Keavy Church of Christ

(More Bible Studies Available @ www.marktabata.com)

It is written:

Matthew 15:21-28-“Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” 23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” 24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” 26 But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” 27 And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.”

What is going on in this passage?

Is Jesus demonstrating racism towards Gentiles and chauvinism towards women by calling this woman a “dog?”

Certainly, many have accused the Divine Carpenter of these sentiments. However, we will see that there is something far more amazing going on within this beautiful passage of God’s Word.

Let’s study.

The first thing we should notice is that Jesus in this passage is most definitely not displaying racism towards Gentiles. Indeed, we see this because in this particular time in His ministry, He is preaching a great deal to the Gentiles!

Matthew 15:21-Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon.

Christ had been having ongoing debates with the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders who were known for their self-righteousness and wickedness. Sadly, many of the Jews of Jesus’ day had gotten stuck on themselves believing that they were the favored nation. They had forgotten that God had promised to bring redemption to all the nations of the world through Abraham’s Descendant!

Genesis 12:1-3-Now the LORD had said to Abram: “Get out of your country, From your family And from your father’s house, To a land that I will show you. 2  I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. 3  I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

The Jewish people had been called to be priests to the Gentiles nations.

“You see, one of the key reasons the Lord put the Jewish people on this earth was so that we could be a nation of priests (kohanim), spreading the light of the knowledge of God to the rest of the world. In other words, instead of keeping the truth to ourselves, we were called to declare the glory of the Lord to the Gentiles and educate them in his truth.’ The Scriptures speak of this clearly: You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom dom of priests and a holy nation. Exodus 19:4-6 Sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth. Sing to the LORD, praise his name; proclaim his salvation day after day. Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples. For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; he is to be feared above all gods. Psalm 96:1-4 Yes, the people of Israel were to be a light to the world. This is part of our destiny and calling as Jews, and it is only through the Jewish Messiah that we can fulfill this God-ordained task.’ This is something you need to consider. In fact, it may help you to understand why you sometimes have wondered about your very identity and purpose in life. What does it mean to be born a Jew? Why are we here? Why have we experienced so much trouble with so little positive fruit? What is our mission after all? Is there something we have been missing-or someone we have been missing?” (Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: General and Historical Objections, Vol. 1, 325 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House)

This is a theme that was prophesied about throughout the entire Old Testament.

“This promise of a universal blessing to the “peoples” or “families” on earth is repeated in Genesis 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; and 28:14. In Genesis 12:3 and 28:14, the Hebrew phrase used for “all the peoples/families” is kôl mišpĕḥôt, a phrase that is rendered in the Greek translation of the Old Testament as pasai hai phulai, meaning “all the tribes” in most contexts, but it could also stand for households, as in Joshua 7:14.[6] Therefore, the blessing of God given to Abraham was intended to reach smaller people groups as well as the larger political groupings of nations. The latter point is made clear in the fact that in Genesis 18:18; 22:18; and 26:4, the Hebrew phrase in this identical expression is kôl gôyê, “all the nations,” which the Greek translated as panta ta ethnē, “all the nations.” Acts 3:25 used the Greek phrase pasai hai patriai, “all the families.” A patria is a people group, which is a subgroup of a tribe or a clan. (It can also be congruent with the tribe or clan in its entirety.) But the sweep of all the evidence makes it abundantly clear that God’s gift of a blessing through the instrumentality of Abraham was to be experienced by nations, clans, tribes, people groups, and individuals. It would be for every size of group, from the smallest people group to the greatest nation group.…The whole purpose of God was to bless one people so that they might be the channel through which all the nations of the earth might receive a blessing. Israel was to be God’s missionary to the world—and thereby so were all who believed in this same gospel.” (Walter C. Kaiser Jr, Mission in the Old Testament: Israel as a Light to the Nations, 10-12 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic)

We see this same theme being played throughout the entire Old Testament:

