I am troubled by today's reading

[LongingSoul]

My priest today also mentioned this. He said that the word Jesus used was closer to “doggies”, as in small or pet dogs.
It may be true that Jews thought of Gentiles as dogs, but it appears that Jesus used a less pejorative word on this occasion.

Yes, the Gospel uses “little” dogs, seemingly softening the intent behind the analogy.

Not trying to be argumentative, but my priest said precisely the opposite. He said Jews thought of pagans and enemies of God as dogs (not cute little puppies) and that they were unclean, even viscous-- and they did their utmost to stay away from pagans. Respectfully, I just can’t agree with your priest’s interpretation about the dogs. I think the Scriptures show that the Jews did not of Gentiles or dogs with affection. That they thought dogs were unclean makes the passage from today’s reading all the more profound, IMHO.

I’ve only done one Semester of an introduction to the Bible at Uni, but I remember that great emphasis was made of how important it is to read the Bible in the light of the times it was written, not through the lens of modern thought and expectations.

Considering a non Jewish person a ‘dog’ then would not have implied the same things as if you’d thought of some group now as ‘dogs’. Think of how it was when America first thought of the idea of bringing Africans to America purely as a slave class. (I’m not Amercan so forgive me if my perspective is too movie slanted) There was a fairly universal view that black people were lesser than whites. There were white people of that time who opposed attitudes of cruelty and domination over black people… but still conformed to the societal belief in class superiority. They weren’t of the same nature as someone in our day thinking it acceptable to force slavery on black people and that they are lesser.

The woman of this gospel reminds me of that woman who sat in the bus seat as an act of defiant faith in the truth of equality. She touched peoples dormant knowledge and stirred it in the conscience and when society responded to that womans faith… it is incredible just how quickly the walls of segregation fell when you look back on it.

So while the term ‘little dogs’ might classify a group of people in a way we now regard as sheer evil… back in history, while the meaning was the same, the context was different.

 

[Tommy555]

First, re-read the passage. The disciples asked Jesus to send her away, not “give her what she wants.”

Let us ask this question: Why did Jesus go to the region of Tyre and Sidon? When Jesus was proclaiming woes upon the cities of the Jews, He said it would be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for them on the day of judgment. Now, Jesus goes to the region of Tyre and Sidon, and after speaking with the woman immediately leaves again as far as we know. Hence, it would be fair to assume that He went there for the sole purpose of allowing the woman to come to Him. Note, she calls Him “Lord,” referring to Him as God. Not only that, she calls Hims “Son of David,” referring to him as man. Which of the Jews referred to Him this way, aside for His disciples? Jesus knew her faith, knew how far He needed to “push” her to strengthen her faith. Everyone must suffer, for it is through suffering that faith is increased. What did our Lord say to the Blessed Virgin at the wedding feast in Cana? “What is that to me?” We want everything easily. We just want to ask one time and get our request answered. It does not happen that way. We are told to seek, and keep seeking; to ask, and keep asking; to knock, and keep knocking, not losing faith. This is what the woman was doing. Gentiles were referred to as “dogs.” Therefore, because the Lord said this, she agreed, “Yes, Lord, true; but even the dogs eat the crumbs from the children’s tables.” That is faith. May God grant us the same faith, and more…

 

[Gorgias]

My priest today also mentioned this. He said that the word Jesus used was closer to “doggies”, as in small or pet dogs.
It may be true that Jews thought of Gentiles as dogs, but it appears that Jesus used a less pejorative word on this occasion.

Yes, the word used was a diminutive, but it’s important to recognize what it’s a diminutive of. When we say ‘dog’ today, we perceive the diminutive as a ‘puppy’ or ‘doggie’. However, in the 1st century context, the base word would have brought to mind ‘hounds’ or ‘feral dogs’. By contrast, then, the diminutive would mean ‘house dog’. Not ‘aww, what a cute little doggie’, but a run-of-the-mill pet. If Jesus had use the base word, He’d have meant ‘wild animal’; but, by using this word, He’s still calling them ‘dogs’, in a negative way.

