That One Time Jesus Got Catty With A Gentile Dog
Matthew 15:21-28
Don’t have the time or desire to read? Sit back and listen to this article! Click above.
Then Jesus left Galilee and went north to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Gentile woman who lived there came to him, pleading, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! For my daughter is possessed by a demon that torments her severely.”
But Jesus gave her no reply, not even a word. Then his disciples urged him to send her away. “Tell her to go away,” they said. “She is bothering us with all her begging.”
Then Jesus said to the woman, “I was sent only to help God’s lost sheep—the people of Israel.”
But she came and worshiped him, pleading again, “Lord, help me!”
Jesus responded, “It isn’t right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs.”
She replied, “That’s true, Lord, but even dogs are allowed to eat the scraps that fall beneath their masters’ table.”
“Dear woman,” Jesus said to her, “your faith is great. Your request is granted.” And her daughter was instantly healed.
The encounter with the Canaanite woman (Mt. 15:21-28, NLT) gives the impression, even to the casual reader, that there might be a lot of subtext going on; there must be something that the 21st century Western reader isn't picking up on. We're left with a confusing picture of Jesus being kind of aloof, catty, indecisive, and at the end he’s a flip-flopper. But there's much more going on in this conversation than appears on the surface, and it sheds light on the broader activity and words of Jesus, giving radiant insight into the purposes of God for the world through him. Let’s dig in.
First things first. In order to understand the gospels, you have to notice certain patterns that recur throughout them. A crucial one is the way that Jesus sneakily misuses and redefines certain concepts which are essential to the worldview of his Jewish audiences. He uses words like "law," and "kingdom," and "righteousness" in ways that his listeners are not accustomed to hearing, and this is why many -including his closest followers- are often confused by his teaching. It is also one of the reasons why he is eventually accused of leading Israel astray- a crime deserving death, according to Deuteronomy 14. But that is a bigger subject for another essay...
Now, one of those concepts that Jesus redefines is "Israel." We know that God intended Israel to be a "light" for the world (see Is. 49:6), leading it to a knowledge of God. Like Jesus' hearers, we tend to think of it as essentially an ethnic body: that group of 12 tribes descended from the loins of Abraham, and whose doings are recorded in the Old Testament.
But Jesus deliberately uses the term "Israel" in another, shocking way. As he uses it (and as we will see below), Israel is not constituted by those in simple possession of a particular ethnic lineage (namely, the Hebrews), but by those having faith in him, and who are obedient to the law of charity which he promulgates. John 8:31-47 comes to mind, where Jesus explicitly makes this point ("If you were the children of Abraham, then you would do what Abraham did [i.e. have faith]..."), and implies that because of their lack of faith, those opposing him are not children of Abraham at all.1
So in Jesus' mind, "citizens" of Israel are not just Hebrews, but anybody having faith in him. This is partially what he means elsewhere by the cryptic saying: "some who are first will be last, and some who are last will be first" (Lk. 13:30). He means that certain assumptions about who will share in God's reign on earth are gravely mistaken. Those thinking that they have rights to enter that kingdom merely because they are genetic sons of Abraham, and scrupulously observe the Law of Moses and the traditions of the elders will tragically and stunningly find themselves outside of that kingdom, while those whom they despised- the gentiles, the poor, and "sinners" (who are all ignorant of the Law and traditions), will gain access to it and be exalted by God, precisely because of their citizenship by faith and obedience to the "law" of charity. Anybody, any old riff-raff, can call themselves “Israel” by this criteria, and Jesus’ opponents know it. Sometimes he is more explicit about it, like in John’s gospel (mentioned above), and other times he is more subtle, like in this passage from Matthew.
So with all that in mind, let's look now at this exchange between Jesus and the Canaanite woman, which perfectly illustrates what I’ve said above.
Jesus is directly north of Israel in gentile Canaanite territory. To state the obvious: Not Israel. Not Jews. Not Hebrews. He is approached by a gentile woman who begs his help and addresses him as the Son of David. This is the first signal to the reader that this woman is unusual. A gentile using a Jewish title of address? A Canaanite- bitter historical enemies of Israel- submitting to the hotly disputed notion of universal Davidic kingship? It’s the first hint of what this episode is meant to illustrate, which is the defining role of faith.
