Jesus and Gentiles: a Fresh Reading for Today’s Plural World

You are here: Home

Resources

Essays

Upcoming Events

Sep

2011

Jesus and Gentiles: a Fresh Reading for Today’s Plural World

Attachments:
Jesus and Gentiles: A Fresh Reading	[ ]	374 Kb	241 Downloads

Jesus washing feet During a recent, widely broadcast memorial in Christchurch representatives from a wide range of religions—Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and more—were invited to pray. It was like being presented with a smorgasbord of equally valid faiths, no one religion being shown as being superior.

This event reflects the state of today’s world: adherents of various religions now coexist in our global village, religious and cultural homogeneity being a rarity; we live in a religiously plural world.[1] From this context readers can approach Scripture with fresh eyes. Importantly, Gospel accounts of Jesus’ encounters with Gentiles take on fresh meaning. These passages present us with an exemplary Christology, a model for believers by which we can learn to “walk as Jesus did” (1 Jn. 2:6) in our context. This essay will first, note Matthew’s perspective of Gentiles, second, examine two Matthean encounters, attempting to balance a standard exegetical approach (including limited discussion of background issues[2]) with Theological Interpretation of Scripture and Reader Response Hermeneutic approaches, and third, offer some synthetic conclusions.

There are debates over Matthew’s perspective of the Gentile mission.[3] Sim argues Matthew was essentially “anti-Gentile”[4] yet his case is “ultimately not persuasive.”[5] Rather, the cumulative impact of positive Gentile-texts “alert the reader to the involvement of Gentiles with Jesus’ mission” despite Matthew’s “overall portrayal of Jesus’ mission as … confined to Israel.”[6] Smille offers a compelling perspective noting Matthew’s rhetorical strategy of juxtaposing demanding requirements alongside the “compassionate praxis of Jesus.”[7] Though some didactic passages suggest stereotypical Jewish attitudes, Matthew counteracts this “by narrating numerous stories of Gentiles who … serve as examples of … exemplify faith in Jesus’ merciful character.”[8] Moreover, given his use of hyperbole, Matthew’s “references to Gentiles as outside the purview of Jesus’ mission, or as paradigms of unrighteousness, may also be rhetorical devices.”[9] Perhaps Matthew’s statements which limit Jesus’ mission to Israel during his lifetime, and certainly his negative comments about Gentiles, should be taken with a grain of salt. Matthew did portray Jesus’ Gentile encounters as foreshadowing the inclusion of Gentiles thus validating reading our passages below as models to be emulated.

Matthew 8:5-13

This passage falls in a section in which “nearly a dozen characters who normally would be considered outside the realm of kingdom/covenant benefits approach Jesus in faith”[10] accentuating the centurion’s status as an ‘outsider’ and Jesus’ willingness to fulfill his request. In fact, “this outlander represents the far end of the spectrum of those to whom the Jewish Messiah ministers.”[11] The centurion’s ethnicity and role in society are unclear.[12] Almost certainly this man is a Gentile, and though possibly a Roman officer, it is likely he was “in Antipas’ governmental apparatus … and, therefore, probably Syrian.”[13] As such, his religious background eludes us.

The centurion approaches Jesus, implicitly requesting healing for his ‘servant.’ It is not important whether pais should be taken as ‘servant’ or ‘boy/son’; regardless, this would be a member of the centurion’s household.[14] More significant is that the centurion is petitioning Jesus’ to help another and he humbles himself due to the personal significance of the child. The term kurie by which Jesus is addressed has a wide semantic range. Though perhaps used here merely as a sign of respect, it was a theologically significant term, attributing to Christ divine dignity and authority. Kingsbury suggests Matthew uses it in relation to individuals who approach Jesus in faith; this title is utilized “in those cases where Jesus gives sight to the blind, persons who are “no-accounts” in Israel but who “see” and “confess” what Israel does not, viz., that Jesus is its Messiah.”[15] Additionally, a possible allusion to Psalm 107:20 in v8 may confirm that there was a measure of informed content to the centurion’s ‘faith.’[16] This raises the question of what sort of faith this passage would have us affirm in others today. Is it merely Smith’s vague, transcendental, existential element of ‘religion’?[17] Jesus does appear to affirm heartfelt, sincere belief, yet it is apparently not devoid of content; it is faith in Jesus, in what Jesus can do, and perhaps even a recognition (even if somewhat vague) of his Messianic identity.[18] Thus, though affirming outsiders’ religious sincerity is valid, this passage warrants affirming practitioners of other religions as they attempt to reach out towards Jesus in particular.

It is unclear if verse 7 is a statement or a question. If the latter, Jesus’ initial response is hesitancy, paralleling Mt. 15:21-28.[19] However, the immediate context favors the former: it is situated among examples of unconditional grace where Jesus extends himself to the marginalized.[20] Thus, without any rational to deem him worthy (cf. Lk. 7:1-10), we find “Jesus’ affirmation of the centurion here and his eagerness to help.”[21] In a world where ethnocentrism often dominates interactions with outsiders, this challenges us to set aside prejudices and extend ourselves to others.

The centurion responds by humbly confessing he is “not worthy” for Jesus to enter his home. This may relate to typical Jewish scruples about entering Gentile’s homes,[22] though a christologically motivated reverence is also detectable.[23] His faith is shown not only through his confession, but also “by recognizing that Jesus’ power is so great that this request is nevertheless small to him.”[24] He “perceives the authority of Jesus as the capacity to dictate what is to happen,”[25] aware that Jesus is both under authority and that he can have actions performed by merely a command.