 

[Aloysium]

for this thread and people’s responses.
Thanks to the OP who had trouble with this reading.
I didn’t; so I did not contemplate the fullness of its meaning as I could have.

 

[Mintaka]

When a rabbi back then wanted you to argue with him, he might say polite things or he might ask you questions with an edge. The harder he made the questions, the more he believed you would give a good answer.

Also, it was regarded as an honor for a rabbi to engage with you at all; it was treating you like a disciple or a fellow rabbi.

So yes, the Syro-Phoenician woman was being treated with respect in Jesus’ actions (probably bewildering the heck out of the disciples), even if he drew her out in a purposefully non-nice way. He was calling on her to be feisty in return, and she managed to be feisty, clever, and respectful all in one. This was probably exactly what Jesus was trying to draw out, because the Teacher knows His students.

Finally, the thing we know about the Phoenicians is that they “sent their children through the fire to Moloch” - ie, they sacrificed their firstborn sons by burning them to death. They weren’t supposedly doing that anymore in Roman times, but I’m sure it still went on in places.

But this woman was asking for her child to be saved, and Jesus granted it; that was another sign that Jesus was going to rescue the Gentiles from their own crimes and their mistaken worship of false gods.

 

[specklebean9]

This passage reveals some very important things. One is that God was working in this pagan woman, much the same way as He did Peter when he accurately identified Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Mt 16). How on earth would this pagan woman know to call Jesus the Son of David and turn to Him for help? It was God who moved her. Why? He wanted to reveal to everyone, most especially the Disciples, that the Gentiles were going to be brought under the covering of the New Covenant. Remember, the Disciples just wanted to send her away, but Jesus does not send anyone away who truly seeks Him. When Jesus says “I was sent to bring back the lost sheep of Israel” there are two things happening. One is that He is saying He is the One, the expected Messiah, Who would bring back the lost sheep of Israel (Ez 34:23-24). He’s actually saying that He is going to fulfill a messianic prophecy. The second important thing is that the woman can be seen as representative of those lost sheep. To understand this, we must remember our biblical history. What happened to those northern tribes of Israel? Where did those lost sheep go? Centuries before they had conquered by pagan armies and the ones who survived were absorbed into pagan culture. The “lost tribes” became part of the “nations”, their descendants were of Israelite heritage but they were now Gentiles. The Messiah has to come for the lost sheep of Israel precisely by reaching out into the nations. What we see in this extraordinary passage is the beginning of the work of bringing the lost tribes back to God as well as those Gentiles who were never even under the Old Covenant. However, they are coming back to God under the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant. So the Apostles (who are the first leaders of our Church) were later commanded to go out into* the nations* to baptize and bring the nations into the Church. By doing so, Jesus, the Messiah, is bringing the lost sheep back into their fold (as well as all of humanity who would believe in Him).

I agree with others that Jesus is really putting the woman to the test. She is undeterred. This is another great example for us. When we seek Jesus, there are often trials and obstacles. Are we just going to give up? No way! Jesus is likely putting her to the test precisely so we can see and the Disciples could see her unshakeable faith. He wasn’t being mean or ornery, He was teaching.

This passage is way deeper than it would appear on the surface. Really good stuff!

PS. Our priest said today that lots of commentators try to sugarcoat the part about the dogs. Don’t fall for that, he said, that** is** how Jews thought of Gentiles. Jesus is putting it out there for us to see. When the Disciples heard this they were probably thinking “Yeah, go home dog!” But then Jesus healed her daughter! He recognized her faith-- as He does in other Gospel passages with other Gentiles. I can only imagine how this confused the Disciples but it was just another seed Jesus was planting for later on. Another thing that our priest said is that it should make you pause and think of how you think of people of other religions or non-believers.

