The Canaanite Woman: The Biblical Perspective

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20130831-CanaaniteWoman.mp3 — Downloaded 15412 times

Downloads from old Christogenea website: 1,443

It seems that there has long been some degree of confusion in regard to the healing of a Canaanite woman’s daughter by Yahshua Christ, an event described at Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30, and especially among Israel Identity adherents. Why did Christ heal the daughter of a Canaanite? Was she really a Canaanite? While the descriptions of the event are often abused by the promoters of universalism, they actually refute universalism. Yet those who understand the Old Testament and the curses against the Canaanites are left to wonder just how and why Yahshua Christ had shown mercy toward this particular woman, and this issue has been the cause for much debate. This short essay shall endeavor to clear up any confusion surrounding this event.

First, it must be noted that the accounts of this event provided by Matthew and Mark differ significantly. It must be understood that no gospel account by itself can be regarded as a full and complete record of any particular event. Rather, each writer witnessed, or recorded from witnesses, all or parts of an event seen from a certain perspective, writing down those portions of the event which were notable, as they were remembered. Therefore, piecing the accounts together we can create a more complete picture of the event as a whole.

The Canaanite woman is identified as a “Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by nation” in Mark’s gospel, in the King James Version. The word rendered nation is the Greek word genos (Strong’s #1085), and it is more properly rendered race. (The 9th edition of the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon defines genos primarily as “race, stock, kin” and then “generally, race, of beings”. Newer translations render the term birth, however I must interpret genos as race here since Mark could hardly have known where the woman was born or who her parents were, and because “Syro-Phoenicia” was never a nation at any time, for the term is only a geographical description, even though it is not found in secular Greek writings until Lucian wrote circa 160 A.D. Strabo, in his description of Syria, notes that “Some writers divide Syria as a whole into Coelo-Syrians and Syrians and Phoenicians, and say that four tribes are mixed up with these, namely Judaeans, Idumaeans, Gazaeans and Azotians, and that they are partly farmers, as the Syrians and Coelo-Syrians, and partly merchants, as the Phoenicians” (Geography, 16.2.2), and it can be shown that in Strabo’s time (ca. 64 B.C. to 25 A.D.) some of these terms had a quite different meaning than they had in more ancient times relative to Strabo. Mark, possibly being a somewhat Hellenized Judaean (even his name is Greek), and ostensibly writing in Greek for a Greco-Roman audience, identifies the woman by Greek standards: as a Greek by language and custom (as opposed to the many Judaeans and Edomites who resisted Greek customs, as did other peoples of the Near East), and a Syro-Phoenician by race. Here Mark seems to be telling us that the woman belonged to one of those tribes native to Syrian Phoenicia, rather than being a Greek or Roman inhabitant of Phoenicia: for there were many Greek and Roman colonists in the Near East at this time. Ancient Palestine was just as confused concerning race and nationality as New York and many other major cities are today. Mark was doing the best he could to describe this woman with the terms used by the Greeks of his time. He would have identified the woman as a Greek, Roman, Aramaean, Edomite or Judaean by race, if such had been the case, hence the reason for Mark’s distinction.

The Greek word for Greek is actually Hellene, and its use here by Mark must be understood in its historical context. Hellene was never used to define any specific tribe, nation, or kingdom. Rather, the term came to be used among the tribes of the region and islands about the Aegean who came to use a similar language and customs, namely the Ionians, Danaans, Pelasgians and Dorians. Later there were sub-divisions of these, such as Boeotians, Macedonians, Argives, etc. Those of other tribes, such as the Phoenician colonists of Caria (Miletus), Thebes and Thessaly, adopting the language, were also later subsumed into the Hellenic culture, becoming known as Greeks. Those peoples of other tongues outside of the culture, whether or not they were just as civilized, were labeled as Barbarians. It must be remembered, however, that at this early time all of these peoples were of White Adamic stock, although there were always some tares among the wheat. Even later, with the rise of the Hellenistic period – after Alexander the Macedonian had conquered most of the Adamic world (or oikoumene)– people from many other tribes having adopted the same language and customs readily became known as Greeks, much as happens in any empire, and much as the term American is so loosely used today.

