Unknown Faith

I have been looking at examples of faith recently, in the bible, and have found some great passages, which explain how people have come to faith. I found a passage in the chapter of Matthew, which I am finding very puzzling and was wondering if Christians or non-Christians could shed any light onto the subject.

New International Version
Matthew 15:21
The Faith of the Canaanite Woman

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”

Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him. “send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dog’s.”

“Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters table.”

Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.”
And her daughter was healed that very hour.

I have two questions regarding this passage:

1: What did the Canaanite woman mean by her final reply when she said “but even the dogs eat the crumb’s that fall from their masters table.”?

2: How did Canaanite woman’s final reply, show that she had great faith or any faith at all?

I can only assume that parts of this passage, refer to something metaphorical or that perhaps there could be a cultural factor, connected to that particular place and time period, that would help in the understanding of this passage.



- JC

to understand why jesus replied the way that he did and the woman´s reply to him, one has to understand why jesus was there only for isreal.

there was a covenant with isreal that had to be honored first. it wasnt known at the time, but jesus was going to be inviting a limited number of people to come to heaven with him. these ¨seats¨ or ¨invitations¨ had to be offered to isreal first. (see parable of the wedding feast) even the book of daniel with the seventy weeks prophecy shows that the covenant was to be honored even after jesus´ death for a period of 3 1/2 years

jesus was essentially saying to the woman that it wasnt time yet for the gentiles to be preached to. when the woman insisted, he gave an illustration. the woman countered quite wisely. she didnt claim to be of the "children" but she pointed out that even the dogs benefit from a family meal. in other words, she was humble about her reply, not assuming she deserved anything from him.

she insisted because she KNEW that jesus could heal her daughter. remember, faith is not blind. likely she heard reports of him. but even despite being of another faith, she knew and acknowledged that jesus was the one that could heal her daughter. in this respect she had great faith and more importantly acted on that faith.

Interesting ! And probably one of the most controversial pieces of text you could find in the bible lol As you know I am very shy and lack confidence but will force myself out of seclusion for this thread lol

Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, 'Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.' He [Jesus] answered, I WAS SENT ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL The woman came and knelt before him. 'Lord, help me!' she said. He [Jesus] replied 'It is not right to take the children's [Jews] bread [blessings and miracles reserved for them] and toss it to their dogs [the Canaanite, or the Philistines].' 'Yes, Lord' she said, 'but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus answered, 'Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.' And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

The question is did Jesus really say this ? Or did the views and prejudices of another influence the text ?

Another quote:

"Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

"And Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honour, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.'" (also in Matthew 13:57, Luke 4:24 and John 4:43).

This statement is interesting because these beliefs are echoed in most religious and spiritual schools of thought throughout the world. As I said in a previous thread each group focuses too much on the insignificant unimportant aspects of their belief ( namely the rituals ) add to that their prejudices and all you are left with is a recipe thats main ingredients consist of ego and narcissism.

I always use this quote because it rings of truth - it is logic at its best

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." Albert Einstein

"Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, PREACHING THE WORD TO NONE BUT UNTO THE JEWS ONLY

THE REAL IRONY IS JEWS DID NOT AND STILL DO NOT ACCEPT JESUS AS THEIR MESSIAH ?

reply to post by miriam0566


Hey Miriam,

I was beginning to wonder, when someone was going to be brave enough, to show up lol so thank you for your reply…


I guess there are three ways you can try to look at this passage; either it is all to be taken metaphorically, literally or a combination of both.

At first I thought that it was literal and that Jesus was rebuking the woman for feeding the dogs and neglecting her own daughter but her reply then had me baffled, as to why she had shown great faith and possibly in connection to that great faith, what her reply really meant.

to understand why jesus replied the way that he did and the woman´s reply to him, one has to understand why jesus was there only for isreal.


there was a covenant with isreal that had to be honored first. it wasnt known at the time, but jesus was going to be inviting a limited number of people to come to heaven with him. these ¨seats¨ or ¨invitations¨ had to be offered to isreal first. (see parable of the wedding feast) even the book of daniel with the seventy weeks prophecy shows that the covenant was to be honored even after jesus´ death for a period of 3 1/2 years.

Jesus came for the people of Israel and the Gentile’s but the Canaanite woman, who was a Gentile, was not asking for Jesus to break the covenant with Israel, she was simply asking for her daughter to be healed.

jesus was essentially saying to the woman that it wasnt time yet for the gentiles to be preached to. when the woman insisted, he gave an illustration.

Yes I agree, Jesus was saying that it was not time for the Gentiles to be preached too, but the woman was not insisting that Jesus preach to her, (She was most likely, not even aware of the covenant) she was only asking for Jesus’ help, in healing her daughter.