“5. The solemn and unique calling of Israel to be God’s witness and God’s priesthood as instituted under Moses and developed by the prophets. Little needs to be said on this subject. In no uncertain terms had God commanded Israel to be His royal priesthood (Ex 1-9:5-6), to be His servant and His witness (Is 40-53) and to show forth His praises among the nations (Is 43:21). Later Christ speaks of His people as the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mt 5:13-15). Israel was a peculiar, singular people with a glorious calling and mission (Deu 7:6; 14:2; 26:18-19)…Her relation to the nations. Israel is to be a kingdom of priests, again variously translated as a “royal priesthood” (Septuagint), “a priestly kingdom” (Vulgate), “kingdom of priests” (Peshitto), and “kings and priests” (Targum). Again, whatever translation we may prefer, the fact is clear that Israel is God’s priest and is to perform a priestly ministry in the world. She is to be God’s mediator. No priest exists unto himself; he has value and meaning only as a mediator.”…This, however, is only relatively true. It is a profound fact that “the hymn of praise is missionary preaching par excellence,” especially when we realize that such missionary preaching is supported in the Psalms by more than 175 references of a universalistic note relating to the nations of the world. Many of them bring hope of salvation to the nations. This was a most astounding discovery for me some years ago. The believer will be greatly enriched in his missionary thinking by reading through the Psalms and underlining all references relating to the nations of the earth. Indeed, the Psalter is one of the greatest missionary sionary books in the world, though seldom seen from that point of view. Not only are the Psalms permeated with references of universal connotation, but whole psalms are missionary messages and challenges. Study carefully Psalm 2, 33, 66, 72, 98, 117, 145. The impact of such hymnody must have been profound upon a spiritually minded people….This, however, is only relatively true. It is a profound fact that “the hymn of praise is missionary preaching par excellence,” especially when we realize that such missionary preaching is supported in the Psalms by more than 175 references of a universalistic note relating to the nations of the world. Many of them bring hope of salvation to the nations. This was a most astounding discovery for me some years ago. The believer will be greatly enriched in his missionary thinking by reading through the Psalms and underlining all references relating to the nations of the earth. Indeed, the Psalter is one of the greatest missionary books in the world, though seldom seen from that point of view. Not only are the Psalms permeated with references of universal connotation, but whole psalms are missionary messages and challenges. Study carefully Psalm 2, 33, 66, 72, 98, 117, 145. The impact of such hymnody must have been profound upon a spiritually minded people…Thus universality of salvation pervades the entire Old Testament. It is not peripheral but rather constitutes the intent of Old Testament revelation because it constitutes the dominant purpose of the call, life and ministry of Israel. The Old Testament does not contain missions; it is itself “missions” sions” in the world. Like a lonely voice in the wilderness the Old Testament boldly proclaims revelational ethical monotheism in protest to Greek, Egyptian, and early Indian henotheism-the multitudinous systems of surrounding polytheism and incipient philosophical Eastern monism. Raised up by God to declare normative religion, it has been assailed from its beginning and repeatedly threatened with destruction and corruption, but God has graciously and miraculously preserved both the books of its content (the Old Testament) and the people as its bearer (Israel). Indeed the Old Testament is a missionary book and Israel a missionary people.” (George W. Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions, 1246-1250; 1302-1304; 1330-1336; 1510-1515 (Kindle Edition): Chicago, IL: Moody Press)

So to put this in perspective: throughout the Old Testament, God had decreed the Jewish people to be missionaries to the Gentiles. This would be especially their responsibility as God would one day bring the Messiah into the world through the descendants of Abraham. However, by Jesus day, many of the religious leaders had forsaken God’s command to be missionaries to the Gentiles, and instead were themselves extremely racist towards them. However, Jesus was different! We read in Matthew 15:21 that Jesus began preaching to the Gentile people of Tyre and Sidon. After Jesus’ encounter with this Gentiles woman, we read:

Mark 7:31-Again, departing from the region of Tyre and Sidon, He came through the midst of the region of Decapolis to the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus now goes on a preaching tour of between 60-100 miles, proclaiming the Gospel to the Gentiles!

