It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.