Is John Bombaro Correct to Assert “Devilish Prejudices” for the Disciples in Matthew 15:21-28?

Guest Post by Nate Rinne

John Bombaro is a very interesting Lutheran pastor. I have always appreciated his thoughtfulness and apologetic bent, even as I disagree with him violently about law and gospel being a “hermeneutic” by which we read scripture.¹

His reflection on Matthew 15:21-28 (“The Gospel for Dogs”) is certainly thought-provoking, and stands in rather sharp contrast to my own view regarding the matter of Jesus’s treatment of the Canaanite (or Syrophoenician) woman (see my sermon titled “How to be a Good Dog Like the Canaanite Woman”).

In this short post, I will focus on one thing that he says most clearly at the end of the sermon, and talk about the problem with it: “The demons are no match for Jesus, not even the devilish prejudices of the disciples. In a way, they are exorcised, too, that they may become preachers of the Word.” In part, he says that Jesus is “concerned with turning the worldviews of the disciple’s upside down” and in his very articulate Issues ETC. appearance discussing the article, he asserts that Jesus does all of this for the sake of the disciples.² In the article itself, he also insists that the text as a whole is not about the Canaanite woman’s faith, but about the One who engenders such faith.

First of all, we must point out that this is John Bombaro’s opinion. To be sure, the text says absolutely nothing about the disciple’s “devilish prejudices”, nor is this even implied. Therefore, the real question really is whether or not Bombaro’s opinion is a pious one.

Surely, as one would expect from a mind like Bombaro’s, there are things in his reflection that are insightful and worthy of our consideration. For example, I think that he is right when he says that given Jesus’s previous actions, we simply expect him to help this woman too. Therefore, like the great preacher John Chrysostom (“Jesus acts backwards here…”), we might understandably find His words to be jarring. Bombaro also makes the keen observation that Syrophoenicians are also mentioned in Mark 3 and Luke 6 as those who were found listening to Jesus.³ Did the woman possibly hear about Jesus from them?⁴ Also, he rightly points out that “she appeals to Jewish faith” by crying out, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David.”

That said, his closing statement, where he finally takes the opportunity to definitively condemn Jesus’s disciples for their “devilish prejudices”, is certainly a matter of great concern. One can readily see where this is likely to lead in our current cultural context with its own concerns! Even Bombaro says, for instance, that when Jesus calls the woman a dog that He is using not a general religious judgment about Canaanite idolatry, but rather a “common racial slur”!

One can see why the worldly currents amongst us might tempt any Christian pastor to throw shade on the disciples here – and to even subtly suggest that Jesus must accommodate himself to their satanic orientation. Also note that in Bombaro’s article, published at 1517, the quote they want you to tweet out is the following: “Jesus will use this occasion to disabuse His disciples of their wrongful Kingdom perspectives in order to maximize their understanding of the Gospel.”

The problem with all of this is that it is not letting scripture interpret scripture. What real warrant is there for talking about the disciples’ “devilish prejudices” when the Apostle Paul, for example, speaks rather harshly about Cretans – all in the same Bible inspired and brought together by God’s Holy Spirit? Generally speaking, races of men sometimes have particular faults that need to be confronted. And sometimes – like with many Jews in our day for instance – repentance might even seem to be impossible.

The text itself says that Jesus stated that He had only come for the lost children of Israel. That said, Bombaro is not wrong to point out that there are several indications in the Gospels that this mission, despite its focus, was not totally exclusive. Again, as he notes, there are indications that many non-Jews, even Syrophoenicians, heard Jesus gladly and were not turned away. Many of them, like the centurion, received healing and other help from the Lord.

And here, truly, what reason do we have to believe that for the disciples, this was little more than a matter of priorities and practicalities? Aren’t the gospels good at making it rather obvious when the disciples are being foolish or worse? What real reason do we have for thinking that they would begrudge the woman getting crumbs – even if they perhaps suspected that her “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David” was something less than true faith? Or why should we think they believed that any non-Jews could not (or even should not) receive the blessings of the Kingdom as well? Are we to think that they were oblivious to the Ruths and Rahabs of God’s world recalled in His word?

Bombaro wants to make all of us think the text is about Jesus rebuking the “heartlessness” and evil prejudices of the disciples – instead of it helping all of us to better realize how His Gospel can even overcome everyday necessities like eminently practical stereotypes. Perhaps, if the disciples were guilty of anything, it was thinking that exceptions to the general rule – that is, that Jesus’s mission and preaching to the Jews would also engender faith in Gentiles – would be less common than they actually were.