On the other hand Matthew, a tax collector who may have been a Levite but who was certainly a Hebrew, who was seemingly much more aware of the woman’s racial origin from a Hebrew perspective, properly identifies the woman as a Canaanite, by the actual tribe of her lineage. While Matthew was also writing in Greek, he must have used this ancient term with a specific purpose, because the name Canaanite was virtually unknown to the secular Greek writers of his time, and would probably have faded into oblivion if it were not for the Scriptures (aside from modern archaeology). The Greeks were much more apt to label foreign peoples by Greek geographical names rather than by their own ancient tribal names, as we even find occurring in the Old Testament, and in secular writings the peoples of the Levant are named in the manner seen in the citation from Strabo provided here earlier. Surely the woman of the event which is described here was indeed a Canaanite. Matthew could not have used such a term, which was obscure to the Greeks, if she were not an actual Canaanite.

In Matthew’s account of the incident, the Canaanite woman accosted Yahshua, and He ignored her. His disciples, evidently having failed to discourage the woman, became annoyed with her, and asked Yahshua to send her away, yet they were not admonished for such behavior. Now this is hardly any way to treat a prospective “Christian”, one may think, and this situation is only understood once one realizes that such a prospect simply did not exist. This must be compared to the reception which certain others, being Israelites, had received, such as those found at John 1:47, Luke 13:16 and Luke 19:9. And it is not merely because the Canaanite woman was not a Judaean Israelite that she received such treatment. Contrast the reception which she received to that of the Roman centurion as described at Matthew 8:5-7. While that same event is described somewhat differently at Luke 7:1-10, nevertheless the effect is the same. The Romans were, in fact, “lost” Israelites, having descended from a portion of Judah which emigrated to Europe at a very early time. Paul knew this, and it is evident throughout the epistle addressed to them.

At Matthew 15:24 Yahshua Christ repeats His very commission in response to the Canaanite woman’s plea. This commission is repeated throughout the New Testament, albeit in different terms, i.e. Matt. 1:21, 2:6; 10:6; 18:11; Mark 12:29; Luke 1:16, 54, 67-80; 2:25-34; 19:10; 24:21; John 1:31, 49: 12:13; Acts 1:6; 28:20 et al. It is absolutely clear both in the Old Testament prophets and throughout the New Testament, that Christ came only for the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”, those ancient Old Testament Israelites who from the days of the Judges unto the Assyrian and Babylonian deportations had been emigrating into Europe, and who eventually formed the Christian Nations of the Medieval period: the White races of today. Yet, as Paul explains to the Ephesians, “lost” Israel having been alienated from Yahshua until His redemptive sacrifice on the cross, His earthly ministry remained among the Judaean Israelites, those who retained their relationship with Him through the Old Covenant. This is the very theme of Paul's epistle to the Ephesians.

So while Yahshua informs the Canaanite woman that He was sent only for the “sheep”, who are exclusively the children of Israel (cf. Jeremiah chapter 23, Ezekiel chapter 34, and Psalms 74, 79, 95 and 100 ), He then informs her that it is not proper to take the bread of the children (which is His favor) and throw it to the dogs, by which He is effectively calling the Canaanite woman a dog. The woman then agreed with Him, admitting that she was indeed a dog, an honest admission for which He commended her.

While the term “dog” is often used derisively of people in Scripture, one example where it stands out is where it is used in the 22nd Psalm, a messianic prophecy foreseeing the crucifixion of Christ: “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet ... Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.” (Psalm 22: 16, 20). Knowing that it is the Canaanite-Edomite leaders of Judaea who were primarily responsible for the crucifixion, those who claim to be Judaeans, but are not (Revelation 2:9; 3:9), the dog-people are brought to light in this statement by Yahshua to the Canaanite woman. Paul later warns about the dog-people in his epistles (Philippians 3:2), as Yahshua also had previously (Matthew 7:6). The woman was certainly not a dog merely because she was sinful, for Christ often professed that He had come for sinners (i.e. Matthew 9:9-13). Surely she WAS a Canaanite, bearing the curses of both Canaan and Cain!

