ARC Wiki

Mark 7 contains a very curious story:

24 From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre.[g] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, 25 but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” 28 But she answered him, “Sir,[h] even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” 29 Then he said to her, “For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.” 30 So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.Mark 7:24-30

This story is repeated in Matthew 15:

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 15:21-28

The gist of the translation is very clear; Jesus makes an analogy that helping her would be like taking food from his children and giving it to dogs. No matter how you slice it, this is an insult, and the woman's response would be considered groveling. This is the impression that some people have of the Jews, and it is very anti-semitic.

The problem is, it likely never happened. Jesus – if he was indeed from God, or even Jewish – would be well aware of the central mission of Israel as a Light to the Nations. Therefore, for him to insinuate that the gentile nations were somehow unworthy of his guidance violates God's will as stated in the Torah.

Before the issue is raised, the standard Christian explanation is that Jews think of gentiles as Dogs:

Non-Jews were considered so unspiritual that even being in their presence could make a person ceremonially unclean (see: John 18:28).https://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanite-woman-dog.html

(Cross reference with John 18 above)

28 Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate’s headquarters. It was early in the morning. They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover.John 18:28

However, it must be stated that ritual uncleanliness of this type is not a logical rationale for this behavior. “All Jews believed that Gentiles and their homes were unclean, so entering the home of a Gentile was thought to make a Jew ritually unclean and in need of purification (cf. Num. 19:11-13).” (http://harvestbiblechurch.net/blog/defilement-in-the-praetorium). Point being the reason why they didn't enter Pilate's house is because it could have possibly contained idols or other things considered unclean under Jewish law (ex. chametz). Also, this behavior was only for special holidays and not a general practice. So this idea does not bear explanation.

Secondly, when considering Israel's role as a Light to the Nations the entire story no longer makes any sense. Why would Jesus speak this way to someone he had come to minister to, and why did he say that the message was intended for the Jews first? This goes against the Torah and it's teachings.

Upon raising the issue of A Light to the Nations it becomes important to rewrite this story so that Jesus is not seen as insulting to the woman. The Christian then reverses his claim that Jesus was justified in his approach by flipping the story on it's head and claiming that comparing the woman to a dog was a term of endearment:

The exact word Jesus used here, in Greek, was kunarion, meaning “small dog” or “pet dog.” This is a completely different word from the term kuon, used to refer to unspiritual people or to an “unclean” animal.https://gotquestions.org/Canaanite-woman-dog.html

The only issue with this is that kunarion still means dog.

Let’s interject ourselves into the story. How would you feel if someone implied that you and your little girl were worthless pagan dogs? However, notice the remarkable response of this amazingly humble woman. She agreed with Jesus’ assessment without defensiveness while continuing her plea.http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/The%20Canaanite%20Woman.pdf

Most commentaries will agree, comparing the woman to a dog, even a supposedly cute puppy-dog, really wasn't a nice thing to say, and was totally out of line with who Jesus should have known the Jewish people to be.

Let's first be very clear that Jesus did not mean this as a term of endearment.

• Matthew 7:6
  • 6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

This idea is based on many ideas, such as one found in Isaiah 56:11 and other:

• Isaiah 56:11
  • They are dogs with mighty appetites; they never have enough. They are shepherds who lack understanding; they all turn to their own way, they seek their own gain.
• Judges 7:6
  • Three hundred of them drank from cupped hands, lapping like dogs. All the rest got down on their knees to drink.
• Deuteronomy 23:18
  • You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog[b] into the house of the Lord your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Jesus was certainly aware of these passages. The point here is that Jesus was definitely using a pejorative term to refer to the woman, comparing her to a dog who doesn't know when to stop eating, or who only eats to assure his own survival, or whose fare is unfit for the house of God (and therefore, the fare of Israel is unfit for a dog) – the Jewish people at the time had the principle of eating to rejuvinate their bodies for the purpose of proclaiming the LORD. The proposal here is that the woman was not being honest in her faith (in her love) and only wanted to save herself from a punishment in the future.

Indeed, Jesus seems to have put stock in verses such as Proverbs 26:11 “Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly.” Jesus certainly used the word as a perjorative to insinuate he would be wasting his time with this woman; when all scripture seems to point to the opposite.

2 Peter 2:22 makes this point well; and thus we see the notion become standard Christian theology in spite of the scriptures:

• 2 Peter 2:22
  • 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

However, there was no reason to do this. The laws of love and brotherhood specifically include sojourners and especially converts; the commandments to love and help converts are the most numerous commandments in the bible, appearing more than 20 times. Additionally, the prophecies of the end times all speak of converts. So the idea that Jesus would reject a convert and not accept (her) shows a poor understanding of the bible, of Jewish culture (see Hillel's conversion on one foot) and prophecy; it is the sort of story someone would invent to demonize the jews, someone who was completely unfamiliar with Jewish law and culture.

20 “Thus says the Lord of hosts: Peoples shall yet come, even the inhabitants of many cities. 21 The inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, ‘Let us go at once to entreat the favor of the Lord and to seek the Lord of hosts; I myself am going.’ 22 Many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the Lord. 23 Thus says the Lord of hosts: In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’”Zechariah 8:20-23 (NIV)

In addition we may consider Ecclesiastes 9:4? “But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion.”?

Wouldn't Jesus value such a person coming to him and asking for guidance? We also point out the righteousness of Abraham in Haran was that he 'made souls'. Why then would Jesus avoid this responsibility when handed the chance on a silver platter?

The many passages we raise in this article are not exhaustive, but they are singular in their focus. It is thus the position that Jesus broke the laws of love and brotherhood; either that, or this story never happened – for no religious Jew ever would have said such a thing.