She wasn’t pagan. She knew the “legal rights” to what she was asking. She knew Jesus was merciful and she knew who He was. This is huge and its a PLUMB LINE by which we are all measured

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

She wasn’t pagan. She knew the “legal rights” to what she was asking. She knew Jesus was merciful and she knew who He was. This is huge and its a PLUMB LINE by which we are all measured

Gentile, pagan, Greek are all expressions used in Scripture for people who did not worship the one True God. Non-Jews, that is. Jesus was in the district of Tyre and Sidon which were Gentile cities. The woman is clearly identified as Canaanite or Syro-Phoenician, a non Jew. Thus, she would be considered “of the nations”, "Gentile " or “pagan”. Do you believe her to be a Jew?

 

[Gorgias]

Hence, it would be fair to assume that He went there for the sole purpose of allowing the woman to come to Him.

That seems to be a little over the top. Perhaps if you wrote, “Jesus’ sole purpose was to allow Gentiles to come to Him,” it might be more reasonable. (Recall that John affirms that “there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”)

Note, she calls Him “Lord,” referring to Him as God.

This doesn’t follow: ‘Lord’ was a title that was used for God, but not exclusively so, in 1st century Palestine.

Not only that, she calls Hims “Son of David,” referring to him as man. Which of the Jews referred to Him this way, aside for His disciples?

Here’s the thing, though: ‘son of David’ – when said by a Gentile – means ‘Jew’; so, all she’s saying, as it were, is “Hey, Jewish guy! I recognize you as a healer; please heal my daughter!”

 

[Mintaka]

Re: Lord, Son of David -

It’s not uncommon in the Gospels for someone to say something truer than they know, courtesy of the Holy Spirit. So even if she didn’t mean it all the ways we can read it, that doesn’t mean that her hearers, and the Gospel writer, didn’t realize afterwards what it had all meant.

 

[specklebean9]

Gentile, pagan, Greek are all expressions used in Scripture for people who did not worship the one True God. Non-Jews, that is. Jesus was in the district of Tyre and Sidon which were Gentile cities. The woman is clearly identified as Canaanite or Syro-Phoenician, a non Jew. Thus, she would be considered “of the nations”, "Gentile " or “pagan”. Do you believe her to be a Jew?

“Pagan” being a term used to describe her religious beliefs, right?
So her religious beliefs were such that she knew Jesus had come for the Jews first and foremost and Jesus said as much but not as much as for her but for those present, for us today, those to come and also to shut Satan’s mouth who is ever accusing)

 

[Gorgias]

Re: Lord, Son of David -

It’s not uncommon in the Gospels for someone to say something truer than they know, courtesy of the Holy Spirit. So even if she didn’t mean it all the ways we can read it, that doesn’t mean that her hearers, and the Gospel writer, didn’t realize afterwards what it had all meant.

True enough; yet, the claim was that, in saying ‘Lord’ and ‘Son of David’, the Canaanite woman was expressing her personal beliefs…

 

[WilT]

This passage reveals some very important things. One is that God was working in this pagan woman, much the same way as He did Peter when he accurately identified Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Mt 16). How on earth would this pagan woman know to call Jesus the Son of David and turn to Him for help? It was God who moved her. Why? He wanted to reveal to everyone, most especially the Disciples, that the Gentiles were going to be brought under the covering of the New Covenant. Remember, the Disciples just wanted to send her away, but Jesus does not send anyone away who truly seeks Him. When Jesus says “I was sent to bring back the lost sheep of Israel” there are two things happening. One is that He is saying He is the One, the expected Messiah, Who would bring back the lost sheep of Israel (Ez 34:23-24). He’s actually saying that He is going to fulfill a messianic prophecy. The second important thing is that the woman can be seen as representative of those lost sheep. To understand this, we must remember our biblical history. What happened to those northern tribes of Israel? Where did those lost sheep go? Centuries before they had conquered by pagan armies and the ones who survived were absorbed into pagan culture. The “lost tribes” became part of the “nations”, their descendants were of Israelite heritage but they were now Gentiles. The Messiah has to come for the lost sheep of Israel precisely by reaching out into the nations. What we see in this extraordinary passage is the beginning of the work of bringing the lost tribes back to God as well as those Gentiles who were never even under the Old Covenant. However, they are coming back to God under the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant. So the Apostles (who are the first leaders of our Church) were later commanded to go out into* the nations* to baptize and bring the nations into the Church. By doing so, Jesus, the Messiah, is bringing the lost sheep back into their fold (as well as all of humanity who would believe in Him).

