Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. 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. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. 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.
Discuss.
March 7, 2008 at 9:47 am
The Saviors mortal mission was to the House of Isreal. In his mercy he extended this healing to a woman not of Isreal.
Read Acts 10 for further Enlightenment.
March 7, 2008 at 9:54 am
bbell, for the world’s most compassionate man he sure could have been a little nicer…
March 7, 2008 at 10:00 am
+1
Reminds me of a BYU coed playing hard to get.
March 7, 2008 at 10:07 am
#2–That sounds like something I would have said.
Today’s firestorm: Defending the indefensible.
March 7, 2008 at 10:09 am
Steve,
No kidding. I had a 30 minute discussion of this scripture about 6 months ago with a group of Evangelicals including a couple of Bob Jones alums. They were completly thrown off by his apparent disdainful tone about a Gentile woman.
The only way to explain it (sorta) is with my #1 with a reference to Acts 10 and a idea of the culture of the Jews at the time concerning gentiles
March 7, 2008 at 10:10 am
According to Talmadge the translation of the term “dogs” here was meant, not as vagrants or despised curs as used elsewhere in the Bible, but the little domesticated pets of the house, which I guess is meant to be more endearing. He further said the woman apparently took no offense at the comparison because she instantly adopted the analogy with a combined argument and supplication. Her demonstration of faith in the face of obstacles and endurance through discouragement was sufficient to cause the Lord to relent.
Talmadge admits we may not fathom His purposes for initially responding to her like that, but the results proved to be an opportunity for her to exercise her faith and His disciples to learn from it. Of course, like IMs and blog entries, the lack of inflection– plus the 2,000 years and multiple translations– put us at a disadvantage to know exactly how that whole thing went down.
March 7, 2008 at 10:13 am
I am not seeing anything is the JST on this passage either. So I guess it passes thru the JST lense
March 7, 2008 at 10:13 am
bbell (#5),
Let’s not forget that Jesus’ mortal ministry was meant just for the Jews. Although the resurrected Christ later made it available to the world, as a man He was there to “Let the children first be filled.”
March 7, 2008 at 10:16 am
Oh sorry, that was Mark 7:27, cross-reference to Matt.
March 7, 2008 at 10:27 am
His referring to her as a lap dog (i.e., a toy poodle, Yorkshire Terrier, or Pomeranian) is much nicer than referring to her as a vicious attack dog (i.e., a Rottweiler, Pit Bull, or chihuahua).
Lap dogs are members of the family and are usually treated better than the humans in the family. I never ate from silver plates and crystal bowls, but my family’s Bichon Frise did so for years. I was lucky to get a haircut once every three months, while my family’s Pekingese was groomed every single day.
March 7, 2008 at 10:35 am
This one gets me on three levels: it presents Jesus as a racist (whether divinely inspired racism or not), it seems 180 degrees apart from the Sermon on the Mount teaching about God causing the rain to fall equally on the just and the unjust, and it teaches that epilepsy is possession by demons.
The threesome is enough for me to be skeptical about its utility, as well as its veracity.
March 7, 2008 at 10:45 am
I don’t think His point was to mock her, He was establishing for her and the disciples what his current mission was, so when He then helped her, she (and more importantly the disciples) could see that sometimes there are exceptions to the rule, which I think shows His compassion more clearly.
March 7, 2008 at 10:51 am
Racism is a temporal label reflecting a sentiment not acknowledged by or resembling heavenly intentions. Like the OT Levites being the only ones at one time to hold the priesthood, there was a purpose to the orderly dispersement of The Good News. Just because we don’t “get” it doesn’t qualify us to throw around cavalier monikers like “racist.”
March 7, 2008 at 10:56 am
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2251
March 7, 2008 at 11:02 am
That is great, Julie.
March 7, 2008 at 11:03 am
It’s Talmage, not Talmadge.
March 7, 2008 at 11:07 am
Ack! Thanks, Mark (#16). I can’t believe after slumming in the Talmage Bldg. for 4 years at the U. I didn’t get that right.
March 7, 2008 at 11:08 am
I like your explanation, Julie. Helps to make sense of a passage whose meaning has eluded me for years.
Cheerios!
March 7, 2008 at 11:09 am
Awesome, Julie. Awesome, awesome.
March 7, 2008 at 11:13 am
Drat you and your sensible explanations Smith In Austin. Obviously this entire Firestorm was engineered around getting to your post. I didn’t expect you to read it so soon…
March 7, 2008 at 11:14 am
I think the Savior was trying to illustrate to women the principle that if they just nag the men in their life relentlessly and annoyingly enough, eventually they will get what they want.
Pardon me, I need to go mention something to my husband about the trash….
(j/k!)
