Mat. 15:26-27

[maljr2001]

Shalom! What is the catholic view on these verses -Mat. 15:26-27? I think there is a deeper meaning to this, but I’m not sure, please help…

Mat. 15: [26] And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
[27] She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”

 

[Todd_Easton]

I don’t think there is a definitive Catholic interpretation of these verses but here’s a Catholic interpretation:
The master = God.
The children = the Jews.
The dogs = the Samaritans, non-Jews.
The bread = the miracles of Jesus.

During his public ministry, Jesus’ miracles were primarily intended for the Jews, as proof that he was their Messiah.

 

[jcrichton]

Shalom! What is the catholic view on these verses -Mat. 15:26-27? I think there is a deeper meaning to this, but I’m not sure, please help…

Mat. 15: [26] And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
[27] She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”

***Hi, Maljr!

My understanding is this:

Jesus is the Messiah promised to the Jews (Deuteronomy 18:15) and though He is the Savior of all (Isaiah 52:12 thru 53:12), first He had to fulfill the Scriptures (Malachias 3:1) by coming to the people of Israel.

Since Jesus’ did not come to the Gentiles, but to the people of Israel (Matthew 15:24), He had to establish His commitment to Israel.

Still, since He is the Way and the Door into the Kingdom of God, He would also test the faith of those around Him before allowing them entrance while rejecting those who thought that they had secured passage. Jesus’ challange to the woman is basically that declaration; while, simultaneously, He uses the opportunity to demonstrate that Israel’s heart is hardened as the Gentiles’ receives God (Osee 2:24; Matthew 15:7-9 compare with Matthew 15:28).

God Bless!

Angel

---

 

[maljr2001]

Thank you very much for your answers guys! Now the verses make sense to me… “I was blind, now I see”

 

[NotWorthy]

Does anyone wonder if the test here is for the Apostles. Jesus is showing them:
a) That Salvation is also for the Gentiles.
b) and the power of perseverance in prayer.

 

[Safe_Eagle]

I would agree with a previous post. My understanding of it (subject to magisterial teaching of course) is that the woman was a pagan. Our Lord first came for the lost children of the house of Israel. The beautiful thing about the woman’s response was that in her answer she seemed to understand this but great faith allowed her to see that even she could be a recipient of blessings. And of course our Lord validated her response and helped her situation.

 

[NotWorthy]

I would agree with a previous post. My understanding of it (subject to magisterial teaching of course) is that the woman was a pagan. Our Lord first came for the lost children of the house of Israel. The beautiful thing about the woman’s response was that in her answer she seemed to understand this but great faith allowed her to see that even she could be a recipient of blessings. And of course our Lord validated her response and helped her situation.

But don’t forget that the Jews had to understand to carry the message to the Gentiles as well. Look at Luke, chapter 4. When the Jews found out that the Gentiles were to be released from their captivity as well, they tried to push Jesus off the cliff.

 

[jcrichton]

But don’t forget that the Jews had to understand to carry the message to the Gentiles as well. Look at Luke, chapter 4. When the Jews found out that the Gentiles were to be released from their captivity as well, they tried to push Jesus off the cliff.

***Hi, NotWorthy!

I understand your point… but I think it was not so much because they were concerned with the Gentiles’ entrance into the Kingdom as much as concerned with losing their sole proprietorship of Yahweh… the Masters of the Law, as well as other religious leaders, had been leading Israel astray as they would twist the meaning of Scripture in order to gain worldly benefits and status. Jesus was proclaiming a Scripture that did not subjugate the people but rather elevated them to equal standing, in the eyes of God. Also, He was proclaiming Himself the Prophet (Lk 4:21) and He demanded their obedience–the ference to Naaman (2 King 5:14-15); thusly, He was placing Himself as their spiritual authority (the Messiah).

God Bless!

Angel***

 

[NotWorthy]

***Hi, NotWorthy!

I understand your point… but I think it was not so much because they were concerned with the Gentiles’ entrance into the Kingdom as much as concerned with losing their sole proprietorship of Yahweh… the Masters of the Law, as well as other religious leaders, had been leading Israel astray as they would twist the meaning of Scripture in order to gain worldly benefits and status. Jesus was proclaiming a Scripture that did not subjugate the people but rather elevated them to equal standing, in the eyes of God. Also, He was proclaiming Himself the Prophet (Lk 4:21) and He demanded their obedience–the ference to Naaman (2 King 5:14-15); thusly, He was placing Himself as their spiritual authority (the Messiah).

God Bless!

Angel***

Well, He practically called Himself the Messiah when he read the scroll of Isaiah in Luke 4, which the Jews understood to be Messianic. At this time the Jews rejoiced at the news. It was only when he said, “Hey, you know the Gentiles are coming along for the ride”, that the Jews started to get angry.

It was only upon hearing this (the Naaman and the Elijah reference) that they became angry.

I think the Jews were more than happy to accept the Gentiles into the Covenant… provided they became Jews first!!!

