Doug Wilson Says If ‘Jesus was White' and the Canaanite Woman was ‘Black,’ He Would Have Said ‘It's Not Right’ ‘to Give Perfectly Good White Folk Food to ‘N****rs’’
“Jesus was not above using ethnic humor to make His point either…My understanding of this encounter is that Jesus was pulling his disciples’ chain…Put in terms that we might be more familiar with, Jesus was white, and the disciples were white, and this black woman comes up seeking healing for her daughter. She gets ignored. The disciples ask Jesus to send her off. She comes up and beseeches Christ for healing. It’s not right, He says, to give perfectly good white folk food to ‘n****rs.’ Disciples mentally cheer. But she sees the look in His eye, and the inverted commas around the epithet, and answers in kind. He relents, which was His intent all along, and heals the woman’s daughter. If this understanding is right, then Jesus was using a racial insult to make a point. If it is not correct, then He was simply using a racial insult.”1 — Doug Wilson (note: asterisks added; the original quote does not redact the N-word)
OPINION: Doug Wilson has a long history of being accused of racial insensitivity and even racism.2 But here, Doug seeks to justify his own offensive words by placing them in Jesus’ mouth. And not just any word, but according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a word that “is one of the most controversial in English, and is liable to be considered offensive or taboo in almost all contexts (even when used as a self-description).”3 By doing so, I believe Doug reveals that he is not a careful student of Scripture, and that his mind is clearly bent toward offending the world around him (demonstrated further by his choice to use the full N-word, without redaction) and is therefore in direct conflict with God’s Word: “Do not give offense to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also try to please everyone in all things. I do not seek my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved” (1 Corinthians 10:32–33, NET).
When we read Jesus’ interaction with the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:22–28 and Mark 7:25–30, it may generate questions: “Why did Jesus just call that woman a dog? Was that an insult?” Let’s start by looking at what the term meant in the cultural context: “Although there are Jews who speak of the faithfulness of the dog, in the main it is regarded as ‘the most despicable, insolent and miserable of creatures’…Comparison with a dog is insulting and dishonouring” (see also 1 Samuel 17:43; 2 Samuel 9:8, 16:9).4 However, according to a study of the New Testament Greek, Jesus didn’t use the normal word for dog (“κύων”), but rather used “κυναρίοις” which “shows that Jesus has in mind little [domesticated] dogs which could be tolerated in the house.”5 Immediately, it is abundantly clear that Doug’s interpretation has missed the mark and that he presents a false dichotomy of Jesus either “using a racial insult to make a point” or “simply using a racial insult.” When Jesus referred to gentiles as “little dogs” could it have been taken as an insult by the Canaanite woman? Yes. But given the context, it is clear that Jesus was not seeking to offend her, and neither did she take offense (which she would have if Jesus had used a word on par with the N-word). Let’s look a little further into the evidence and show biblically that Doug’s interpretation is wrong.
First, the term “dog” in the biblical languages is not equivalent to the N-word in English because the word “dog” can be used literally for the animal, whereas the N-word has only been used to refer to a human of a specific race. When Goliath called himself a “dog” it was an actual comparison to a dog, not an ethnic slur.6 Similarly, when Jesus used the term, he was referring to a literal domesticated dog that would be found in a household where children were eating. While Jews tended to despise dogs, this was not the case for Greeks, and so the image of pet dogs eating crumbs from the dinner table would have most likely been a familiar scene to the Canaanite woman who was Syrophoenician (Mark 7:26).7 Although Jesus did use “little dog” as a metaphor for Gentiles, it was distinct from the derogatory term sometimes used by Jews to refer to Gentiles. This is significant because it clearly places “dog” and the N-word in separate categories. Jesus’ use of the word is in no way equivalent to the N-word in our day.
Second, the term “dog” is not equivalent to the N-word because dogs were designated as unclean in the Mosaic law (Leviticus 11:27). So when Jesus says, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matthew 7:6, NASB95), he is not using a racial slur, but rather is speaking of not giving what is holy to what is unholy because both dogs and pigs were unclean animals in the Mosaic law.8 “Dogs” and “swine” in this context do not “refer to distinct classes of men but to men of all classes who set themselves in opposition to the Gospel.”9 Paul’s usage of the word in Philippians 3:2 falls into this category as well.10 Again, the N-word does not have an equivalent usage because it only ever refers to a human of a specific race.
