10 Then he called the crowd to him and said to them, “Listen and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.” 12 Then the disciples approached and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?” 13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit.” 15 But Peter said to him, “Explain this parable to us.” 16 Then he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. 19 For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.”
21 Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
Matthew 15:10-28 contains sayings on the theme of points of Jewish law (beginning in verse 1 and continuing to verse 20), and an example of Jesus encountering ritual uncleanness outside of the land of Israel. The source is Mark, with a few additions and significant alterations from Matthew. The mode of a disputation is the cast of the whole episode like those that took place between Pharisees and Christians after 70 AD. We best understand the entire reading as Jesus innovating by setting his words and deeds in contrast to certain points of Jewish Law. In doing so, Jesus invites us to consider the mission of the people of God in the world.
Matthew 15:10-20 continues sayings of Jesus on points of Jewish Law begun in verse 1. These sayings suggest Jesus is an innovator. He was not going to maintain a rigid adherence to the code, even if that is what faithful Jews of the time did, if it hindered accomplishing the larger purposes of God. He is opening a discussion of right and wrong. Jesus makes it clear that the path to solid, supportive, healthy relationships, self‑respect and a quality life starts with the usually painful decision to do the right thing. One way to think of what it was like to learn from Jesus is that he encouraged a focus upon development of character, courage, and conscience. He saw that the Judaism of his time was not accomplishing the mission God had for it to be a light to the nations. The primary obstacle was its adherence to ritual code in the changed environment of Hellenistic and then Roman occupation. The Jewish people show much enthusiasm for the ritual tradition, their code, so much so that they are no longer cherish the mission God gave to the people of God to be a witness to the nations.
The saying in verses 10-11 (Mark 7:14-15) continues some of the reflections of Jesus on points of Torah, especially its concern for ritual purity and cleanliness. It has the theme of what goes in. Jesus challenges the received Jewish tradition. Part of the concern for ritual cleanliness focused on food, and thus, what went into the mouth could make one clean or unclean. Jesus directly assaults this tradition in a way that assaults a way of life. It would appear to assail kashrut and thus the continuing significance of an important element of the Torah and the oral tradition. Such a view explains in part why Jesus could so easily cross boundaries that Torah and its oral tradition had established. 10 Then he called the crowd to him, Jesus completes his private dialogue and invites public discourse on the issues of ritual purity and cleanliness, and said to them, “Listen and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.” Such a saying is an aphorism that challenges and possibly offers a sweeping a rejection of the laws governing pollution and purity. It can apply to other forms of pollution. It challenges the everyday, the inherited, the established, and erases social boundaries taken to be sacrosanct. In saying that nothing taken into the mouth that can defile, he undermined a whole way of life. We can understand the verse following the pattern found in Hosea 6:6: “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” Hosea was not calling for abolishing the sacrificial system, but that ritual subordinate itself to ethics. While later generations of Christians found in Jesus' words support for acceptance of the church's then Gentile majority, there is nothing in this text to suggest that here Jesus completely abrogates all tradition. What Jesus is saying is that what really defiles people is not what they eat, but what they do. Since one need not take the saying literally, one can also apply it to other forms of pollution, as Mark has explained. It challenges the everyday, the inherited, the established, and erases social boundaries taken to the sacrosanct. To make the broad claim that nothing taken into the mouth can defile was to make a frontal assault on a whole way of life. Jesus is abrogating the Law concerning clean and unclean meats. He returns to the theme of eating and impurity, but not to the Pharisees’ original question. While the previous conversation focused on the replacement of God’s commandments by human traditions, here Jesus focuses on the food laws themselves. In Leviticus 11:43-44, we read: “You shall not make yourselves detestable with any creature that swarms; you shall not defile yourselves with them, and so become unclean. For I am the LORD your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy.” The laws of purity were an essential feature of Israel’s piety. Jesus’ statement, therefore, is a radical notion. However, he responds in the tradition of the prophets that challenges the practice of ritual considering the practice of ethics.
