—Confused Notions of God’s Word: Woman of Cana
Someone emailed and commented / asked:
I read your analogy on the Canaanite woman in Races in Chaos. What you are saying is that only can pure Israelites ask God for help and God will grant it.
----------------------
My reply/comment:
Well, no. If you are going to refer to something that I said, either quote me verbatim, or give me the page number that you are talking about. I don’t know what “analogy” to which you refer, or if analogy is not the proper word. Futhermore, no, I am not saying what you say. Anyone can pray to God. However, God has not obligated Himself by Covenant or Promise to hear / grant the requests of anyone but His people and His people who are in submission to Him. God said to Cain, “If you repent shall you not be accepted?” However, what most miss is that it was not within Cain to repent because God had not ordained Cain unto life; but ordained him to be a vessel of wrath created for destruction. Cain was of the Wicked One.
----------------------
Other person:
What if she truly had been a Canaanite and she was a slave to a God fearing master and through her observance of him did she gain her faith. Just as the blacks that were slaves in the south I am sure that many of them did not want to leave the plantation for even they knew how well they had it.
----------------------
My reply/comment:
Well, no, this is not true on every count. Someone does not gain faith from observing someone else. Faith is a gift of God to the elect of His people (whom God chose in Christ before the Foundation of the world) administered by the Holy Spirit at the time of regeneration whereby they believe unto salvation and cry out “Abba-Pateyr” (daddy-father). Faith is not a “spiritual friendship cake” where one lump is passed along to another via human agency.
Furthermore, someone raised in slavery and having known no other life could not possibly have known whether his life in slavery was better than some life that he had never known. That is the same parallel as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and also parallels the adage “The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence” and Aesop’s fable of the dog with the bone who saw his reflection in the river and tried to take “the other dog’s” bone, dropped his and when he went to retrieve it drowned.
[Most blacks lived better under slavery (not including notions of “freedom”) than they ever have outside of it. Indeed, many blacks who are financially secure live better, but the majority do not—and the majority would not if stupid Americans did not allow our corrupt public servants to give them a free living (welfare, health care, food, housing). In reality, they are still slaves; except now they don’t have to do anything to earn the master’s welfare. Most blacks, having been prejucided against the truth of history and the very concept of slavery, would argue emotionally that blacks are better today than under slavery. But the truth is, most are not even with welfare. Most grow up ignorant, commit crimes, do drugs, join gangs, copulate freely and sire children they will never father, live in drunkenness and violence. All these things were prevented by slavery and by Colonialism. The carnal or savage mind imagines life is “better” in being able to destroy and self-destruct and live irresponsibly, doing what self wants, rather than to be safe and healthy but not having the freedom to do what self wants. Society has been reduced to semi-slavery, since not even white people are free to do what they want because of unconstitutional, treasonous restrictions of freedom (because of the imported and self-breeding aliens) and because of the restriction of safety in not being able to travel freely in our own country without fear of being mugged, raped, or murdered. Where is freedom if liberty is merely an idea that cannot be actualized?]
----------------------
Other person:
She too could have been in a similar situation and realizing that she could not do any better on her own she followed her master.
----------------------
My reply/comment:
While what you say in general “could” be true; it is not true in this case. The Gospel of Mark says she was a Greek, Syrophenician only by where she was living. Furthermore, Christ remarked at her faith—and faith is a gift of God. It does not originate in man. Man is dead in sin and God shut the eyes, ears, hearts, minds of all and opens only those of the elect of His people. The fact she had faith is evidence she was an Israelite. So imagining all sorts of statistically possible scenarios does not change reality. Scriptural interpretation is not based upon what man can imagine, but what God established.
----------------------
Other person:
Let’s face it people can be conditioned just as Israelites are conditioned to follow the traditions of men. Do all traditions have to be against God’s Law? Surely there would have to be traditions for God’s Laws to be followed.