Third, Israel as a nation was specifically chosen by God and set apart from all other nations (Deuteronomy 14:2). And so to put Jews on a different level compared to Gentiles is not racist, but a biblical reality. God’s choice of Israel was not on the basis of their own superiority as a race, but rather purely based on his own free choice and covenant with Abraham (Deuteronomy 7:6–8). And so when Jesus speaks of being sent first to the sheep of Israel, this has no basis in racism, but in the reality of God’s choice (Matthew 15:24). When Jesus sent the twelve out on mission and excluded the Gentiles, it again had nothing to do with racism but was based fully on the covenant reality that Israel is God’s chosen people and they were the focus of Jesus’ ministry on earth (Matthew 10:5–6). This reality would soon shift, but not until after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Acts 10:15).11 And so, even if the Canaanite woman felt like Jesus was using a racially charged word (though I do not believe she did), Jesus wasn’t being racist but rather was conveying the reality that his primary mission was to Israel as God’s chosen people. The N-word has no connection to God’s choice to set apart a specific people and therefore is not an equivalent of the biblical usage of “dog” in Scripture.
Fourth, biblically the word “dog” is used by Israelites to refer to themselves in a posture of humility (2 Samuel 16:9; Isaiah 56:10–11). David referred to himself as a “dead dog” and a “flea” as a show of humility when he addressed King Saul after cutting off part of his robe without Saul’s knowledge (1 Samuel 24:14). A Gentile familiar with the Old Testament could have easily picked up on this dynamic, and the Canaanite woman was clearly familiar with the Old Testament because she referred to Jesus as “son of David” (Matthew 15:22).12 And in her response to Jesus, she communicated humility through her use of the word “little dog.” The N-word has no such usage and therefore, it is not biblically sound to make it equivalent to the usage of “dog” in Scripture.
So why did Doug make this connection with the N-word and “dog” if such a connection cannot be made on the basis of Scripture? I believe it is because Doug has a bent towards the offensive and that he is at the very least “racially insensitive,” as Thabiti Anyabwile concluded.13 Meaning he has an “inability or unwillingness to sense and lovingly consider the concerns, feelings, and perspectives of others across racial lines.”14 When Doug wrote the book that contains the aforementioned quote, I believe he came to God’s Word trying to justify his use of satire and offensive language as a pastor.15 Instead of asking, “What does the Bible say about how Christians should speak?,” Doug seems to ask, “How can I use Scripture to justify the crass and offensive way I like to speak?” It’s backward and a poor method of studying Scripture. Throughout history, people have twisted the Bible to justify many sins. It’s called eisegesis, the opposite of exegesis. Eisegesis is when we “‘read something into’ a biblical text that may not actually be there. And exegesis is when we seek to ‘draw out’ of the text what is actually there.”16
In 2007, a controversy broke out locally here in Moscow, Idaho, regarding Doug’s insistence that Jesus would have used the N-word. This led many in the community to boycott businesses run by those who had connections to Christ Church.17 Doug’s defense was that the context surrounding his use of the N-word in his book was “Jesus rebuking the racism of His disciples.”18 Meaning, it is acceptable to use a racial slur as long as you are making a valid point or teaching someone a lesson. But such a defense misses the core issue. The problem wasn’t that people didn’t understand that Doug believed Jesus was rebuking the racism of the disciples. It was that Doug believed Jesus would use a racial slur on par with no other word in the English language to do so.19 As a parent, do I teach my children that cursing is wrong by cursing? Of course not. Neither did Jesus teach others not to be racist by using a racial slur like the N-word! The Bible teaches that Jesus was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15, NASB95). To participate in sin in order to teach others not to sin is sin. Also, in the quote, Doug was not just teaching that “Jesus was rebuking the racism of His disciples.”20 Rather Doug introduces this entire section with: “Jesus was not above using ethnic humor to make His point either,”21 meaning Doug thinks it would have been humorous if Jesus used the N-word and that we can and should use ethnic humor to make a point as well.22 But instead of seeking an excuse to use an ethnic slur, why not rather keep to the clear admonitions of Scripture: “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:29, NASB95). “…and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks” (Ephesians 5:4, NASB95). “But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth” (Colossians 3:8, NASB95). Scripture is abundantly clear, and we should not distort or undermine its plain and straightforward meaning with other more obscure passages.23 I do not believe that Christians, especially white Americans (and particularly someone like Doug, who idolizes the Confederacy),24 should use the N-word to make a point, let alone advocate its usage to be humorous.