Another aspect of Jesus’ interpretation concerns the existence of boundaries. The saying challenges the received world and inherited tradition. Jesus often crossed social boundaries others took as inviolable. Every group establishes boundaries. They can be good, especially when people create them to protect weaker people from domination by stronger ones. However, often, the opposite happens: Boundaries function to separate the strong from the weak, protecting privilege and maintaining inequality. This kind of boundary Jesus challenges as he offers teaching on the dietary laws.
This passage raises an important question for us today. We can be grateful that what distinguishes the Christian from the world is not what they eat. The deeper issue now is how we live. One popular church song, that grew out of the Jesus movement in the 70s, has it that "They'll Know We Are Christians by Our Love." Well, we hope so, because we cannot count on being recognized as Christians by any daily dietary markers. Further, the love of God with all that we are and the love of the neighbor are clearly distinguishing markers. One would hope that growing in the fruit of the Spirit would be another marker. Avoiding the vices of Paul and practicing his enumerated virtues would be another marker.
Verses 12-13, unique to Matthew, has the theme of the plant rooted out. It relates an exchange between Jesus and the disciples, in which the disciples inform Jesus that he has offended the Pharisees by his statement regarding ritual cleanliness and purity. His response is simple. In a saying, common lore or a common proverb, he says that anything God does not sponsor will fail. 12 Then the disciples approached and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?” 13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Jesus dismisses any threat these authorities might present. Not members of the "true vine," they are weeds that God will simply pull up. It suggests that causes not sponsored by God will fail. In that case, the saying is a proverb and belongs to common lore. The disciples' words also remind the reader that one does not always speak the truth before an entirely receptive audience. Taking a stand as Jesus does inevitably invites the opposition to stand up.
Besides, in verse 14, two sayings from the material common to Matthew and Luke 6:39 that likely come from common lore, Jesus warns his followers that Pharisees are like a blind leader leading blind people, 14aLet, advice to the disciples, them (Pharisees) alone; they are blind guides of the blind, resulting in both falling into the pit, 14band if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit.” The sayings have the ring of a proverb and thus of common wisdom of the time. Yet, it also has an edge it to it that is typical of the sayings of Jesus. Jesus further insults the leaders by calling them "blind guides of the blind." This rub denies the Pharisees the privilege of claiming their celebrated title as "leaders of the blind." Because they themselves are blind, Jesus scoffs, these authority figures would only lead others into a pit with them. Paul also refers to Jews in the congregation who are sure that they are sure guides for the blind, light to those in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, and a teacher of children (Romans 2:19-20).
All of this foreshadows the developing and deadly relationship between Jesus and religious leaders. The response of the disciples to the announcement of Jesus concerning what defiles seems to be almost ridiculously self‑evident. Yet it serves ominously to foreshadow the deadly relationship growing up between Jesus and the religious authorities of Jerusalem.