If Jesus meant by the word “children” to metaphorically mean the people of Israel, then did he also mean the word “dogs” to metaphorically mean the Gentile’s because if he did, then I find that very hard to accept.

the woman countered quite wisely. she didnt claim to be of the "children" but she pointed out that even the dogs benefit from a family meal.

She also didn’t claim to not be of the children!
Assuming that it’s her final reply that makes her show great faith, how does pointing out “that even the dogs benefit from a family meal”, show great faith?

she insisted because she KNEW that jesus could heal her daughter. remember, faith is not blind. likely she heard reports of him. but even despite being of another faith, she knew and acknowledged that jesus was the one that could heal her daughter. in this respect she had great faith and more importantly acted on that faith

Yes I agree, I believe she had faith, just by coming to Jesus and there are many passages in the bible regarding faith, where a person seeks Jesus and when they find him, Jesus acknowledges that they have faith. In this passage we are discussing however…Jesus first of all ignores the woman, then he question’s her or rebuke’s her and only after her final response does he say she has great faith. Maybe the whole point, is that it's her perseverance that shows how great her faith is. Although I am still unsure if it’s her final response that shows great faith or a combination of everything she does. As to what her final reply actually means, I am still unsure.



- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
Jesus came for the people of Israel and the Gentile’s but the Canaanite woman, who was a Gentile, was not asking for Jesus to break the covenant with Israel, she was simply asking for her daughter to be healed.

in a matter of speaking. more than likely, the canaanite woman knew or understood little about the covenant. she simply wanted her daughter to be healed.

but note the difference between the way a gentile might look at it and the way a jew would. the gentile would have likely believed in his own gods. even "enlightened" nations like greece and rome worshipped many gods and their faith in them would likely be strong. to a jew, he would have the promise of god to provide a savior, a messiah.

to a gentile, if he was having a problem, he would likely go to his gods to ask for help. if the jew was a faithful israelite, then he would look at the gentile bowing before their statues the same way you would look at a native bowing to a coke bottle that fell from an airplane. you would think its ridiculous.

but this woman was different. she knew that this man jesus (who is not of her gods) was able to heal her daughter. it was as if she knew that her gods werent going to do anything about it. so in a way yes, she was only asking for her daughter to be healed (crumbs). she wasnt asking for the better prize which was eternal life in heaven (bread).

If Jesus meant by the word “children” to metaphorically mean the people of Israel, then did he also mean the word “dogs” to metaphorically mean the Gentile’s because if he did, then I find that very hard to accept.

likely yes. does this mean that all gentiles are dogs?

cornelius was a gentile, yet he was eventually accepted into the fold. so, no. jesus was not necessarily calling gentiles dogs.

the illustration was particularly to show a point. if you have a child, and he's hungry, and you have a pet, and he's hungry, which gets priority?

no matter how loving of a person you are, the child will get priority

She also didn’t claim to not be of the children!
Assuming that it’s her final reply that makes her show great faith, how does pointing out “that even the dogs benefit from a family meal”, show great faith?

because she understood that jesus had something special to offer and that even just "crumbs" from him would be a big blessing.

Yes I agree, I believe she had faith, just by coming to Jesus and there are many passages in the bible regarding faith, where a person seeks Jesus and when they find him, Jesus acknowledges that they have faith. In this passage we are discussing however…Jesus first of all ignores the woman, then he question’s her or rebuke’s her and only after her final response does he say she has great faith. Maybe the whole point, is that it's her perseverance that shows how great her faith is. Although I am still unsure if it’s her final response that shows great faith or a combination of everything she does. As to what her final reply actually means, I am still unsure.

hebrews 11:[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

yes, her persistence did show her faith. she had full confidence that jesus could heal her daughter.

different example.

remember the woman with the flow of blood? (matt 9:20 - 22)

she wasnt supposed to approach jesus because according to law she was unclean. she wasnt even suppose to be in a populated street (likely it was populated because how else would she sneak up on him?)

but she had complete faith that jesus could heal her. so much so that she thought "If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole"

faith is just assured expectation. its a trust based on evidence even though you may not be able to see the outcome yet.

like, imagine you are in my kitchen and i said to you that in 15 mins, im going to give you a slice of apple pie. you dont see the pie. but...

- you can smell it.
- you see that the sink is filled with bowls of flour and apples.
- you see that there is a timer ticking
- im arranging the plates for the pie.

would you have any doubt that you were about to get pie.

faith is the same way.

like, imagine you are in my kitchen and i said to you that in 15 mins, im going to give you a slice of apple pie. you dont see the pie. but...

- you can smell it.
- you see that the sink is filled with bowls of flour and apples.
- you see that there is a timer ticking
- im arranging the plates for the pie.

would you have any doubt that you were about to get pie.

faith is the same way.