I believe Doug has missed the mark and is clearly not someone who accurately handles the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). He has chosen, without any biblical merit, to use language that offends and dehumanizes those who are made in the image of God. And to what end? As it was for Israel, so I believe it is for Doug: “For just as it is written, ‘the name of God is being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you’” (Romans 2:24, NET). Doug has placed a stumbling block in front of the gospel where no stumbling block exists. As Jesus said: “woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!” (Matthew 18:7, NASB95). Doug and his church have a very poor reputation among unbelievers here locally because of his refusal to humble himself, admit his own fault, and seek forgiveness when it comes to controversies such as this one. I believe it is clear that he does not fit the biblical requirements to be a pastor (1 Timothy 3:2–7; Titus 1:6–8).
My prayer is that Doug would repent from his use of dehumanizing language by his advocacy of the use of ethnic slurs as permissible and for his part in causing people to stumble and blaspheme the name of Christ because of his unbiblical teaching and example. I pray that he would bear fruit in accordance with repentance by removing such teaching from print and by seeking forgiveness from those he has offended.
Want More Context?
Here are some links to other blogs and podcasts dealing with this and other issues in more depth:
https://www.dennyburk.com/the-serrated-edge-of-doug-wilson/
https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/did-the-canaanite-woman-teach-jesus-not-to-be-racist/
https://faithroot.com/2021/04/23/douglas-wilson-on-slavery-and-racism/
Footnotes
Footnotes
-
Douglas Wilson, A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking, Canon Press, 2003, loc. 344-55, Kindle Edition. ↩
-
In 1996 Doug co-wrote a booklet entitled Southern Slavery As It Was, which contained statements such as: “Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world.” Doug did not directly recant anything until 2020 though given multiple opportunities: https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/wilsononslavery.htm. In 2004 Doug wrote: “As some may recall, a booklet that I cowrote with Steve Wilkins entitled Southern Slavery As It Was was at the center of quite a hubbub last February. What some may not realize is that Canon Press pulled the title from their inventory around the time of that controversy. This was not because we were at all embarrassed by the thesis of the booklet, but rather because someone had informed us that there were some real problems with the citations and footnotes.” https://web.archive.org/web/20240521161742/https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/plagiarism-aye.html. In 2020, he broadly stated: “Would I want to recast or disavow or explain or contextualize or modify certain views expressed as excerpted from SSAIW? The short answer is yes, I would.” But he did not specifically state what he would recast, disavow or explain. https://web.archive.org/web/20240521005533/https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/not-that-simple-2.html. He did assert in that same post that his views in Black & Tan (written in 2005 and still in print today) are his current views, and there he continues to advocate for a revisionist view of American slavery and also makes “abolitionists” out to be the real enemy: “Slavery was far more benign in practice than it was made to appear in the literature of the abolitionists” (Douglas Wilson, Black & Tan: A Collection of Essays and Excursions on Slavery, Culture War, and Scripture in America, Canon Press, 2005, loc. 287, Kindle Edition.) Such views are not only historically inaccurate (https://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/weld/menu.html), they are unbiblical (https://thecripplegate.com/the-bible-condemns-american-slavery/).