 

[thistle]

Shalom! What is the catholic view on these verses -Mat. 15:26-27? I think there is a deeper meaning to this, but I’m not sure, please help…

Mat. 15: [26] And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
[27] She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”

DR Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 26-7. And to cast it to the dogs; i.e. to Gentiles, sometimes so called by the Jews. (Witham) — The diminutive word Greek: Kunarios, or whelp, is used in both these verses in the Septuagint. Our Lord crosses the wishes of the Chanaanæan, not that he intended to reject her, but that he might bring to light the hidden and secret treasure of her virtue. Let us admire not only the greatness of her faith, but likewise the profoundness of her humility; for when our Saviour called the Jews children, so far from being envious or another’s praise, she readily answers, and gives them the title of lords; and when Christ likened her to a dog, she presently acknowledges the meanness of her condition. (St. Chrysostom, hom. liii.) He refused at first to listen to her petition, says the same saint, to instruct us with what faith, humility, and perseverance we ought to pray. To make his servants more sensible of his mercy, and more eager to obtain it, he often appears to pay no attention to their prayers, till he had exercised them in the virtues of humility and patience. Ask, and you shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened to you. (Haydock)

 

[jcrichton]

Well, It was only upon hearing this (the Naaman and the Elijah reference) that they became angry.

I think the Jews were more than happy to accept the Gentiles into the Covenant… provided they became Jews first!!!

***Hi, NotWorthy!

…not to contradict… but I think that you’ve missed the point made in the reference: Naaman a non-Jew was healed because he actually obeyed the prophet’s commands… Naaman was incensed as he expected a complex ritual in order to be cured of his decease; yet, he found that only by obeying the prophet’s simple request he would obtain the cure he needed.

Jesus requires that the Jews submit to Him in order to be saved; yet, they reject Him and His Teachings, hence the comparison made by Jesus: Naaman a non-Jew who obeyes God is cured while the Jews who disobey God are not (St. Luke 4:27); there are similar occurrances where Jesus demands faithful obedience and denounces Israel’s unwillingness to believe and accept His Authority, i.e.: St. John 9:39-41–also compare with St. John 5:1-47.

God Bless!

Angel ***

 

[NotWorthy]

***Hi, NotWorthy!

…not to contradict… but I think that you’ve missed the point made in the reference: Naaman a non-Jew was healed because he actually obeyed the prophet’s commands… Naaman was incensed as he expected a complex ritual in order to be cured of his decease; yet, he found that only by obeying the prophet’s simple request he would obtain the cure he needed.

Jesus requires that the Jews submit to Him in order to be saved; yet, they reject Him and His Teachings, hence the comparison made by Jesus: Naaman a non-Jew who obeyes God is cured while the Jews who disobey God are not (St. Luke 4:27); there are similar occurrances where Jesus demands faithful obedience and denounces Israel’s unwillingness to believe and accept His Authority, i.e.: St. John 9:39-41–also compare with St. John 5:1-47.

God Bless!

Angel ***

Although you’re correct in your reference to faithful obedience, Jesus is not bringing up Naaman to show this. The woman that Elijah helped and Naaman were both Gentiles. This is what Jesus is showing, and this is what incensed the Jews. Look at the context of Luke 4. Jesus says the Jews are being released. Then he says, “Hey, it’s not just the Jews”.

 

[jcrichton]

Although you’re correct in your reference to faithful obedience, Jesus is not bringing up Naaman to show this. The woman that Elijah helped and Naaman were both Gentiles. This is what Jesus is showing, and this is what incensed the Jews. Look at the context of Luke 4. Jesus says the Jews are being released. Then he says, “Hey, it’s not just the Jews”.

***Hi, NotWorthy!

…this is one of those moments (circular)…

Please understand that the Scripture’s reference to God’s people is still Israel… it was foretold in the Old Testatment that Yahweh would come to liberate His people (not Moses’ time) through His Annointed One, the Messiah. It was also foretold that He, the Messiah, would be rejected and put to death by God’s people (Isaiah’s suffering servant 52:12 thru 53:12) and that in Him, Jesus, the Gentiles would put their hope… first, though, He had to come to the people of Israel; once Israel would have rejected Him then the Gentiles would come into the fold (compare with St. Luke 10:1-15, also please reread St. Matthew 15:24).

God Bless!

Angel***

 

[NotWorthy]

***Hi, NotWorthy!

…this is one of those moments (circular)…

Please understand that the Scripture’s reference to God’s people is still Israel… it was foretold in the Old Testatment that Yahweh would come to liberate His people (not Moses’ time) through His Annointed One, the Messiah. It was also foretold that He, the Messiah, would be rejected and put to death by God’s people (Isaiah’s suffering servant 52:12 thru 53:12) and that in Him, Jesus, the Gentiles would put their hope… first, though, He had to come to the people of Israel; once Israel would have rejected Him then the Gentiles would come into the fold (compare with St. Luke 10:1-15, also please reread St. Matthew 15:24).

God Bless!

Angel***

And I agree with you, Angel. I just don’t see how that is relevant to point of the thread.