Did this lady have better manners than Jesus?

[Olddad]

A woman, whose daughter had an evil spirit in her, heard about Jesus and came to him at once and fell at his feet. The woman was a Gentile, born in the region of Phoenecia in Syria. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus answered, "Let us first feed the children. It isn't right to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs."

"Sir, she answered, "even the dogs under the table eat the children's left-overs!"

So Jesus said to her, "Because of that answer, go back home, where you will find that the demon has gone out of your daughter!"
Mark 7:25-28, Good News Bible

I have four comments about this passage:
The woman treated Jesus with groveling respect.
In response, Jesus called her and her daughter dogs.
The woman responded to this insult with wit and dignity, turning it to her own advantage.
Jesus then responded by granting her wish.


That is the effect that this passage has on me. How does it strike Christians?

[Ta-An]

The gentiles....Christians were called / referred to as "Dogs" in those days.
Gentile means: Without a god / unbeliever / heathen or pagan.

[daughter]

At the time of Christ the Canaanites were known for worshipping all sorts of different deities. A bit like modern day "spirituality", Canaanite worship mixed and matched their styles, "salad bowl" religiosity.

The Jews knew this, and Jesus had to make it clear to all who witnessed the encounter that this woman was genuinely asking HIM for help, not just going along to the nearest fashionable guru. So He made obstacles for her to overcome... and made sure that His followers could see she was genuine in her request for help.

If you look at Jewish culture, right from the days of Ruth until today they don't just take people's word for it when someone says they want to honour the God of Abraham. Traditionally Orthodox rabbis will turn away prospective converts three times. Ruth's mother in law also put up obstacles.

What Jesus is doing in this passage makes perfect sense in a first century Jewish context, and the difficulty of this passage to modern sensibilities is in fact one of the markers which shows just how genuine the account is. Nobody tried to clean it up or make it pretty. We have Jesus in this incident behaving exactly as a first century Jewish rabbi would be expected to behave. The Canaanite woman passes the test, is vindicated publically for her wit, patience, dignity and faith. So much so that the incident and the healing of her daughter were recorded by the witnesses.

Hope this helps.

[watchinginawe]

How does it strike Christians? :hmm: Well, for me, I think first that the whole passage is governed by the following principle:

John 6:5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?

6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.

I believe the scene is set with purpose and that Jesus Himself knew what He would do. With that said, I will offer for the thread the parallel passage in Matthew:

Matthew 15:21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

22 And, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

28 Then 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.

We see in the Matthew passage how the disciples were uncomfortable with the gentile woman's presence. We also know that Jesus' actions were monitored by the Jews and they accused Him often of doing things unlawful. We can contrast the disciple's discomfort to what Peter says of those at Cornelius' house when the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles: Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (Now Peter IMO surely recalled the woman of Canaan and her presistent faith rewarded by Jesus. :))

So, we can understand how that the disciples were burdened with the woman's presence.

In the Matthew passage, we see what Jesus ultimately praises the woman for: 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: In Mark, Jesus says "for this saying". In either case, the reason for the miracle is because of the woman's faith. Her need transcended racial boundaries and she had faith in whom she believed could heal her daughter. The woman of Canaan shows God's rewarding of faith:

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

God Bless!

[markinro]

A woman, whose daughter had an evil spirit in her, heard about Jesus and came to him at once and fell at his feet. The woman was a Gentile, born in the region of Phoenecia in Syria. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus answered, "Let us first feed the children. It isn't right to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs."

"Sir, she answered, "even the dogs under the table eat the children's left-overs!"

So Jesus said to her, "Because of that answer, go back home, where you will find that the demon has gone out of your daughter!"
Mark 7:25-28, Good News Bible

I have four comments about this passage:

The woman treated Jesus with groveling respect.
In response, Jesus called her and her daughter dogs.
The woman responded to this insult with wit and dignity, turning it to her own advantage.
Jesus then responded by granting her wish.

That is the effect that this passage has on me. How does it strike Christians?

I get the impression you are seeking for a particular reaction from christians. I would like to ask what do you think of this passage ?

Was Jesus initial response to woman unfair ?
Since she was a gentile, should He have not even allowed her to speak ?
Are you seeking for christians to agree with your view of Jesus ?

[apothanein kerdos]

He's using an analogy - why are you taking it literally? He's simply saying, "Why should a prophet of Israel and the one true God help one that doesn't even believe in the one true God or belong to Israel?"

Her response is, "Even those of us who do not belong will go after the scraps of your blessing."

She was acknowledging that Christ wasn't some "other" deity, but THE deity. The fact that He used an analogy to get this point across really has no bearing on the situation (especially because He was using a culturally relevant analogy).

[mcgyver]

This incident is so significant on so many levels. you've already received some excellent responses, and I'd like to address something else that is lost...the context of 1st century Jewish culture.

There was an absolute separation practiced between Jew and Gentile during these times.

