Matthew 15:21-28

  • Thread starter Thread starter kelcca
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kelcca

Guest
21Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

22And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

28Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Who is the lost sheep of the house of Israel? and why does Jesus refer to those who are not of the house of Israel as dogs? I find this passage very confusing, from what I have researched on line some believe the house of Israel are the Jewish people others believe Israelites are a different people from the Jewish people. The Jewish people are from the house of Judah?
 
I think because the canaanite’s were the children of Ham’s son.

And Noe awaking from the wine, when he had learned what his younger son had done to him, [25] He said: Cursed be Chanaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
 
The lost sheep of Israel are the Jews that have gone astray.

The priest in his homily last week explained to us that Jesus might have been testing the woman. There were racial divisions back then that were stronger than they are now even. He was “playing” into those racial divisions to see if the woman was the same as the others in her time. The woman could have become angry and returned insult for insult. On the other hand, the woman could have said, “I’m no dog, we are all equal as humans.” Rather than either of those, instead she said “I am a dog, please, give me the scraps that a dog deserves, and it will be enough to heal my daughter.” Not only this, but she shows her faith by referring to Jesus by his messianic titles (son of David, etc). The display of humbleness and faith touched Jesus, and he did as she requested.
 
The house of Israel was everybody having Jacob (Israel) as an ancestor; this included the Jews, ie, the remnants of old Judah, as well as the 10 Lost Tribes of northern Israel wo went to Assyria in 721BC.

Our LORD was born in Judah (Bethlehem) but was raised in the north (Galilee). His life reunited the two kingdoms of Israel.

Tyre and Sidon were never part of Israel, but were Phoenician cities now in modern Lebanon. Our LORD was the Jewish Messiah; by saying what He did, HE was testing this woman’s faith, as well as showing HIS companions that HE was in fact for everybody.

While comparing the woman to a dog seems very harsh, we need to remember that in the Bible, faith tests are never a comforting experience.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Jesus’ mission while on Earth was to reach out to the Jews only. It was not until Pentecost that the disciples fully received the call to reach out to all nations.

While the words Jesus used with the Canaanite woman were harsh, they brought out proof of her faith. Her faith was not just that Jesus was some kind of wonder-worker but that the God of Israel is the only true God and that He wants to bless all peoples. If she did not at least latently believe these things, I don’t think she would have persisted so.
 
kelcca said:
21Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

22And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

28Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Who is the lost sheep of the house of Israel? and why does Jesus refer to those who are not of the house of Israel as dogs? I find this passage very confusing, from what I have researched on line some believe the house of Israel are the Jewish people others believe Israelites are a different people from the Jewish people. The Jewish people are from the house of Judah?
Click to expand...
…when we go back to the origin of Israel we find that Yahweh God changes Jacob’s name to Israel–this is keeping with the Promise made to Abraham (whose name was changed from Abram) who would be the father of many nations (both the direct blood descendants and spiritual descendants); Jacob, the son of Isaac, the first to inherit the Promise, had twelve offsprings (hence the twelve tribes of Israel); since Juda (the tribe) had become the house of the king, when the spinter occurred two kingdoms were formed–hence the division between Juda and the rest of Israel–Juda vs. Israel; yet, none of this really matters (except for those who continue to place value on tribal lineage) since both kingdoms rebelled against Yahweh God and they all became the scattered and lost sheep of Israel.

Since Jesus came to gather/save Yahweh God’s first-born son, Israel, all other nations were, in effect, not God’s children. The text you’ve cited does not mean that Jesus thought of the rest of the world (Gentiles) as dogs–rather, Jesus simply uses the vernacular expressions of His times… did you notice how the woman did not react in a manner that would demonstrate that she felt offended or debased? …without a beat the woman reasons with Jesus–but even the dogs get scraps from the table!

If we read Scriptures carefully we will find that Jesus is never amazed or puzzled or surprised–He simply uses the opportunity to emphasize Israel’s disbelief: Yahweh God’s people rejected the prophets He sent them and, as in the parable of the vineyard, they went as far as killing God’s Son in order to inherit the kingdom.

A similar example is found with the ten lepers that Jesus cured–only the Samaritan returned to give thanks and glory to God–Jesus exalted him for being greatful and gave him the additional Blessing of cleansing him spiritually!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
In this story the children were the Jews and the dog was the Gentile child. This non universal “Gentiles are dogs” viewpoint is directly contrary to the Jewish (Pharisee) attitude of universal kindness:

As the Talmud teaches:

“We are obliged to feed the Gentile poor in exactly the same manner as we feed the Jewish poor” Talmud Gitten 61 a

“Do not despise any man” Talmud Avot 4:3

“Even a Gentile who studies Torah is equal to a High Priest” Talmud Baba Kama 38a
 
Jesus uses the dog term to illustrate the progress of the gospel. Just as children are fed before pets, so the gospel is offered to Israel before the Gentiles. The woman accepted the epithet with humility.
 