“This is highly significant, since, in retrospect this whole episode seemed quite intentional-we might say, the Messiah acted by divine premedi-tation310-and the end result of a round-trip journey of between 60 and 100 miles (on foot!) was the healing of this Gentile woman’s daughter. What was the divine lesson in all this?….In the same way here, Yeshua’s teaching about “clean” and “unclean,” about spiritual defilement coming ing from the inside and not the outside, about no food, in and of itself, being truly “unclean” (even if it carries that legal status), is now put into spiritual practice, as the Lord takes a long journey into a Gentile region and then reaches out in mercy to a needy “Canaanite.” Was there nowhere else where Jesus could get alone for a little while? The object lesson is indisputable: Jesus was pointing to the fact that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered “unclean” if they put their trust in him….With this perspective in mind, we now return to the verses in question. Note first that, while Mark identifies the woman as “a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia” (Mark 7:26), Matthew simply calls her a “Canaanite” (Matt. 15:22), probably to elicit a negative emotional response from a biased reader. The woman, quite amazingly, acknowledges Yeshua as Messiah, calling him “Son of David,” and pleading for mercy, since her daughter was “suffering terribly from demon-possession” (15:22b).312 Jesus, however, does not answer her. This was a test!….Now, there can be no question at all that: (1) Jesus put this woman through a test to draw out-and thereby demonstrate-her great faith, granting her request and, in the process, continuing to display his power to heal as the Messianic Son of David.314 (2) He went many miles out of his way to give a practical illustration of his teaching about “clean” and “unclean.” (3) Ultimately, he went many miles out of his way to heal a needy woman’s daughter. (Was it her cries of desperation that got God’s attention and drew Messiah there in the first place?) (4) He used the occasion to, once again, highlight “great faith” existing outside the people (or, borders) of Israel. In light of all this, it is preposterous to think that this narrative actually highlights a negative and derogatory attitude towards Gentiles on the part of Jesus. Absolutely not! How then do we explain his words, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs”? It is true that he says, “their dogs,” rather than just “dogs,” and it is true that the Greek word used can refer to “household dogs” as opposed to “wild dogs,” and this, to a degree, lessens the harshness. More importantly, however, it is clear that the woman grasped the spiritual point Yeshua was making by replying, “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” In other words, “I recognize that healing is the children’s bread and that your people are the covenant people, God’s children, to whom the promises of healing belong. And I recognize that they come first. But I can still get the leftovers!” What great faith, and what extraordinary insight, none of which would have become evident if not for the sequence of events which unfolded. And how often does God put us to the test, delaying an answer and even appearing aloof, before demonstrating his power and love (see, e.g., John 11:1-21; for a different dimension of divine “absence,” cf. 2 Chron. 32:3 1). Yeshua’s actions are certainly in harmony with those of his Father! As for the reference to “dogs,” it obviously was not a big deal to the woman or to the disciples, who faithfully recorded these words. (As I pointed out, above, it is both Matthew and Mark who recount this, the former primarily writing to Jews, the latter primarily writing to Gentiles. It was not a problem for either of them.) This could be argued against the backdrop of the Hebrew Scriptures, as Messianic Jewish scholar David Stern does, or against the backdrop of contemporary Jewish thought, as Jewish professor Samuel Tobias Lachs does.315 Either way, the words of Jesus, spoken in a very specific context for a very specific purpose, should not be an occasion for stumbling, especially when it is realized that he did not say to this woman, “You lousy Gentile dog! I will never help you.” Rather, he gave a vivid illustration that produced a dramatic and historic response, and I for one am blessed that this is part of the historical record. I’m sure this Gentile woman was blessed as well, as the story concludes: “And her daughter was healed from that very hour” (Matt. 15:28). Thank God for the Son of David!” (Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections To Jesus: Volume Four-New Testament Objections, 173-177 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Books)

Clearly, Jesus was not prejudiced against Gentiles. Indeed, we are reminded that nearly all of the women mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy were Gentiles!

