritual Israel, of which the actual physical nation of Israel is a reified imitation. When presented with evidence of spiritual commitment in someone from outside the physical Israel, he pointedly includes her in the spiritual Israel, using the opportunity to condemn the physical Israel for its lack of spiritual commitment. The main point is that spiritual commitment is demanded of all, but few are capable of it. This few is the true Israel, the spiritual Israel. So, there is no sin here, but there is a kind of creative destruction, a shattering of boundaries in order to facilitate the free reign of the human spirit.

neilgodfrey

Nit pickiness belongs to those who take the concept of "sin" seriously. It's a religious term, meant for those with a religiously based morality.

Humans are social animals like many other animals, and all social animals have rules for cooperation and structures to enforce those rules. Ours are obviously more complex than most, but no different in essence. And all social animals are also by and large equipped with varying degrees of natural care for one another, especially their close kin, and the larger group. Our intelligence and greater social nature enable us to reflect and refine our natural ethics -- we don't need religion to do it.

But to keep this relevant for a Biblical Criticism forum, yes, Jesus did sin.

Leviticus 19 somewhere instructs one to rebuke anyone who can be seen heading for sin. Jesus failed to do this when he knew Judas was about to betray him.

One of the Ten Commandments forbids the bearing of false witness, and Jesus was guilty of bearing false witness by allowing misunderstandings about him and his sayings to go unchecked.

And another one of those laws does command one to return a wandering animal back to its owner. Yet Jesus stood by without using any of his superpowers to stop the pigs from running into the sea.

Another command forbids putting a stumbling block in front of the blind, yet Jesus knowingly misled those he called the spiritually blind.

And yes, he did speak offensively to the Syro-Phoenician woman. At least he did not stop to explain to her that everything he was saying was really metaphorical and intended for the spiritual benefit of those who would read about their encounter some years after he left her house.

And he was disrespectful to his mother on a number of occasions. Again, I find it hard to imagine his mother being delighted with his disowning her, or thinking, "Maybe one day another generation will read a spiritual metaphor into this offensive son of mine!" Would courts excuse offensive language or vilification on the grounds that one was really meaning it, not personally, but as an address to onlookers for them to interpret spiritually?

But then again, if Jesus was as some say the God of the Old Testament, then we must understand he had a track record even before becoming human. Remember him telling Moses to lie to Pharaoh and say that he only wanted to take the Israelites out of Egypt for a 3 days (only) picnic?

But I will give Jesus an out. If everything he did was a parable, a story told, and none of it was real in real life, then we can see it all as a game or play. No offences, no lies, no criminal negligence, -- just all spiritual edification for those who have the wit to interpret metaphor.

Splarnst

Didn't he call the Pharisees fools and also condemn calling people fools?

d-ray

If I understand this, we're no longer talking about Jews and everybody else, we're talking about the "true Israel", the "spiritual Israel", and everybody else. So it's no longer non-Jews who are dogs; it's non-members of the spiritual Israel who are dogs. And this isn't a sin. It's a "kind of creative destruction". Yet he still called her a "little dog." Slice the cake any way you like, he still called her a "little dog." Is this a proper way for Christians, not to mention the Son of God, to address other people?

Half-Life

Shhhh, don't bring logic into this discussion.

Joan of Bark

Luke 18:19 (NIV)

Can Jesus be without sin and yet not be good?

Half-Life

That line is also in direct contradiction to the verses where he claims he's One with the father.

How can he be the exact same as God, yet not as good as God, which is Himself.

thentian

I must have been quarreling too much with dr lazer blast lately, because this one is dead easy!

"Jesus isn't denying his godhood anywhere in this passage. He is simply asking why they are calling him good when it is well known that only God is good. In other words: "Have you guys figured out that I am God?" See how easy it is? You atheist don't bla bla bla etc etc"

Cheers!

CuriousToo

The young ruler who asked a question, referred to Jesus as "good teacher". Jesus said " why do you call me good, only God is good. He saw Christ as a "good teacher" that would tell him how to inherit eternal life. The ruler must have trusted Jesus or why would he ask the question. Jesus referred him back to the ten commandments. When the young ruler said that he had observed the commandments all his life, Jesus said you lack one, sell all you have, give it to the poor and follow me. It made the ruler sad because he had to choose God at the cost of his riches. For whatever reason, the young ruler chose his sadness and riches. So my questions are :Was there a commandment which the young ruler didn't keep? Was Jesus merely a teacher?