Jesus' initial response strikes the reader as odd: he doesn't respond at all. But wait, Jesus is supposed to be kind and compassionate, why is he being so insensitive and cold toward a poor mother looking for help for her suffering daughter?
The apostles immediately jump in and beg Jesus to send her away, but Jesus’ response serves to give the reader a clue as to what may actually be going on here. The apostles are operating on the assumption that the messiah, Jesus, has come for Israel alone. That is, Israel strictly and ethnically defined, and therefore his work must be irrelevant to this annoying pagan woman.
Now, if he had seen it the way that they do, Jesus would have sent her away and kicked dirt in her face. But the fact that Jesus did not send her away, either before or after he was begged to do so by his disciples, is subtly underlining the fact that Jesus does not see things the way that they do.
He could have sent her away, but he doesn’t. We start to see that perhaps his silence is actually the reverse of cold aloofness: it is an implicit invitation to the woman to come closer, precisely because what he is doing as the messiah of Israel is relevant for her (both individually and as a stand-in for the gentile world as a whole). Rather than shutting it, he's leaving the door cracked, which is not a demonstration that he is unwilling to open it, but exactly the opposite: it is a demonstration that he is unwilling to close it.
But when he finally does speak, his words seem to contradict our understanding so far. He says, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". Oh, maybe the apostles are right after all. The woman isn't a Hebrew. She doesn't follow the Law of Moses or the traditions of the elders. She must not qualify for inclusion in the work of Jesus. Bye Felicia. And yet, he still hasn't sent her away...what is he waiting for? The woman draws even closer and begs his help once again.
He tells her, "it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." Ouch. Now he's resorted to name calling. Real nice. That must have got her. But wait, once again, maybe all is not as it seems...
A little Greek lesson. The word for "dog" that Matthew puts in the mouth of Jesus here is not kuown, which is specifically a stray dog, but kunarios, which is a dog belonging to a household.
So once again, as his previous silence was actually a demonstration of invitation rather than aloofness, this apparent insult is actually a massive compliment. Jews customarily referred to the gentiles as dogs, that is, kuown, stray dogs. Filthy animals you -and presumably God- want nothing to do with. But Jesus hints that the way he sees it is much different- the gentiles are part of the household of Israel. They belong in the Father's house. The point is not that he called her a dog, but that he told her that she is part of God's household, his family.
He has opened the door even wider.
Now, we know that this is what's going on because the woman notices Jesus' word choice as well as the implied significance, and jumps on it. He left the door open and now she runs right in. She cleverly develops the image that Jesus has already given, and carries it to the conclusion to which Jesus has been leading her from the beginning.
Her answer- "even the dogs eat crumbs from the master's table" is saying in other words, "well, if I am part of God's family as you seem to be saying, then don't I have rights belonging to a member of the household?" The point is not that she gets scraps, but that she gets fed.
And there it is, she got it. Jesus led both the woman and the reader through a delightful little maze, and we came out with something that would have been incredibly alarming to his disciples watching it all take place: the way that Jesus sees it, the gentiles are part of God's family too. God has a heart of friendship, -even fatherhood- for the world which is to be centered around Jesus, not just the nation centered around Jerusalem. God's "household," traditionally defined narrowly by ethnicity and adherence to the Law of Moses and traditions of the elders, is in the mind of Jesus open to anybody, and participation in that kingdom is defined by faith in him. Israel has been redefined, and this is how God will show himself to be faithful both to the nation of Israel, and the world he seeks to renew through Jesus.
In the end, Jesus, who was “sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” answers the prayer of this gentile woman, because she too, is Israel, by faith, and that’s what Matthew (and Jesus) intended us to notice.
By the way, this redefinition of "Israel" is also what Paul goes to great lengths to explain in many of his epistles (for example, in Rom. 4 and 8), and it is also the operating assumption in the portions of his letters concerning Church unity (which is the dominant theme of his letter to the Galatians). But here I digress again.