“Admit it. You think genealogies are boring. While I wouldn’t claim that all biblical genealogies are filled with theological insights, I can promise you that the genealogy of Jesus is different. As we’ll see, it has some amazing features that link it with the expectation of a messianic reversal of the sin of the Watchers. But you have to know what you’re looking at….“Tamar is the first of the four women in Matthew’s genealogy (Matthew 1: 3). She is known primarily from Genesis 38, where she deceives Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob, into an illicit sexual encounter…Judah’s actions, with which Genesis 38 opens, are reminiscent of the way in which the narrative of the Watchers’ fall begins: “Judah saw there the daughter of a Canaanite man, whose name was Shua; he took her and went into her, and she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er” (Genesis 38: 2–3, underlines added)….The watchers “see” (1 Enoch 6: 2) the daughters of men; they “take” wives from among them; they “go into them” (1 Enoch 7: 1); the women “conceived” and “bore” the giants (1 Enoch 7: 2)….Even more telling is the name of Judah’s first son: Er (Hebrew: ער; ʿr). Scholars have noted that the name derives from the same Semitic root (עור, “to be awake”) as “Watcher” (עיר; ʿı̂r).[ 143]…“Richter draws attention to the connection: “Er’s name thus derives from the same root as the name of the rebel angel watchers of 1 Enoch.”[ 144] It is also interesting that Judah gives the disguised Tamar his signet ring as part of his pledge. Metallurgy for jewelry was one of the illicit arts taught by the Watchers….Unlike Tamar, who took the guise of a prostitute to deceive Judah, Rahab was a working prostitute (Joshua 2: 1). She is one of two (cf. Ruth) unambiguous Gentiles among the four women, as she is a native Canaanite living in Jericho (Joshua 2: 1–2)….The Enochic template element of sexual transgression is therefore quite transparent. But, as with the Tamar episode, there is a lot more to Rahab and her story than that. While it may sound odd to our ear, Rahab is also connected to the Enochic template by means of warfare, giants, and angels….But Rahab’s connection to giants seems to have entered the Jewish consciousness in another way. Matthew refers to Rahab as the mother of Boaz by a man named Salmon (Matthew 1: 5). On the surface, nothing seems unusual. “But Ruth 2: 1 refers to Boaz as a gibbor, one of the terms used to describe the Nephilim offspring of the sons of God in Genesis 6: 4. On its own, gibbor (plural: gibborim) does not refer to giants.[ 150] However, Jews in the Second Temple Period often interpreted the term that way. The Septuagint, for example, translates the term with gigas/ gigantes (“ giant”; “giants”) over a dozen times whether the context supports that rendering or not….Like Rahab, Ruth is clearly a Gentile, being from Moab (Ruth 1: 4)….Scholars of the Hebrew Bible have long recognized that what Ruth does at the threshing floor (Ruth 3) is overtly sexual. Ruth exposes the “feet” of Boaz while he is sleeping after he had “eaten and drunk” when “his heart was merry,” and then lies down (Ruth 3: 7). The Hebrew word translated “feet” (regel) is a well-known euphemism for genitalia in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., to “cover one’s feet,” meaning relieve oneself: Judges 3: 24; 1 Samuel 24: 4). By uncovering Boaz’s “feet” (genitalia), Ruth is, in effect, offering herself as a wife to Boaz. Given the patriarchal setting of Israelite culture, this was a transgression of the way things were usually done—it was the man who would solicit marriage or take a concubine of his choice. While the text provides no evidence of a sexual encounter between the two, what Ruth did would have an illicit feel to “proper” Israelites and later Jewish readers…Orpah, Ruth’s sister, was believed to be the mother of Goliath and his brothers. Some rabbis presumed Orpah had giant (Emim) blood as a Moabitess. The Babylonian Talmud (b. Sotah) reads: It is written: “And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law but Ruth clave unto her.” Let the sons of the kiss (the one who kissed) fall into the hands of the one who clave unto, as it is written; “These four were born to the giant (ha-ra-fah) in Gath, and fell by the hand of David.” Rabba taught, because of the four tears Orpah shed on her mother-in-law she was worthy that four mighty men would come forth out of her as her offspring….Uriah was one of David’s gibborim (“ mighty men”; 2 Samuel 23: 39). As we saw with Ruth, being married to a gibbor may have made certain Jewish readers suspicious of a connection to the giants. Bathsheba would therefore be another ancestor of Jesus associated with a gibbor….We began this chapter with the thesis, drawn largely from the work of Richter, that Matthew was familiar with the sin of the Watchers (the “Enochic template”). The Watchers were blamed for sexual transgression and corrupting humanity with forbidden knowledge. All four women in the genealogy of Jesus are connected in some way with sexual transgression, seduction, and warfare. The connections are both thematic and textual. This can hardly be a coincidence. “The effect of their inclusion in the genealogy is to direct readers’ attention to the One to whom the genealogy belongs: the son of Abraham, son of David, from the tribe of Judah, born as the result of a divine-human interaction approved by God for the purpose of repairing the consequences of the proliferation of sin among humankind, a proliferation laid at the feet of the Watchers.” (Michael Heiser, Reversing Hermon: Enoch, The Watchers & The Forgotten Mission Of Jesus Christ, 1225-1496 (Kindle Edition))

Well, what about the claim that Jesus was prejudiced against women? If we will take some time and investigate, we can clearly see that Jesus was not chauvinistic towards women at all.

Luke 10:38-42-Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. 39  And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’ feet and heard His word. 40  But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.” 41  And Jesus answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. 42  But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.”

Look at that phrase in Luke 10:39 that describes Mary “who also sat at Jesus’ feet.” This was a Jewish expression that meant a person was a formal disciple of someone. Amazingly, women were not allowed in Judaism to be formal disciples: yet Jesus readily allowed this!