All this said, positing that the disciples were guilty of something like this is worlds away from saying – preaching! – that they were, without any textual warrant at all, filled with devilish prejudices!

The former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kian Yew, reflecting on the political realities he saw work out in his own nation, saw that: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” Admittedly, he was a very right wing guy and is known as a benevolent dictator. At the same time, what if he is basically right and this is simply a statement about human nature? Is there not always an order to our loves? And is this not right and commendable? And does not the ordering of God spoken of in Acts 17:26 help reinforce this among us men prone to Babel?

So, historically, commentators have taken Jesus’s statement of His mission seriously. As I mentioned in my sermon, R.C.H. Lenski says that as regards His calling His own people “sheep, all [Jesus’s] love and kindness toward his nation is revealed. He thus also denominates himself as their true Shepherd.” Martin Fraanzman said “He upholds Israel’s prerogative over against the Gentiles ([15:] 24, 26). He oversteps the limitations of His mission only in response to faith.” Even Jeff Gibbs favorably quotes other commentators saying, “Quite simply, [the statement “the lost sheep that are the house of Israel”] makes it abundantly plain that the biblical doctrine of Israel’s election must be taken seriously” and says himself that our Lord and Savior comes not to save us Gentiles first, but rather “the lost sheep that are the house of Israel”.

First to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

Really.

This calls for faith, which Bombaro wrongly concludes is not a prominent focus of this text. One wonders how aware he is regarding the history of commentary surrounding this text.

None of this means that Jesus did not come to destroy the barriers that separated Jews and Gentiles (see, e.g., Eph. 2:12-18). Yes, as Bombaro says, “the power of His cross is already evident [here in this account]”. Nevertheless, while Bombaro can see the Gospel being worked out in history he also seems overly eager to see some of the remaining necessities of the Law fade away. He is moving too quickly when he says of this event: “Circumcision is of the heart by the Holy Spirit working through the Word. It is not about ancestral connection or ethnic heritage anymore.”

“Anymore” implies he rightly sees the heaviness of the reality that he is tackling, even as, of course, real faith in Christ, albeit implicit, also was necessary for salvation in the Old Covenant. Now, as he says “Jesus teaches… Israel is redefined around Me”. Nevertheless, recognizing how Jesus Christ actually goes about making this change, first in His ministry and then more fulsomely in His post-resurrection Church, is of the utmost importance.

For as I noted at an important juncture in my recent longform article about Herman Sasse:

“The first commandment with a promise” promises blessings to those who honor their fathers and mothers. Genesis 12:3, with its precious promises to the mishpachah (families, clans, tribes, nations, peoples), also undoubtedly follows both Genesis 10 and 11 for good reason… Is our Lord Jesus, born of Mary, in His post-resurrection body and ascension, also still from Israel according to the flesh – more particularly, from Judah’s line, that is, a Judean? If [we say] he isn’t… are we in danger of entertaining, courting, another Jesus? (2 Cor. 11) Why would we insist the Lamb of God, who retains His wounds and scars in heaven, will not retain His particular line of descent and, per Romans 9:3, relative relations according to the flesh (namely, a relation to all from Adam, but a closer natural connection to His own particular people)?

On the cross, “for us men and our salvation”, He is indeed first the King of the Jews.

FIN

1. At around 57 minutes here he says that law and gospel is a hermeneutic for reading scripture: https://youtu.be/ho786JTGX_M?si=LdBTabiMY2DMciX7 On the contrary, we learn about law and gospel, their importance and their proper use from Scripture. ↩︎
2. He also says: “…instead of interceding for her, [the disciples] beg Jesus to get rid of her, ‘to cast her from them,’ in the same way she entreats Jesus to cast the demon from her daughter.
   Subtly, then, Matthew intimates the disciples see this dog as tantamount to a devil herself and, in turn, take on the complexion of those possessed by mallows spirits.”
   More:
   “…the disciples themselves need a form of exorcism by the Gospel to be rid of their heartlessness for one who otherwise is as helpless as themselves without Christ to save….” ↩︎
3. “Many came to see Him (Mark 3:8) and be healed by Him (Luke 6:17)” ↩︎
4. “Faith was engendered within her through the proclaimed word from the people of Tyre and Sidon that this was the year of the Lord’s favor (Isaiah 61:2), that the words and miracles of Jesus evidenced God with us was the good news of God for us.” ↩︎