I agree with others that Jesus is really putting the woman to the test. She is undeterred. This is another great example for us. When we seek Jesus, there are often trials and obstacles. Are we just going to give up? No way! Jesus is likely putting her to the test precisely so we can see and the Disciples could see her unshakeable faith. He wasn’t being mean or ornery, He was teaching.

This passage is way deeper than it would appear on the surface. Really good stuff!

PS. Our priest said today that lots of commentators try to sugarcoat the part about the dogs. Don’t fall for that, he said, that** is** how Jews thought of Gentiles. Jesus is putting it out there for us to see. When the Disciples heard this they were probably thinking “Yeah, go home dog!” But then Jesus healed her daughter! He recognized her faith-- as He does in other Gospel passages with other Gentiles. I can only imagine how this confused the Disciples but it was just another seed Jesus was planting for later on. Another thing that our priest said is that it should make you pause and think of how you think of people of other religions or non-believers.

 

[WilT]

I saw many things:

1. Testing her Faith (Jesus seems to know that the question wouldn’t turn her away)
2. Teach the Disciples of
   -appreciation of the woman
   -appreciation of those not Israelite
   -Salvation to all
   -Mercy teaching
   -Learn of her devout trust and faith in Jesus
   -lesson on humility

Although Jesus seems a little rough on her, we can’t exactly know the because the limitation of writing, whether he smiled when he said it or perhaps he put his hand on her shoulder and so on. pax

 

[Jerurussia]

If a woman who participated in voodoo had a little familial blowback from demonic possession and scampered to a priest, would he not be rough on a woman who exposed her daughter to demonic possession in the first place and was likely to repeat the offense? Doesn’t that explain Jesus being hard on the woman whose culture was saturated in the worship of demonic entities?

The book and movie, The Excorcist, was based on an actual case of a young man whose aunt was involving him in spiritualism, channeling spirits and so forth. I think the preparatory procedure probably involved a dressing down for involving a child in this dabbling in the black arts that was as emphatic as Christ’s harsh tone with this woman who endangered her child’s immortal soul. I would expect nothing less.

 

[Achilles6129]

Matthew 15:21-28

"Jesus left that place and withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.

And suddenly out came a Canaanite woman from that district and started shouting, ‘Lord, Son of David, take pity on me. My daughter is tormented by a devil.’

But he said not a word in answer to her. And his disciples went and pleaded with him, saying, ‘Give her what she wants, because she keeps shouting after us.’

He said in reply, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.’

But the woman had come up and was bowing low before him. ‘Lord,’ she said, ‘help me.’

He replied, 'It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to little dogs."

This bothers me in that it portrays a side of Christ that seems out of step with all other descriptions of his ministry . It seems so exclusionary, Jews over mankind.
What am I missing?

Is it only the exclusionary aspect that bothers you? Isn’t there an exclusionary aspect in the Old Testament as well (i.e., only Levites can be priests, and so on)?

Have you studied the real sayings of Jesus Christ? Because I do not think that that passage is at all out of step with his ministry.

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

Persist in prayer? Certainly.

Have faith despite obstacles? No doubt about it.

But I think one important thing has been missed, although one poster did hit on it…

I had to write a brief teaching/homily on the reading that Sunday. I focused on the concept of the “children” in this story.

Jesus says it isn’t right to give the children’s food to the dogs. He says he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. The Israelites were God’s chosen people, his first “children” in a sense. The start of this story shows the great blessings on God’s chosen people.

However, the conclusion is that these blessings will “trickle down,” as it were, to others who have faith. In other words, a time is coming when Gentiles who have faith in Christ will become children and be offered the same blessings (salvation) as the Jews! Hallelujah!

But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name,… (John 1:12)

Amen?