“One very familiar story in Luke’s account is that of Mary and Martha (Luke 10: 38–42). Preachers often pose the question, “Which are you, Mary or Martha?” in sermons. This is an excellent teaching passage on taking the time to learn and be contemplative. In Luke 10: 39, however, Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus. This was the position that a disciple took. It’s the very same posture that Paul took when he learned from Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts 22: 3; cf. Luke 8: 35). What’s so startling about this story is that women were not disciples of rabbis. Period! They received no formal education, and the only skills they were taught were typically household duties. Moreover, if a man instructed his daughter in the Law, it was as if he was teaching her lustfulness according to the rabbis (m. Sotah 3.4). Women were too simple minded to learn such deep truths, so it was believed. For Mary to have become a disciple was for Jesus to have elevated women. This one small detail in this story is often overlooked, but it is a profound truth in a short phrase. (Steven Hunter, Being Phoebe: How Women Served In Early Christianity, 113-120 (Kindle Edition); Dallas, Tx; Start2Finish Books)

When we take time to consider how many women are mentioned in the Gospels in connection with the ministry of Jesus, it is truly amazing! Here is a partial list (at least 45 mentioned here):

• Tamar (Matthew 1:2)

• Rahab (Matthew 1:5)

• Ruth (Matthew 1:5)

• Bathsheba (Matthew 1:6)

• Mary (Matt 1:16, 18-25; 2-11, 13-14, 20-21; Matt 12:46-50; Matt 13:55; Mark 3: 31-35; Mark 6:3; Luke 1:26-56; 2:5-8, 16, 19, 22, 27, 34-35, 43-51; Luke 8: 19-20; John 2:1-5, 12; 6:42; John 19:25-27; Acts 1:14; Gal 4:4)

• Peter’s Mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:30-31; Luke 4:38-39)

• Daughter of Jarius (Matt 9: 18-19, 23-26; Mark 5: 22-24, 35-43; Luke 8:41, 49-56)

• Wife of Jarius ( Mark 5:40-43; Luke 8:51-56)

• Woman with Issue of Blood (Matt 9: 20-22; Mark 5:25-34; Luke 8:43-48)

• Christ’s Sisters (Matt 13:56; Mark 6:3) 

• Herodias (Matt. 14: 1-11; Mark 6:17-28; Luke 3:19-20)

• Herodias’ daughter (Matt 14:6-11; Mark: 6: 22-29; Luke 3:19-20)

• Women and children among the 5,000 (Matt 14:21)

• Women and children among the 4,000 (Matt 15:38)

• Syrophenician woman (also called the Woman of Canaan) (Matt 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30)

• Young daughter of the Syrophenician woman (Matt 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30)

• The Mother of Zebedee’s Children (Matt 20:20-23; Matt 27:56)

• Woman who Anointed Jesus (Matt 26: 6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-8)

• Damsel to whom Peter denied Christ (Matt 26:69; Mark 14:66- 68; John 18: 17)

• Maid to whom Peter denied Christ (Matt 26:71: Mark 14: 69-70; Luke 22:56-57)

• Wife of Pontius Pilate ( Matt 27:19)

• Many women beholding a far off (Matt 27:55-56; mark 15: 40-41)

• Mary Magdalene (Matt 27:57, 61; Matt 28:1-10; Mark 15: 40-41,47; 16: 1-8, 9-11; Luke 8:2-3; 24: 1-11, 22-24; John 19:25; 20: 1-3, 11-18)

• Mary, the mother of James and Joses (also called “The other Mary”) (Matt 27:56, 61; 28:1-10; Mark 15: 40-41,47; 16: 1-8; Luke 24: 1-11, 22-24)

• The Widow who Gave Two Mites (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4)

• Salome (Mark 15: 40-41; Mark 16: 1-8)

• Many other woman which came up with Jesus from Galilee (Mark 15: 40-41)

• Elisabeth (Luke 1:5-80)

• Anna (Luke 2: 36-38)

• Widow of Nain ( Luke 7: 11-17)

• Sinner who washed Jesus Feet with her hair (Luke 7:36-50)

• Certain women who had been healed (Luke 8:2-3)

• Joanna, the wife of Chuza (Luke 8:2-3; Luke 24: 1-11, 22-24)

• Susana (Luke 8:2-3) 

• Martha (Luke 10: 37-42; John 11: 1-6, 17-27, 34-45; 12:2 )

• Mary of Bethany (Luke 10: 37-42; John 11: 1-5, 17-20, 28-34, 39-45; 12:3-9)

• Certain woman of the company (Luke 11:27-28)

• Woman with a Spirit of Infirmity ( Luke 13:11-16)

• Women which bewailed and lamented ( Luke 23: 27-29)

• Women that followed Jesus (Luke 23: 49, 55-56)

• Other women at the empty tomb (Luke 24: 1-11, 22-24)

• Samaritan Woman at the Well (John 4: 7-42)

• Woman Taken in Adultery ( John 8:1-11)

• The mother of the Man Born Blind (John 9:2-3, 18-23)

• Mary, the wife of Cleophas (John 19:25)

• His Mother’s sister (John 19:25)

Sometimes people object that Paul looked down on women when he wrote these words:

1 Timothy 2:12-14-And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13  For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

When Paul wrote these words to Timothy, it was not generally permitted for the women in Ephesus to be taught in the Scriptures. Paul was here saying that women in the church are to be taught alongside of the men! And the words translated here as “be in silence” have a beautiful meaning in the New Testament that we do not easily see here.