The Jews held that Gentiles were both apart, and outside the mercies of God. In fact there was a commonly held saying: "That if a Jew should come across a Gentile woman in labor, he should render no aid...for to do so was to simply help to bring another Gentile into the world." (sources: Eldersheim, Schurer, Barclay)

In fact, observant Jews at this time would not even have dealings with a non-observant Jew.

Jews would not allow a Gentile to even cross the threshold of their home...and for a Rabbi to even speak to a Gentile (and a woman at that) was on the far side of "unthinkable".

Such was the context...and such is it here. It is no wonder that Jesus' disciples wanted her to go away...she was after all both a Gentile and a woman (2 strikes in Jewish society).

Jesus, in speaking to this woman is doing something that is considered unthinkable; breaking convention in a most remarkable way.

There is no doubt that He knew that she had remarkable faith in approaching Him in the first place. In crying out "Son of David", she is using a Messianic title...and considering that the Jews had been taught that Messiah would smite the Gentile nations, overthrow the Roman oppressor, and restore Israel to its "rightful place" as rulers of the world; she is an outstanding example of a mother's love and devotion...imagine the fear and trepidation she must have felt in approaching the one she believed was the Jewish Messiah!

Jesus knew her faith...He knew what she would answer...

The things he spoke to her were in keeping with the culture of the time, and from the Greek rendering of this passage...one can almost see a small smile on the savior's face as He gently says: "It is not meet [also good, right] to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs [also puppies or little dogs or little puppies])"...knowing she had the faith to persevere...

In healing her daughter...Jesus was in fact, and in a very real way showing that He was the Messiah of the Jews and the Savior of all mankind...and that salvation was not to be found in the keeping of the Torah, but by faith in the only begotten Son of the living God.

[RoadWarrior]

In a recent study of Mark's Gospel, we discovered an interesting fact about this story. Jesus seems to have deliberately gone out of His way to be on the pathway of this particular woman. In that respect, it is similiar to the story of the woman at the well, in John's Gospel.

There are many things that Jesus did which might seem mysterious and strange to us, but the deep student of the Word will find light and wisdom hidden in the text.

[Olddad]

First, I would like to thank everyone for their responses here. The general impression that I get is that there was a great cultural barrier between Jews and others, so Jesus had to proceed with caution in dealing with the woman.

I asked why he called the woman and her daughter dogs, and after posting it I remembered that the New Jerusalem Bible translated it as "little dogs". If this translation is accurate, this softens the barb. It could be that this playful reference to the social taboos encouraged the woman to respond with her clever rejoinder that even the little dogs eat the crumbs from under the table. This would mean that Jesus both affirmed and cleverly undermined the social taboos.

I would like to think that this is what happened. However, he did say,

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
Matthew 7:6, King James Version

So maybe Jesus did share these common prejudices.

[RoadWarrior]

First, I would like to thank everyone for their responses here. The general impression that I get is that there was a great cultural barrier between Jews and others, so Jesus had to proceed with caution in dealing with the woman.

I asked why he called the woman and her daughter dogs, and after posting it I remembered that the New Jerusalem Bible translated it as "little dogs". If this translation is accurate, this softens the barb. It could be that this playful reference to the social taboos encouraged the woman to respond with her clever rejoinder that even the little dogs eat the crumbs from under the table. This would mean that Jesus both affirmed and cleverly undermined the social taboos.

I would like to think that this is what happened. However, he did say,
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
Matthew 7:6, King James Version
So maybe Jesus did share these common prejudices.

Jesus does not act as a prejudiced person. Remember that He deliberately chose the route to bring Himself into contact with this woman, as well as the Samaritan woman at the well. If there were any people who were recipients of the revulsion of the Jews, it was the Samaritan people!

Your quote above can be cross-referenced to Proverbs 9:7-8. Proverbs 9 is about using wisdom. Jesus is telling people to be careful first of all in how they treat each other as brothers, then about how to be wise when they go out.

Jesus uses the thoughts and prejudices of the people He is addressing. It is an excellent technique, to start where they are, and lead them to the next step.

His mission of course, was to start with the Jews, His own people, His chosen people. Only a few of those truly followed Him. But His intent all along was to bring salvation to all people in the world.

[apothanein kerdos]

First, I would like to thank everyone for their responses here. The general impression that I get is that there was a great cultural barrier between Jews and others, so Jesus had to proceed with caution in dealing with the woman.

I asked why he called the woman and her daughter dogs, and after posting it I remembered that the New Jerusalem Bible translated it as "little dogs". If this translation is accurate, this softens the barb. It could be that this playful reference to the social taboos encouraged the woman to respond with her clever rejoinder that even the little dogs eat the crumbs from under the table. This would mean that Jesus both affirmed and cleverly undermined the social taboos.

I would like to think that this is what happened. However, he did say,

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
Matthew 7:6, King James Version

So maybe Jesus did share these common prejudices.


...but this would make no sense when we consider His "Good Samaritan" parable. This would make no sense considering He visited the Samaritan woman at the Well. How could He share these conventions when He constantly broke them? It makes more sense that He is simply using an accepted idiom of the day - either to prove a point to the culture He is speaking to, or in irony. Either way, His usage wouldn't be racist or ethnocentric due to the manner in which He is using it.