Verses 15-20 (Mark 7:17-23) has the theme of what comes out and represent an explanation of the view of Jesus on ritual purity. 15 But Peter said to him, “Explain this parable to us.” The initial pronouncements Jesus makes to the crowd in verse 11 receive further development and expansion here. 16 Then he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer (ἀφεδρῶνα, drain, latrine, privy, toilet, powder room, restroom, lavatory, referring to a place where one dumps human waste)? Jesus’ pronouncement that nothing ingested can contaminate a person is a statement explained by pointing out the purgative role of the alimentary tract. One should be able to see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach and goes out into the sewer. Our bodies will eventually expel the food we eat. The body purges itself of any impurity that might come from food. It will do so naturally. However, what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart. This is what defiles. Here is not a topic one would expect to cover in studying the teaching of the gospel. Mark explains Jesus’ pronouncement that nothing ingested can contaminate a person by pointing out the purgative role of the alimentary tract. 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. The human heart is the conscience, the inner consciousness and sentient part of our nature. 19 For out of the cesspool that may be the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. Our words and actions pollute everything around us. Jesus is using smelly references to describe blatant hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy stinks. Our words and actions arise from who we are. Jesus shows little interest in how we feel about ourselves. He wants us to develop proper character, conscience, and values, and have the courage to live that way. If the heart can be a cesspool, it can also be the peaceful, flowing stream that encourages the development of virtue, character, and a clear conscience. We should note that Matthew's arrangement is intentionally organized. The list of "defiling things" presented in verses 18‑19 places the specific violations of the Decalogue in the center of the text. Furthermore, Matthew places them in the same order in which they appear on the Second Table of the Law (see Exodus 20:13‑16). This arrangement emphasizes the moral concerns (not ritual) of the Ten Commandments, concerns that were uppermost in the minds of first‑century Christians. Scholars also note that Jesus' list begins and ends with defiling actions that issue from the mouth. By invoking the indisputable judgment of the Ten Commandments, Jesus provides a list of actions and attitudes that God has designated wrong in every circumstance. These are not merely issues of tradition or ritual, as was the debate over hand‑washing in 15:1‑9. Jesus focuses on real wrongs that human beings can commit against one another and against God. The list parallels every other Christian list. Our bodies will eventually expel the food we eat. The body purges itself of any impurity that might come from food. It will do so naturally. However, the truly impure and unclean has its core definition in the Ten Commandments: murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, and slander. Matthew still considers the Ten Commandments to be God’s Law and binding. Such a list is similar to what we find in Romans 1:28-32, where Paul will refer to degrading passions, coveting, envy, murder, strife, deceit, gossips, slanderers, as well as other expressions of wickedness and evil. The moral element of the Ten Commandments remains in play for Jesus, the earliest Christian community, and Paul. We might also think of the list in Colossians 3, where if we are to live authentic lives we will not lie to each other. We will bear the burden of the other. We will practice love and forgive. We are at peace. We live gratefully before God and each other. We might also think of Galatians 5:22-23, focusing our lives on love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” This text shows that followers of Jesus are to focus upon the real wrongs human beings do toward each other and therefore against God. These moral infractions make one impure and unclean; they arise from our hearts. The point is simple. The path to solid, supportive, healthy relationships, as well as to self-respect and a life of quality, starts with the painful decision to do the right thing. Humanity always wants to avoid this, for we are uncertain if truth and falsity, right and wrong, even exist. Yet, avoiding the question would lead us down a self-destructive path. That kind of a life is one that is like -- to God -- a sweet-smelling sacrifice of praise! "For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing" (II Corinthians 2:15). We live like Christ, and "walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Ephesians 2:15).
The first centuries of the church saw the church preach, teach, and live the Christian life by forming communities that nourished its values. It did not seek to unseat the emperor through violence. It did not encourage a boycott of all things Jewish or of all things devoted to pagan gods. They thought through their faith as they considered the intellectual climate of their time, they prayed, and they lived their lives as offered to God.
Note how from her very first appearance in this text, the woman exudes faith. Those begging Jesus for healing personally know how great the need for healing is and feel called to seek relief for the other. Occasional readjustments in one’s trajectory are necessary. Her first approach to Jesus exhibits honesty. There must be the understanding that we have a manifest need for Jesus to do his work in our lives. Jesus always attracted messy people. These are not people in denial. They need help, and they need it right away. They have genuine, honest clarity about their condition and situation. They have evident needs, they are willing to admit it, and these needs are the very thing that makes them attracted to Jesus. The lesson many learn in life is to hide their weaknesses. They put their best foot forward. Yet, no one can meet our hidden needs. Our pride may stiffen our knees so that we will not bow down. Our pride may muzzle our voices so that we do not call out in honesty and humility.