I remember hearing in one homily that the word for “dog” was more like the word for “puppy dog” (ie, a beloved pet dog) rather than having connotations more like “cur” (ie, an unloved and unwanted stray). I only heard it the one time, so I’m curious if others who are more familiar with the linguistics can help shed some light on the word choice in the verse.
 
Regardless of whether it was the beloved pet or a stray dog, I think it is a wonderful example of humility before God when asking for a blessing. An example too of God’s heart, looking away for a moment, yet finding the plea irresistible, and turning toward the person to bless.
 
midori said:
I remember hearing in one homily that the word for “dog” was more like the word for “puppy dog” (ie, a beloved pet dog) rather than having connotations more like “cur” (ie, an unloved and unwanted stray). I only heard it the one time, so I’m curious if others who are more familiar with the linguistics can help shed some light on the word choice in the verse.
Click to expand...
In the Greek the phrase used by Jesus was “little dogs”. English Bibles leave out the adjective, but Spanish Bibles more accurately use the word “perritos” (little dogs) that “perros” (dogs).

Although one could make an argument that Jesus’ use of this term meant “puppies” (in an affectionate way), such an interpretation could also be considered a euphemism to lessen what many find to be an uncomfortable statement made by Jesus. After all, the term “little dogs” could also be an even more derogatory statement than simply “dogs.”
 
I agree with those who see this Gospel passage as a test of faith, and I believe that it presents a lesson all Christians should keep in mind. For example…

The Canaanite woman goes to Jesus to get help for her daughter. She appeals to Jesus and obviously she expects him to be able to deliver her daughter from demonic attacks. Evidently she has heard stories about Jesus and his ability as a healer and an exorcist. Moreover, even though she is a Canaanite, she addresses Jesus with the Jewish messianic title “Lord, Son of David”. Jesus gives her three different responses:

Response #1: The silent treatment. Do we ever pray to Jesus but feel as if he is unresponsive?

Response #2: Jesus gives the Canaanite woman a response that is clearly not what she was hoping for. Nor is it a response that sounds like something Jesus would say. Do we ever pray to Jesus but feel that Jesus is responding in a way contrary to our desires, or in a way that we deem to be inappropriate to how we think Jesus is supposed to act? Do we demand Jesus to live up to our expectations instead of us trying to live up to his? Do we sometimes feel that we are entitled to his blessings?

Response #3: Jesus commends the woman’s faith and helps her daughter.

The fact that Jesus commends her faith is evidence that this whole Gospel passage is meant to be viewed as a test of faith. Therefore, I see it as a lesson in the importance of the virtues of humility and perseverance in prayer. From the natural human perspective, the Canaanite woman was given two excuses for leaving and being dismissive of Jesus.

After Response #1 (the silent treatment) she could have left, thinking, “If he doesn’t want anything to do with me then I don’t want anything to do with him!” I can think of a few fallen-away Christians (Catholic and otherwise) who embraced this same attitude. They perceived that Jesus was uncaring and therefore he either doesn’t care or maybe doesn’t even exist.

After Response #2 (the uncomfortable statement) she could have left in a prideful way, angered over the perceived insult and offended that Jesus didn’t help her daughter.

But this Canaanite woman perseveres in beseeching Jesus for help, despite these responses. Moreover, she does not react in pride, but instead reacts with humility. The lesson is to remember the actions of the Canaanite woman at times in our prayer life when we go through what seems to be the silent treatment from Jesus, or when we perceive him giving us a response that we do not expect, or one contrary to what we want.

Those who persevere in prayer and embrace the virtue of humility will discover that Jesus does respond, that he does care, and that he is, indeed, looking out for our best interests. And because our faith gets tested once in awhile, this allows us the opportunity to actually exercise such virtues as perseverance and humility (so that they can increase in us and become stronger).
 
chosen_people said:
In this story the children were the Jews and the dog was the Gentile child. This non universal “Gentiles are dogs” viewpoint is directly contrary to the Jewish (Pharisee) attitude of universal kindness:
Click to expand...
I realize that you are coming at this from a Jewish perspective but I am a little unclear as to the point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that if Jesus called Gentiles dogs then he violated the the “attitude of universal kindness”?

I’m sure you are aware that from the Christian perspective Jesus is God, and therefore (from our perspective) saying that Jesus violated the attitude of universal kindness is like saying that God violates the 5th Commandment whenever he ends someone’s life.

Moreover, however you define the attitude of universal kindness, I am sure that I could pull out examples from the Jewish Scriptures of God acting otherwise in what he did with Gentiles. The point I am making is that God is not subject to the laws he gives to humans.
 
