Can you explain this?

[pickles]

Mathew 15;22-28It happened that a Canaanite woman living in that locality presented herself ,crying out to him, Lord ,Son of David, have pity on me, my daughter is terribly troubled by a demon. He gave her no responce. His disciples came up and began to entreat him. Get rid of her. She keeps shouting after us. My mission is only to the lost sheep of the house of Isreal, Jesus replied. She came forward then and did him homage with the plea, help me Lord! But he answered, it is not right to take the food of sons and daughters and through it to the dogs. Please Lord, she insisted, even the dogs eat the leavings that fall from their masters tables. Jesus then said in reply, Woman , you have great faith! Your wish will come to pass. That very moment her daughter got better. Why is this woman first ignored by Jesus? because she is a canaanite? Why compared to dogs. Is this because before Jesus was crucified that it was this way? Simple answers please so I can focus. I appreate your help. This one suprised and puzzled me. Thankyou and God bless, pickles

 

[Rissa77]

My Apologetics study Bible says this:

Jesus was not being unnecessarily harsh with the woman but rather eliciting (evoking, to bring forth) her faith. Though we cannot know with what tone of voice or body language Jesus responds to the woman, His language points to a gentler and more provocative response than is often supposed at first reading (in English). The word Jesus used for dogs (Gk kunaria) means a lap dog or household pet. In effect he invited this woman to express the faith that would eventually come to be expected of the Gentiles while reminding her that his present ministry is directed to Israel.

It goes on to say that she was a Hellenized pagan, a non-Jew. Matthew called the woman a Canaanite because of her ethnicity and to heighten the contrast of a woman from the traditional religious enemies of Israel approaching the Jewish Messiah for help.

I hope that helps.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

My Apologetics study Bible says this:

Jesus was not being unnecessarily harsh with the woman but rather eliciting (evoking, to bring forth) her faith. Though we cannot know with what tone of voice or body language Jesus responds to the woman, His language points to a gentler and more provocative response than is often supposed at first reading (in English). The word Jesus used for dogs (Gk kunaria) means a lap dog or household pet. In effect he invited this woman to express the faith that would eventually come to be expected of the Gentiles while reminding her that his present ministry is directed to Israel.

It goes on to say that she was a Hellenized pagan, a non-Jew. Matthew called the woman a Canaanite because of her ethnicity and to heighten the contrast of a woman from the traditional religious enemies of Israel approaching the Jewish Messiah for help.

I hope that helps.

Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus Christ is the 'Jewish Messiah'???

 

[Rissa77]

Those are not my words, by the way.

I think they mean "Jewish" as simply an adjective. Look at the context. In the sentence, they are comparing two "traditional religious enemies", the Hellenized pagan and Jewish culture represented in Jesus. The emphasis is in the contrast, not in calling Jesus the "Jewish Messiah".

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Those are not my words, by the way.

I think they mean "Jewish" as simply an adjective. Look at the context. In the sentence, they are comparing two "traditional religious enemies", the Hellenized pagan and Jewish culture represented in Jesus. The emphasis is in the contrast, not in calling Jesus the "Jewish Messiah".

A Canaanite is a 'Hellenized pagan' and Jesus represents 'Jewish culture'? Are you sure about that? do you know that "Jew" means Judean in a geographical sense and the religion that practiced in Judea and Jerusalem was the Temple Phariseeism which Jesus fought vehemently against, now you say that the very thing He fought against and was oppossed to that He in fact represented! Jesus' religious enemies were "Jews" the word means Judean, belonging to the State of Judea like as in property, that is very different from the Royal House of Judah or the House of Israel, do you know the difference between those two houses? The first time "Jews" are mentioned in the Bible in II Kings 16:6 they are fighting against the House of Israel and her allies the Syrians and they came from Edom Elath! So how can you call Jesus Christ the 'Jewish Messiah'? As far as I know the Jews are still waiting for their messiah.

 

[Rissa77]

Bro... again.. these are not my words! These are simply commentary. You can accept it or refuse it. It's not Scripture. I did not call Jesus the Jewish Messiah and neither did the commentary. Look at the context, contrast, and literary language they are using. You're misreading what it says.

And most of what you just said is above my head and hard to understand. But please don't argue with me about it. This is not what the OP was asking about.

God bless!

 

[CarrierOfChrist]

Jesus was trying to allow His disciples a chance to rest at the time. Matthew 15:21 says this "Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon." He was withdrawing to allow his disciples to rest, as they were missing meals and becoming very burdened with the workload.

The parallel in Mark's gospel (Mark 7:24-29) comes after Jesus' ministry to his disciples was interrupted in Mark 6:30-34:

30 The apostles gathered around Jesus and reported to him all they had done and taught. 31 Then, because so many people were coming and going that they did not even have a chance to eat, he said to them, "Come with me by yourselves to a quiet place and get some rest."

32 So they went away by themselves in a boat to a solitary place. 33 But many who saw them leaving recognized them and ran on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them. 34 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.