It would be the equivalent of Nick Nolte's character in Hotel Rwanda saying, "To them, you're not even a 'N'." Though the term is derogatory, he does not mean it in such a way and is making a sober statement of fact. Jesus would be accomplishing the same thing in His usage of such terms - His actions clearly show that He was quite the social revolutionary.

Likewise, you're judging Jesus by today's sensitive and politically correct standards. One could argue if the linguistic conventions of the day are necessarily a good standard to judge other cultures by.

[Olddad]

...but this would make no sense when we consider His "Good Samaritan" parable. This would make no sense considering He visited the Samaritan woman at the Well. How could He share these conventions when He constantly broke them? It makes more sense that He is simply using an accepted idiom of the day - either to prove a point to the culture He is speaking to, or in irony. Either way, His usage wouldn't be racist or ethnocentric due to the manner in which He is using it.

It would be the equivalent of Nick Nolte's character in Hotel Rwanda saying, "To them, you're not even a 'N'." Though the term is derogatory, he does not mean it in such a way and is making a sober statement of fact. Jesus would be accomplishing the same thing in His usage of such terms - His actions clearly show that He was quite the social revolutionary.

Likewise, you're judging Jesus by today's sensitive and politically correct standards. One could argue if the linguistic conventions of the day are necessarily a good standard to judge other cultures by.

You make some good points here, though I would take issue with your defence of cultural relativism.

Jesus was a revolutionary in many ways. However, the Parable of the Good Samaritan had some other barbs. As Jesus was accused of being a Samaritan (John 8:48) the story contrasting the righteousness of the Good Samaritan with the lack of righteousness of the priest and the Levite (Luke 10:31-32) had clear political overtones that would not be lost on his audience. (The action of the Levite in going to the man and looking at him and then passing by is reminiscent of the actions of another Levite [Judges 19:28-29] - but that is a point that may only strike us today, in these sensitive and politically correct times.)

So the Parable of the Good Samaritan is not only an example of good behaviour, but a stinging attack on the religious orthodoxy of Jesus' day.

[Mograce2U]

You make some good points here, though I would take issue with your defence of cultural relativism.

Jesus was a revolutionary in many ways. However, the Parable of the Good Samaritan had some other barbs. As Jesus was accused of being a Samaritan (John 8:48) the story contrasting the righteousness of the Good Samaritan with the lack of righteousness of the priest and the Levite (Luke 10:31-32) had clear political overtones that would not be lost on his audience. (The action of the Levite in going to the man and looking at him and then passing by is reminiscent of the actions of another Levite [Judges 19:28-29] - but that is a point that may only strike us today, in these sensitive and politically correct times.)

So the Parable of the Good Samaritan is not only an example of good behaviour, but a stinging attack on the religious orthodoxy of Jesus' day.Well if you take a look at the context for Mat 7:6, you will see that the "dogs" He had in mind there were Jewish. And the word for dogs used there is not a puppy but a hound.

[Olddad]

Well if you take a look at the context for Mat 7:6, you will see that the "dogs" He had in mind there were Jewish. And the word for dogs used there is not a puppy but a hound.

According to the context Jesus spoke Matthew 7:6 to a Jewish audience. From what has been said here it is apparent that the Jewish people of the day had a low opinion of Gentiles. It is therefore possible that a reference to dogs and swine would remind a Jewish audience of their Gentile neighbours.

[apothanein kerdos]

You make some good points here, though I would take issue with your defence of cultural relativism.

Jesus was a revolutionary in many ways. However, the Parable of the Good Samaritan had some other barbs. As Jesus was accused of being a Samaritan (John 8:48) the story contrasting the righteousness of the Good Samaritan with the lack of righteousness of the priest and the Levite (Luke 10:31-32) had clear political overtones that would not be lost on his audience. (The action of the Levite in going to the man and looking at him and then passing by is reminiscent of the actions of another Levite [Judges 19:28-29] - but that is a point that may only strike us today, in these sensitive and politically correct times.)

So the Parable of the Good Samaritan is not only an example of good behaviour, but a stinging attack on the religious orthodoxy of Jesus' day.


I bordered on cultural relativism, but didn't jump over the edge. :)

I was merely pointing out that we would first have to justify our political correctness as the proper absolute before using it to judge an ancient culture. Before judging a culture by appealing to our own we first have to make sure ours is in line with the absolute.

(Sorry, that's the philosopher in me, getting a degree in it. The first question I'll ask after finally getting my PhD is, "Why do you want fries with that" and "For what purpose do we put the hamburgers with the fries?")

[Sold Out]

First, I would like to thank everyone for their responses here. The general impression that I get is that there was a great cultural barrier between Jews and others, so Jesus had to proceed with caution in dealing with the woman.

I would like to think that this is what happened. However, he did say,
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
Matthew 7:6, King James Version
So maybe Jesus did share these common prejudices.

There is no prejudice whatsoever. Jesus is revealing something here....that the Gentiles will share in the same salvation as the Jews. This is a remarkable passage that demonstrates God shows no partiality when it comes to salvation.