Verses 23-25 are only in Matthew. 23 But he did not answer her at all. The first response from Jesus is silence, suggesting he is off-guard and considering a response or even trying to ignore her. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away for she keeps shouting after us.” The disciples want Jesus to give her what she wants so that she will go away and stop pestering them. They seem to have no concern for theological matters or for the mission of Jesus. Their advice to Jesus arises out of their convenience. 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep, all Israel and not just its leadership of Pharisees, of the house of Israel.” The second response of Jesus to the woman, then, is to remind the disciples and her that the Father has sent him to Israel, who is truly like lost sheep. The response surprises us. He treats her with apparent cold heartedness. Yet, the response is theologically correct. His mission is to Israel. He affirms the primacy of the covenant of God with Israel, despite a form of disobedience that makes them more like lost sheep. Jesus will not abrogate the promises of God to Israel for the sake of this woman.
In context, we can see that his concern was not so much with ritual purity. He was open to the non-conforming elements of Israel. He would have had regular contact with Gentiles in Galilee. Jesus did not view himself as forming a remnant in contrast with Israel. His movement was open to Israel as a whole.[2] Biblical tradition ordained that to save all humanity the message must first go to Israel so that the Jews could then witness to the rest of the world. Jesus testifies to the continuity of God's special covenant relationship with Israel, even though disobedience, hard-heartedness and legalistic nit-picking may have made them little more than "lost sheep" in divine eyes. Jesus is not about to abrogate God's promises or redefine his divine mission simply to quiet a single disruptive Canaanite woman. This saying may reflect the early Christian movement aiming its evangelistic efforts at the Judean community in Palestine. A tension in this saying is that many scholars today think of Jesus as having frequent contact with gentiles in the towns and cities around the Sea of Galilee. His freedom with respect to ritual and purity taboos, and his openness to non-conforming Judeans, suggests that he would not have advocated a mission restricted to Judeans in Galilee. However, this story and response of Jesus may help make the point that God did not break the covenant with Israel; rather, the ministry of Jesus was to them. 25 But she came and knelt before (προσεκύνει, worshipped) him, saying, “Lord ˆ(Κύριε), help me.” The woman responds by coming to Jesus again in a theologically appropriate way. She properly kneels before him in reverence, the sign of faithfulness in the Gospel story. She again addresses him with the theologically correct term, Lord. She offers a pathetic plea for help. She is tenacious. She has enough faith that she seems to turn Jesus from his view of his mission. In this case, if we think of the context, the exterior matters, such as her being Canaanite and a woman, do not make the encounter ritually unclean. The danger is that this encounter will lead to moral uncleanness. Zeal for ritual purity here, in the guise of doing what is right, could lead to much that would be wrong.
26 He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food, Israel, and throw it to the dogs (κυναρίοις, diminutive form, as in puppy or the house dog).” In response to her begging on bended knee for deliverance, not for herself, but for her daughter, the response of Jesus seems curt, cold and cutting. The harsh response of Jesus surprises us even more, as he suggests that the children of Israel deserve to receive their spiritual food before the domesticated dogs of Gentiles and infidels. Jesus rebuffs her in what appear to be the harshest terms yet. Jesus' response is still based on the issue of Israel's primacy. a contemptuous Jewish term, later used of Christians, as were Gentiles and infidels. It hits us as an unnecessary racial slur. Here is the heart of the difficulty we have in reading in this story. In the back of our minds, the Jesus we know who ate with tax collectors and sinners and told the parable of the Good Samaritan would not seem likely to make such a statement seriously. True, the story may show the precedence of the Jewish people in the plan of salvation.[3]True, the story may even reflect a tension in the mind of Jesus about the scope of his ministry. Jesus seems as concerned about the success of his mission as this brave and persistent mother is of hers. He seems unresponsive to anything besides this woman's ethnic and religious identity. However, I invite a little imagination into our reflection. We have an intriguing possibility. I can imagine Jesus wanting to teach a lesson to his disciples. Jews often referred to Gentiles as dogs[4] and themselves as children of God.