Ummmm fresh apple pie, hey Miriam sounds like you bake, do you?

Anyways she is correct, the Jews had special priority, even though they were bad to Jesus, the covenant God made with Abraham superseded everything else. Shortly after Jesus was killed the special favor was lifted forever. The act of a healing however was not violating anything.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Welcome to my thread Blue_Jay...

You are absolutely right, the act of a healing the Canaanite woman, did not violate a single thing.





- JC

reply to post by miriam0566

likely yes. does this mean that all gentiles are dogs?

Ok, I still find it hard to accept that Jesus would refer to the Gentiles as dogs, so I have come up with another possible interpretation of the passage, which goes as follows:

By Jesus saying “It is not right to take the children’s bread…” by bread I am assuming that Jesus means the “bread of life” and possibly by children, he meant everyone i.e. the children of God (believers in Jesus), which includes the people of Israel and the Gentiles. When he said toss it to their dogs, maybe he meant it literally and that he meant it to mean it would be a waste to share the entire knowledge of the “parable of the wedding banquet” with just one person i.e. the Canaanite woman, regardless of whether or not she was a Gentile or a Jew because that knowledge had to be shared in front of a large gathering and in an important place.

the woman countered quite wisely. she didnt claim to be of the "children" but she pointed out that even the dogs benefit from a family meal.

because she understood that jesus had something special to offer and that even just "crumbs" from him would be a big blessing.

I have two questions for you:

1: When Jesus mentioned bread in the passage, do you believe he was referring to the “bread of life”?

2: You say that the Canaanite woman knew Jesus had something special to offer and that she countered wisely. Now in order to counter wisely, would you agree, that she would have to have known what Jesus was talking about, concerning what he meant by bread?

faith is just assured expectation. its a trust based on evidence even though you may not be able to see the outcome yet.

Yes I absolutely agree with you, faith is based on some degree of evidence, even if it’s just a tiny piece of evidence, although some people require more evidence than others to believe.

remember, faith is not blind.

Yes…thanks for reminding me, because I had almost forgotten lol (j/k)

like, imagine you are in my kitchen and i said to you that in 15 mins, im going to give you a slice of apple pie. you dont see the pie. but...

- you can smell it.
- you see that the sink is filled with bowls of flour and apples.
- you see that there is a timer ticking
- im arranging the plates for the pie.

would you have any doubt that you were about to get pie.

Many people out there would not be in any doubt that they were about to get some apple pie, except me! I will try to explain why:

I am not saying you have, but maybe you lied about making me apple pie, maybe you have a surprise for me and you want to keep it a secrete lol

Maybe my sense of smell is letting me down lol or maybe it isn’t and the bowl of flour and apples that I see are going to be used for a cake or maybe they’re for someone else.

As for the timer, maybe that’s for the secrete meal that is already cooking in the oven, possible a spaghetti Bolognese lol to be served with some red wine.

My first point is, that I know something is definitely coming my way (something is cooking), but I cannot state that it is definitely going to be a pie or an apple pie.

My second point is, that faith, although based to some degree on evidence, must also, be accompanied by the spirit of God.

New International version
Galatians 5:5
“But by faith we eagerly await through the spirit the righteousness for which we hope”

1 Corinthians 12:8-9
“To one there is given through the spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one spirit,”


- JC


[edit on 18-2-2009 by Joecroft]

Something else a friend of mine pointed out to me - this is an ancient book, the language is middle-east oriented and can be easily misunderstood even in translations.

Originally posted by Joecroft
Ok, I still find it hard to accept that Jesus would refer to the Gentiles as dogs, so I have come up with another possible interpretation of the passage, which goes as follows:

By Jesus saying “It is not right to take the children’s bread…” by bread I am assuming that Jesus means the “bread of life” and possibly by children, he meant everyone i.e. the children of God (believers in Jesus), which includes the people of Israel and the Gentiles. When he said toss it to their dogs, maybe he meant it literally and that he meant it to mean it would be a waste to share the entire knowledge of the “parable of the wedding banquet” with just one person i.e. the Canaanite woman, regardless of whether or not she was a Gentile or a Jew because that knowledge had to be shared in front of a large gathering and in an important place.

dont take this as me being confrontational because im not, but it doesnt make sense to me. honestly, it sounds like you dont like the term "dogs" and your trying to explain it away.

the children have to be referring to isreal specifically because jesus himself provides the contrast when he states that he was there for the "lost sheep of isreal". the reason jesus didnt help her initially has to be because she wasnt isrealite so logically his illustration would express the same idea

I have two questions for you:

1: When Jesus mentioned bread in the passage, do you believe he was referring to the “bread of life”?

i would say yes.