Jesus has a similar encounter in John 4 with the Samaritan woman.

[Olddad]

There is no prejudice whatsoever. Jesus is revealing something here....that the Gentiles will share in the same salvation as the Jews. This is a remarkable passage that demonstrates God shows no partiality when it comes to salvation.

Jesus has a similar encounter in John 4 with the Samaritan woman.

On the contrary, Jesus defied the taboo:

There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink. (For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) John 4:7-9, English Standard Version

In one case, Jesus likened the woman and her daughter to dogs; in the other case, he defied the conventions and asked for a cup of water. Different story, different action.

[EarlyCall]

A woman, whose daughter had an evil spirit in her, heard about Jesus and came to him at once and fell at his feet. The woman was a Gentile, born in the region of Phoenecia in Syria. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus answered, "Let us first feed the children. It isn't right to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs."

"Sir, she answered, "even the dogs under the table eat the children's left-overs!"

So Jesus said to her, "Because of that answer, go back home, where you will find that the demon has gone out of your daughter!"
Mark 7:25-28, Good News BibleI have four comments about this passage:

The woman treated Jesus with groveling respect.
In response, Jesus called her and her daughter dogs.
The woman responded to this insult with wit and dignity, turning it to her own advantage.
Jesus then responded by granting her wish.


That is the effect that this passage has on me. How does it strike Christians?

No Jesus did not call her any such thing. Read it again more carefully.. Jesus merely stated what was the belief at that time by the Jews. Jesus never said He agreed with it. In fact, by His actions He showed He did not agree with it.

Jesus set out to make a very dramatic point.

Now consider this: Jesus came to die for everyone including gentiles. How then could Jesus truly believe the statement of belief He stated? Keep in mind He did not say either way as to whether He believed it or not. So since He did not say, we must assume one or the other.

And since Jesus came to die for even the gentiles, which should we assume?

Are we to think that Jesus came to die only for the Jews but later changed His mind? At the point He spoke to this woman He was intending only to die for the Jews. And later He changed His mind and decided to die also for the gentiles.

Not according to God's word. Thus since Jesus came from Heaven intending to die for both the Jews and the gentiles, He necessarily could not have believed the statement He made. The only logical conclusion then is that He was merely stating it to preface the point He was about to make in the healing of this woman.

I hope that makes sense.

[Olddad]

No Jesus did not call her any such thing. Read it again more carefully.. Jesus merely stated what was the belief at that time by the Jews. Jesus never said He agreed with it. In fact, by His actions He showed He did not agree with it.

EarlyCall, please look at the sequence of events, this time in the New Jerusalem Bible

At once a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard about him and came and fell at his feet.
Note that the woman came to Jesus.

Now this woman was a Gentile, by birth a Syro-Phoenecian....
Note that the woman was not Jewish (and therefore nor was her daughter.)

and she begged him to drive the devil out of her daughter.
Note that the woman implored Jesus to help her daughter.

And he said to her, 'The children should be fed first, because it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the little dogs.'
See also Matthew 10:6. Jesus refers to some as children (who deserve food) and some as little dogs.

But she spoke up, 'Ah yes, sir,' she replied, 'but little dogs under the table eat the scraps from the children.'
Note that the woman takes the reference to little dogs as referring to her. She then turns the imagery back on Jesus to claim a crumb of favour.

And he said to her, 'For saying this you may go home happy; the devil has gone out of your daughter.'
Note that Jesus said the cure was because of the woman's answer.

But did Jesus believe that the Gentiles really were little dogs? The reference to little dogs does soften the impact, but you can't get away from the fact that Jesus referred to the woman and her daughter as little dogs.

So I guess the choice is between Jesus calling the woman a dog or calling her a little dog.

[EarlyCall]

EarlyCall, please look at the sequence of events, this time in the New Jerusalem Bible
At once a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard about him and came and fell at his feet.Note that the woman came to Jesus.
Now this woman was a Gentile, by birth a Syro-Phoenecian....Note that the woman was not Jewish (and therefore nor was her daughter.)
and she begged him to drive the devil out of her daughter.Note that the woman implored Jesus to help her daughter.
And he said to her, 'The children should be fed first, because it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the little dogs.'See also Matthew 10:6. Jesus refers to some as children (who deserve food) and some as little dogs.
But she spoke up, 'Ah yes, sir,' she replied, 'but little dogs under the table eat the scraps from the children.'Note that the woman takes the reference to little dogs as referring to her. She then turns the imagery back on Jesus to claim a crumb of favour.
And he said to her, 'For saying this you may go home happy; the devil has gone out of your daughter.'Note that Jesus said the cure was because of the woman's answer.

But did Jesus believe that the Gentiles really were little dogs? The reference to little dogs does soften the impact, but you can't get away from the fact that Jesus referred to the woman and her daughter as little dogs.

So I guess the choice is between Jesus calling the woman a dog or calling her a little dog.

I'm quite familiar with the story. I don't need to read it again. I've read it many times.