[5] The statement may well be ironic rather than dismissive. Is she just a dog? In that case, the statement becomes a direct invitation to the woman to engage him in some intellectual banter. Jesus may want to see a response of faith in this woman. Maybe Jesus had a smile, as if chiding those in the room to consider whether the woman really is what Jewish attitudes say she is. Maybe he looked at his Jewish disciples as he referred to offering food to the children (of Israel) before offering food to (Gentile) dogs. Maybe he looked at the woman and said it in a way that made her feel acknowledged as a person. Thus, if Jesus is engaging in teasing banter or sparring, then his comment that she is like a puppy is an invitation to be his sparring partner. He is honoring her with this invitation, for rabbinical sparring is a role explicitly denied to women in that time. 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, she is theologically correct, yet even the dogs (κυναρίοις) eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” She accepts the invitation to engage Jesus in a sparring match. She has humility, faith, trust, confidence, love, persistence, and cheerfulness. Hearing the cutting remark from Jesus, she responds with playfulness and wit, using an ironic sense of humor. We see evidence in the exchanges in the gospels that Jesus had with his contemporaries that he could appreciate such humor. She acknowledges her secondary position in the mission of Jesus, but she has her place as well. Her response impresses Jesus. Her clever use of Jesus' own image demonstrates to him that there is still a way that she might receive a portion of God's bread. The woman is in a long line of biblical examples of those who engage God in a debate. I think of Hannah (I Samuel 1), Abraham (Genesis 18), Jacob (Genesis 32), Moses (Exodus 3-4), Gideon (Judges 6), and the book of Habakkuk, as part of the biblical background for such an interpretation of this exchange. It makes one wonder what would have happened had Noah had the argumentative spirit of this woman and the other biblical cases. That she would not only speak out but also cleverly and incautiously talk back to this man Jesus while asking for his help is even more outrageous. If this is the case, then the woman is not beating Jesus in this verbal contest of wits so much as rising to the challenge Jesus has given her.[6] Jesus teasingly insulted her by calling her a dog, and she twisted the reference to place herself among those who would be part of God’s eschatological banquet. Thus, the second quality we see in the woman is humility. She had a humble spirit. Perhaps Jesus is testing her faith. Perhaps Jesus is setting up a chance to level the playing field between the Jews and Gentiles, like the way he eliminated clean and unclean food items earlier in this chapter. Either way, the woman responds with a humble spirit, and instead of being defensive, she is contrite. She might be a cultural dog, but she will gladly accept that position if it means receiving the food she seeks. Such humility opens the door for the reception of great gifts and graces. Even if Jesus humiliated her, her humble response meant that grace and honor were on the way.[7] Yet, the humor or cleverness of the woman is not what impresses him. Rather, he focuses upon her faith. 28 Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great (μεγάλη, in contrast to the disciples, who often have little faith) is your faith (πίστις)! He is now able to see how the table of God set before Israel may be stretched to accommodate a far more inclusive group of diners. The table is broader than Jesus may have thought. Jesus had attempted to keep his focus upon Israelites. However, the encounter with this woman pushed Jesus beyond the perimeters of his vision and moved him further along the road toward the plan of his Father for human salvation. Jesus defines the new qualification for admission to the table -- faithfulness. Let it be done for you as you wish.” Faith, trust, confidence, has compelled Jesus to extend his mission to Gentiles. Matthew emphasizes God’s faithfulness to Israel and the miracle of faith among the Gentiles. And her daughter was healed instantly. Jesus had attempted to keep the power of his presence restricted to the Israelites alone. He had even invoked the same language in verse 24 as he had when sending out his disciples in Matthew 10:5-6. But the power of this Gentile woman's faith pushed the perimeters of Jesus' vision and moved him further along the road toward God's plan for human salvation.
In the context, the lesson that tradition must be subject to what is right, and that what is "unclean" on the outside is not damaging to the inner person, is played out in the Canaanite woman pericope quite clearly. For Jesus, though called for Israel's sake, to refuse to help this woman in the face of her faithfulness would be wrong. It was an obvious right to extend the grace of God's healing power to this woman and her daughter. The rigid legalism of the Pharisees made them so concerned with what was ritually clean and unclean that they could not smell the stench of their own hypocrisy. In their zeal to do everything "right," they did much that was wrong.