2: You say that the Canaanite woman knew Jesus had something special to offer and that she countered wisely. Now in order to counter wisely, would you agree, that she would have to have known what Jesus was talking about, concerning what he meant by bread?

not necessarily, she may have thought that bread simply ment blessing. either way, she had to think that this "bread" was able to heal her daughter

I am not saying you have, but maybe you lied about making me apple pie, maybe you have a surprise for me and you want to keep it a secrete lol

thats a good point, but would i lie to you?

some people forget that faith is also trust in god, and trust in what he promises to do.

if you knew me (like for years) and i told you i was serving pie, you would be able to trust me even if you dont smell it right?

reply to post by destiny-fate



Hey there Destiny-Fate

Something else a friend of mine pointed out to me - this is an ancient book, the language is middle-east oriented and can be easily misunderstood even in translations.

Yes, I have often wondered if a few parts have been misunderstood and mistranslated. I have been wondering if the term “dogs” in this passage could have been a slang word, well known at that time period but not during the translation period and meant either a reference to the Canaanites or possibly refers to slaves.



- JC

reply to post by miriam0566

dont take this as me being confrontational because im not, but it doesnt make sense to me. honestly, it sounds like you dont like the term "dogs" and your trying to explain it away.

I don’t believe your being confrontational you are just honestly expressing yourself, which is great. Just for the record, I did state that it was a possible interpretation.

Do you like the term “dogs”?

the children have to be referring to isreal specifically because jesus himself provides the contrast when he states that he was there for the "lost sheep of isreal". the reason jesus didnt help her initially has to be because she wasnt isrealite so logically his illustration would express the same idea

That’s a good point.

Ok, So Jesus was referring to Israelites when he used the term “children” but maybe he still meant, it would be wrong to share the knowledge of “Parable of the wedding banquet” with one woman on her own or possible because she was a Gentile, but possibly he only meant dogs the same way I described in my last post i.e. that it would be a waste, like throwing it to the dogs and that he was not referring to the Gentiles as being dogs specifically.

Let me know what you think?

not necessarily, she may have thought that bread simply ment blessing. either way, she had to think that this "bread" was able to heal her daughter

How did the woman know, that bread meant blessing?

thats a good point, but would i lie to you?

some people forget that faith is also trust in god, and trust in what he promises to do.

if you knew me (like for years) and i told you i was serving pie, you would be able to trust me even if you dont smell it right?

What if you didn’t lie and you had every intention of making me an apple pie but on entering the kitchen you discovered that you didn’t have all the right ingredients, so you decided to make me something else instead, like an apple fruitcake. lol

Like I said in my previous post, I know something is definitely coming my way,(something is cooking ) but I cannot state that it is definitely going to be a pie or an apple pie until I see it for myself and taste it lol or I see the evidence combined with the spirit of God revealing the truth to me.


Faith, although based to some degree on evidence, must also, be accompanied by the spirit of God.

New International version
Galatians 5:5

I noticed you didn’t address this comment from my previous post, I believe that faith goes hand in hand with the spirit and this is mentioned in many passages in the bible.



- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
Just for the record, I did state that it was a possible interpretation.

yes you did.

Do you like the term “dogs”?

would i have personally used it? probably not.

but if it fits the illustration....

yes all humans are loved by god (i mean in general as in races. god doesnt love one race more than another)

however he did have a covenant with one (israelites). so we cannot forget that for a period of time, they held a special place in god's arrangement. it was through their "family" that god provided the messiah from which all nations would be blessed (gen 22:18)

they were to be a special people of god (deut 7:6)

i think the key is understanding the obligation god had to his people. mankind as a whole deserves death. we dont deserve anything from god. much like a dog wouldnt deserve anything from a man walking in the street.

israel was in the same situation. god promised them certain things. this placed an obligation on him to fulfill those promises. much like a father has the obligation to feed his children.

jesus had the obligation of offering the limited heavenly calling to the jews first. it was promised to them first. his healing was part of that mainly because it was meant to establish him as the messiah so that the jews would put faith in him.

so the question is, would it be right to take bread from your child (person you have obligation towards) and give it to a dog?(someone you dont) obviously not.

but i dont think he was calling gentiles dogs in a demeaning way. (remember that he did call pharisees vipers in a demeaning way)

-------------------------------------------< line is here so you know im starting a new thought

another thing is that dogs are used again to describe people not of god's organization.

towards the end of revelation, the outside of new jerusalem is described as "where the dogs are"

the illustration is kind of fitting. dogs have a pecking order. the alpha male does what he wants and everyone who isnt strong enough to stand up to him stays out of the way.

look at the world around us. life is very similiar. the strongest call the shots and the weak suffer for it.

this is very different from jesus' teachings. he says the the humble one is the one who is moved up. he told his disciples that the greatest among them and to be like children.

so in a way it is a fitting contrast

not necessarily, she may have thought that bread simply ment blessing. either way, she had to think that this "bread" was able to heal her daughter

How did the woman know, that bread meant blessing?

think about it, if she was asking for jesus to heal her daughter, and jesus says he cant give childrens "bread" to dogs. it would likely seem to here that the bread was healing her daughter.