I'm asking you to figure it out logically.

If Jesus considered her a dog as was the thinking of His time, then what was He doing coming to earth to die for dogs? You must explain that contradiction first before you can claim Jesus actually thought she and gentiles were dogs.

Haven't you ever said something you didn't believe but was common thought because you were about to make a point contrary to it?

Do you think there were others standing around that heard this? Yes, yes, they must have said. She, they are dogs. And then Jesus heals her.

Perhaps it is you believe a mere human can change the mind of Christ and His entire mission to earth. I don't think so.

So again, explain first how it is that Jesus came to this earth to die even for the gentiles but considered them dogs. If you can do that, then I will believe He thought she was a dog, otherwise I know He was but restating what the Jews thought and then He showed them what He thought.

Do you see what I am saying? Step away for a moment from just the words and take the whole of God's word. Look at who Christ was and is and why He came to earth to begin with. And reread my first post too.

I'm probabyl not explaining this well, but I'm trying. :)

[Olddad]

Dear EarlyCall,

It's a pity that you didn't read the story in the New Jerusalem Version. There is a small but significant difference in the translation. This small change affects the impact and therefore the logic of what Jesus said.

Firstly, calling people animals doesn't mean that the people are animals. When Jesus called some people a brood of vipers (Matthew 12:34) he did not mean that they were literal snakes. He was simply using a metaphor to describe their character.

However, I think that the main problem for you was the suggestion that Jesus could be impolite. That is why I quoted from the New Jerusalem Bible. In this translation, Jesus refers to 'little dogs'. I suggested that this might have blunted the reference to dogs and so encouraged the woman to respond in the way that she did. This is a more nuanced approach than perhaps you realised.

Also, I did not say that the woman induced Jesus to change his mind. On the contrary, the wording suggests that he rewarded the woman for what she said:

And he said to her, 'For saying this you may go home happy; the devil has gone out of your daughter.'

Finally, in interpreting this passage, I am concentrating on what happened in the passage itself. It is not my intention to comment on matters of Christian doctrine.

I hope that this has answered at least some of your concerns.

[mcgyver]

Once again Olddad,

Remember that we are talking about an idiomatic pattern of speech here.

Jesus also referred to his mother as "woman" (as in "woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" John 2:4). Now to us, calling our mother "woman" would be extremely disrespectful...but then (and in this context) it was an affectionate appellation...a term of endearment.

I wouldn't get too "wrapped around the axle" by the term "little dogs" ;)

[RoadWarrior]

...I have four comments about this passage:

The woman treated Jesus with groveling respect.
In response, Jesus called her and her daughter dogs.
The woman responded to this insult with wit and dignity, turning it to her own advantage.
Jesus then responded by granting her wish.

That is the effect that this passage has on me. How does it strike Christians?

1. The woman was crying out to Jesus for help. "groveling respect" is an insulting description of her approach.
2. Jesus used a figure of speech to give her a chance to express herself more clearly. She did not react as if she had been insulted, so why should it bother you? This is between the woman and Jesus. We can learn from it.
3. Her response was humble, not demanding, but recognizing that her request could be solved by only the merest crumbs of Jesus' power.
4. Jesus had planned to grant her request all along. The scenario as it played out was a lesson for the disciples who walked with Him then, and for us who follow Him today. It is not really expected that an unbeliever would understand this.

Another woman approached Jesus with the same understanding ... she didn't need a big dramatic healing, but knew that she could be healed if she only touched the hem of His garment.

Jesus tests the person - He can "feel" the power go out of Himself to heal a person who believes, the one who has faith receives that which they ask for.

There is nothing arrogant or degrading in His approach to people. Those who receive what they want from Him, are also not arrogant or demanding.

If we want to know Jesus, we must be willing to listen and learn.

[Tanya~]

Jesus was just using a metaphor, not making a social comment.

In a household, the children are to be fed first, before the house pets. The meaning is that Christ came to the Jew first, and they were to receive the attention first. The Gentiles would receive theirs afterward. The woman wisely said that yes, it's true the children are fed first. But the house pets do get the crumbs that fall from the table while the children are eating. All she was asking for, was a few crumbs. He was pleased with that response.

He was not insulting the woman.

[EarlyCall]

Dear EarlyCall,

It's a pity that you didn't read the story in the New Jerusalem Version. There is a small but significant difference in the translation. This small change affects the impact and therefore the logic of what Jesus said.

Firstly, calling people animals doesn't mean that the people are animals. When Jesus called some people a brood of vipers (Matthew 12:34) he did not mean that they were literal snakes. He was simply using a metaphor to describe their character.

However, I think that the main problem for you was the suggestion that Jesus could be impolite. That is why I quoted from the New Jerusalem Bible. In this translation, Jesus refers to 'little dogs'. I suggested that this might have blunted the reference to dogs and so encouraged the woman to respond in the way that she did. This is a more nuanced approach than perhaps you realised.