When in ancient times the children of Israel had left Egypt, and were presented with the land of Canaan, they were warned that if they did not drive out or destroy all of the Canaanites, then the Canaanites would become a source of great trouble to them (i.e. Numbers 33:55; Joshua 23:13). Of course, the children of Israel did fail to drive out all of the Canaanites (i.e. Judges 3:1-6). All of this must have been foreseen by Yahweh, of course, yet – as Paul explains in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 (and see Romans 16:25-27), the mystery of iniquity had not been fully revealed in the Old Testament scriptures – many of which are also parables which are difficult to understand – yet that mystery is fully revealed in the Gospel. For that reason we are provided with such parables as that of the wheat and the tares, and the warning that both must grow together until the time of the end, which is the harvest (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43). When the children of Israel failed to destroy the Canaanites from among them, they lost their commission to do so, and were therefore left to suffer from them. Neither was it the purpose of Christ in His first advent during His earthly ministry to destroy them; for there are many other Old Testament prophecies concerning the ultimate destruction of all of the enemies of Yahweh at the end of this age (i.e. Obadiah 8-9, 15-18; Malachi 1:1-5; Zechariah 14:21; Matthew 13:30, 41-42; 25:31-46; Revelation 20:13-15).

Compassion for one’s enemies is a noble trait, and a sign of humility which any good king, general, or righteous nation should have. (Of course, examining history, neither the Canaanite-jews nor their Canaanite Islamic arab cousins have ever had compassion for their enemies.) There was a custom in the ancient world, that a defeated enemy, or an accused wrongdoer, or anyone else who may have fallen into disfavor, if he should prostrate himself before a general or ruler, and grasping the cloak of such a one admit his fault and then beg for mercy or forgiveness, arousing the compassion of his master he would receive as much, or at least be granted a lesser punishment than what was expected. In the same manner, a peasant or other common citizen would do likewise, seeking relief from some trouble, or to be granted some other favor by a ruler. This was the custom of the suppliant. The ancient histories are replete with examples of such incidents, and this account of the Canaanite woman falls into the same pattern. When the Canaanite woman admitted to Yahshua Christ that she was indeed a dog, while professing that He could indeed heal her daughter, she both recognized Him as having been sent by Yahweh God, and surrendered to the truth of the Word. Having such a surrendered enemy making supplication before Him, while at the same time that enemy was admitting the truth of the Word, Yahshua had no choice but to show mercy to her, since by His Own Word the destruction of His enemies was still afar off, and since she volunteered such submission in supplication as her statement demonstrates: “... yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” By this act of mercy, Yahshua also fulfilled the truth of the Scripture, i.e. Proverbs 16:7: “When a man’s ways please Yahweh, He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.” Therefore Yahshua, keeping His Own Word, had no choice but to grant this act of mercy to the Canaanite woman, as an example of His own teaching!

Here, in the account of Christ and the Canaanite woman, we have a model of the suppliant recognizing and beseeching a powerful man. The concept of the suppliant was very important in the ancient world, and we in modern times have lost it in the mechanizations of bureaucracy. A suppliant, or supplicant, is today in English merely one who makes a humble, earnest, and expectantly sincere plea for something from another. But in the ancient world the idea had a strong religious connotation attached to it. Those who refused suppliants were seen as cruel, and they invited the wrath of the gods – or the wrath of God – upon themselves. Suppliants often acted in desperation, and took olive branches as a sign of their humbled state, sometimes even wearing garments of mourning, throwing themselves at the feet of a ruler, a general, or even an altar, often grasping the garment of the one they sought favor from, and they begged earnestly for the mercy that they wished to receive.

The Greek tragic poets very often portrayed suppliants in their plays. Euripides wrote a play, Suppliant Women. Aeschylus likewise wrote one, Suppliant Maidens. Both of those stories are accounts of the Danaans who had come from Egypt to Argos, in ancient Greece. The opening line of Aeschylus' version, from the Loeb Classical Library, reads thus, a chorus of Danaan women doing the talking: “May Zeus, who guardeth suppliants, of his grace look upon our company that took ship and put to sea from the outmost land of fine sand at the outlets of the Nile.” The suppliant was often a subject of Greek poetry, and of history, whether the suppliant be at the feet of a general or king, an ancient hero, or the altar of a pagan idol.