Matthew rarely attributes emotion to Jesus. Yet, this Gentile’s faith made such an impression that he proclaims how he has not encountered such faith in Israel even though “it is among God’s historical people that faith should most naturally be found.”[26] Ironically, “it seems that an outsider is better able to recognize Jesus than those who think they know what the Lord of Israel should look like and how he should act.”[27] Without raising soteriological questions (“How much ‘faith’ is necessary for salvation? What is the content of that ‘faith’?”), a challenge to contemporary disciples is to consider whether we demonstrate depths of faith, or whether the ‘faith’ of others puts us to shame. Put differently, are there many of us who live as “functional atheists” while outsiders display a (misguided) sincerity?[28]

Jesus then points forward to the eschaton, striking a chord of reversal: many understood as outside the boundaries of God’s people will feast with the patriarchs, while some whom presumed privilege will be thrown out.[29] Though possibly speaking of the ingathering of diaspora or ‘unprivileged’ Jews, “the context of the saying … takes on a new nuance. Those from “east and west” will include Gentiles, Gentiles like the centurion, who have faith greater even than the faith of God’s privileged, covenant people.”[30] Moreover, clearly implied by the context is that this centurion has gained entrance into God’s kingdom. Likewise, as they were not merely ends in themselves, “miracles performed for Gentiles … bear witness to the inclusion within the people of YHWH of those who had formerly been outside.”[31] Thus, “this Gentile functions as a foretaste of the fruits of the Gentile mission yet to come.”[32]

In contrast, some of the “expected heirs of God’s eschatological blessings” will be excluded.[33] The apocalyptic language of ‘darkness’ suggests that “much is at stake in how we … respond to Jesus.”[34] Believers today should hear Jesus’ warning; “Jesus is attacking … possessiveness, that sense of exclusiveness which disfigures every religious community too sure of itself.”[35] We must consider whether we have become those who exclude others from embracing God’s reign—whether through legalism, failing to extend ourselves to others, or by so confusing our cultures with the Gospel that we expect others to become culturally like us to be included. Additionally, it is significant that “Jesus’ warnings about hell occur in messages to people who believed themselves heirs of the kingdom. Jesus did not preach hell to pagans … Hell is not so much a doctrine to frighten unbelievers as it is a doctrine to warn those who think themselves believers.”[36] Following Jesus’ example, evangelicals ought place more emphasis on the gracious, unconditional acceptance of God when dialoging with outsiders rather than making guilt and fear our evangelistic strategy.

The episode concludes with Jesus fulfilling the centurion’s request, Jesus’ supernatural authority underlined by the timing and distance of the miracle. The statement, “as you have believed” emphasizes the role of the centurion’s faith.[37] When read from our plural context, the centurion’s dismissal (“Go”) perhaps implies more than originally intended. Jesus tells him to return to his context despite his demonstration of faith. When outsiders demonstrate (even limited) faith in Jesus, we should not seek to have them abandon their culture and family; they should be encouraged to “Go” back to their world as people transformed by the encounter.

Matthew 15:21-28

This event is recorded “in the wake of the dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees, and teachers of the law regarding clean and unclean food. … Jesus declares that the distinction between clean and unclean” which was fundamentally symbolic of the distinction between Israel and the nations “must be understood now in moral terms, not in terms of food.”[38] By abolishing the distinctions related to food, he simultaneously abolished distinctions related to Jew and Gentile. In encountering an ‘unclean’ Gentile, this is put into practice.[39]

Though not clear why Jesus withdrew from Galilee, likely he was seeking refuge from potential danger; Matthew makes no suggestion this journey was missional. Matthew’s geographic references have theological significance: “Tyre and Sidon are outside the symbolic boundaries of Israel.”[40] This is accentuated by the woman’s identification as “a descendant of the ancient Canaanites” (cf. Mark 7:24-30) “the bitter biblical enemies of Israel whose paganism had often led Israel into idolatry.”[41] By making her an exemplar, Matthew suggests God’s compassion extends to all Gentiles. Furthermore, Jesus overcame Jewish revulsion and fear towards the most despised of Gentiles. Jesus’ example invalidates our fears of embracing outsiders from any religious background. It is hard to image Jesus rejecting even a member of al-Qaeda who demonstrated faith, so neither should we.[42]

The woman comes to Jesus and requests his aid; “crying out” (an imperfect tense verb) suggests a repetitious laboring to get Jesus’ attention. Paralleling Mt. 9:27-31, “the woman’s call for mercy echoes the language of the Psalms, and her confession of faith is a recognition of the saving intervention of the God of Israel through his messiah.”[43] This, combined with her addressing of Jesus as kurie, again suggests a significant measure of content to her ‘faith.’[44] Yet, quite out of character, Jesus remains silent, seemingly rejecting the woman’s request almost certainly because of her ethnicity.[45] Up to now Jesus has not refused anyone his help; a narrative pattern has been broken alerting us that something more is going on than what one might initially suppose. Moreover, Matthew has presented Jesus as messiah, as the character who “always thinks and does the things of God. Jesus is never in need of correction; thus, interpreting his initial response as a refusal to heal cuts against the grain of the narrative’s rhetoric and the implied reader’s expectations.”[46]

Jesus’ disciples also draw attention to the woman, desiring that Jesus dismiss her.[47] Regardless of how Jesus’ hesitancy is understood, the disciples contradicted his ultimate response. Today we must remember the inclusive nature of our Great Commission; the Gospel and its benefits are for all nations. We must ensure our wills align with that of our Master so that we pray and act in hopes that all will be saved (1 Ti. 2:4); our prejudices and ethnocentrism must be set aside lest we become those who seek to convince God to dismiss those he desires to include.

Jesus’ eventual response, that his ministry is exclusively for Israel, appears to indicate a strong rejection of the woman’s request. Yet she persists, reverently throwing herself at his feet and begging with great pathos for assistance. Again, Jesus rebuffs her “in an even more derisive fashion, using the Israelite derogatory name for Gentiles, to tell her that food intended for children should not be given to dogs.”[48] Surprisingly, the woman is not deterred by Jesus’ statement; she accepts the priority of Israel, yet extends Jesus’ metaphor “requesting Jesus’ mercy as a dog might beg for table scraps.”[49] If Gentiles are “dogs,” they nevertheless “do have a right to be fed, even if all they get is the leftovers.” In fact, whether aware of it or not, her reply “encapsulates the important biblical theology of the election of Israel not for their own benefit alone but to be a means of blessing to all nations.”[50] Even many Christians have misconstrued our election as God’s people, seeing it in terms of our privileged position. Christians are wrong to suppose we “have a claim on God’s love which others do not have.”[51] Rather, “[i]t is the universality of God’s saving love which is the ground of his choosing and calling a community to be the messengers of his truth and bearers of his love for all peoples.”[52] Our election as God’s people is not to smugly scorn others, but to extend ourselves in any way we can in order to be God’s vehicles of blessing in the world. In fact, the Great Commission (Mt 28:18f) is the “means by which the original Abrahamic commission can be fulfilled.”[53]