Also, I did not say that the woman induced Jesus to change his mind. On the contrary, the wording suggests that he rewarded the woman for what she said:
And he said to her, 'For saying this you may go home happy; the devil has gone out of your daughter.'
Finally, in interpreting this passage, I am concentrating on what happened in the passage itself. It is not my intention to comment on matters of Christian doctrine.

I hope that this has answered at least some of your concerns.

So you are concentratin ghere on one thing only: whether Jesus was being impolite? Do I understand you correctly? I'm trying to.

[Olddad]

1. The woman was crying out to Jesus for help. "groveling respect" is an insulting description of her approach.

I'm sorry you take it as an insult to the woman. It wasn't meant that way. It would be grovelling in our culture but in her culture, with a different relationship between men and women and Gentile and Jew, it must be seen in a different light. Therefore I concede that my description did not take this into account.

2. Jesus used a figure of speech to give her a chance to express herself more clearly.

Jesus did use a metaphor of children and dogs, where the children represented the children of Israel and the dogs represented the Gentiles.

Cruden's Concordance gives this information "There were numerous troops of wild, masterless dogs which devoured dead bodies and other offal, I Ki 14:11, and became so fierce and objects of dislike that fierce and cruel enemies were poetically called dogs, Ps 22:16, etc. The dog being an unclean animal the name was used as a term of reproach, or of humility of speaking of oneself, 1 Sam 24:14, 2 Sam 16:9."

In the light of this information, calling a person a dog would be offensive in Jesus' time.

She did not react as if she had been insulted, so why should it bother you?

The woman was not in a position to show any negative reaction. Therefore the lack of hostility in her response should not be taken as approval or disapproval.

This is between the woman and Jesus. We can learn from it. True, but what we perceive and learn from it may be different.

3. Her response was humble, not demanding, but recognizing that her request could be solved by only the merest crumbs of Jesus' power.

True, but it also was clever and witty. The woman turned the metaphor to her own advantage, something that Jesus appreciated.

4. Jesus had planned to grant her request all along. The scenario as it played out was a lesson for the disciples who walked with Him then, and for us who follow Him today. It is not really expected that an unbeliever would understand this.

Jesus may have planned to grant her request all along. However, there is no direct evidence of that in this passage. It is possible to read it into the passage, either with the eye of faith or by inferring it from the "little dogs" reference in the New Jerusalem Bible.

There is nothing arrogant or degrading in His approach to people. Those who receive what they want from Him, are also not arrogant or demanding.

Considering the wording in this passage, this could be an area where we might need to agree to differ.

[Olddad]

So you are concentratin ghere on one thing only: whether Jesus was being impolite? Do I understand you correctly? I'm trying to.

Actually it's more than that. This passage may be evidence of Jesus' attitude to Gentiles.

[RoadWarrior]

I'm sorry you take it as an insult to the woman. It wasn't meant that way. It would be grovelling in our culture but in her culture, with a different relationship between men and women and Gentile and Jew, it must be seen in a different light. Therefore I concede that my description did not take this into account.

The middle east will still see dogs as a derogatory term... even in the US, it is used in a derogatory way. You have chosed a Bible story which has confounded people through the centuries. While you as an unbeliever will look for ways to cast Jesus in a bad light, I as a believer will look for a message. I consider that everything in the Bible is there for a reason, and it is never for the purpose of degrading anyone. Whatever Jesus did in those days, and does today, is for the purpose of drawing people to Himself Not everyone is willing to be drawn to Him.

This woman was not only willing to be drawn to Jesus, she was crying out for it, begging you might say. (Groveling would indicate she expected Him to strike her, and I don't see that in the passage.)


Jesus did use a metaphor of children and dogs, where the children represented the children of Israel and the dogs represented the Gentiles.

Cruden's Concordance gives this information "There were numerous troops of wild, masterless dogs which devoured dead bodies and other offal, I Ki 14:11, and became so fierce and objects of dislike that fierce and cruel enemies were poetically called dogs, Ps 22:16, etc. The dog being an unclean animal the name was used as a term of reproach, or of humility of speaking of oneself, 1 Sam 24:14, 2 Sam 16:9."

In the light of this information, calling a person a dog would be offensive in Jesus' time.


I have no argument with this. During the recent war in Iraq, the dead bodies that littered the ground were cleaned up by wild dogs. (A returned soldier told me some rather gruesome scenes he had witnessed while there.)

The question before us not the detail of the dogs, but it is Jesus' intent in the way He spoke. If His intent had been to degrade and discard the woman, then the story would not have taken the turn it did. His intent (and I grant you that this is from the viewpoint of a believer) is to draw her in, give her a chance to show her wit and wisdom, as you also have noticed.


True, but it also was clever and witty. The woman turned the metaphor to her own advantage, something that Jesus appreciated.


And what I learn from this, is that He wants me to use my mind, my intellect. He has never intended that His followers should "check their brains at the door of the church" along with hat and coat.

Considering the wording in this passage, this could be an area where we might need to agree to differ.

Dear friend, until you fall in love with Jesus, we will always have points of difference. That's understandable. But since you have come here to our house to visit us, we hope that you will find something here that is worth your visit.

