Unknown Faith

reply to post by miriam0566

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.

Dogs could eat the bread and therefore it would be wasted, simple.

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.)

Remember I am not saying it is the definitive truth, I am merely putting it out there, for the purpose of a discussion.

I’m not motivated by political correctness, my reasoning is that in the bible, God make’s a clear distinction, that man is spiritually above the animals (Not that I don’t like animals, because I do) and that is why I do not believe Jesus would call the woman an animal i.e. a dog.

I have given an honest reason why I think this, so please give me a reason why you think Jesus calling the woman a dog was meant in a non-demeaning way?

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.

She’s not being insulted in my (option B) interpretation because firstly I believe Jesus is not talking about her daughter, which negates your number 3 argument. He is talking about a completely different subject (covenant). In my interpretation the woman understands or thinks she understands, exactly what Jesus is talking about and in my opinion she is not insulted by it. She’s not being told her daughter is not worth it, she is being told that breaking covenant is not worth it, there’s a big difference (see (C) Next post). Even if she is being insulted (option B) which I personally don’t think she was, it is far less worse, than someone calling someone a dog.

Also if you are correct, then in your interpretation the woman is not only being insulted by being told she's not worth it, she also being called a dog at the same time, which is even worse!

You have just used the phrase “even in your interpretation the woman is STILL being insulted”, so reading between the lines, you must think that option A (your interpretation) was also insulting and yet you have already stated in your previous posts that Jesus was calling the woman a dog in a non-demeaning way! You cannot have your cake and eat it. lol

Please explain yourself?

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 picture I am looking, at is called “Great Faith” and have not lost sight of it lol…

I am trying to establish other possible ways in which the painter might have got there.

I understand what you are saying and I am well aware of the concept of the “paralysis of analysis” lol but I am the person who set up this thread not just to find the known interpretation but to consider new ones.

When someone is studying a great painting, they can see the painting but they try to learn more about the painter…for example by looking at things like motivation, character (of the individual painter), time period, personality, the type of brush used and what might have influenced the painter…etc…etc….

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

Yes Jesus is the type of person who would address the woman’s problem and he does by saying, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted” in other words your daughter is healed. I believe this is the only time Jesus addresses the woman’s problem, prior to that he is talking about a different subject. I believe the insight Jesus is offering is about that other subject and not about healing the woman’s daughter, which he only addresses in the final part of the passage.

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.

Yes I agree, to make it easier to understand: I should just state that I did not say that the woman could not interpret what Jesus was saying at all although how well she understood it, is very debatable.

I dont think she really understood what Jesus was saying except in very simple terms, which means she could not have had a deeper understanding of it (See: (How I see it) in next post)


(Continued in next post)



- JC


[edit on 23-2-2009 by Joecroft]

reply to post by miriam0566


(Continued)

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.

I absolutely agree she had faith and believed Jesus could heal her daughter.

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...

I absolutely agree she wouldn’t or shouldn’t be familiar with it.

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.

Jesus never say’s he is not going to heal her daughter, he is asking her what she thinks about the covenant.

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.

(C) An exception from what? She’s not asking for an exception for Jesus to break the covenant (although in her reply she probably thinks it will, but in reality it wont!) because by healing her daughter, Jesus would not be breaking the covenant. The only way Jesus could break the covenant is by telling the Canaanite woman about the “Parable of the wedding banquet”, but the woman is not asking Jesus to do that.

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.

If Jesus is referring to bread to mean “the bread of life” then it is anything but inconsequential i.e. unimportant. In fact, if that is what Jesus meant, then it is the most important part of the entire passage.

Ok, let me get this straight, your saying that initially Jesus is not going to heal this woman’s daughter because of a covenant he had with Israel!! but that after the woman’s wise reply, Jesus, the son of God, decides to change his mind! And heal her daughter anyway.? I find that very hard to believe. Unless your suggesting that Jesus did break the covenant.

Here’s how I see it:

Jesus had every intention of healing the woman’s daughter because she showed faith from the very start and that healing her daughter had nothing to do with the breaking of the covenant. Jesus took the opportunity to talk about not breaking the covenant with the woman because she was a Gentile. but she only understood it in simple terms and thought that Jesus was referring to healing her duaghter.

Healing the woman’s daughter was not going to break the covenant, although most likely, that’s what the woman thought or assumed, (wrongly) that what Jesus was talking about, would break the covenant and that her daughter might not get healed but with hindsight, we know, that healing the woman’s daughter would and did not break the covenant.

How did she show great faith?

I think that is a very debatable question, maybe it was just her strong perseverance and humble attitude.

Was the woman’s final reply wise?

Well, if she thought that Jesus, by healing her daughter, would break the covenant Jesus was talking about, then it could be argued that her final reply is not wise and that she only understood what Jesus was saying in very simple terms.

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.

I absolutely agree.

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.

I absolutely agree.

I will just add that my (option B) is not in conflict with the above because Jesus was still describing that it was important to keep that special relationship with the Jews and honor the covenant, the only exception in my interpretation is that Jesus was not calling the Canaanite woman/Gentile a dog directly.



- JC

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Joecroft]

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Joecroft]