----------------------
My reply/comment:
Your directive, “Let’s face it” is a moot point, a smokescreen, irrelevant, and has nothing to do with this discussion. “Do all traditions have to be against God’s Law?” is a question you should know the answer to. If tradition is something that God commanded, while it may be tradition because godly men practice it, it is not a tradition of men. If men practice something that God did not specifically command, but it does not violate anything that God commanded and it does not replace what God commanded and it is not considered to be of equal authority or importance to what God commanded, then of course such traditions are not sinful. Do you really need me to explain the obvious?
If your unstated implications are that [those who are not God’s] people can be conditioned to [follow the Law of God] even as God’s people can be [wrongly] conditioned to follow the traditions of men (which, if so, you should have articulated), then the burden of proof is on you to provide the Scripture passages in which God commands us to teach the savages. Christ said “It is not meet [proper, suitable] to take the children’s Bread [Christ] and give it to the dogs” [puppies; in this case the mixed (and demon-possessed) daughter of the Greek Israelite woman. Christ also commanded, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs neither cast pearls before swine lest they turn and trample and rend you”. God commanded, “Come out from among them and be ye separate and touch [join] not the unclean thing [people] and ye shall [indeed] by My sons and daughters”. God commanded all alien wives to be divorced and they and all children by them sent away. God does not hear the prayers of those in sin.
Furthermore, by violating the Command to give not that which is holy to the dogs, if the savages are civilized, that then creates the environment in which the less moral and intelligent of God’s people will favor allowing those “civilized savages” to enter our society; and corrupt it from within, commit crime, and pollute and forever destroy entire branches of the family tree.
Further still, God has ordained those not His people unto destruction and God has forbade us to seek their peace or prosperity forever; and God forbade us to love or help those who hate Him. God commanded us to hate evil. God said if we even bid “Godspeed” to any of our kinsmen who reject the message of Christ that we are partakers in their evil deeds! So then, what is the guilt of God’s people who help His enemies? God ordained savages unto destruction. Christ said, “I am not sent but unto the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel” and “as the Father hath sent Me so send I you”. The Second Great Commission was to the same people as the first—to true Israel only (whom God scattered and promised to regather) but worldwide, not locally.
----------------------
Other person:
Just as a month ago I asked you about Ted Savage being a Jew and favoring better things in America and your comment was that he knew that his life was not going to be good if America kept up its disobedience.
----------------------
My reply/comment:
That is off point. An educated person in the modern world can understand clear patterns and what communism does to whatever nation it takes over. This cannot be compared to slaves, who have been slaves their whole lives, knowing their lives are better as slaves to a benevolent master than were they on their own in a dog-eat-dog world where they must fend for themselves and earn their own living.
[For the same reason the majority of free white people are not their own boss, but work for someone else. Not everyone has it within them to be a go-getter, risk-taking, responsible person who invests all. Most would rather punch a clock 9 to 5, no headaches, no worries, no investment, no motivation, and go home and relax the rest of the time.]
----------------------
Other person:
Now if your theory is right which I certainly cannot find anywhere else where God was confronted by a non-Israelite for gifts granted to him unless done by an Israelite such as Balaam, that means that all these other races have no chance of even being outside the Kingdom for God does not put His Spirit upon them for them to understand. Being outside the Kingdom to me is far better than being in a fiery pit for everafter. Now that raises a question as to whom God was talking to when He said that He would bless the nations that blessed Israel.
----------------------
My reply/comment:
It is not a theory. The Gospel of Mark says she was a Greek woman living in Syrophenicia and that Christ pointed out that she possessed not only true faith, but uncommon faith. One can only be confused about this story if he does not understand God’s Sovereignty, God’s Decrees, God’s Immutability, and the nature of true faith. The woman did not ask for herself, but for her daughter; the Greek word should have been translated “puppy”: for that is what the Greek word is; not dog. In the other passage in which Christ mentions dogs and swine, it is dog; but it is puppy in this passage—and one has to be a bit daft if he cannot follow the flow of logic.
Your statement, “I certainly cannot find anywhere else where God was confronted by a non-Israelite for gifts granted to him unless done by an Israelite such as Balaam” is full of confusion, if as you assume Balaam was an Israelite (which he was not*) then he would not be another [“another” being implied by your “anywhere else”] “nonIsraelite” to serve as an example. Also, you draw false inferences that seem to suggest that you believe that if you could find “what you think” is an “exception” (contradiction) that somehow that would invalidate God’s Law, which shows you don’t understand God’s Law (morality) or God’s Nature.