“Concerning the question of educating women in the Church, however, much is known. Whenever Paul established a church, he insisted that women were to be educated in the faith. He began this passage in 1 Timothy with the words “let a woman learn,” and while such a program would be in keeping with Paul’s goal for women, it was at variance with Jewish and Greek customs. Jewish women were not included in formal education. It was permissible for a man to teach Scripture to both boys and girls, 1 but a woman could not teach even the youngest of children in a school, and one rabbi said that “if a man gives his daughter a knowledge of the Law, it is as though he taught her lechery.” 2 Women were to be educated only in matters regarding homemaking skills. As one rabbi said, “There is no wisdom in woman except with the distaff.” 3 (See chapter 1, this volume.)…Therefore, Paul’s desire that women be educated in the faith was both radical in thought and difficult in execution. Women were not used to listening to lectures or thinking about theo-logical concepts, or studying at all….But the word for silence is a lovely word, hesuchia (hey-soo-KEY-ah). It does not mean simply refraining from talking. It means restful quietness, as in meditation or study. A few sentences before, Paul used this same word to describe the peaceful and quiet life (1 Tim. 2: 2), good and acceptable before God, the kind of life Paul wished for all believers….It is quite possible that Paul had in mind a certain woman or group of women in Ephesus when he wrote this passage. If so, Paul was not willing to lessen his insistence that women are to learn, in spite of the high-handed attitude of one or some. Instead, he wrote that they are to learn in quietness, without being rude or domineering.” (John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women: The Apostle’s Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love, 70-72 (Kindle Edition, emphasis added); New York, NY; HarperCollins NY).

Paul was a revolutionary in elevating the rights and role of women in the Lord’s church and in the home. Indeed, when we look at the way that society has been influenced by Christianity throughout time in regards to the Bible’s teaching regarding women, we can see a great and powerful influence!

“One scholar of ancient Rome has aptly said that “the conversion of the Roman world to Christianity [brought] a great change in woman’s status.” 2 Another has expressed it even more succinctly: “The birth of Jesus was the turning point in the history of woman.”” (Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, 98 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan)

So, based on the Old Testament context, Jesus’ debates with the Jewish authorities and His ministry to Gentiles and treatment of women, we may safely declare that Jesus is not racist or misogynistic.

Second, lets’ consider the specific words of this passage that are being used. When we do, we will see some incredible lessons about why Jesus called this woman a “dog!” Far from being an insult, this was a term of endearment that pointed to the mission God had given to the Jewish people in the Old Testament that Jesus was in the process of fulfilling!

Let’s start by looking at that word translated “dog.” Several translations render this word as “little dogs.”

What’s going on here?