And again, in Mark 6:53-56:

53 When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored there. 54 As soon as they got out of the boat, people recognized Jesus. 55 They ran throughout that whole region and carried the sick on mats to wherever they heard he was. 56 And wherever he went—into villages, towns or countryside—they placed the sick in the marketplaces. They begged him to let them touch even the edge of his cloak, and all who touched him were healed.

As you can see, they had been extremely overworked up to this moment, even missing meals, and Jesus was trying to find a way for them to rest.

Jesus tried dismissing the woman, but as Jacob who refused to let go of [some say an angel, some say God the Son in the form of a man] until he was blessed (see Genesis 32:22-32 for that epic battle), the woman wouldn't take no for an answer. Her faith was shining, and Jesus, after seeing this display of great faith, decided that she was worth the loss of rest that his disciples had to endure.

So, in conclusion and summary, Jesus was trying to carry out his duties when he was interrupted, then tried to send the woman away for the sake of his disciples, then was shown an act of great faith by the woman, and couldn't refuse her request any longer.

Oh, and the comparison with dogs meant as in a pet, which are usually tended to by children, as in the children (disciples) teaching the dogs (gentiles; it wasn't intended to be an insult, it was used only to serve the analogy) what they had learned from their Parent (Jesus).

 

[CarrierOfChrist]

Oh, and here's the parallel I mentioned from Mark's Gospel:

Mark 7:24 - Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27 "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

28 "Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."

29 Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter."

 

[MahogonySnail]

Jesus was being offensive to her. By our standards today anyway. But in doing so He was speaking to her on her level and in custom with the Jews, not to be intentionally rude to her. Barnes commentary says:

To all other nations they were accustomed to apply terms of contempt, of which dogs was the most common. The Muslims still apply the term "dogs" to Christians, and Christians and Jews to each other. The term is designed as an expression of the highest contempt. The Saviour means to say that he was sent to the Jews. The woman was a Gentile. He meant merely using a term in common use, and designed to test her faith in the strongest manner - that it did not comport with the design of his personal ministry to apply benefits intended for the Jews to others. Evidently he cannot be understood as intending to justify or sanction the use of such terms, or calling names. He meant to try her faith. As if he had said, "You are a Gentile; I am a Jew. The Jews call themselves children of God. You they vilify and abuse, calling you a dog. Are you willing to receive of a Jew, then, a favor? Are you willing to submit to these appellations to receive a favor of one of that nation, and to acknowledge your dependence on a people that so despise you?" It was, therefore, a trial of her faith, and was not a lending of his sanction to the propriety of the abusive term. He regarded her with a different feeling.

By the way, it's interesting to read :

"The Muslims still apply the term "dogs" to Christians, and Christians and Jews to each other."

Barnes lived in the 17 to 1800's.

These days, the racial or religiious intolerance and politically correct police would be out in force if you said those things today.

 

[CarrierOfChrist]

Jesus was being offensive to her. By our standards today anyway. But in doing so He was speaking to her on her level and in custom with the Jews, not to be intentionally rude to her. Barnes commentary says:







By the way, it's interesting to read :

"The Muslims still apply the term "dogs" to Christians, and Christians and Jews to each other."

Barnes lived in the 17 to 1800's.

These days, the racial or religiious intolerance and politically correct police would be out in force if you said those things today.

So you're saying he was testing her faith by offending her and seeing how she would respond? Interesting.. either way, it worked. The woman wasn't offended (although if you're right, that seemed kinda harsh of Jesus!), and her faith made her daughter whole, so no harm, no foul. Either way, if she wasn't offended, neither should we be.

Personally, I like my theory mo' bettah lol. I wouldn't think Jesus would be using prejudice remarks at someone like that, but I've been wrong before. It's true that the more politically correct explanation isn't always the right one as far as the Bible goes. Anyone else wanna weigh in on this one?

 

[MahogonySnail]

That wasn't really my point but that's another interesting possible theory.
My point was, it's offensive by today's standards, but she was probably used to it and so wasn't offended. It was customary to them and I think Jesus was using custom terminology. She knew that the Jews called the gentiles dogs , and she probably had a few things she called them.

 

[CarrierOfChrist]

That wasn't really my point but that's another interesting possible theory.
My point was, it's offensive by today's standards, but she was probably used to it and so wasn't offended. It was customary to them and I think Jesus was using custom terminology. She knew that the Jews called the gentiles dogs , and she probably had a few things she called them.

Sort of like how college football rivals will call each other derogatory names, but still be good sportsmen about it? You could be right... still, you're saying it was used as a derogatory term, regardless of how "used to it" she was. African-Americans, before (and probably for a while after) were probably used to being called the N-word, and for some, I'm sure it didn't offend them as much as it does nowadays, but it was still offensive nonetheless.

Not saying Jesus was dropping N-bombs on people, but it does some a bit far-fetched that he would participate in using derogatory terms to describe an entire group of people unless they deserved it.

Here's another theory I saw: dogs were unclean animals, and fed the unclean scraps from meals, and gentiles were considered "unclean" before Jesus came. I don't know if that makes it any less offensive, lol, but it's another theory regardless.