[* Balaam was most probably an Aramaen or Chaldean, though Scripture does not definitively tell us.]
God has not ordained all unto life and God has not ordained the same “future reality” (a better expression than either “destiny” or “fate”) for those not His people as those who are His people. God does as He wills with what is His (everything). It really is irrelevant concerning what seems “better to you” or to anyone. What matters is what God determined. Millions of individuals would have made better kings of Israel or England, etc., than many of those who were. But that is irrevelant. It is not what God determined. It should not raise a question in your mind to whom God was talking “when He said that He would bless the nations that blessed Israel”—because Scripture tells us to whom He was talking: He was talking to Abraham. Technically, it was not spoken of Israel, though that is the actual inference. Now, if you mean “OF” whom it was spoken, that is, WHO the “them” are in this passage, then that can be easily deduced using the same logic as we did earlier concerning which lawbreakers will enter the Kingdom and which shall be cast into Hell. Those nations whom God will bless through Abraham differ according to the type of blessing. God blessed Laban solely because of Jacob’s Presence. God blessed Potiphar as well as Pharaoh as well as Nebuchadnezzar simply because of the elevation and well treatment of Joseph, Daniel, and the 3 Hebrew men. Some blessing may be indirect, general, and incidental. Clearly all the world has been blessed by the inventions by the peoples of Christendom. Clearly, if a nation of God’s people destroys a powerful aggressor nation of aliens, the lesser alien nations are indirectly blessed by that aggressor being destroyed to no longer oppress them either. God is not double-minded: He is Holy. Whatever blessing that He had in mind, it is only in keeping with His Own Law and Holiness. Furthermore, “blessing” regardless of type, does not change God’s Law, including laws of separation, not seeking the peace or prosperity of those not His people; not loving or doing good unto them. Thus, those who are not God’s people can only receive overflow of blessing, not direct blessing.
Had this woman been a Canaanite, most probably God would not have put faith in her to believe. Also, understand, there is a difference between Biblical faith and secular faith or even blind hope. If an atheist flips a light switch, he has faith that the light will come on based upon experience. That is not pure faith, since it is based upon experience, but it also not pure understanding or knowledge, because most people who flip light switches do not understand electrical theory or electrical wiring—and even for those small percentages who do, there is no guarantee that the light switch will actually work, due to a myriad of possible factors, every single time the switch is flipped: the power could fail; a breaker go bad; the light switch go bad, the light bulb go bad, etc. Now, based upon statistical probabilities, it is most likely that the light will come on; but this is not Biblical faith.
Furthermore, there is a difference between Biblical faith and blind hope, misunderstanding, or delusion. In many examples, a person may be contronted with a deal that seems too good to be true (most often, they are), such as being sold the Brooklyn Bridge for a mere $1 million. The hopeful purchaser wants to believe it is true; but that does not make it true; and if it is not true, then he did not have faith, but misplaced hope / delusion. If you tell anyone on the street that they are heir to a billion dollar fortune, do you know of any that would be unconcerned and disinterested? However, those who go around saying, “Thus saith the Lord”—when the Lord has NOT said—inviting the dogs into the family to be heirs with the children, not only have no authority to do so, but those dogs who believe them did not have faith; only deluded belief in the wonderful sounding lie that was told to them.
The Greek woman with the mixed daughter did not ask for salvation for the daughter and Christ did not offer it. She asked only for the overflow of blessing, crumbs (which presupposes that the dogs mind their place and don’t violate the children). To stretch this passage beyond what it actually discusses, and to misunderstand it by not understanding the unchanging Law of God and who the Greeks were, and whence faith originates, will only end in a cluster of confusion.