“Second, the Greek word for “dog” is not the usual word for an unkempt street dog (Gk. kyōn), but a diminutive (Gk. kynarion), meaning a small dog that could be kept in the house as a pet. 14 In casting the word in the diminutive form Mark essentially empties it of opprobrium, for one feels entirely differently of a house pet than of an unclean street mongrel. The fact that the woman refers to her daughter and herself with the same term in her reply to Jesus shows that she does not take kynarion in a hostile or contemptuous sense. Third, “dog” signifies a traditional distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles that is important to the story. In the thought-world of the day, the Jews considered themselves “children” of God (Exod 4: 22; Deut 14: 1; Isa 1: 2). They differed from other nations because of their inclusion in the covenant of Abraham (Genesis 17) and because they possessed the Torah (Exodus 19). The issue at stake between Jesus and the woman is whether Jesus is sent to “the children” or “to the dogs.” The woman maintains the same distinction between “children” and “dogs” in her reply to Jesus, though with one slight change. Whereas Jesus refers to Israel as teknōn (” biological children”), the woman refers to Israel as paidiōn, which is more inclusive, implying both children and servants in a household. The change in terminology suggests that the woman understands the mercies of God to extend beyond ethnic Israel. The basic issue in the repartee between Jesus and the woman is not whether Gentiles have a claim on God’s mercies, but the relation of that claim to the Jewish claim. Jesus does not deny the woman’s request. “First let the children eat all they want” simply establishes a priority of mission; it does not exclude other hungry mouths. In the present context it implies the messianic priority of Jesus’ ministry to Israel to his ministry to the Gentiles, particularly, as we suggested earlier, with regard to teaching about the kingdom of God. But the priority of Israel in Jesus’ mission does not imply the exclusion of the Gentiles. The Servant of the Lord must first “restore the tribes of Jacob,” and then be “a light to the nations” (Isa 49: 6; also 42: 1; 61: 1-11). The choice of kynarion implies the dogs are house pets; that is, they belong to the household and will be fed along with the children. Indeed, the analogy of the children and dogs suggests a relationship to Jesus himself, for who might be the “father” who feeds the children —and their dogs —if not Jesus? The woman’s reply to Jesus in v. 28 shows her understanding and acceptance of Israel’s privilege. 15 Indeed, she appears to understand the purpose of Israel’s Messiah better than Israel does. Her pluck and persistence are a testimony to her trust in the sufficiency and surplus of Jesus: his provision for the disciples and Israel will be abundant enough to provide for one such as herself. Mark provides a clue to this understanding in the Gk. chortazō (NIV, “eat all they want”). This word occurs only twice elsewhere in Mark, in the feedings of the five thousand (6: 42) and four thousand (8: 4, 8). In its present location, the word bridges Jesus’ feeding of the Jews (6: 31-44) and his subsequent feeding of the Gentiles (8: 1-10). When dogs eat crumbs from the table they do not rob children of their food; they simply eat what is theirs from the surplus of the children.” (James R. Edwards, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According To Mark, 4179-4205 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; William B. Eerdmans’ Publishing Company)

The Jews sometimes referred to the Gentiles as “dogs” in the sense that the Gentiles were in need of the guidance and teaching of the Law of Moses. Jesus used this same description (which was clearly familiar and not considered offensive to this mother who was seeking Him).

Along these lines, consider also the Aramaic contributions to this topic. While the New Testament is written in koine Greek, the people in Jesus’ day in and around Jerusalem likely also spoke some in Aramaic (a form of Hebrew). When we consider some of the Aramaic bearing on this passage, we learn some other powerful lessons. One Hebrew scholar has pointed out:

“Exodus 11: 7: “But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any person or animal.’ Then you will know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.” Matthew 15: 25-28: “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.” “Rabbi Judah said in the name of Rav, ‘It is forbidden for a person to eat before feeding his animals as it is written in Deuteronomy 11: 15, ‘I will give grass in your fields for your animals,’ and only afterward does the Torah say, ‘And you will eat and be sated.’” The Talmud Gittin 62a Neither shall you eat any meat that is torn by beasts in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs (Exodus 22: 30). This is to teach us that Gd does not deprive any creature of its just reward. Because the dogs did not bark at the Israelites when they came out of Egypt (see Exodus 7: 11) Gd said: Give them their reward. Taken from the Shemot Midrash Rabbah We are always reminded that man’s best friend is his dog. As any canine lover knows, the word God spelled backward is dog. In fact, in the Hebrew, the word dog is kalav which, if you consider the letter Kap as a preposition and the root word as lev, you have kalav, dog, meaning like a heart. In Genesis 1: 26, we learn that God gave humans dominion over animals. In English, the word dominion means to have sovereignty or control. In other words, we are to rule over them. But our Christian translators assumed that the word dominion comes from the root word radah. Jewish scholars argue that the root word is yired. There is a big difference, for yired has the idea of lowering yourself to show respect and honor. We are to respect God’s creation and honor it. Yesterday I drove a veteran to the veteran’s hospital. He is a former Army Ranger who served in the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. He was assigned to be a dog handler. He trained his dog Nature to sniff out mines and then took him out to minefields to help his unit clear out mines. I asked jokingly if the dog was given a military rank. He said, of course, his dog did have a military rank, and he was an E-7 Sargent First Class, a senior non-commissioned officer. I then ask what this veteran what his personal rank was, and he said he was an E-6, a Staff Sargent, which is a Junior non-commissioned officer. His dog outranked him; Nature was one grade above him. I learned that the military always gave a dog a rank at least one grade higher than his handler. You see, as a higher-ranking officer, any mistreatment of the dog will result in severe disciplinary action for the handler, on the same level as if he mistreated any superior human officer, thus ensuring the dog is being treated well within the military. When I was told this, I could not help but think of the passages of Scripture quoted at the beginning of this study and the quote from the Talmud, which teaches that one is to feed his animals before he would feed himself to show respect and honor for his animals. I often wondered about the story in Matthew 15, where Jesus literally called a desperate mother seeking healing for her daughter a “dog.” Then Jesus considered this Gentile woman as having great faith by saying that the dogs eat the crumbs from the table of a Jew. Well, if you understand Jewish tradition and teaching, you realize that Jesus was impressed with this Gentile woman’s knowledge of the Jewish faith and Scripture. Note Jesus told this Gentile woman that it was not meet to take the bread of children and give it to dogs. The word “meet” in Hebrew is shapir which is a word used for the placenta. The placenta is a temporary embryonic and later fetal organ that begins developing the cell mass that forms the embryo. The placenta connects the fetus to the umbilical cord. What Jesus was saying is that the Jews are going to give birth to Christianity or the church and that it was not yet time for the Gentiles. But this Gentile woman showed her knowledge of the Jewish faith and oral tradition that taught one should feed his animals before themselves. Just as Sargent Nature outranked his handler, so too God allowed this Gentile to outrank the Jews. Jesus came to the Jews first to fulfill the prophecy of a Messiah, and they were His primary focus, yet He was also committed to ensuring that the Gentiles were protected, just as the military affords protection for its animals by giving them a higher rank.” (Chaim Bentorah, Aramaic Word Study II: Discover God’s Heart In The Language Of The New Testament, 186-188 (Kindle Edition): Travelers Rest, SC: True Potential, Inc.)