One reason for Matthew’s framing of this account may be an ingenious pastoral strategy. Some of his Jewish readers may still have doubts about the validity of a Gentile mission. Matthew has Jesus voice their concerns, yet reveals that Jesus’ hesitancy is overcome, that he “does accede to the Gentile woman’s request.”[54] Yet, something more appears to be happening. Though centuries of interpreters have been confounded by Jesus’ words, the woman apparently was not. “She, with more perspicacity than many readers … , has seen through the mask of Jewish exclusivism … and knows what he can—and, she correctly believes, will—do for her.”[55] Despite being confronted with the redemptive-historical priority of Israel, she recognizes that “mercy and help are to be hoped for from this Master, not on the basis of her status, but of his.”[56] The apparent absoluteness of Jesus’ statement (24) is conditioned in the immediate pericope. Smille is again probably correct to read v24 as hyperbolic: though prioritizing Israel, there is nonetheless room for Gentiles to be recipients of Jesus’ kingdom blessings. And again, Jesus’ hard teaching appears to be trumped by his compassionate praxis. It is therefore reasonable to speculate that Jesus’ intention, from the start of this encounter, was to elicit a response from the woman.[57]

A variety of factors reveal Jesus is moved. This is the first time since the opening verse that Jesus is named. “It is as though Jesus himself finally speaks,”[58] that his true heart is expressed. He commends her “great faith” and heeds her request. Though perhaps not as dominant as in the Markan account, a note of irony is detectable here. This despicable, extreme-archetypal outsider demonstrates great faith, while again, those who should demonstrate it have been shown to possess little.[59]

Following this episode Jesus will literally share Israel’s ‘bread’ with the ‘dogs.’ “Jesus has enough bread for Israel, but the following narrative reinforces that plenty of scraps remain over for others (15:37).”[60] Perhaps the best explanation for how Jesus’ exclusive mission to Israel could nonetheless occasionally included Gentiles is a restoration theology: Israel was being reconstituted around her Messiah which would result in Gentiles participating in Israel’s blessings.[61] In Jesus’ inaugurated eschatology the future extension of the Kingdom to embrace Gentiles was already being experienced; already Gentiles were receiving entrées for the eschatological banquet.

Conclusions

A wide number of synthetic conclusions for someone embedded in today’s religiously plural context can be drawn from the above analysis.[62] Firstly, both stories force us to ask, “Who is my real enemy?” The centurion represented domination and oppression; the woman represented Israel’s traditional enemies and ethnic tensions. Yet, both characters emerge as exemplars of faith. Moreover, in each case Jesus (at least eventually) overlooked dividing differences and demonstrated a love for enemies (Mt. 5:44) by confronting another enemy. As Wright concludes, Jesus’ exorcisms “signaled something far deeper that was going on, namely the real battle of the ministry” was a “head-on war with the satan.”[63] “Demon possession” (and also sickness) “looks the same for both Jews and Gentiles; so does the deliverance.”[64] Thus, the universal plight of humanity outweighed nationalistic differences.[65]

In many occasions the lines between allegiance to God and allegiance to one’s nation have become blurred. For example, posters of Jesus washing Bin Laden’s feet caused such controversy among Christians in America that advertisers had them removed. The assumption was that since “they would rather kill Bin Laden than wash his feet, then surely Jesus must want this as well.”[66] Nationalism (as with other ideologies) demands all of our love and loyalty, yet our ultimate allegiance is to be to the world’s true Lord. As plurality increases, many will retreat into cultural enclaves lest their own identities dissolve into a sea of plurality. From here bitterness and distrust towards others can fester.[67] The example of Christ challenges us to step beyond our cultural boundaries and refuse to be part of this polarization. Likewise, emulating Jesus’ example, the believing community must embody an attitude of uncompromising forgiveness to defuse a spiral of hatred and vengeance.[68]

Moreover, Volf argues that Christians are called to be orientated around God’s eschatological new-creation making us “aliens and sojourners” (1 Pe. 2:11) in our own cultures. Since this new-creation includes “a gathering of the whole people of God and of all the cultural treasures that have been dispersed among the nations,” a Christian “can no longer be thought of apart from the rich and complex reality of the new creation.” Thus Christians are “aliens that are home in every culture, because they are open to every culture.”[69] Our Christian religious self-differentiation is legitimate, but rather than leading us to become exclusive or even defensive (viz. to hate our enemies), it should motivate us to embrace and learn from the outsider as we center ourselves on the outreaching triune God.[70] After all, as sin can be conceived in terms of exclusion, “[t]he real sinner is not the outcast but the one who casts the other out.”[71]

In some situations it may be tempting to, like many Jews of Jesus’ day, collapse the terms “sinner” and “pagan,” to see outsiders as the evil ones, as the problem, as somehow ‘more fallen’ than us.[72] Rather than succumbing to such tendencies, we must go beyond cultural/political/nationalistic perspectives and recognize that our world is engulfed in a cosmic war which goes beyond nationalism and territories; our fight is not against “flesh and blood” (Ep. 6:12). We must stand against racism, nationalism, prejudice—not only because this is right in itself, but as acts of revolution to further realize the inaugurated kingdom which has broken in through Jesus.[73] We must learn to see outsiders, not as the enemy, but as ones God desires to bless.

Secondly, both accounts alert us to the place of pathos in our interaction with outsiders. We must reject modernistic assumptions that emotion invalidates sincerity or genuineness.[74] Rather, just like Jesus, when we encounter great faith we should recognize it as a sacred moment, being willing to “take off our shoes” (cf. Ex. 3:5) and respond with emotion. If Jesus could be shocked by these Gentiles, have compassion on the masses (Mt. 9:36), joyfully celebrate his disciples’ success (Lk. 10:21),[75] and if there is celebration in heaven (Lk. 15:10), we too ought be passionate whenever we encounter sincere faith. Such passion serves as a living-icon for others of God’s own response to people. Put differently, we not only want to articulate the words of God (orthodoxy) and express his intentions (orthopraxis), but must also demonstrate God’s own heart for outsiders (orthopathos).[76] An engaged heart is a necessity for Christ-modeled mission.