Other peoples can have belief in information, but not faith about their sharing in the Covenants (which includes salvation), for such Promises were not given to them. If they have belief that they are part of the Covenants that God made with His people, that is not faith, but delusion or presumption—falsehood and error. If the nonAdamite peoples are pure in their genealogies and OBEY GOD’S LAW (which includes not infiltrating Israelite society and attempting to intermarry, become elected to positions of “authority” over God’s people (in church or state), etc.—but accept their place under the table if they are respectful and obedient), then they will not be destroyed when Christ returns. If they are not cross-bred God indeed planted them (and Christ declared that when He returned He would uproot every plant that His Heavenly Father had not planted and all things that offend [God’s Order]). If they do not violate God’s Law, cross boundaries that God established, and attempt to infiltrate our society, but accept the overflow of blessing (as they had under Apartheid, having flocked to the civilization the whites built and the whites demanded that they stay in their own neighborhoods and the whites also mainting law and order so that none could unopposed oppress or predate upon others), or if they ask us to rule over them in their lands (such as during Colonialism), then they function in the role in which God created them. If they attempt to infiltrate and live among us and change our way of life and intermarry with us destroying those branches of God’s family tree and polluting those branches of the bride of Christ, then they are invaders and enemies and Christ said that on the Day of Judgment when He returns He will command the angels to slay before Him all those who would not that He rule over them. Christ’s Rule is the Law of God and those who reject it now reject His Rule.
It is entirely irrelevant if aliens came strictly to have a better way of life, because in so doing they are stealing life from us and they have no right to invade our land and God commanded us to be separate and not help them. Those who ignore what God commanded are humanists and the enemy of God.
If God allowed aliens to be taken as slaves, then strict and unflinching laws concerning those slaves had to have been followed. NO BREEDING with them... and limits on how many slaves could be allowed themselves to breed would also need to be established, since if they breed too rapidly they become a military threat; further, aliens can never be trusted. Furthermore, those wealthy enough to own slaves have no right to fill society with their slaves, forcing society to be polluted by them. If someone has slaves, they should not be allowed off the plantation and rub shoulders in society (whether in the country or the city) in any way. Any exceptions will only be the trickle in the dam until exceptions become the corrupt “rule” (that is practice that is eventually unconstitutionally legalized).
The bottom line is that God is Sovereign and the earth He has given to the children of Adam.
God gave the land of Canaan to His people—even though other people Canaanites) already lived there (however, you reap what you sow; they only lived there because they had killed or outbred the original Hebrews who lived there before them). Thus, it is a unbiblical and humanistic (antichrist) perspective to continue to think in terms of “rights” of aliens in any fashion. If the Canaanites had no rights (which they did not or God would not have evicted them or put out death warrants on them) when they were the defacto owners of the lands, then they certainly have no rights as infiltrators or slaves post-facto.
----------------------
Other person:
I understand that but what about those who not by choice came and were forced to live with us, as in the case of slavery or any kind of slavery. Obviously that is why we reap what we sow for the sins of our ancestors bringing them and allowing them to come in. Who knows how many of them came strictly to have a better way of life.
----------------------
My reply/comment:
Well, if they came as slaves they did not come to have a better way of life, but because they were slaves...! If they were not slaves and came for a better way of life, that is meaningless...! Is that not why every criminal robs a bank or a jewelry store...?
Absence of choice does not establish legitimacy. Do you think that all the Canaanites in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians in Egypt, all the Assyrians in Assyria, etc. all “chose” to not be God’s people? Do you think the Canaanites who were born in the Land of Canaan (which was stolen from the previous inhabitants, the Hebrews) before the Conquest, or the Edomites born in the land of Israel after the Edomites infiiltrated the land; or the desdendents of the corrupt peoples that the king of Babylon moved into the Land of Israel after He deported the Israelites—do you think that any of these people had any choice where they were born or what they were born? It then is utterly irrelevant whether the blacks here “chose” to be born in the U.S. Indeed, even if they had the choice, do you think they would have chosen to be born in Africa...? Choice or lack thereof does not establish legitimacy or right or identity. Did you choose to be born from sinful Adam and inherit a sin nature cursed by God and Hell-bent for Eternity unless God by His Grace determined to redeem you? Then divorce all such illegimitate notions from your mind and formulate and conform your thinking to the Word of God, in harmonious context, not contradiction.