Faith, although based to some degree on evidence, must also, be accompanied by the spirit of God.

no, im not arguing at all on that point, was just expanding on my previous point

reply to post by miriam0566

but i dont think he was calling gentiles dogs in a demeaning way. (remember that he did call pharisees vipers in a demeaning way)

Ok that’s a fair point and maybe your right, although I still don’t think Jesus meant dogs to mean the Gentiles/Canaanite woman.

I agree there was a covenant that had to be kept with the people of Israel and that it wasn’t the right time for her/Canaanite woman/ Gentile to hear the message of the ““parable of the wedding banquet” and that the message would have been wasted on her and would have broken the covenant.



Which one of the following would you go along with, option A or B. After choosing your first option, if you think one of the other option’s is possible then please say, yes it’s possible, if you don’t think it’s possible, then just say no.

Option A: “Throw it to their dog’s” = Dogs = the Gentiles/Canaanite Woman i.e. Jesus is directly referring to the Gentiles and the Canaanite woman as dogs!

Option B: “Throw it to their dog’s’” = an analogy to mean throwing something away and wasting it, i.e. wasting the “bread of life” and the “Parable of the wedding banquet” knowledge, on the Canaanite woman, but not calling the Canaanite woman and the Gentiles dogs! (The dogs doesn’t refer to anyone and it is part of the analogy)



-------------------------------------------< New Thought (Thanks, I think I might start using these myself in future )

“How did the woman know, that bread meant blessing?”

think about it, if she was asking for jesus to heal her daughter, and jesus says he cant give childrens "bread" to dogs. it would likely seem to here that the bread was healing her daughter.

Don’t you think that's a big jump from bread = blessing = healing, bearing in mind Jesus wasn't talking about healing, he was talking about the "bread of life" in connection to not breaking the covenant! (Don’t answer this, keep reading )

You put me in the position of being in your kitchen a few post’s back (nights ago) and you were making me some apple pie or so I thought lol but now I’m going to put you in a position:

Imagine you are the Canaanite woman! and you have a daughter with a demon possession which could be a fatal disease…you are concerned for your daughter’s life.


- you have heard about a man who can heal your daughter
- you find him and cry out but you are ignored
- you are eventually allowed in and are kneeling before Jesus
- you ask for help regarding your daughter
- you hear Jesus say something and he mentions bread. He says “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to their dog’s (we will assume for the moment that you, the woman, know what Jesus means by children and dogs)

(Remember there is no new testament at that time and hardly anyone knows about Jesus)

Bearing in mind that your daughter’s life is on the line. This is not the time for second, guessing and this is not the time for wise responses, unless you know what Jesus really means and you either, know what Jesus means or you do not.

(Remember by bread Jesus meant the “bread of life” which we have already established earlier in this thread, but the woman should not have been aware of that fact! At that particular time)

My question to you in the position of the Canaanite woman, is as follows:

Would you have been in any doubt, as to what Jesus was talking about, when he said the word bread?

How would you have responded to Jesus?

I would like you to answer the above question, as honestly, as you possibly can.



- JC

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Joecroft]

Originally posted by Joecroft
Which one of the following would you go along with, option A or B. After choosing your first option, if you think one of the other option’s is possible then please say, yes it’s possible, if you don’t think it’s possible, then just say no.

Option A: “Throw it to their dog’s” = Dogs = the Gentiles/Canaanite Woman i.e. Jesus is directly referring to the Gentiles and the Canaanite woman as dogs!

Option B: “Throw it to their dog’s’” = an analogy to mean throwing something away and wasting it, i.e. wasting the “bread of life” and the “Parable of the wedding banquet” knowledge, on the Canaanite woman, but not calling the Canaanite woman and the Gentiles dogs! (The dogs doesn’t refer to anyone and it is part of the analogy)

im going to have to go with A. as i said before that the illustration itself is not suppose to be demeaning.

