Jesus never ever said that the races were equal. In a racist age were racism was virtually compelled, we can be sure he was a racist. 


Christians use feeble evidence against his racism by saying he helped Gentiles.  Racists will give patronising help to people of other races. It does not make them less racist.  It is looking down on them. 


Incredibly we read in Matthew 4 that Jesus went to live in a Gentile region after the arrest of John the Baptist to fulfil the light to the Gentiles prophecy in Isaiah.  That is upheld by believers as proof that Jesus was all about Jews and hated outsiders.  Yet it is a fact that he did not reach out to non-Jews.  He sought out the Jews in those places.  The text refers to Galilee of the Gentiles.  There is a difference between saying Jesus went to a place associated with Gentiles and that he reached out to Gentiles.



Does the Bible see race as a group who have certain genetic characteristics such as black skin? Some devious people contend: "No. Race in the Bible never refers to race in the technical sense."


This is a lie for it gives details about how somebody from another race cannot be considered a Hebrew in race and faith and about how long before their descendants can be considered Hebrews and pure enough to become members of God's congregation - the religion.


The Law of God that Jesus adored so much preaches eugenics - something that NOTHING else up to and around that time had done!  Jesus said not an iota should or would pass from those scriptures highlighting that this was because their teaching was simply right and humans are prone to error hence no change can be tolerated in case it confuses the teaching.


Suppose it did not preach racism clearly.  It would not have to.  Racism is just simply an us not them attitude, feeling and view based on somebody being seen in a sense as another species just because of where they are from and Unsurprisingly the Old Testament strongly tries to separate the Hebrews from other nations.  Most people who are racist are not thinking of genetics!  They are still racists!


To call Jesus saviour and the light of the world and to agree with the Jewish followers he had who said they did not have any way to God - implying their religion was no good - and being told in response "I am the way, truth and life" is a kind of racism.  It paves the way for other forms.  If you disparage people of the past as not having access to God's saving help to live a good life that leads to looking down on their races and cultures.  Taking a step to racism is racism.  Racism is a spectrum and need not take the form we rant about today.  The racist ingredient of your privilege, your people's privilege is there. We need to rant more and be more aware and racially conscious. 


Some religions are race based such as traditional Hinduism which says unless you are born Indian you are not part of the religion.  Islam too tends to be non-white and criticism of Islam is usually motivated by racist white privilege.  Jesus was slamming those.  As evil as that is, what about tribal religions?  So now we have unpacked how what Jesus said was not only leaning towards racism but was racism in many respects.




Jesus infamously ignored the pleas of a woman who wanted him to get a demon out of her daughter.     She called him Son of David and made proclamations of faith so he was still unmoved.     Surely that faith made her God's child?  Look at what he says to her!  The woman was calling Jesus Messiah and Son of David and he still could not tolerate her.  He did not even get that amount of faith from his own!

She got his attention eventually and he told her it was not right to take the food of the children meaning the Jews and throw it to the dogs.  He was clear it was not right.  If he were testing he would have said, "What if I said to you I would not help for I have to help God's people not pagans?"  No what he said was, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”.


She retorted that surely dogs can get scraps.


He told her for such a reply he would help her daughter.  He tells her and her child were dogs and agrees to help when she admits it.  She was totally degraded.  It was mean to take advantage of such a vulnerable woman.  She ignored his insult which was a sure sign of fear.


Unlike in other cases, he was so repulsed he never went to the girl but healed her at a distance.


There was no diagnosis.  He did even ask her what the demon was supposed to be doing.  That he assumed the mother was right shows his belief that if you were of a pagan race you had to have demons.  If the girl was better when her mother got home, that means nothing.  Jesus said that demons can be cast out but invited back in again.  So with such a doctrine he could not fail.  If the person went quiet he said it was the demon gone.  But that proves nothing.  He was a fraud.


Men have always loved dogs.   They always had problems with canine behaviour.      So naturally women who were considered pests to men were called dogs or bitches in some form. Jesus could not tolerate this woman as the story says he was calling her a bitch.


The Jews regarded the Gentiles like this woman as dogs.  The woman was in danger from racist  fanatics and Jesus did not help.  If the girl's father would be in danger think of how much more danger the woman would be. He wanted her to be portrayed as somebody that was trying to take what belonged to the Jews.  It is like how, "They come here to take our jobs" is racism.


It is the bigotry of low expectations to take it for granted that a pagan girl is possessed.


And consider that this woman might have been a very young mother.  Girls were impregnated too often then before their time.  That means what Jesus did is even more reprehensible and dangerous than we can imagine.


Christians claim that Jesus used the word kunarion which is the word for pet dog or pup.  But if that is what we should be translating dog as it makes what he said to her no less patronising and racist.  Kuon is the word for dog.  If you take the Gospel of Matthew, it purports to be the work of a Hebrew not a Greek.  So in his version he would have used the Hebrew word kelev that is k'lev.  That just means dog full stop.  And pet dogs then were not really pets but there to catch vermin and be abused.  Puppies were given to mostly bad homes or homes that could barely feed them.  Puppy could imply that he was telling her that she should not be considered an adult never mind a woman just because of her race.