Thirdly, a perusal of recent history reminds us that difference (particularly cultural and religious) often leads to conflict.[77] Time and again seemingly decent people commit atrocities against ‘outsiders’; a “dormant beast in them was awakened from its uneasy slumber.”[78] This makes one question whether Jesus’ model of interacting with outsiders is emulable for fallen humans. An exemplary Christology is only meaningful when articulated from a Trinitarian framework: Christ can be our example precisely because he lived his earthly life as a human dependant on the Father and Spirit.[79] Thus, if Jesus “showcases the possibilities of a human life completely filled by the Spirit,”[80] by the transforming work of the “Spirit of embrace” the community of disciples can together learn to lovingly interact with those of other religions.[81] If we are to transcend our prejudices and extend ourselves (and the Kingdom) to those we consider outsiders, we need to be transformed inwardly by the Spirit of God and empowered to embrace our enemies.

This leads to an interrelated point: both examples above relate to a ‘power encounter.’ Some have argued that the early church’s “emphasis on healing in a world scourged by sickness and epidemic … may have made the community attractive to Gentiles.”[82] In many contexts worldwide people are not interested in theories about the divine but rather desire a viable demonstration of divine power. This is even increasingly the case in the west: post-modernity (accompanied by the ‘new spirituality’) is deeply fascinated with experiential ‘spirituality.’ As with Jesus, viable demonstrations of God’s Rule will likely attract many ‘Gentiles’ in ways which rational arguments and clever presentations cannot.[83] This is even recognized in the majority-world by non-Pentecostals. For example, evangelical Methodist Sumithra states “[w]e, in India are deeply grateful that the gospel can be understood in terms of power, and that the Holy Spirit is more powerful than any other spirit. Nothing seals the fruits of evangelism more than a power encounter with the forces of darkness and the victory of the Holy Spirit over Satan.”[84]

Lastly, Matthew’s miracle stories function as “paraenetic paradigms,” inviting readers to “approach the exalted Son of God … with their own petitions for help”;[85] they are not stories for their own sake, but stories readers can enter and experience in their present. Importantly, our passages suggest this invitation extends to ‘outsiders.’ If Jesus would heed the request of a centurion and a Canaanite, why would he not listen to a Hindu who approaches him in faith today?[86] Likewise, in both cases blessing was sought for another making these models of intercessory prayer. “Jesus does not ask the centurion, “Does your son believe in me like you do?” or “Has he confessed his unworthiness?” On the basis of the centurion’s faith Jesus heals the son’s sickness. The moral is that on the basis of one person’s faith another person can be deeply helped.”[87] Both the servant and the daughter were likely pagan, yet the blessing of the Kingdom was extended to them regardless of their own faith. This encourages us to pray, on the basis of our faith, that outsiders will experience the blessings of God.

The question remains: will we let Jesus wash the feet of Bin-Laden?

[1] See Terry Muck and Frances S. Adeney, Christianity Encountering World Religions: the Practice of Mission in the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 15-20. The term “plural” has been chosen in place of the adjective “pluralist” so as to avoid confusing it with the ideology/theological position of pluralism. Also, this essay will often use the term “outsiders” as it encompasses practitioners of other religions as well as anyone who may differ to ‘us’ religiously/culturally/ethnically/geographically. Plurality in today’s world often encompasses all these elements.

[2] Due to space restraints this will be non-exhaustive, only considering issues which enhance our theological understanding of the passage as related to our plural context.

[3] Due to space restraints this essay will not attempt to identify the Gospel’s author. For brief comments see R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 15. Additionally, the historical plausibility of Jesus encountering Gentiles will not be repeated here. It is accepted that Jesus probably had at least some contact with Gentiles in Galilee. See Bob Robinson, “Jesus, Gentiles and Samaritans: R607.830 Coursebook” (Unpublished: Laidlaw College, Auckland, 2011), session 2, p.g. 36-38. Cf. Gene R. Smillie, “"Even the Dogs": Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45, no. 1 (March 1, 2002): 78-84; Craig A. Evans, “Historical Jesus Studies and the Gospel of Matthew,” in Methods for Matthew, ed. Mark Allan Powell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 150, 152.

[4] David C. Sim, “The Gospel of Matthew and the Gentiles,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 57 (March 1, 1995): 25-35. Sims conclusion is primarily based on four discourse passages. He states that these “unambiguously betray an anti-Gentile perspective” (25). Additionally, Sim argues that evidence used to support a pro-Gentile perspective is overstated (21-25).

[5] Donald Senior, “Between Two Worlds: Gentiles and Jewish Christians in Matthew's Gospel.,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 1 (January 1, 1999): 10. In fact, Senior notes that Sim’s argument that the ‘Great Commission’ (Mt. 28:18-20) would have been read as a justification to avoid a Gentile mission “borders on the preposterous” (11).

[6] Ibid., 13-18 (quotes from 14, 13). Senior notes 18 references which at least suggest a positive attitude towards Gentiles along with other overlapping motifs as evidence that the Gentile motif is not a peripheral to the Gospel as some have supposed (16). See also evidence cited by Smillie, “Even the dogs,” 84-89, 91-95.

[7] Ibid., 73.

[8] Ibid., 75. Smille observes that Matthew uses the semantically broad term ethne in such a way that the reader cannot collapse the whole semantic range to speak solely of pagan-sinners (74f) strengthening the view that Matthew is not ‘anti-Gentile.’

[9] Ibid., 90.

[10] Ibid., 91. Importantly, this pericope is found in the section immediately following the Sermon on the Mount. After articulating the seemingly impossible standards of kingdom living, Matthew reveals the kind of people who can be included in that kingdom: outcasts and outsiders, such as a Gentile centurion. See Smillie, “Even the dogs,” 91; Evans, “Historical Jesus,” 144.

[11] Smillie, “Even the dogs,” 91.

[12] Robinson offers a summary of issues related to the centurion’s identity, which is complicated when one realizes that John 4:46-53 is likely a variant account of the same incident and that both ‘centurion’ and ‘royal official’ are ambiguous Greek terms. Robinson, “Coursebook,” session 3, p.g. 50f. See also Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 117-121.