From Plato, Laws, Book 5, on suppliants: “In his relations to strangers, a man should consider that a contract is a most holy thing, and that all concerns and wrongs of strangers are more directly dependent on the protection of God, than wrongs done to citizens; for the stranger, having no kindred and friends, is more to be pitied by Gods and men. Wherefore, also, he who is most able to avenge him is most zealous in his cause; and he who is most able is the genius and the god of the stranger, who follow in the train of Zeus, the god of strangers. And for this reason, he who has a spark of caution in him, will do his best to pass through life without sinning against the stranger. And of offences committed, whether against strangers or fellow-countrymen, that against suppliants is the greatest. For the God who witnessed to the agreement made with the suppliant, becomes in a special manner the guardian of the sufferer; and he will certainly not suffer unavenged.”

This is reminiscent of Exodus 22:21: “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Knowing that many of the Greeks were Israelites dispersed in antiquity, it is no marvel that such things became ingrained into their culture.

From Livy, the ancient Roman historian, here we shall see some references shedding light on the ancient concept of the suppliant:

From Livy's The History of Rome, Book 2 Chapter 14, describing a war between Rome and the Etruscans: “By these means the Etrurians, after having almost gained the victory, were surrounded and cut to pieces: a very small part of them, their general being lost, and no place of safety nearer, made the best of their way to Rome, without arms, and in their circumstances and appearance merely like suppliants; there they were kindly received, and provided with lodgings: when their wounds were cured, some of them returned home, and gave an account of the hospitality and kindness which they had experienced. A great number remained at Rome, induced by the regard which they had contracted for their hosts and for the city: they had ground allotted to them for building houses, which was afterwards called the Tuscan street.”

From Livy's The History of Rome,, Book 2 Chapter 14, of an event which took place during the Punic Wars: “Hippocrates and Epycides knowing them by their standards, and the fashion of their armour, advanced to them, holding out olive branches and other emblems of suppliants, and besought them to receive them into their ranks, to protect them there, and not to betray them into the hands of the Syracusans, by whom they themselves would soon be delivered up to the Romans, to be murdered. The Cretans immediately, with one voice, bade them keep up their courage, for they should share every fortune with them.”

From Livy's The History of Rome, Book 45 Chapter 6, on the defeat of Perseus the king of Macedon, in a final military defeat at the hands of the Romans, at which he took refuge in a temple on Samothrace: “Then, after uttering many execrations against fortune, and the gods to whom the temple belonged, for not affording aid to a suppliant, he [Perseus] surrendered himself, and his son, to [Cneius] Octavius.”

Finally, from Homer's Odyssey, Book 9, the hero Odysseus is addressing Alcinous, king of the Phaeacians, on the legendary island of Scheria, and he is portrayed as having said: "We were frightened out of our senses by his loud voice and monstrous form, but I managed to say, 'We are Achaeans on our way home from Troy, but by the will of Jove, and stress of weather, we have been driven far out of our course. We are the people of Agamemnon, son of Atreus, who has won infinite renown throughout the whole world, by sacking so great a city and killing so many people. We therefore humbly pray you to show us some hospitality, and otherwise make us such presents as visitors may reasonably expect. May your excellency fear the wrath of heaven, for we are your suppliants, and Jove takes all respectable travellers under his protection, for he is the avenger of all suppliants and foreigners in distress.'