Finally Matthew says the girl was suffering terribly and to the extent that the mother was desperate.  Jesus ignored her and delayed care.  And why?  Because he wanted to make the woman feel no help was coming and to tell her they were animals. He refused the child the immediate help that the gospels say he gave to his own race.  He only helped reluctantly and never apologised.


Christians say Jesus was trying to give a good example to the unbelieving Jews around him.  But the text does not mention the belief of any witnesses.  He may have praised her faith in private.   And as for the praise it sounds grudging.  That is not real praise.




The man Jesus removed a legion of demons from was in a region where lots of pigs were reared so it is assumed he was a Gentile. Jesus strictly speaking only transported the demons from the man to the pigs round about which went and drowned themselves. This was not a casting out of demons and raises the question if Jesus by say casting out the demon from the daughter of the pagan woman who he called a dog, a racist slur, was in fact only relocating it to some other girl.  Back to the man.  Jesus might have considered him no better than the pigs and wanted to show that by letting them go to dwell in pigs.  The demons definitely did think the pigs would be as homely as the man's body.




Jesus gets verbally abusive when he finds out people were trying to get his disciples not him to cure people.  The cures failed.  He tells them he cannot endure them and rants about how long will he have to be with them.  He does the cures complaining about the lack of faith.


He helped people who did not fulfil the faith criteria and rejected that woman.  He was a spiteful man in tone so his racism was not surprising.




Jesus ministered and taught love your neighbour as yourself for several months before he met the question, "And who is my neighbour?"  No doubt Jesus up to then had been letting people assume that neighbour meant countryman.  That meant he was condoning their abuse of other races.


Jesus told the Parable of the Good Samaritan in response to a selfish lawyer of the Jewish faith. The story is he tries to trap Jesus by calling him teacher and asking how he may get eternal life. Jesus asks him to cite the law. The man replies by giving the commands to love God absolutely and to love your neighbour as yourself. Jesus agrees and tells him to live them and he will have eternal life. The context shows that Jesus regarded the man as not being qualified for eternal life. So, he is telling him to take action. Then the man asks who his neighbour is. Jesus then tells him the parable.


The Samaritan treated a non-Samaritan as a brother and neighbour and went out of his way to help him.      But even then Jesus STILL condones racism.  It is assumed the man helped in the story is a Jew but he refuses to make that clear for he does not want to further Jew and Samaritan relations.  They were extremely hostile and he wants no bridges mended.  There is a big difference in saying some Samaritans can be good and saying you want the hostility ended.  He chooses a Samaritan as the hero for Jews and Samaritans were the same race. He might broaden what neighbour means but it is still racist.  It was racism that led him to broaden it in the first place.    It is interesting that he did not make the hero out of a pagan Canaanite.




The gospels say a Roman centurion came to Jesus to request the healing of his sick servant.  The story stresses how he told Jesus he was not worthy to come under Jesus' roof.  The centurion telling Jesus he is not worthy to come to him to ask for his help is interesting. It reads as if the centurion is saying he is not Jewish so he is pandering to Jesus’ racism. Jesus praises his faith and says he has not met it so far in Israel. If it is the humility of his faith that Jesus refers to then it is a man admitting that despite building synagogues for the Jews and being good he is not a great person. Whether he humiliates himself as a man or as a non-Jew or both the account glorifies humiliation not humility. And Jesus is very sceptical about how genuine nearly all religious people’s faith is. If they are that bad then surely he knows that by acting in a way that looks racist he is adding fuel to the fire.


Some say the episode makes sense in the light of Deuteronomy 10:17-19 which has God saying you must love the alien who lives in your country. Being just to them is an act of love.  But nothing in the text says the centurion was a citizen of Israel.  No wonder Jesus gave him patronising reluctant love.


The gospels do not tell us all about Jesus so the racism he exemplified could be worse than we will ever know.


The centurion if he got equal treatment only shows that Jesus preferred to confine his racism to WOMEN!  Against that the centurion had to admit his inferiority too.  What did he admit?  It is assumed he meant he was unworthy over his sins when he asked for healing from Jesus to make him worthy.  But that could be the sin of being of another race.


This woman seems to have been on her own.  She was in a dangerous place among dangerous people.  Don't forget that Jesus fuelled that problem.  He knew the power of gossip and no matter what he meant by calling her a cur the version most people would have had would be a lot more toxic and hateful.




Christianity says that Jesus chose the circumstances of his birth.  If so it is significant that for somebody who said nothing against slavery and hit slaves in the temple he refused to be born of a slave woman. Surely God could have arranged that?  No. The problem was that slaves were usually of another race.  Yet he would not take a Jewish slave girl for his mother.

Whoever says the gospels are true and God's word is being indirectly racist at the very least.

No Copyright