Back to
Questions and Answers

I was recently reading Matthew again and came across the story in which Jesus heals a woman's demon possessed daughter after she has a conversation with him in chapter 15.

I am confused as to what exactly Jesus is referring to when he says, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs" and she responds with, "but even the dogs eath the crumbs that fall from their masters' table".

Then, Jesus proclaims that she has great faith and her daughter has been healed. After looking in the new Lutheran study bible, the footnotes have been very little help on interpreting what has taken place, and why such a response shows the woman's great faith

OK short answer: Her response shows faith because

1: It flows from humility – she is willing to accept the designation of “dog” and her own unworthiness rather than arguing that she should be regarded as God’s child. 2: It is centered on a correct belief of who He is – She has called Him Lord, Son of David – A highly messianic title. 3: She shows trust – she trusts that Christ’s mercy is great enough to give her to crumbs she needs without lessening the “bread” given to others. 4: It results in a love in which she is willing to sacrifice her dignity before not only Jesus but His disciples (which must have been quite intimidating for her) out of love for daughter. While this can be seen as natural mother love it is also the kind of love that flows from faith and accepts a cross for another.

Now, the long answer, if you want it, just because I can’t resist:

Firstly, it looks like pretty much without exception the early Church writers assumed Christ was using this incident as a lesson for the disciples.

It is important to note that Christ never actually refuses to heal the woman’s daughter. His statements and actions are neutral at each step of the way and only stand as refusals if seen through one particular interpretation – forcing the disciples to re-interpret some of their own basic assumptions.

Of course, Christ is in an area of Israel that had never fully been under Israelite rule. The original 12 tribes had stopped short of conquering this portion of the land, though it was supposed to have been part of the land of the tribe of Asher.

For this reason, the inhabitants of the land were always viewed as Canaanites, members of the mortal enemy of Israel. It was a very uncomfortable place to be for the disciples and to have a Canaanite following Christ was especially repellent. (It is interesting to note that both of Jesus’ visits to the area were preceded by stormy sea crossings, perhaps adding to their fear of that place and its people)

In any case, it is important to notice that the three initial responses of Christ are in and of themselves neutral. It is the interpretation of those actions by the disciples which turns them into refusals to help.

Christ’s first response is to remain silent – by itself neither a yes or no, though probably frustrating for the woman. The disciples, however, urge Jesus to send her away, interpreting his action as negative. Why they did not instead beg him to help her is obvious. In their minds she was an enemy and not worthy of help.

Jesus’ response is again neutral unless interpreted in a negative manner - which the disciples appear to do. “I was sent to the lost sheep of Israel.”

I always wonder why he included the word “lost” here. He does not say He was sent to Israel but specifies “lost” sheep – certainly reminding us of the parable of the lost sheep in which 99 were left in the wilderness. In any case, this is only a negative if we assume this woman was not among the “lost sheep of Israel.” Jesus seems have enjoyed messing with people’s nice neat categories. The Samaritan woman at the well becomes part of the kingdom. The sinners and tax collectors enter before the Pharisees and righteous. A neighbor becomes anyone you would be willing to accept help from if you were dying rather than someone you like. And, in Paul, Israel is broadened to include all sinners regardless of nationality. By the end of the event Christ’s preaching and miracles – and especially the woman’s own words in which she calls Him “Son of David,” and her faith will confront the disciples with their mistaken assumption that the people of the area could not be among “the lost sheep of Israel.”

His third response is the one you were asking about – It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs. Bread most likely refers to all the blessings Christ brings, including salvation and mercy. Certainly, that is the way He uses it in John. Again, this statement is meant to challenge the disciples with their own misconceptions. On the face of it, it is correct. It is not right to withhold what is needed for children and throw it to the pets. In the same way it would not be right to take what is needed for eternal life and give it to those who have no right to it if, indeed, it were in limited supply and if, indeed, there are two groups of people - children and dogs.

But, as the woman is about to prove by her faith, the assumptions of the disciples are wrong.

Firstly, she accepts the designation of dog rather than child – acknowledging she has no right to any demand on Christ, a humility that seems to be connected to faith in several instances in scripture. The tax collectors and sinners are able to accept Christ as savior because they have no pride in their own works. The Centurion admits he is not worthy to have Christ enter his house. The thief on the cross admits he is receiving what he deserves and does not ask for salvation – only remembrance.

Secondly, she trusts that Christ’s mercy is great enough that in helping her He will not need to deprive anyone else of anything for salvation. She will take the crumbs and the children can have their bread. It is this trust which is the heart of faith, trust that Christ’s mercy is great enough to cover her own need without lessening what is given to others. And she still trusts Him though He has seemed to reject her three times.

Thirdly, that trust and her insistence are motivated by her belief in who He is – the Son of David and Lord – and by love for her daughter for whom she is willing to endure the humiliation of being rejected twice – a sacrificial loves the presence of which is evidence of faith.

I think we could take a lesson from her in our modern world where we are so ready to give up on Christ if life doesn’t deliver the promises we think it should. We have a bad day, a fight with a friend, a bit of depression or sorrow and we whine, “God does not love me,” instead of trusting that His love is big enough to cover us through challenges.

Within the context this account is especially important. The disciples, unlike the woman, had doubted both Christ power and His mercy in chapter 14 during the storm. And in the beginning of Chapter 15 they themselves had been included in the category of unrighteous and unworthy of salvation by the Pharisees – yet they themselves are ready to categorize this woman as outside of salvation instead of pleading her case when she first approached Jesus.

Again, our modern Church would do well to remember that many we categorize as unworthy of salvation are, in God’s eyes, His children and may have a faith far stronger and more admirable than our own.