For more on the controversies over the years:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/illustrating-racial-insensitivity-in-black-and-tan/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/a-black-and-tan-round-up/ https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2006/idaho-pastor-hard-liner-exception-or-two
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/07/doug-wilson-exchange-with-thabiti-anyabwile.html
https://www.lambsreign.com/blog/southern-slavery-gets-another-moscow-whitewashing
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/02/1250560532/doug-wilson-church-bible-slavery-controversy
https://medium.com/interfaith-now/someone-please-make-douglas-wilson-shut-up-b7956f07acfb ↩ -
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=nigger ↩
-
Otto Michel, “Κύων, Κυνάριον,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 1101. ↩
-
Otto Michel, “Κύων, Κυνάριον,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 1104. ↩
-
“In order to make the most of the contest, however, Goliath began a psychological assault. First, he insulted David’s most prominent weapon—the stick in his hand, suggesting that it was an instrument fit only for spanking a dog.”—Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 195. ↩
-
In Homer’s The Odyssey, Odysseus’ dog Argos, is portrayed as a dear household pet: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cbmr/vol38/iss1/17/ see also: https://greekreporter.com/2023/06/15/ancient-greeks-love-for-their-dogs/ ↩
-
“The choice of dogs and pigs, both regarded by the Jews as unclean animals, provides a suitable contrast with ‘sacred things’”—R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007), 276. ↩
-
Otto Michel, “Κύων, Κυνάριον,”.+~They+did+not+refer+t) ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 1102. ↩
-
“This metaphor is full of ‘bite,’ since dogs were zoological ‘low life,’ scavengers that were generally detested by Greco-Roman society and considered unclean by Jews, who sometimes used ‘dog’ to designate Gentiles. Paul thus reverses the epithet; by trying to make Gentiles ‘clean’ through circumcision, the Judaizers are unclean ‘dogs.’”—Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 295. ↩
-
“Jesus comes as the Suffering Servant to save all Israel. Jesus must first go to Israel in fulfillment of the promises made to the nation (cf. Isa. 53:6–8), so that the Gentiles themselves will glorify God for his promises made to his people (cf. Rom. 15:8–9).” - Michael J. Wilkins, Matthew, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2004), 539. ↩
-
https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/did-the-canaanite-woman-teach-jesus-not-to-be-racist/ ↩
-
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/illustrating-racial-insensitivity-in-black-and-tan/ ↩
-
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/illustrating-racial-insensitivity-in-black-and-tan/ ↩
-
Doug writes in the preface that he wrote the book as a “defensive exhortation” of his crass and offensive language—Douglas Wilson, A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking, Canon Press, 2003, loc. 14, Kindle Edition. ↩
-
https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/exegesis-and-eisegesis ↩
-
https://web.archive.org/web/20210225214006/https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/bigotry-on-stilts.html ↩
-
https://web.archive.org/web/20210225214006/https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/bigotry-on-stilts.html ↩
-
The N-word “ranks as almost certainly the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English” - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nigger ↩
-
https://web.archive.org/web/20210225214006/https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/bigotry-on-stilts.html ↩
-
Douglas Wilson, A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking, Canon Press, 2003, loc. 344, Kindle Edition, Italics added. ↩
-
On August 31, 2024, Doug made this same argument in regard with the use of the middle-finger in a controversial ad for the college he helped found: “… it is perfectly acceptable to use an image like that to go after your advisories. In order to make a point.”—https://x.com/canonpress/status/1829933408744849729 see also: https://x.com/JustinPetersMin/status/1829280227731902587 ↩
-
“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” https://www.monergism.com/interpretation-scipture-wcf-19 ↩
-
Doug has written: “slavery was far more benign in practice than it was made to appear in the literature of the abolitionists”\ (Douglas Wilson, Black & Tan: A Collection of Essays and Excursions on Slavery, Culture War, and Scripture in America, Canon Press, 2005, loc. 287, Kindle Edition). And he also has written: “I have written books like Black and Tan and have described myself before as a paleo-confederate and other such monstrosities. And confronted with such undeniable facts as these, I remain singularly unapologetic.”(Douglas Wilson, Skin and Blood: A Gospel Approach to Race and Racial Animosity, Canon Press, 2022, p. 11, Kindle Edition). ↩