[13] Ibid., 120. Cf. Frederick Dale Bruner, The Christbook: A Historical/Theological Commentary: Matthew 1-12, Rev. and expanded ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 378. Nolland also suggests he was in Herod Antipas’ army, though does not suggest any specific ethnicity. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: a Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 354. Cf. France, Matthew, 311. Others still prefer identifying him as a Roman officer. Evans, “Historical Jesus,” 144f; Stanley Hauerwas, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006), 94; David L. Turner, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 232; Smillie, “Even the dogs,” 91f. It is possible (though unlikely) that he was a Jew; yet, for many Jews such a person would be a traitor, “little better than a Gentile.” Rodney A. Whitacre, John, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 115. As this figure was probably a potential enemy for someone such as Jesus, this encounter is a “living parable” of loving one’s enemies (Mt. 5:44). Bird, Gentile Mission, 120f. Cf. Ben Witherington, Matthew (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2006), 182.

[14] If the centurion was a Roman, this “slave was probably the centurion’s entire “family.” Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 266. Cf. Witherington, Matthew, 182; Nolland, Matthew, 354. Though conjecture, if he were Syrian, given that Herod modeled his army along Roman lines, this is still a possibility. Cf. Bird, Gentile Mission, 118; France, Matthew, 312.

[15] Jack Dean Kingsbury, “Observations on the "Miracle Chapters" of Matthew 8-9,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, no. 4 (October 1, 1978): 566. Cf. Turner, Matthew, 232.

[16] See Evans, “Historical Jesus,” 145. For (somewhat unsatisfactory) arguments against seeing such ‘content’ to his faith, see Gerald R. McDermott, Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions?: Jesus, Revelation & Religious Traditions (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 87f.

[17] See Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Faith and Belief: the Difference Between Them (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1998), 12.

[18] “The faith that Jesus commends in this man seems to be his recognition that Jesus can do what he asks. Such an understanding of faith renders problematic those accounts of faith in which faith is assumed to be intrinsic to the human condition, that is, faith understood as a subjective quality that gives life meaning. … The faith that Jesus praises, exemplified by the centurion, is that which trusts that Jesus is who he says he is and that he can do what he says he can do.” Hauerwas, Matthew, 95. Cf. Christopher Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 243.

[19] Nolland, Matthew, 354f; Senior, “Between Two Worlds,” 17; Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 266f; France, Matthew, 310, 312-314; Charles H. Talbert, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 113. Cf. Bird, Gentile Mission, 118.

[20] Bruner, The Christbook, 379. Others who see Jesus as instantly responding include Smillie, “Even the dogs,” 83, 91f; Evans, “Historical Jesus,” 145; Robinson, “Coursebook,” session 3, p.g. 52; Turner, Matthew, 232; Donald Senior, Matthew (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 98, 183.

[21] Bruner, The Christbook, 379.

[22] Robinson, “Coursebook,” session 3, p.g. 53; Nolland, Matthew, 355; Bruner, The Christbook, 379f; Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 267. Purity issues may not be as in the fore as some suppose if v7 is taken as a statement. See Senior, Matthew, 98. Cf. Joe Kapolyo, “Matthew,” in Africa Bible commentary, ed. Tokunboh Adeyemo (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 1126.

[23] Nolland, Matthew, 355; Turner, Matthew, 232. Witherington notes that the centurion viewed Jesus as some sort of holy man and thus deemed himself ‘unworthy.’ Witherington, Matthew, 183. Thus, even if he did not understanding what it meant for Jesus to be Messiah, his confession of unworthiness still may relate more to his recognition of Jesus’ special identity than to Jewish scruples. It is also possible he recognized “his life and profession are antithetical to Jesus’s life and word.” Hauerwas, Matthew, 94. Alternatively, sociologically speaking, “worthy” may relate to social status rather than moral quality, meaning he recognizes that Jesus is his social superior. Bruce J. Malina, “Social-Scientific Approaches and the Gospel of Matthew,” in Methods for Matthew, ed. Mark Allan Powell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 188f. Cf. Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 266f.

[24] Ibid., 267. “Most of the centurion’s contemporaries would have balked at such faith. Jewish people considered long-distance miracles especially difficult and rare, the domain of only the most powerful holy men … .” Cf. Turner, Matthew, 232.

[25] Nolland, Matthew, 355. Cf. Senior, Matthew, 98. An African commentator insightfully notes that, if the centurion could use his Gentile military culture as a way to express faith, Africans “do not need to borrow metaphors and categories from other cultures.” Kapolyo, “Matthew,” 1126.

[26] Nolland, Matthew, 356. Cf. Bird, Gentile Mission, 120.

[27] Hauerwas, Matthew, 94f.

[28] Cf. Bruner, The Christbook, 384; Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 163f. Such comments are valid if we are speaking of ‘faith’ in vague terms of heartfelt sincerity (see above) evident in the lives of many practitioners of other religions, or in terms of the ‘simplistic faith’ (as westerns may be tempted to regard it) of many believers from non-western backgrounds.

[29] Witherington insightfully points out that reversal is a dominant theme of the entire pericope. Witherington, Matthew, 181. Additionally, though space does not allow for a proper discussion, Yong’s comments on Jesus’ “redemptive hospitality” and his inauguration of the eschatological banquet are relevant. See Amos Yong, Hospitality and the Other: Pentecost, Christian Practices, and the Neighbor (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2008), 101-103.

[30] Evans, “Historical Jesus,” 146f. Keener offers convincing reasons why this passage probably speaks explicitly of the inclusion of Gentiles (the theological contrast with Jesus’ hearers; no one questioned the inclusion of diaspora Jews; Rome was to the west and Matthew had already illustrated the coming of pagans from the east). Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 269. Cf. Robinson, “Coursebook,” session 3, p.g. 54; France, Matthew, 317f; Wright, Mission of God, 244; Talbert, Matthew, 113f; Joel B. Green, Salvation (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2003), 76; Senior, Matthew, 98f; Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2000), 203. Some, such as Nolland, hold it is claiming too much to see this as speaking more explicitly of Gentiles, though he accepts that Matthew allows for the inclusion of Gentiles in the gathering of Israel. Nolland, Matthew, 357. Nonetheless, as Senior states, “[i]n the context it is hard not to conclude that this future procession includes Gentiles, if it does not refer exclusively to them.” Senior, “Between Two Worlds,” 15.