EricFilmer said:
I realize that you are coming at this from a Jewish perspective but I am a little unclear as to the point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that if Jesus called Gentiles dogs then he violated the the “attitude of universal kindness”?

I’m sure you are aware that from the Christian perspective Jesus is God, and therefore (from our perspective) saying that Jesus violated the attitude of universal kindness is like saying that God violates the 5th Commandment whenever he ends someone’s life.

Moreover, however you define the attitude of universal kindness, I am sure that I could pull out examples from the Jewish Scriptures of God acting otherwise in what he did with Gentiles. The point I am making is that God is not subject to the laws he gives to humans.
Click to expand...
I think that you have misunderstood the point that what being made: Jesus was not derrogatory since He, being a Rabbi, would have expressed Himself with kindness… we use metaphors all of the time… sometimes the more graphic the picture that is painted the more clearer we consider we are… it is very odd for a person who owns a dog not to allow the dog to beg scraps from the table–this fact has not changed nor is it new–the only thing that is new is that, at least in the USA, dogs (and other animals) are being raised to a level equal (and at times even higher than) to humans… now that is offensive!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
midori said:
I remember hearing in one homily that the word for “dog” was more like the word for “puppy dog” (ie, a beloved pet dog) rather than having connotations more like “cur” (ie, an unloved and unwanted stray). I only heard it the one time, so I’m curious if others who are more familiar with the linguistics can help shed some light on the word choice in the verse.
Click to expand...
I read (somewhere) that the word Jesus used was commonly used to mean a pet dog rather than a wild dog. This made the statement inclusive rather than exclusive. The curse Noah pronounced on Canaan was ’ he will be a servant to the servants of his brothers’ In the absence of humans of such low status a pet dog is in keeping with the tradition.
 
jcrichton said:
I think that you have misunderstood the point that what being made…
Click to expand...
I agree that I may have misunderstood this (which is why I admitted that I was a little unclear as to the point being made when I responded to Post #7 and, in a manner of speaking, asked for a clarification). In addition to this, I am also unclear as to what he meant by the term “non universal viewpoint” (within the context of his post), so I am hoping that he will take the opportunity to clarify all this. Until then, I certainly think your interpretation of Post #7 has merit.
 
SonCatcher said:
Jesus’ mission while on Earth was to reach out to the Jews only. It was not until Pentecost that the disciples fully received the call to reach out to all nations.

While the words Jesus used with the Canaanite woman were harsh, they brought out proof of her faith. Her faith was not just that Jesus was some kind of wonder-worker but that the God of Israel is the only true God and that He wants to bless all peoples. If she did not at least latently believe these things, I don’t think she would have persisted so.
Click to expand...
What about the Samaritan woman at the well? Are Samaritans Jewish?
 
For what it’s worth here’s what my study Bible says:
The Greek says “little dogs” meaning a pet dog in the home, and Jesus’ point was that the Gospel was to be given first to the Jews. The woman understood Jesus’ implication and was willing to settle for “crumbs.” Jesus rewarded her faith.
Click to expand...
To me this sounds a bit like banter in which both parties understood that the word “dog” was not to be taken literally. It’s a bit like meeting an old friend after a long absence and saying “Hello you old bastard. How are you?” No offence is intended.
 
joshrp said:
What about the Samaritan woman at the well? Are Samaritans Jewish?
Click to expand...
No, they were not, at least in Judean eyes.

The Samaritans were the descndants of people who resettled Northern Israel after the 10 Tribes were chased out in 721BC. As such, they were not in the Jewish bloodline, and were dislked by “Jews” ie men of Judah, because they were a reminder of how the old kingdom had fallen. They also had a separate religion that involved sacrifices on a northern mountain rather than in Jerusalem’s temple.

Hence the impact of the “Good Samaritan” incident; as well as our LORD’s words at the Samaritan well: “Neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father…[but] in spirit and in truth.”

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
No, they were not, at least in Judean eyes.

The Samaritans were the descndants of people who resettled Northern Israel after the 10 Tribes were chased out in 721BC. As such, they were not in the Jewish bloodline, and were dislked by “Jews” ie men of Judah, because they were a reminder of how the old kingdom had fallen. They also had a separate religion that involved sacrifices on a northern mountain rather than in Jerusalem’s temple.

Hence the impact of the “Good Samaritan” incident; as well as our LORD’s words at the Samaritan well: “Neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father…[but] in spirit and in truth.”

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
…I don’t think that it is so much a question of direct bloodlines but rather of interbreading with non-Jews and adopting the Gentiles’ religious culture… as the Samaritan woman questions Jesus’ providence she contends that Jacob is their ancestor–this places them quite close to the Promise, which would be only two generations removed!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top