Once we understand the importance which was placed on such supplication in the ancient world, and the religious manner which was given to the treatment of strangers when filling the role of the supplicant, we can begin to understand the exchange between Yahshua and the Canaanite woman. But here it must be noted, that Yahshua Christ had healed the daughter of the Canaanite woman in body only. For she requested “that He would cast forth the devil out of her daughter” (Mark 7:26), and He granted her request: “the devil is gone out of thy daughter” (Mark 7:29) she having received nothing more than what she had desired, as Matthew attributes to him as having said “be it unto thee even as thou wilt” (Matthew 15:28). When a veterinarian heals a dog, it may be restored into a whole dog, not into a sheep! The woman’s daughter was likewise healed bodily, but she was still a Canaanite. She is not an Adamite, having the Adamic Spirit! For one to be granted eternal life, one must first have that Spirit which Adam had (cf. Genesis 2:7; 3:22; 1 Corinthians 15:35-38). The Spirit which Adam had is handed down, like his image, as part of the genetic code passed on in the reproductive process, as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15:44: “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual.” Producing offspring of mixed races, one is hewing out “broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jeremiah 2:13). For this reason the apostle Jude refers to those who “have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam” (who were fornicating race-mixers, i.e. 1 Corinthians 10:8; Revelation 2:14; Micah 6:5) as “clouds without water, trees ... without fruit, twice dead” (Jude 11-12), and likewise Peter calls these same people “wells without water” (2 Peter 2:17). They are “without water” because they are devoid of the Spirit of Yahweh. They are “twice dead” because once they die bodily, they are also as good as dead spiritually! The Canaanites, products of race-mixing fornication (Jude 7) called by Jude the “error of Balaam”, can never be anything but what they already are, having descended partly from Cain, partly from the Rephaim and partly from non-Adamic races (i.e. Genesis 15:19-21), and therefore not having the Spirit, can never enter into the Kingdom or Covenants of Yahweh, which the Scriptures expressly reserve for Israelites only!

Therefore, that Yahshua Christ had in this one instance granted mercy to an enemy – which Scripture shows that the Canaanites are – does not give Israelite Christians an excuse to embrace the other races into fellowship. The woman was told to “go thy way”. She wasn’t even told to “repent” or to “sin no more”, she was still a dog – as was her daughter – and they could not possibly be made into “sheep”. That she could repent from sin would be just as ridiculous a notion as the idea that a literal dog could repent from a vicious act. Neither she nor her daughter were granted eternal life, and she could not have been expected to somehow have become a Christian. What the woman did receive was a crumb: it cost Yahshua nothing to grant the woman’s request. It was more expedient to grant the woman her wish, tossing the dog a bone as a reward for her supplication and honesty – for the woman certainly realized that she was not one of the children. Imagining that Yahshua Christ intended to bring an alien into the covenant, which He made exclusively with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (not “spiritual” Israel nor “spiritual” Judah; cf. Jeremiah 31:31 ff.) is to imagine that He would commit an act of fraud. Paul knew as much, and so at Galataians 3:15 he explained that even a covenant between mere men, once confirmed, no one could change or add to. And so here Paul explains that the New Covenant is made only for the Anointed Seed (where the King James Version has “which is Christ”, rather than “which are the Anointed”), for the Israelites, and not with the other lines descended from Abraham, such as Edomites and Ishmaelites. It was also expedient to grant the woman her wish, because it helped to fulfill other Scriptures and promises of Yahweh our God which shall be discussed shortly.

The word at Matthew 15:28 which is rendered faith in the King James Version is pistis (Strong’s #4102), which is simply and literally either trust, faith or belief. Here it is used (and this is important) without the Greek Article. This should be contrasted to the use of pistiswith the Greek Article when it is used to denote The Faith. When an Article appears with a Greek noun, it references a particular object, and not just any one of that type of object. Often this is distinguished in English with capital letters. In the New Testament when the Article appears with the word pistis it specifies The Faith, and not just any faith, or belief. The Canaanite woman had faith, but she certainly could not be a partner in The Faith, which is the Israelites' acceptance of their redemption by Yahshua Christ, culminating in the New Covenant which is a fulfillment of the promises of the Old Covenant. Simply believing does not earn those of other races salvation (Matthew 7:21-23; 22:1-14; cf. Amos 3:2), which is an impossible thing for them to have to begin with! As the apostle James says in his epistle, “thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble” (James 2:19). Devils shall certainly not be saved, yet many times during His ministry even the demons recognized the Christ.