Perhaps the most significant thing that stands out to me in our exchange is how different is the lense through which we see Jesus. I know Him, I have fallen in love with Him, He is my best friend. To you, He is still a stranger. An oddly fascinating one perhaps, but still a stranger.

[chisel]

Hi Olddad,

I believe the dialogue between Christ and the woman is prophetic in nature, but is also meant to give the disciples a lesson in humility

Allow me to explain how I arrived at this conclusion.

The promise of the Messiah was given to Abraham's seed, namely Israel, which is why most of the Old Testament has Israel as a people chosen out of many nations.

Because of this many jews became proud and looked down on Gentiles, and in Jesus' day it was common to refer to them as dogs, not bearing in mind that God choosing Israel is for the glory of God and not the glory of Israel. The disciples, thinking that they're being good patriotic Israelites are asking Jesus to send the woman away, because in their minds they believe that the Messiah belongs to Israel and not the Gentiles.
So Jesus starts speaking to the woman from the point of view held by His disciples, not because He agrees with the disciples but because in the dialogue with the woman an important message will emerge.

So Jesus is assuming a particular stance here...

Bear this in mind as we walk through the passage.

Mat 15:23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying out after us."
Mat 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Mat 15:25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me."
Mat 15:26 And he answered, "It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

In the above Jesus is answering exactly as the disciples expect. Remember the image these people had in their heads was that of a Messiah who comes as a great and mighty conqueror who will deal with the gentiles and elevate Israel. So Jesus is playing that role.

Now the woman's stunning display of humility and faith, but also foreknowledge:
Mat 15:27 She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

Now the above verse is where I'd like to linger for some time because this statement is prophetic in nature. God had decided from the beginning when He made a covenant with Abraham that the Gentiles would be blessed by Him who was to come. The promise of the Messiah, although made with Israel would come to the Gentiles because Israel would reject the Messiah.

We see this in John 1:12: He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Jesus came to Israel, but Israel did not receive Him, therefore the promises that belonged to Israel, was also given to the gentiles.

Read Matthew 22's parable of the wedding. It also prophecies to this, where the guests reject the invitation and so the king invites all those in the streets...

We can see that in the woman's statement? Let me paraphrase and then you can see if it makes sense to you.

"Yes, Lord, but the gentiles will get what the children of Israel will reject...."

Now, in John above we also notice the 'vessel' that God chose for this grace. Not by blood, not by will or deed or works, but by FAITH, shall one become a child of God.

Notice now Jesus' commending the woman for her faith:
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly.

By faith, the gentiles are included in the promises of Abraham and as such part of the Israel of God.

Later we see the fullfillment of this prophecy come to fruition when Paul is chosen as the apostle to the Gentiles and later says:
just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
(Gal 3:6-9)

Regards

V.

[mcgyver]

Actually it's more than that. This passage may be evidence of Jesus' attitude to Gentiles.

Let's see if I can answer your (inferred) question: "What was Jesus' attitude toward the Gentiles."

To do this, we must step back into 1st century Palestine.

At this time there was an absolute separation practiced between Jew and Gentile. A Jew would not enter the house of a Gentile, nor allow a Gentile to enter his house. A Jew would not (except in extreme circumstance) initiate a conversation with a Gentile. In fact, and observant Jew would not even have dealings with a non-observant Jew.

There are three Hebrew proverbs of the time that sum up nicely the attitude toward the Gentiles:


"If a Jew were to come across a Gentile woman in labor, no help was to be rendered to her...for to help would merely be to bring another Gentile into the world"
(Loosely translated) "God created Gentiles to fuel the fires of Hell"
"Gentiles are outside the mercies of God"


The Jews had been taught (and believed) that Messiah would smite the Gentile nations, bring judgment upon them, and restore Israel to her "rightful place" as rulers over the entire world.

Additionally, The Samaritans held a special place of contempt in Jewish thought: The Gentiles had never been given the law...but the Samaritans had been given the law and then turned their backs on the law...they were viewed as turncoats...traitors...and were especially despised.

This was the prevailing mindset and understanding of the Jews. But yet:

Jesus initiated a conversation with a Samaritan woman at the well, and it was to her that He declared unambiguously that He was Messiah. Then he goes into the Samaritan town and spends days with them...eating, drinking, and talking with these despised people, breaking every convention of the day.

As has already been mentioned: He spoke to, and then blessed by granting her request; a Gentile woman. This is comparable in impact to the Mormons declaring Joseph Smith a false prophet. :P

There are other cases: The healing of the demonically possessed man of the Gadarenes....note that there were a herd of swine nearby...they were Gentiles, not Jews.

So let me ask you, in light of Jesus' actions toward Gentiles and Samaritans, what do you think His attitude was?

<EDIT> I almost forgot the healing of the Centurion's servant...Healing the servant of a Gentile soldier in the service of the Gentile army that is occupying your land...How's that for "attitude"? ;)

[EarlyCall]

Actually it's more than that. This passage may be evidence of Jesus' attitude to Gentiles.