[31] N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 192. Cf. Senior, “Between Two Worlds,” 16-18; Smillie, “Even the dogs,” 92; Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1997), 46. Also relevant is Green, Salvation, chapter 2.

[32] Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 270. Cf. Senior, “Between Two Worlds,” 16; Evans, “Historical Jesus,” 147f, 152f; Bird, Gentile Mission, 102. As France notes, even if the centurion’s faith is not understood as a “Pauline” soteriological commitment, it nonetheless “is now taken … as a symbol of something more “Pauline”: the vivid imagery of this saying of Jesus convey a message … of how all who believe, Gentile as well as Jew, are now children of Abraham.” France, Matthew, 316.

[33] Turner, Matthew, 233. Cf. France, Matthew, 316; Evans, “Historical Jesus,” 146-148. It should be noted that Matthew’s use of hyperbole suggests this passage need not (and should not) be taken as excluding all Jews.

[34] Hauerwas, Matthew, 95. Cf. Bruner, The Christbook, 383.

[35] Ibid., 382. See also the profound comments in Kapolyo, “Matthew,” 1126.

[36] Bruner, The Christbook, 383f (emphasis original).

[37] That Jesus responds in terms that closely correspond to the request made accentuates that the centurion is a person of faith. Kingsbury, “Miracle Chapters,” 571.

[38] Wright, Mission of God, 508. Due to space restraints, this essay will be unable to discuss the debates related to Jesus’ attitudes to purity and the bigger questions of Jesus’ understanding of Torah. See Robinson, “Coursebook,” session 5, p.g. 151-156.

[39] Turner, Matthew, 387; Gail R. O'Day, “Surprised by Faith: Jesus and the Canaanite Woman,” in A Feminist Companion to Matthew, ed. Amy-Jill Levine (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2004), 115; Frances Taylor Gench, Back to the Well: Women's Encounters with Jesus in the Gospels (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 5.

[40] Robinson, “Coursebook,” session 3, p.g. 64. O’Day notes the link with the preceding material, stating Jesus “leaves the land and the people who are ‘clean’, to enter a land that is ‘unclean’.” O'Day, “Surprised by Faith,” 115. This location may have lead some of Matthew’s readers to recall Jezebel, while others may have recalled the Gentile widow who assisted Elijah, suggesting the story may have raised a measure of ambivalence with how it should initially be taken. See Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 415.

[41] Ibid. Cf. Nolland, Matthew, 631f; France, Matthew, 592; Senior, Matthew, 181; Kapolyo, “Matthew,” 1142. However, another note of ambivalence is stuck in that Matthew has identified Tamar and Rahab, both Canaanites, in Jesus’ own genealogy.

[42] Bruner also draws a connection between Jewish attitudes towards ‘Canaanites’ and contemporary attitudes towards Muslims. Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary: The Churchbook, Matthew 13-28, Rev. and expanded ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 97.

[43] Nolland, Matthew, 632. Cf. Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 322; Gench, Back to the well, 6. O’Day demonstrates that it may be possible to see the woman’s speech (vv. 22, 25, 27) as a psalm of lament. O'Day, “Surprised by Faith,” 119. The woman’s request is for her daughter to be set free from a demon; as Kinukawa notes, the woman may have been “socially ostracized because of the unclean spirit in her child.” Hisako Kinukawa, “Mark,” in Global Bible Commentary, ed. Daniel, general editor Patte (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004), 373.

[44] That her ‘faith’ had content is even clearer than with the centurion. As Turner notes, “she has genuine insight into [Jesus’] identity and mission.” Turner, Matthew, 387. Nolland states she is "exhibiting an exemplary Jewish faith." Matthew, 632.

[45] Some, such as Nolland, attribute Jesus’ hesitancy to his uncertainty regarding what he ought to do as, from a Jewish framework, what she is requesting is very serious. Ibid., 633. Some even see Jesus’ silence as an attempt to silence her. Stephenson Humphries-Brooks, “The Canaanite Woman in Matthew,” in A Feminist Companion to Matthew, ed. Amy-Jill Levine (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2004), 142. This essay will articulate an alternative perspective.

[46] J. Ted Blakley, “Incomprehension or Resistance? The Markan Disciples and the Narrative Logic of Mark 4:1-8:30” (A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St. Andrews, 2008), 249 (emphasis original). Though Blakley is writing about Mark, arguably the same applies to Matthew.

France notes a number of reasons why Jesus’ apparent initial response ought not be assumed to represent his actual opinion on the matter. France, Matthew, 590f. As noted above, it is possible to read some hesitancy in Jesus’ encounter with the centurion. Even so, Jesus’ refusal here is still startling. Cf. Elaine M. Wainwright, “Not Without My Daughter: Gender and Demon Possession in Matthew 15:21-28,” in A Feminist Companion to Matthew, ed. Amy-Jill Levine (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2004), 133. One qualification may be that the Matthean Jesus has already restricted mission to Israel (Mt. 10:5f), so it may be possible for this Jesus to respond negatively to a Gentile (in contrast to the Markan Jesus who appears to have had a more deliberate mission to the Gentiles. See Blakley, “Incomprehension or Resistance?.”). However, Smille’s suggestion that the Matthean Jesus’ statements often outweigh his praxis is again pertinent. Smillie, “Even the dogs,” 93-95.

[47] Most probably the disciples are requesting that Jesus dismiss rather than respond to the woman, though France favors the latter view. Turner, Matthew, 387; France, Matthew, 593; Senior, Matthew, 181; O'Day, “Surprised by Faith,” 118. Cf. Gench, Back to the well, 7. How often do we, like the disciples, prioritize our own comfort over the needs of others?

[48] Hauerwas, Matthew, 144. Importantly, Matthew omits “first” from his Markan source making his version read even harsher. Though use of the diminutive “dogs” may reflect derogatory Jewish attitudes towards Gentiles, Jesus is likely referring to the pet dogs of well-to-do Greeks. This admission, nonetheless, “hardly transforms the image into a compliment.” Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 416. Cf. Gench, Back to the well, 9. Nolland agrees that this is not speaking of the standard Jewish image of dogs. Nolland, Matthew, 634. Cf. Bruner, The Churchbook, 101; Senior, Matthew, 182. It should be noted that an African commentator suspects Jesus may have spoken in humor. Kapolyo, “Matthew,” 1142.