Don’t you think that's a big jump from bread = blessing = healing, bearing in mind Jesus wasn't talking about healing, he was talking about the "bread of life" in connection to not breaking the covenant! (Don’t answer this, keep reading

)

sorry i have to. i think that you are thinking too hard about the passage. im not saying this in a rude away, but it may seem that way

i think that you are starting to go around in circles searching for an interpretation of this passage that you "like" rather than an interpretation that is true. i think your getting hung up on jesus saying "dog" and there really is no need to.

you also have to remember that jesus is not this passive all loving calm man that people paint him out to be. instead he tended to say things as they were. as i said be fore, he called the pharisee "vipers" and even eluded to satan being their father. (can you imagine a man standing face to face with a religious leader like the pope and saying that?). he also gave the illustration of people who dont listen to the message like throwing pearls before swine.

even with the money changers in the temple, they were mocking his father's house, he actually threw them out.

all these situations showed that jesus never watered down his message. he called it like it was.

for what jesus was saying to the woman, i see no conflict. the world outside god's organization or kingdom is like a pack of dogs. but you also have to remember that not all of isreal ended up being children either. and jesus understood their situation when he called them lost sheep.

eventually most jews would not put faith in jesus. and just like in the marriage feast, they would be shattered with the fall of jerusalem in 70 AD to which case even israel would become like the "dogs" around them

if "dogs" is demeaning to you, then im sorry. but the passage has a clear line of thought

You put me in the position of being in your kitchen

a few post’s back (nights ago) and you were making me some apple pie or so I thought lol but now I’m going to put you in a position:

Imagine you are the Canaanite woman! and you have a daughter with a demon possession which could be a fatal disease…you are concerned for your daughter’s life.


- you have heard about a man who can heal your daughter
- you find him and cry out but you are ignored
- you are eventually allowed in and are kneeling before Jesus
- you ask for help regarding your daughter
- you hear Jesus say something and he mentions bread. He says “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to their dog’s (we will assume for the moment that you, the woman, know what Jesus means by children and dogs)

(Remember there is no new testament at that time and hardly anyone knows about Jesus)

Bearing in mind that your daughter’s life is on the line. This is not the time for second, guessing and this is not the time for wise responses, unless you know what Jesus really means and you either, know what Jesus means or you do not.

(Remember by bread Jesus meant the “bread of life” which we have already established earlier in this thread, but the woman should not have been aware of that fact! At that particular time)

My question to you in the position of the Canaanite woman, is as follows:

Would you have been in any doubt, as to what Jesus was talking about, when he said the word bread?

How would you have responded to Jesus?

I would like you to answer the above question, as honestly, as you possibly can.

im not sure if i would have been as quick as her. my response may not have been as wise and might have just been alot of begging lol

although i was in a situation that reminds me of this.

i was talking to someone about the bible and the point that we were addressing whether or not one needed to belong to a godly organization. at one point he got fed up and said to me "i will never be a sheep. i am a wolf. i am an individual"

in reply i said "remember, even wolfs roam in packs"

he was trying to use an illustration that is in the bible to get me to understand his reasoning. but i simply showed him the flaw in his reasoning.

im not saying the woman was showing the flaw in jesus' reasoning, im simply saying she was using his illustration to help her case.

reply to post by miriam0566


I’m going to have to go with option B. Although I will admit, that option A meant in a non demeaning way, is possible.

Originally posted by miriam0566
Im going to have to go with A. as i said before that the illustration itself is not suppose to be demeaning.

That’s fine and that is your choice but I find it amazing that your not even prepared to admit that option B is a possibility!

if "dogs" is demeaning to you, then im sorry. but the passage has a clear line of thought

If you don’t find “dogs” demeaning then I’m very sorry for you.

The passage does NOT have a clear line of thought (I will explain further in my next post due to lack of space)

sorry i have to. i think that you are thinking too hard about the passage. im not saying this in a rude away, but it may seem that way

Are you suggesting that thinking to hard about a passage in the bible i.e. trying to get a better understanding of it, is a bad thing?

I don’t mean to be rude either but maybe your not thinking about this passage hard enough.

i think that you are starting to go around in circles searching for an interpretation of this passage that you "like" rather than an interpretation that is true. i think your getting hung up on jesus saying "dog" and there really is no need to.

First of all I didn’t set up this thread to talk about “dogs” lol and I am not hung up about dogs. Secondly I am trying to get a better understanding of the passage (find the truth) and try to answer the questions I have mentioned in my OP, with the help of other Christians or non-Christians. Obviously discussing various elements of the passage including “dogs” helps towards getting a better understanding of the entire passage.

I could also argue that you are sticking to the interpretation that you “like” rather than trying to find one that might be true or is true. I am not trying to re-write the bible. I am just openly and honestly discussing other possible interpretations of what this verse might mean. If this verse does have a different interpretation it would in no way whatsoever, affect the Christian faith and in fact, it might even help. I don’t think we are going round in circle’s we may have disagreed about the “dogs” it would seem but we have agreed on a few other points, so I feel we are making some progress towards addressing the question in my OP.

you also have to remember that jesus is not this passive all loving calm man that people paint him out to be. instead he tended to say things as they were. as i said be fore, he called the pharisee "vipers" and even eluded to satan being their father. (can you imagine a man standing face to face with a religious leader like the pope and saying that?). he also gave the illustration of people who dont listen to the message like throwing pearls before swine.