March 7, 2008 at 11:18 am
LOL sister blah 2 :)
March 7, 2008 at 11:31 am
This is one of my favorite stories from scripture. Not because of what Jesus said–I accept that I don’t understand his full meaning and I look at all of his other teachings on compassion, humility, and tolerance and try to put it into that context. There is much more here than appears in first blush. This is one of my favorites, not because of what Jesus said, but because of how the woman responded. She could have been insulted. Could have left in a huff. She could have said that she would never go back to that holy man again. She could have written letters to the authorities or the newspaper or protested outside of Jesus’ door, or said nasty things in blogs. But she did not. She humbly acknowledged who he was and maintained her faith. Her humility and patience were justly rewarded.
March 7, 2008 at 11:50 am
Julie Kills the Firestorm!
March 7, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Enjoyed your comments very much Julie and Darrell.
March 7, 2008 at 12:21 pm
The woman was
Wow. Truly amazing. I’m not sure what is more amazing, though, the quote itself or the reaction to the quote.
March 7, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Racism is a temporal label reflecting a sentiment not acknowledged by or resembling heavenly intentions.
I recall a number of rather moving addresses by Pres. Hinckley not only acknowledging, but specifically condemning racism. Whose understanding of heavenly intentions are we discussing?
Like the OT Levites being the only ones at one time to hold the priesthood, there was a purpose to the orderly dispersement of The Good News. Just because we don’t “get” it doesn’t qualify us to throw around cavalier monikers like “racist.”
I, too, see the same basic perspective on this question in the OT — if it’s good for my tribe, it’s good; and if it’s bad for my tribe, it’s evil. That leads, as the OT clearly and grievously demonstrates, to genocide. I don’t believe the genocide or the pervasive racism described in the OT and attributed to divine command teach me how to conduct myself today, nor do I think that the attribution of the original statement to Jesus teaches me how to conduct myself today.
As to whether I have cavalierly monikered or not? I don’t think my remarks, nor my phrasing, is accurately described as cavalier. What do you know about my intentions, concerns, and beliefs that I don’t?
March 7, 2008 at 12:22 pm
#14 & #23 – Not much to add after Julie and Darrell.
Is it too late, Steve, to post YFF #37.5?
March 7, 2008 at 12:23 pm
People always say there’s nothing to discuss…
March 7, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Julie kills it indeed. Very, very cool.
March 7, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Steve,
I thought this firestorm would be about demonic possession. 30 comments in and nothing about the daughted being vexed with a devil.
Here’s a starter:
demonic posession, I believe in it.
*smirk*
~
March 7, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Me too.
You should see some of the kids in our Primary.
*smirk*
March 7, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Here are my footnotes to the passage in case they are helpful to anyone. (I won’t bother trying to link them to the text; I’m sure you can figure out which notes go with what text.)
IE from there.
IE regions.
Cities along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea.
IE a Syro-Phoenician woman. The Phoenicians were descended from the Canaanites, and continued to be known by that name.
OR possessed by a demon.
IE from behind.
This may mean that they entreated him to give her what she wanted so that she would go away and leave them alone.
The woman was not an Israelite.
Lit. kneeled to.
OR right.
Referring to the Israelites.
It was a common idiom in rabbinic expression to refer to gentiles as “dogs.” Jesus softens the expression somewhat by using the diminutive kunarion, which was normally reserved for house pets, not wild dogs.
OR Yes, sir, but even.
The woman astutely picks up on Jesus’ meaning and responds in a matching manner.
The address “Woman” sounds harsh to our ears, but it was considered a polite form of address at the time.
March 7, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“showing a prophetic understanding that the Jews will reject the Savior and that the Gentiles, eating the crumbs carelessly tossed out by the children (of Israel), will establish the church.”
I think that’s a bit of a stretch. It’s a nice thought, but really? Just like that?
March 7, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Darrell,
There is a difference between being possesed by a demon and actually, as in the case of those ‘children’, _being_ a demon. One can be cured, though it often takes much prayer and fasting. The other is, sadly, not subject to improvment: whatever Geoff J thinks.
~
March 7, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Lap dogs are members of the family and are usually treated better than the humans in the family. I never ate from silver plates and crystal bowls, but my family’s Bichon Frise did so for years. I was lucky to get a haircut once every three months, while my family’s Pekingese was groomed every single day.
Justin, # 10, that was very funny. Thanks for the laugh. It’s very quotable too. . . .
March 7, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Julie’s interpretation draws us to compare the two versions of the story. Mark 7:29′s shorter telling credits the woman’s answer “yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs” as the Lord’s reason for healing her daughter. “For this saying” the Lord says, arguably with Julie’s interesting take. Matthew doesn’t support that interpretation so convincingly as he credits the woman’s faith. Lack of faith was in issue back in Mt. 14:31 and Matthew 15:28 has the Lord praise the woman’s faith rather than her saying. Notice too in comparing the stories that in Matthew she has to overcome more: Jesus ignores her and the disciples beg him to send her away. Perhaps the later date of Matthew argues for a slightly different message as the church experienced more faith issues when preaching increased among the Gentiles.