 

[MahogonySnail]

It was a term of contempt anyway. I think Jesus used it not to be contemptable or derogatory, but to invoke the response in the woman by connecting with her on a familiar level. He was basically saying, "woman, you're a dog", to which she replied "yes, but even dogs eat the food leftover"... that was exactly the respone he was trying to invoke. Perhaps if he had not done that, she would not have had as much faith, or would have been unused to a Jew engaging with her without derogatory language. The reference to dog being a family pet - Jesus was in a way saying how the food meant for the children (the Jews) if they rejected it, would go to the gentiles (dogs).

 

[watchmen]

Mathew 15;22-28It happened that a Canaanite woman living in that locality presented herself ,crying out to him, Lord ,Son of David, have pity on me, my daughter is terribly troubled by a demon. He gave her no responce. His disciples came up and began to entreat him. Get rid of her. She keeps shouting after us. My mission is only to the lost sheep of the house of Isreal, Jesus replied. She came forward then and did him homage with the plea, help me Lord! But he answered, it is not right to take the food of sons and daughters and through it to the dogs. Please Lord, she insisted, even the dogs eat the leavings that fall from their masters tables. Jesus then said in reply, Woman , you have great faith! Your wish will come to pass. That very moment her daughter got better. Why is this woman first ignored by Jesus? because she is a canaanite? Why compared to dogs. Is this because before Jesus was crucified that it was this way? Simple answers please so I can focus. I appreate your help. This one suprised and puzzled me. Thankyou and God bless, pickles

The gospel had to first go to the Jew, and then to the Gentile.

 

[CarrierOfChrist]

It was a term of contempt anyway. I think Jesus used it not to be contemptable or derogatory, but to invoke the response in the woman by connecting with her on a familiar level. He was basically saying, "woman, you're a dog", to which she replied "yes, but even dogs eat the food leftover"... that was exactly the respone he was trying to invoke. Perhaps if he had not done that, she would not have had as much faith, or would have been unused to a Jew engaging with her without derogatory language. The reference to dog being a family pet - Jesus was in a way saying how the food meant for the children (the Jews) if they rejected it, would go to the gentiles (dogs).

Pretty crazy how that's basically what's happening today. There are some Jews that do accept it, but the majority don't. We dogs are lapping it up, in a manner of speaking lol.

Still, it doesn't seem like a very "Jesus" thing to do, calling a woman a dog just to solicit a favorable reaction from her. He yelled and called the Pharisees and Sadducees "hypocrites", because that's what they were and they deserved to be called that. This lady seemed innocent and without fault, other than she wasn't one of his sheep.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Dog, when used to describe a person or persons in the Bible has a number of emphases and none of them are postitive, in instances mostly the term is used with outright contempt; to treat someone like a dog biblically speaking is to traet them as worthless I Sam. 17:43, dogs are also feared for their rapacious behaviour Jer. 15:3. As an extention by nuances, for one body to be eaten by dogs is the ultimate tragic fate and to have wounds licked by dogs is degrading, the barking of a dog is compared also to sniping of an enemy.

The expression "the hire of a dog" Deau. 23:18 refers to the wages obtained from male prostitution, also Canaanites and in particular a certain Canaanite cult was known to be called dogs.

There is no biblical association between the word "Gentile" which means 'of high noble birth relating to the same clan' and "dog" which is used only as a word of degrading contempt.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

The gospel had to first go to the Jew, and then to the Gentile.

You mean Canaanite, the woman was a Canaanite! Jesus Himself was from 'Galilee of the Gentiles'...

Canaanites are never referred to as 'Gentiles', never.

What you quote has no relevance to the Jesus' words to the Canaanite woman.

 

[loveschild]

77 is right. The lady was not Jewish. Jesus came for the Jews. Anyone else was considered less than human. Jesus was going to add the rest of in but he wasn't planning on doing that yet.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

77 is right. The lady was not Jewish. Jesus came for the Jews. Anyone else was considered less than human. Jesus was going to add the rest of in but he wasn't planning on doing that yet.

"I come only for the lost sheep of Israel"

I you aware of the difference between the House of Judah and the House of Israel, do you know what happened to the House of Israel, after the Assyrian captivity? Israel was divorced from God, the House of Judah remained in Judea, 'Jew' means a "Judean" it does not mean you are from the House of Judah, and it absolutely never means House of Israel, Jesus never calls Himself a 'Jew', that is a dorogatory term- referring to ownership in a geographical sense, like slaves and cattle and property - yewhudiy means subject of Judea, Jesus said He came for the 'Lost sheep of Israel' well if your from Judah your not from the House of Israel, and a 'Jew' is neither.

 

[Thaddaeus]

Joh 4:9Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.Joh 4:10Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.Joh 4:11The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?Joh 4:12Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
he never denied being a jew as well as he never denied being the King of the Jews.


Mt 2:2Saying, Where is he that is born KING OF THE JEWS? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.Mt 27:11And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the KING OF THE JEWS? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
cup of ruin I have already shown from scriptures that your doctrine about jews being seperate from israelites and meet your challenege on showing from scriptures where the jews are the nation israel, how ever you have choosen to twist the Word of God to make it say what you want it to say. do we have to go down this road again???