Context
It is an insult.
Please don’t try to explain away Jesus’ words here by saying that they wouldn’t have been insulting in Jesus’ day or that Jesus was just trying to test the woman’s faith. His words were insulting and, in some ways, they are even more pointedly insulting (with potential to cause harm) because of Jesus’ time.
Background
R. Alan Culpepper has a phenomenal (longer) breakdown of the history but here is a good introductory paragraph to the struggle and tension of this text.
“Tyre was originally an island, but Alexander the Great built a causeway from the mainland to attack the city in 332BCE. After his victory, ruins were used to enhance that causeway. Although Tyre enjoyed a strong economy, it had to import produce from Galilee, the breadbasket of the region. In times of plenty, the exchange was mutually beneficial, but in crisis or famine, the prosperous Tyreans were able, literally, to buy bread off the Jews’ tables. During one such period, the people of Tyre and Sidon sought a reconciliation with Herod Agrippa I “because their country depended on the king’s country for food” (Acts 12:20). As a result, the Jews of the area resented the (more affluent) gentile “dogs,” who bought grain grown in Galilee. Josephus even names the Tyreans among the Jews’ bitterest enemies (Ag. Ap. 1.70).”[1]
So, I want to pause for a moment. As I mentioned all the way back in Advent, Matthew is never afraid of leaning into tension. He leans into it with the genealogy and the inclusion of four “scandalous” women who move the story of God forward. He leans into it with the unorthodox birth narrative with Mary and Joseph. He leans into it with the healing of the Roman Centurion and the calling of Matthew the tax collector. Matthew is absolutely leaning into tension here and it is because the purpose of Jesus’ ministry has to be broken open.
Culpepper notes, “This account almost certainly reflects debates in the Matthean community in which some refused to preach or minister to a gentile, possibly appealing to Jesus’ instruction to the disciples in 10:5.”[2]
To this point in Matthew, Jesus has only come for the “chosen people of Israel.” He told the disciples to go nowhere among the gentiles when sending them out. The Sermon on the Mount and much of his teachings have all been internal arguments that the Jewish authorities were having at the time. While there are some outliers and while there has been significant tension, the vast majority of the ministry has been centered on Israel.
But now, with this encounter, Matthew is breaking the ministry wide open: can gentiles receive the salvation God promised to Israel?
**There is an additional reference in Matthew that ensures that this is an insult (just in case you haven’t believed me yet). In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine.”
So, I want to lean into the humanness of Jesus for a moment. Yes, we can preach on this as a moment when Jesus changes his mind (and it will make people very uncomfortable). But before we go there, we need to acknowledge an additional piece of humanity. This response from Jesus is coming from a place of hurt and anger. This is an insult that the Jews’ used toward their oppressors, the people that literally bought the food off their table. Jesus, being from Galilee (after they return from Egypt), would have felt this cycle in his own life. He would have known that the bread of that region would have gone to Tyre and Sidon. He would have remembered breaking the bread for his hungry people just a couple chapters ago. That there wasn’t enough until he had to intervene. “I have come for the lost sheep of Israel” … ‘For those who don’t have enough. For those who can’t afford what you can.’ The woman before Jesus becomes the target, a representative of an entire group of people from whom Jesus has experienced pain and even developed animosity. In calling the Canaanite woman a dog, he is trying to drive her away. He is calling her an oppressor for whom he has no affinity, connection, or love. He sees who he believes this woman represents rather than seeing this woman as an individual in need. If Jesus is fully human, then the insidious nature of learned hate can be imbedded within him as well.
Culpepper expounds upon her response well. He writes, “The woman’s response cleverly transposes Jesus’ pronouncement into a picture of children with pet dogs under the table. The diminutive (kynaria) may indicate house dogs rather than yard dogs. Whether Jesus’ use of the diminutive signals this distinction or not, the woman picks up on it, replying, literally, “Yes, Lord, for even the little dogs eat the little crumbs that fall from the table of their masters.” The address, “Lord,” three times, may be a confession rather than merely a term of respect, especially since she earlier addressed Jesus as “Son of David.” There is no indication that she has taken offense at the implied slur. Instead, she takes the potential inherent in Jesus’ saying and turns it to her advantage. Certainly, the bread is for the children, but even so, there are crumbs for the dogs under the table. Her persistence is like that of the centurion (8:5-13) and the hemorrhaging woman who pressed to touch Jesus’ garment (9:20-22). All three challenged conventional assumptions.”[3]
In her response, in her persistence, Jesus is forced to look at her, not just as a Tyrean and an enemy, but as a human being. In seeing her—really seeing her—as someone in need and in hearing her brilliant response, he can’t help but then remember all those that he’s healed and fed before. Were there not leftovers in those baskets that they collected after the feeding? Is there not enough love and grace to go around? While it has nothing to do with this story and is a completely different writer, I can’t help but think of the Ethiopian Eunuch asking Philip in Acts 8, “What is to prevent me from being baptized?”
Tradition – Name for the Canaanite Woman
“Inevitable, legends grew up around the unnamed Canaanite woman…The Pseudo-Clementines claim that the woman, named Justa, lived faithfully according to the law, and her daughter, Bernice, married a man of “the true faith” (2.19-20; 3.73 [ANF 8:232]).[4]
Preaching Possibilities
So, I want to be honest with you. I’m going to be wrestling with what the “takeaway” will be all week. Part of that is because I know that people are going to get really squirmy about Jesus being mean, maybe having some hate in him, AND (maybe scariest of all for some) that he changes his mind. And yet, I don’t think there is a way to faithfully preach this text without that being a large part of what Matthew is trying to say. It may be scary to us but it’s not scary to Matthew.
If we connect this with the first portion of the passage, Jesus illustrates that it is what came from his mouth and his heart that “defiles”. His anger/hatred for the Tyreans prevented him from seeing a Beloved Child of God in need and he said the most hurtful thing he could to her.
Next week we are going to hear what I think is the climactic moment of Matthew’s Gospel for the church, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Matt 16:19).”
After all these encounters, Jesus is telling us that we, as humans are going to be faced with our humanity. We are going to have biases and learned hatred from our communities that will prevent us from seeing the Belovedness of our neighbor. And we will be able to bar people on this earth from hearing the love and grace of God.
Usually I say that we, as preachers and as congregations, should be wary of seeing ourselves in Jesus’ sandals. But today, is an exception to that rule. How have we looked past those who are calling for help because we see them as our enemy? Have we thrown insults? Have we ignored?
Were there not leftovers in those baskets that they collected after the feeding? Is there not enough love and grace to go around?
Whatever we bind. Whatever we loose.
[1] R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew, 295.
[2] Culpepper, 295.
[3] Culpepper, 297.
[4] Culpepper, 297.
Micah Krey 
Leave a comment