[49] Turner, Matthew, 388. Cf. Gench, Back to the well, 10. Witherington notes the inventiveness of her reply. Witherington, Matthew, 302.

[50] France, Matthew, 595 (emphasis original).

[51] Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 84.

[52] Ibid., 85. Cf. Cornelius Plantinga, Engaging God's World: a Christian Vision of Faith, Learning, and Living (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 107.

[53] Wright, Mission of God, 244.

[54] Senior, “Between Two Worlds,” 19.

[55] Smillie, “Even the dogs,” 93.

[56] Ibid.

[57] See France, Matthew, 590f, 595; Bird, Gentile Mission, 115; Talbert, Matthew, 190f. After all, despite the disciple’s persistence, Jesus never dismissed the woman. See Bruner, The Churchbook, 100f (though he does not agree that Jesus was eliciting a response).

[58] Ibid., 103 (emphasis original). This point is incredibly insightful and seems to be missed by many commentators. From this essays perspective, this confirms that Matthew wanted the reader to recognize Jesus’ initial response did not reflect his actual understanding.

[59] Cf. Smillie, “Even the dogs,” 94f; France, Matthew, 595f; Witherington, Matthew, 303; Nolland, Matthew, 636; Senior, Matthew, 180; Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 324f. In fact, this woman appears to confess Jesus as Messiah “at the very same time that the majority of the leadership of the people of God are rejecting that conviction.” Bruner, The Churchbook, 98. Moreover, the woman’s “great faith” contrasts with Peter’s “little faith” (Mt. 14:31. Cf. 6:30; 8:26; 16:8; 17:20). Note also the immediate contrast between the woman’s respectful address of Jesus as kurie, and the disciple’s failure to do likewise; it appears “their desire for public decorum overwhelms everything else they learned.” See also Blakley’s comments on irony in the Markan account. Blakley, “Incomprehension or Resistance?,” 253-255.

[60] Keener, Socio-Rhetorical, 418. Cf. France, Matthew, 591. Also, Mt. 14:20 shows there was already plenty of leftovers and Jesus’ previous encounter with the Pharisees related to eating “bread.” Talbert, Matthew, 189; Senior, Matthew, 182. Cf. Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 324, who notes the food metaphor speaks of God's salvation.

[61] Regrettably, space restraints do not allow for a substantial discussion of this important point. See Robinson, “Coursebook,” session 3, p.g. 66; session 5, p.g. 172f; session 6, p.g. 197-199, 209-211; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 309f; Bird, Gentile Mission, 84, 116, 123; Michael F. Bird, “Jesus and the Gentiles After Jeremias: Patterns and Prospects,” Currents in Biblical Research 4 (2005): 102f; Green, Salvation, 76; France, Matthew, 316. Cf. Evans, “Historical Jesus,” 147f; Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 203; Smillie, “Even the dogs,” 95f; Senior, “Between Two Worlds,” 12; Witherington, Matthew, 184; Wright, Mission of God, 244; Alistair W. Donaldson, The Last Days of Dispensationalism: a Scholarly Critique of Popular Misconceptions (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 42-69. In sum, the people of God—‘true Israel’—has been extended to include both Jews and Gentiles who respond to Jesus in faith.

[62] Space restraints only allow for a discussion of some of the many conclusions which could be made. While acknowledging their importance, this essay has deliberately avoided considering all the points drawn out by Robinson and has instead chosen to consider some additional points in order to make a wider contribution to the discussion. A balanced appraisal would include additional discussion of issues such as Jesus’ eschatology which lacked notes of vengeance against Gentiles, more specific Christological implications, Jesus understanding of purity. See Robinson, “Coursebook,” session 3, p.g. 66-75; session 5, p.g. 172f; session 6. Also, issues already addressed above will not be repeated here.

[63] Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 195 (emphasis mine). Cf. Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 173; Craig A. Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom: Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: a Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 151-180. As Boyd convincingly argues, within the Jewish apocalyptic worldview, Jesus’ healings were also understood as acts of war against the kingdom of Satan. See Gregory A. Boyd, God At War (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), chapter 6 (especially p.g. 182-184). Thus, though only one of our passages explicitly speaks of exorcism, both can be taken as acts of war against the kingdom of darkness.

[64] Wahlen, Impurity of Spirits, 107 ; quoted in Robinson, “Coursebook,” session 6, p.g. 201. Though Wahlen does go on to write about Matthew, this quote relates specifically to Mark’s Gospel. Regrettably, this essay was unable to access the whole book; it is reasonable to infer that this quote can apply to Matthew as well, though this essay cannot be certain.

[65] Gundry-Volf notes that the woman could not build her case for assistance on her ethnicity, gender or socio-economic status. Rather, her appeal is to mercy, recognizing that “divine mercy knows no bias.” Gundry-Volf, “Spirit, Mercy, and the Other,” 519.

[66] Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Religion, 78 (emphasis original). For another powerful discussion of nationalism see Mirosalv Volf, “Exclusion and Embrace: Theological Reflections in the Wake of 'Ethnic Cleansing',” in Emerging Voices in Global Christian Theology, ed. William Dyrness (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1994), 21-23; Miroslav Volf, Exclusion & Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 13-17, 54.

[67] Cf. Volf, who speaks of a “new tribalism.” Volf, Exclusion & Embrace (book), 15, 37, 57-68, 78f. Arguably, the extreme example of the infamous “burn the Koran” controversy reflects a more subtle distrust of people from other cultures and especially religions. I have observed subtle undercurrents of distrust in New Zealand, Scandinavia and America, and more overt undercurrents in India, Papua New Guinea and Israel/Palestine.

[68] See Volf, “Exclusion and Embrace (article),” 36-40. Volf notes that “Forgiveness flounders because I exclude the enemy from the community of humans and exclude myself from the community of sinners” (38). See also Volf, Exclusion & Embrace (book), 113-140.