In the days of Joshua in the Old Testament, Israel was instructed to sanctify themselves by the sword, and they failed. The day is coming, however, when all Israel shall indeed be forever sanctified by Yahweh their God, i.e. Ezekiel 37:21-28; Revelation 19:6-10; 21:10-27. Yet in this day, Israelite Christians are admonished to sanctify themselves by the Word of Yahweh (i.e. Ephesians 5:26; John 15:3; 17:17; 1 Peter 2:9-10). “For the word of Yahweh is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12). Therefore, Yahshua’s healing of the Canaanite woman’s daughter does not mean that true Israelite Christians must accept the so-called “Jews for Jesus”, universalism, multiculturalism, or any other false doctrine.

The Word of Yahweh insists that Israelite Christians seek to uphold the laws of Yahweh, which are written in their hearts (i.e. Jeremiah 31:33; Romans 2:15; Hebrews 8:10), and to oppose evil (i.e. Romans 12:9, 21; Philippians 3:2; Ephesians 6:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:22; 3 John 11; James 4:7; Revelation 2:2 et al.). Yahweh God had separated the nations which descended from Adam (i.e. Deuteronomy 32:8; Acts 17:26), and therefore universalism and racial diversity are evil! The mixing of the races is fornication (i.e. 1 Corinthians 10:8; Jude 7). Hence a true adherence to the Word of Yahweh results in the sanctification of the obedient Israelite, since the Word insists that the Israelite separate himself from the other races – as Paul explains at 2 Corinthians 6:11-18, for example, although this passage, like many others in Paul’s writings, suffers from corrupted translations. For instance, the word thing in the text of 2 Corinthians 6:17 was added by the translators of the King James Version. Rather, the unclean are the non-Israelite peoples, who were NEVER cleansed by the blood of Christ! They are the “them” in the admonition to “come out from among them” earlier in the same verse! The cleansing of Israel – and ONLY Israel – by the sacrifice of Yahshua Christ was a matter of prophecy, i.e. Jeremiah 31:33; 33:8; Ezekiel 36:25, 27, 33; 37:23, and it is now a matter of fact. The other races were never cleansed by Yahweh, and therefore they are the unclean whom Israelites are commanded to be separate from.

Therefore neither do today’s so-called “churches”, the organized religious cults, along with all of the “liberal” western governments, have license to act as they have been: taking the plates and loaves of the children, dumping them onto the floor as if they were crumbs, and letting all of the dogs fill their vile bellies! This is what they do today with unbridled “immigration”, foreign missions, foreign aid, “free” trade, and especially the billions of dollars which each year we both send to, and expend in defense of, that Canaanite-Edomite state in Palestine which so deceptively calls itself by the name “Israel”.

This leads to the greater reason as to why Christ healed the Canaanite woman's daughter. And if we want to properly identify that reason, we must resort to Scripture and not to emotion, logic or conjecture. For many years Identity Christians have wrestled with this, myself included. Yet it is evident, that Canaanites would not even be known to us from the New Testament period if it were not for Matthew's correct racial identification of this woman. With that identification we know that the Word of our God endures beyond the boundaries of the perceptions of men.

When the children of Israel had failed to exterminate the Canaanite tribes in ancient times, they were warned that the Canaanites would be pricks in their eyes, and thorns in their sides. From Numbers chapter 33: “55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.” The children of Israel did fail, and therefore Yahweh said to them, as it is recorded in Joshua chapter 23:13 Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.” Again, it is recorded in Judges chapter 2: “ 3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.

The Canaanite woman is certainly a thorn in our eyes and a prick in our sides today, and therefore the Word of our God still stands. Because Yahshua Christ threw this dog a bone, she is a prick in the side of every Identity Christian who cannot understand why He would do such a thing, and she is a thorn in the eye of all who would embrace universalism because of this singular act of mercy, and those with such thorns in their eyes imagine Yahweh our God to be a hypocrite. Yet Yahweh does not change, because the day is indeed coming when there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of Yahweh of hosts – and the entire earth is his footstool. Do not imagine a crumb to lead to any ultimate mercy for the accursed Canaanites.

William Finck