I agree Jesus is not a passive and loving man throughout the bible…when in the temple Jesus overturning the tables and scattering the coins everywhere and saying they had “made his fathers house a den of thieves”…comes to mind.

im not sure if i would have been as quick as her. my response may not have been as wise and might have just been alot of begging lol

Thank you for your honesty.

Yes I think I would have been begging too lol I am a man lol so it is harder for me to put myself in the position of a woman, if I didn’t know what Jesus meant I would have probably said, “please help my daughter Lord” and if I knew what Jesus was talking about I would have said “Yes Lord…but my daughter need’s your help”

although i was in a situation that reminds me of this.

Last night I was in two minds as to whether or not to take down my question in my last post or whether to post a new post asking you not to answer it. I realized that although it was a hypothetical question, that you might have actually been in a exact (in around about way) or similar situation in real life. If you were in a similar situation then I apologize and I didn’t mean to upset you in any way, I was just trying to understand the passage better and to get your honest opinion on it. Unfortunately you are the only person/Christian who has bothered to talk about and share your perspective and the word of God regarding this passage and most of my questions about it…so for that, I thank you.

i was talking to someone about the bible and the point that we were addressing whether or not one needed to belong to a godly organization. at one point he got fed up and said to me "i will never be a sheep. i am a wolf. i am an individual"

Yes but when this man said wolf, he was describing himself as being an individual, he was not calling himself a dog/wolf!

in reply i said "remember, even wolfs roam in packs"

A very wise reply, but like wise, you were not calling the man a dog/wolf you were simply describing that “wolfs roam in packs” is similar to this man not belonging to a godly organization and being his own individual. You were not calling him a dog/wolf you were describing something that is like a dog/wolf. This is exactly how I see the above passage where Jesus say’s “throw it to their dogs” I believe he was describing something to mean it would be like a waste.

For example if you wanted to borrow some money of me but I wanted to give it to my children and I said “It is not right to take the children’s money and throw it to their fires” that does not mean that I am calling you a fire! I am simply describing that it would be a waste for me to give it to you. Do you understand?

I ask you this question because I feel the reason you feel we are going round in circles is because you do not fully understand the concept of what I have been trying to explain to you, so hopefully this will make it clearer.



- JC


[edit on 21-2-2009 by Joecroft]

reply to post by miriam0566

but the passage has a clear line of thought

I will try to explain why I think the passage does not have a clear line of thought:

I should just point out at this stage that some bible versions have the word “food” instead of “bread” which is interesting but I still think that bread is the correct and original translation.

I notice you are from Spain and there’s nothing wrong with that lol (I’ve been to Barcelona myself and it’s a beautiful place) anyway my point is I’m not sure if you have ever heard of an expression called “talking through each other or talking past each other)
I am sure you have probably had conversations where you have been talking to someone about a topic and they reply by talking about a different topic and not addressing what you have said and this may go on for three or four sentences lol. This is often been called or phrased as “talking past each other.”

We know from looking at this passage from a metaphorical perspective that Jesus is talking about the “bread of life” and about not breaking the covenant.

We also know that the woman is definitely talking about needing help and asking for her daughter to be healed. So it would appear that they are talking past each other in a sense.

So the passage does not have a clear line of thought because they both appear to be talking about two completely different subjects. Also Jesus is using metaphors to describe things that the woman should not be able to interpret, especially at that time period.

You said in one of your previous post’s that the woman new that it was a blessing and in a way, you are right because back in the biblical time’s when someone brought food, bread or a fatted calf to someone’s home it was generally termed as blessing the house or bringing a blessing.

So I can just about imagine that the Canaanite woman would equate bread to mean a blessing but not that bread or a blessing would mean a healing. I personally think that’s too big a jump and assumption bearing in mind her daughter was ill and needed help. Also Jesus was talking about a completely different subject…so if the woman did make a wise final reply, she must have known what Jesus was talking about and if she didn’t know what Jesus was talking about then her final reply no matter what she said, could not have been wise at all.

So how did the Canaanite woman know that bread meant healing or that bread meant blessing and that a blessing meant a healing?

Remember Jesus is talking about the “bread of life” and not breaking the covenant, so how is the Canaanite woman able to give a wise reply, if she is not aware of that fact?

Think about it!