[69] Volf, “Exclusion and Embrace (article),” 27. Volf speaks of a “catholic personality” whereby each believer becomes a “personal microcosm of the eschatological new creation.” Cf. Volf, Exclusion & Embrace (book), 50-55.

[70] Volf, “Exclusion and Embrace (article),” 29f, 40; Volf, Exclusion & Embrace (book), 69-71.

[71] Volf, “Exclusion and Embrace (article),” 32 (emphasis removed). Cf. Volf, Exclusion & Embrace (book), 72-75. For this reason it is tragic that “antipathies present in the society at large are reflected in the attitudes of churches and their adherents.” Raplh Premdas, “The Church and Ethnic Conflicts in the Third World,” The Ecumenist 1 (n.d.): 55; quoted in Volf, Exclusion & Embrace (book), 37; cf. 54. Such conflict is even reflected within the Church. For example, “many black Baptists or Methodists feel closer to black Muslims than to their white fellow Christians.” Ibid., 36. Cf. Kapolyo, “Matthew,” 1126.

[72] Cf. Volf, Exclusion & Embrace (book), 57-60, 74f.

[73] Similarly, we should resist theologies which posit some nationalities as enemies of God who implicitly must be resisted, namely dispensationalism and Christian-Zionism. If one nationality or religious group is shown as being somehow superior while another is shown to be inferior, it undermines the Gospel of blessing to “all nations” as well as Jesus’ praxis of extending the Israel-centric mission to include outsiders. See Stephen Sizer, Zion's Christian Soldiers?: the Bible, Israel and the Church (Nottingham England: InterVarsity Press, 2007), chapter 3; Donaldson, Last Days of Dispensationalism, chapter 2 (especially p.g. 68f).

[74] Solivan speaks of the “bifurcation of reason from experience.” Samuel Solivan, The Spirit, Pathos and Liberation: Toward an Hispanic Pentecostal Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 62.

[75] Though it is impossible for us to gain clear insight into the psychology of Jesus, as Wright demonstrates, we can look at the aims, objectives, motives and beliefs of historical figures from those identify their ‘vocation’ or ‘ambition.’ Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 479-481. Thus, by speaking of Jesus’ pathos we do not claim to have access to his psychology, but, based on what he did and taught (as well as the comments of his followers, such as Mt. 9:36), we are able to gain an understanding into his own aims, objectives, motives and beliefs.

[76] Solivan reminds us of the importance of holding together these three elements lest our theology become “a contradiction of the gospel it seeks to represent.” Solivan, Spirit, Pathos and Liberation, 147. Though his focus is to “revitalize and ground orthopraxis and orthodoxy in the soil of pain and suffering of the people” (148), Christian pathos should include feeling and demonstrating genuine joy. Land also emphasizes the importance of Christian pathos. Steven J. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 35-37, 41, 122f, 192. For a discussion of orthopathos related to Jesus’ interaction with Gentiles, see Robinson, “Coursebook,” session 8, p.g. 266f.

[77] See, for example, Volf, Exclusion & Embrace (book), 13-18, 36f; Yong, Hospitality, 1-37.

[78] Volf, “Exclusion and Embrace (article),” 34.

[79] For a defense of the validity of an exemplary Christology see Richard A. Burridge, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), 73-78; Klaus Issler, “Jesus' Example: Prototype of the Dependent, Spirit-Filled Life,” in Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology, ed. Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007), 189-225. Also relevant is a kenotic Christology which enables the reader to recognize that though Jesus was truly divine, he was simultaneously legitimately human, dependant on both the Father and the Spirit. Not only can he truly sympathize with us (He. 4:15), but he is our model of a true human being. See C. Stephen Evans and Stephen T. Davis, “Conclusion: The Promise of Kenosis,” in Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God, ed. C. Stephen Evans (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2009), 315, 319-321.

[80] Issler, “Jesus' Example,” 214.

[81] Cf. Volf, “Exclusion and Embrace (article),” 40. That empowerment is essential to emulating Jesus’ example is accentuated by the fact that his teachings (namely the Sermon on the Mount) cannot be lived without empowering. See, for example, Hauerwas, Matthew, 61; Glen H. Stassen, Living the Sermon on the Mount (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006), 38-43, 63; Mary E. Hinkle, “The Lord's Prayer: Empowerment for Living the Sermon on the Mount,” Word & World 22 (2002): 10-17.

[82] Senior, “Between Two Worlds,” 18. This is suggested by passages such as Mt. 4:23-25; Ac. 13:6-12; 14:8-18; 19:1-20 ; Ga. 3:1-5; 1 Cor. 2:1-5.

[83] For useful discussions of how our Western worldview has caused many to underestimate the ‘spiritual’ element of reality in contrast to other cultures see Paul G. Hiebert, “The Flaw of the Excluded Middle,” Missiology: An International Review 10, no. 1 (January 1982): 35-47; Charles H. Kraft, “Christian Animism or God-Given Authority,” in Spiritual Power and Missions: Raising the Issues, ed. Edward Rommen (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1995), 92, 98, 103; Marguerite G. Kraft, Understanding Spiritual Power: A Forgotten Dimension of Cross-Cultural Mission and Ministry (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1995), 31-36. However, one must be wary of ‘supernaturalizing’ everything, something Moreau calls the “flaw of the expanded middle.” See A. Scott Moreau, “Evil Spirits: Biblical and Practical Issues,” Urban Mission 13, Evil Spirits (December 1995): 25-36.

[84] Sunand Sumithra, “Towards Evangelical Theology in Hindu Cultures,” in Biblical Theology in Asia, ed. Ken Gnanakan (Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 1995), 159. Cf. In Africa. Charles H. Kraft, Christianity with Power: Your Worldview and Your Experience of the Supernatural (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2005), 3-6; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Christology: a Global Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), chapter 27.

[85] Kingsbury, “Miracle Chapters,” 572. Though Kingsbury is specifically speaking of the miracles of Mt. 8-9, this point can be extended to the entire Gospel.

[86] This does raise the question of what sort of faith an ‘outsider’ would need to demonstrate. Nonetheless, our passages can encourage us to encourage non-believers who demonstrate some form of faith to petition Jesus for themselves.

[87] Bruner, The Christbook, 384f (emphasis original).