It might be worth our time to look at the woman in this story.[8]
First, the woman succeeded because of her love. She cared for her daughter and was willing to do whatever was necessary to get help.
Second, the woman succeeded because she questioned. This story is a reminder that questioning, pushing back, expressing doubt, showing irreverence and arguing are not out of bounds. We need not fear that we will offend God. God will have the final word, but we may receive insight, inspiration, understanding, and blessing -- or if not those things, at least the comfort that comes from having aired our grievances, even if the answer is not that for which we had hoped. Speaking plainly to God about the things that nag us about God and the will of God is still an act of faith. Why else would we be talking to God at all? Our faith may be thin or weak, but even in an attenuated condition, it is a route to truth. What is more, our faith, weak or strong, becomes a channel through which God can work.
Third, the woman succeeded because of her faith. The Canaanite woman knew of Jesus. Some deep instinct told her that Jesus had the power to save. Jesus then helped her and told her it was because of her faith.
Fourth, the woman succeeded because of her cheerfulness. That is, despite her personal problems, she did not make life miserable for those around her. We all know people who gripe, and complain, and talk about how unfair life is, all because they have not faced problems pretty much like those we all face sooner or later. She looked honestly at her situation, and instead of complaining, she changed her attitude about it. When she heard of Jesus, she saw an opportunity to change her situation. This woman had a seriously ill child. One whom she thought might help, Jesus, was quite harsh with her. She refused to complain.[9] She was able to be pleasant to those around her, to the point of using humor in her response to Jesus, and that is probably why the apostles did not usher her away.
This woman reminds me of the importance of basic courtesy.
"Be known for your courtesy: It alone can make you worthy of praise. Courtesy is the best part of culture, a kind of enchantment, and it wins the good will of all, just as rudeness wins only scorn and universal annoyance. When rudeness comes from pride, it is detestable; when from bad breeding, it is contemptible. Better too much courtesy than too little, or the same sort for everyone, for that would lead to injustice. Treat your enemies with courtesy, and you'll see how valuable it really is. It costs little, but pays a nice dividend: Those who honor are honored. Politeness and a sense of honor have this advantage: We bestow them on others without losing a thing."[10]
Fifth, the woman succeeded because of her persistence. We cannot know whether Jesus would have helped her anyway, but the fact that she persevered in her request must have played a part her. This woman was determined, and Jesus respected that.
[1] Gerd Theissen (The Gospels in Context [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 72-80).
[2] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 310.
[3] Joel Marcus (Mark 1-8 [Anchor Bible; Doubleday: New York, 2000], 471).
[4] Jewish writers referred to Gentiles as dogs in relation to their vices. The word Jesus uses is more properly “puppy.” Dogs in the ancient world certainly did not have the status of “man’s best friend” as they do today (Consider Exodus 22:31; 2 Kings 8:13; Revelation 22:15). To call someone a dog was usually an insult. Jesus may refer to the movement of Diogenes Sinope, the Cynics, who because of their aggressive style took on the name “dogs.”
[5] A common interpretation of the passage is that “children” refers to the children of Israel and “dogs” being a reference to Gentiles. Interestingly, rabbinic writings contain a tradition of Gentiles as dogs at an eschatological banquet where God would allow them to eat, but not as well as the children of the household.
[6] As the banter between the two continues, we may find it disturbing as readers that not only is Jesus overtly callous, but this woman is soundly beating him in this verbal contest of wit and quick parries.
[7] Bernard of Clairvaux says that “it is only when humility warrants it that great graces can be obtained … and so when you perceive that you are being humiliated, look on it as the sign of a sure guarantee that grace is on the way. Just as the heart is puffed up with pride before its destruction, so it is humiliated before being honored.”
[8] Carver McGriff, referring to the outline by William Barclay.
[9] If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain. --Maya Angelou.
[10] Baltazar Gracian (1601-1658)
No comments:
Post a Comment