I do have some possible answers to these questions but I would like to hear your opinion on it first.

edit - (or anyone's else’s opinions, ideas or thoughts on the subject, who may be reading this.)



- JC


[edit on 21-2-2009 by Joecroft]

reply to post by miriam0566


I believe that is the perfecT response! I agree word for word.. Very blessed insight.. Wouldn't let me star it..

Good Day..

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Hi there Anonymous

You have not mentioned which one of Miriam’s post’s you agree with. If I don’t know which post you agree with, I am left in the dark as to what your opinion might be and I believe every one has a valid opinion here at ATS/BTS. Which one of Miriam’s post’s do you agree with? I may actually agree with you, if I knew which one you were referring to.

I find it a little bit strange, that you have remained Anonymous just to agree with someone’s post, even though you are quite entitled to do so but you have not made any contribution to the question in my OP or my last post. I would appreciate any opinion you have to offer, whether you choose to give it anonymously or not.

Don’t worry I’m a fairly easy going kind of guy, if you have seen any of my other post’s on other threads, apart from this one lol

- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
That’s fine and that is your choice but I find it amazing that your not even prepared to admit that option B is a possibility!

im sorry, just in my opinion, b isnt an option.

1 - i dont think it fits the passage. if throwing it to the dogs = wasting, then wouldn't he say something like, instead of take the bread and caste it to the side of the road? or cast it to the heap? it doesnt fit (for me) since he specifically mentioned dogs.

2 - your interpretation seems to be motivated by political correctness. you cant see jesus calling someone dog, so therefore he doesnt. im not sure if that is a good way to find truth. (again, not trying to insult you, its just this form of study is not something i use.)

3 - even in your interpretation, the woman is still being insulted. she's being told that her daughter is not worth it because the bread is wasted on her. this kind of negates the very reason for your second interpretation.

Are you suggesting that thinking to hard about a passage in the bible i.e. trying to get a better understanding of it, is a bad thing?

thinking too hard ≠ trying to get a better understanding. the main word there is "too"

sometimes thinking too hard about a passage sends you down lines of thoughts that may deviate you from what is staring right at you.

its like analyzing a painting. you can get so caught up in the brush strokes, you forget what picture your looking at.

Yes but when this man said wolf, he was describing himself as being an individual, he was not calling himself a dog/wolf!

i wasnt putting emphasis on the wolf. i was sharing the story to show how sometimes illustrations can be turned to make a point. just like the woman turned jesus' illustration to get him to help her.

So the passage does not have a clear line of thought because they both appear to be talking about two completely different subjects. Also Jesus is using metaphors to describe things that the woman should not be able to interpret, especially at that time period.

ok so right there, you say that they appear to talking about 2 separate subjects.

the first question i would ask is - is jesus really the type of person that would not address the problem with insight?

you say "Jesus is using metaphors to describe things that the woman should not be able to interpret"

there is another possibility. that is that jesus is using metaphors to explain something that otherwise would be difficult for the woman to understand. in other words, the metaphor does explain it, but it a very short and simple way.

let me explain:

first let me state, the woman was going to jesus to get her daughter healed. that was her objective. thats what she asked for. and she knew he could do it because likely rumors were spreading like wildfire. its even a possibility that she was searching him out.

[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.

so jesus basically says to her plainly, no. im here for isreal. but the woman persists. now jesus could have pulled out a scroll of moses to describe the covenant and how he has to help isreal first and of course the woman wouldnt at all be familiar with any of this. instead he says...

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

jesus is saying the same thing he said in verse 24, but now in a way this woman could understand. the woman would never take bread from her hungry daughter and throw it to a dog. again, this illustration is in relation to what is said at verse 24. the woman now understands that jesus is here to help isreal, not others (gentiles) and that jesus is saying he's not going to heal her daughter. we know she knows this because of her response.

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

she said "true", so she understands that jesus is saying he is here only for isreal. but then she uses the illustration to ask for an exception.

does bread mean "life" or "blessing" or "healing" - inconsequential. the woman wanted her daughter to be healed. thats what she asked for. it is likely that she assumed that thats what they were talking about. jesus likely understood that that was what the woman was talking about.

ok, so thats the brushstrokes. now for the picture.

why was this passage included in the gospels?

likely because it highlighted the special relationship the jews had with god. jesus was there to see them. the law was to prepare them for jesus. it was a very special relationship.

by the time the gospels were being written, the preaching work was opened to the gentiles. so now these gentile were now occupying seats that were originally reserved for jews. but since the jews as a nation (as a whole, not individually) rejected jesus and his disciples, then these seats had to be filled.

this passage was included so that people understood the order that things took place. its actually an important piece of information (jesus being here only for isreal) when deciphering the prophecy of the 70 weeks in daniel.