OK. What I am trying to get you to see is that your premise cannot be correct, if your premise is that jesus had a negative attitude toward gentiles.

Recall the story of Jesus asking the Samaritan woman for a drink of water, at the well. What was His attitude toward this woman who said herself that Jews do not associate with Samaritans? Jesus showed no hint of anything negative towards her. He went on to tell her of Himself and salvation through Him.

I'll reiterate here that Jesus came to this earth to fulfill His mission determined long before man ever existed, and that was to die for all men, jews and gentiles.

This we know. Jesus could not therefore have a negative attitude towardfs or opinion of gentiles and at the same time intend to die for them out of love for them. The two cannot coexist.

Therefore, as I said, it is a simple matter to conclude logically that jesus was merely setting the stage if you will for what He was about to do fro this woman, which He knew in advance; as He more than once said, He did and said what His Father in heaven bid Him say and do.

So in setting the stage then, Jesus said to the woman, no doubt in the hering of others, what the Jews felt and believed at that time about gentiles. Where in what Jesus said did He claim to agree with it? He did not. True, He also didn't say He disagreed with it, but His actions showed otherwise.

But why bother setting the stage, as I contend? Well, for one thing it was so others could be drawn into this before He showed them He did not agree with this belief and that He was here for gentiles and well as Jews.

Also it presented the woman with a chance to speak, and I have no doubt Jesus knew what she would say, but what she said followed by what Jesus said completed the drama played out on the stage Jesus set up. And so the story was told and the point was made exactly as Jesus intended. And those that heard who were present I'm certain went on to tell others.

When were the gentiles reached by the gospel in large numbers? Not until after Jesus left this earth. But Paul began to preach to the gentiles and on what basis? What claim did Paul have to do this? One thing is certain, he could refer back to Jesus and His minsitry to the gentiles, though it was small and short, it still was.

Jesus spoke to the centurian as well and commended him for his faith. But one mroe example of Jesus laying the groundwork and telling the world, I'm dying for the gentiles as well as the Jews.

I don't see any other way to look at this in light of what we know for certain; For God so loved the world (including the gentiles) that He gave Hi sonly begotten Son...

[Olddad]

There has been a flurry of responses, so I will give a general response.

Attitude is a funny thing. People can have apparently conflicting attitudes to people and ideas. Many who have quite warm relations with individual Jews or Muslims or people of a different race will still have attitudes towards them that strike others as hostile or prejudiced. We see it all the time. People sometimes said of my father that he was the only honest Jew they knew. Thanks a lot! People who reckon other groups are lazy or primitive or dangerous may still have warm relationships with individual members of that group.

Jesus said something that was apparently prejudiced, but his actions belied his words. We all see that. The difference is in the way we try to account for it. I have suggested that in Mark's Gospel the use of "little dogs" may have shown the woman that Jesus did not share the common prejudices of Jews towards Gentiles. In Matthew's Gospel the disciples put Jesus under pressure to send her away. In these written accounts we don't hear the tone of voice that could turn a hostile sounding comment into an ironic reflection. Nor is it completely safe to assume that similar stories in two gospels are saying exactly the same thing.

So there is plenty of room in the passage for differing interpretations to account for what looks like an inconsistency between words and actions. Because I am not a committed Christian I am free to consider possibilities that you, as Christians, would not entertain. However, I see this as an advantage rather than a problem.

[Tanya~]

Jesus said something that was apparently prejudiced, but his actions belied his words.

The problem lies with your premise, which is based on modern sensibilities and your own assumptions. Jesus wasn't acting or speaking from prejudice. He was simply stating His mission, which was to minister to the children of Israel. He was the promised Messiah. The metaphor he chose was intentional and as you know, there is a difference between the little dogs (housepets) and the other type of dogs.

[EarlyCall]

There has been a flurry of responses, so I will give a general response.

Attitude is a funny thing. People can have apparently conflicting attitudes to people and ideas. Many who have quite warm relations with individual Jews or Muslims or people of a different race will still have attitudes towards them that strike others as hostile or prejudiced. We see it all the time. People sometimes said of my father that he was the only honest Jew they knew. Thanks a lot! People who reckon other groups are lazy or primitive or dangerous may still have warm relationships with individual members of that group.

Jesus said something that was apparently prejudiced, but his actions belied his words. We all see that. The difference is in the way we try to account for it. I have suggested that in Mark's Gospel the use of "little dogs" may have shown the woman that Jesus did not share the common prejudices of Jews towards Gentiles. In Matthew's Gospel the disciples put Jesus under pressure to send her away. In these written accounts we don't hear the tone of voice that could turn a hostile sounding comment into an ironic reflection. Nor is it completely safe to assume that similar stories in two gospels are saying exactly the same thing.

So there is plenty of room in the passage for differing interpretations to account for what looks like an inconsistency between words and actions. Because I am not a committed Christian I am free to consider possibilities that you, as Christians, would not entertain. However, I see this as an advantage rather than a problem.

I've enjoyed the conversation to be sure. I appreciate the respect you give and I like and believe in asking questions and thinking things through like this.