Jesus used a word of affection for the Gentiles when speaking with this woman. It was a word that implied a loved animal that was to be taught and encouraged, which is how the Old Testament described the role that God had entrusted to the Jewish people in guiding the Gentiles. Sadly, the Jewish people had largely forsaken this responsibility in Jesus’ day, but their unfaithfulness would not keep Jesus from doing His work!

The Aramaic demonstrates that Jesus was showing this woman that her request would be fulfilled, and that Jesus was using her faith in Him as an object lesson for both His Apostles and for the Jews of His day and age. Her faith in Jesus was rewarded and her daughter was healed, and manly of the Jewish and Gentile peoples became followers of the Son of God!

When I meditate upon the courage and perseverance of this woman, I see a great example of a godly mother. Here was a woman who was willing to brave hostile territory and people in order to seek the Savior for the wellbeing of her child. Isn’t this what godly mothers do? Aren’t’ we blessed in this life when we have godly mothers? And doesn’t this serve as an encouragement for us to recognize and honor godly mothers, and encourage women to strive to be godly mothers?

Years ago, I found this beautiful tribute to mothers. I am not sure who wrote it, but am so thankful for it!

Tribute To Mothers

(Anonymous)

The young mother set her foot in the path of life. “Is the way long?” she asked. And her guide said, “Yes, and the way is hard. And you will be old before you reach the end of it. But the end will be better than the beginning.” But the young mother was happy and she would not believe that anything could be better than those years. So, she played with her children, she gathered flowers for them in the way, and bathed them in clear streams; and the sun shone on them and life was good, and the young mother said, “Nothing will be lovelier than this.” The night came, and the storm; the path was dark, and the children shook with fear and cold; and Mother drew them close and covered them with her mantle, and the children said, “Oh, Mother, we are not afraid, for you are near and no harm can come.” The mother said, “This is better than the brightness of the day, for I have taught them courage.”

And the morning came, and there was a hill ahead, and the children climbed and grew weary, and the mother was weary, but at times she said to the children, “A little patience and we are there.” So the children climbed and when they reached the top, they said, “We could not have done it without you, Mother,” and the mother, when she lay down that night said, “This is better than the last, for my children have learned fortitude in the face of hardness. Yesterday I gave them courage– today I gave them strength.”

And the next day came strange clouds– clouds of war and hate and evil, and the children groped and stumbled; and the mother said, “Look up. Lift up your eyes to the light.” And the children looked and saw above the clouds an Everlasting glory, and it guided them and brought them beyond the darkness. “This is the best of all,” she said, “for I have shown my children–God.”

And the days went on, and the years– and Mother grew old and bent. But her children were strong and walked with courage. And when the way was hard, they helped their mother; and when she was very rough, they lifted her, for she was light as a feather. At last they came to a hill beyond which they could see a shining road and golden gates flung wide. The mother said, “I have reached the end of the journey and I know the first, for my children will walk alone. The children said, “You will walk with us.” And they watched her go alone and the gates closed after her. It was said, “We cannot see her, but she is still with us. A mother like ours is more than a memory. She is a living presence.”

If we will have the courage and faith of this mother, then we find ourselves with the salvation and friendship of the Savior Jesus Christ.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.