March 7, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Julie’s idea is interesting speculation to be sure. However I’m not sure I understand all the high fives and “firestorm over” comments that immediately followed it. Is the assumption that she must be 100% right even though it is just a guess? What am I missing here?
March 7, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Geoff, she was just reckoning.
March 7, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“This firestorm is over” has been an incorrect statement since the beginning. Some of us like to cling to the notion that Steve mentions in #29 – that for once he might choose something with nothing to discuss. Obviously, that’s an incorrect tradition of our children’s fathers (and mothers), but some of us have a hard time losing our faith in what we feel we just have to see in our lifetimes.
Plus, it leads to comments like #39 – which never is a bad thing.
March 7, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I must protest the lack of youtube videos in the last few YFF. IMHO that was the best part. Here’s some humble submissions:
Discuss.
Discuss.
Discuss.
March 7, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I like how this scripture has the woman correcting Jesus. Or, as J. Reuben Clark put it, she “put the Lord in his place.” (Sorry, I’m too lazy to find the source, plus I’m in class, but I think it was a BYU graduation address). I think that’s a cool idea.
March 7, 2008 at 2:43 pm
#41 Love that. At the very least it shows a woman of quick and clear mind and a willingness to argue with authority when convinced of a position. Can’t go wrong praising either.
March 7, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Perhaps the Lord told her to go home and check on her daughter as a means to shoo her.
March 7, 2008 at 2:47 pm
#43–I assume you mean what was #42? Although I’d like to think that I have a quick and clear mind, and a willingness to argue with Steve’s authority when convinced that not having youtubes is a travesty. :-)
March 7, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I agree, Sister Blah 2.
March 7, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Justin,
Awesome
Sister Blah 2,
It’s the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything
March 7, 2008 at 3:52 pm
How about this: Given that Jesus had precognition of how the conversation would play out, what was His point in this exchange, instead of cutting to the chase and just healing her? Did she actually change his mind, or was He planning to do it all along?
March 7, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Thomas Parkin #31,
BCC has been there done that. See here.
March 7, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Yes, we’ve cornered the market on demonic possession.
March 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm
#47: Indeed. Don’t go blowing up Earth though, mkay?
March 7, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Eric,
After having read that thread, I’m glad to not have it brought up again. (I feel the same about many subjects.) I’ve been feeling a little snarky and absurd and … light-minded, which is my default mode when I’m troubled about something. I’m actually sorry to have made a joke about it.
~
March 7, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Personal threadjack:
Thomas, I sincerely hope whatever is troubling you is resolved in the way that you desire – or at least that it is resolved without undue pain or suffering. I admire and respect your contribution here, fwiw.
March 7, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Ray,
Thanks muchly.
I feel very much the same about you, mah brutha.
I’m always glad to see that you’ve posted on any subject.
I’ve been reading a lot of Hebrews 12. :)
~
March 7, 2008 at 7:43 pm
#5 – bbell, now you have me curious about your conversation. What did the Bob Jones alums say in the chat about Jesus and Israel and the “Gentiles”?
I could easily wear a t-shirt saying,
“Hi. I am a Gentile dog.”
:)
March 7, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Thomas Parkin, I surely wish you well as well.
March 8, 2008 at 12:40 am
I really like Julie’s interpretation, and #47. What about this idea: Jesus’ treatment of the woman was not dismissive or unkind. It was instructive. He was providing an opportunity for the woman to exercise increasing faith, ultimately having developed the confidence to aproach the Lord with a direct, fully developed and thought-through petition. Had Jesus immediately responded, she would not have experienced the same growth.
March 12, 2008 at 8:36 am
Demonic possession does occur. It occurs with most children by the time they become teenagers (you Primary workers have nooooo idea how impish your little ones are compared to teens). Mark Twain suggested that when a boy turns 13, one should seal him up in a barrel and feed him through the bung hole. At 16 years of age, seal up the bung hole….
As for calling the woman a “dog”, I reject the concept of Jesus seeing the woman as a cute little lapdog. Pets were not viewed the same then as they are now. He was speaking in Jewish terms, and Gentiles were not on the same level as Jews when it came to the covenant.
Racist? no. Ethnocentric? Probably. Still, he was better than most Jews of his day, as he saw the Samaritans as acceptable Jews, and made a nice parable about a Samaritan that was more righteous than his Jewish cousins.
March 12, 2008 at 8:44 am
Todd,
For the first time ever they pretty much disavowed the entire passage and blamed the translators for error. This did not square very well with there often stated idea to me that “every word in the bible is true”
They sounded very LDS when they did it.