Matthew 15:27

15:21-28 The dark corners of the country, the most remote, shall share Christ's influences; afterwards the ends of the earth shall see his salvation. The distress and trouble of her family brought a woman to Christ; and though it is need that drives us to Christ, yet we shall not therefore be driven from him. She did not limit Christ to any particular instance of mercy, but mercy, mercy, is what she begged for: she pleads not merit, but depends upon mercy. It is the duty of parents to pray for their children, and to be earnest in prayer for them, especially for their souls. Have you a son, a daughter, grievously vexed with a proud devil, an unclean devil, a malicious devil, led captive by him at his will? this is a case more deplorable than that of bodily possession, and you must bring them by faith and prayer to Christ, who alone is able to heal them. Many methods of Christ's providence, especially of his grace, in dealing with his people, which are dark and perplexing, may be explained by this story, which teaches that there may be love in Christ's heart while there are frowns in his face; and it encourages us, though he seems ready to slay us, yet to trust in him. Those whom Christ intends most to honour, he humbles to feel their own unworthiness. A proud, unhumbled heart would not have borne this; but she turned it into an argument to support her request. The state of this woman is an emblem of the state of a sinner, deeply conscious of the misery of his soul.

The least of Christ is precious to a believer, even the very crumbs of the Bread of life. Of all graces, faith honours Christ most; therefore of all graces Christ honours faith most. He cured her daughter. He spake, and it was done. From hence let such as seek help from the Lord, and receive no gracious answer, learn to turn even their unworthiness and discouragements into pleas for mercy.

27 . yet the dogs eat of the crumbs ] “Yet,” of the E. V., is misleading. Translate “ for even; ” the woman takes Jesus at his word, accepts the name of reproach, and claims the little share that falls even to the dogs. No need to cast the children’s bread to the dogs, for even the dogs have crumbs from the Master’s hands. the crumbs ] Probably as in E. V., not, as Trench suggests, the pieces of bread used by the guests to wipe their hands on and then thrown to the dogs. their masters’ table ] The “Masters” must be interpreted to mean God, not, as by some, the Jewish people.

Matthew 15:27 . ναί , κύριε · καὶ γὰρ , etc.: eager assent, not dissent, with a gleam in the eye on perceiving the advantage given by the comparison = Yes, indeed, Lord, for even, etc. Kypke cites an instance from Xenophon of the combination ναί καὶ γὰρ in the same sense.— ψιχίων , dimin. from ψίξ , a bit, crumb, found only in N. T. (here and Mark 7:28 , Luke 16:21 T. R.), another diminutive answering to κυνάρια = the little pet dogs, eat of the minute morsels. Curiously felicitous combination of ready wit, humility and faith: wit in seizing on the playful κυνάρια and improving on it by adding ψιχία , humility in being content with the smallest crumbs, faith in conceiving of the healing asked as only such a crumb for Jesus to give.

(27) Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs. —The insertion of the conjunction “for” in the Greek gives it a force which it is hard to reproduce in English, “Yet grant what I ask, for the dogs under the table . . .” The woman catches at the form which had softened the usual word of scorn, and presses the privilege which it implied. She did not ask that the “children” might be deprived of any fragment of their portion; but taking her place, contentedly, among the “dogs,” she could still claim Him as her Master, and ask for the “crumbs” of His mercy. The Talmud contains a story so singularly parallel to this that it is worth reproducing. “There was a famine in the land, and stores of corn were placed under the care of Rabbi Jehudah the Holy, to be distributed to those only who were skilled in the knowledge of the Law. And, behold, a man came, Jonathan, the son of Amram, and clamorously asked for his portion. The Rabbi asked him whether he knew the condition, and had fulfilled it, and then the supplicant changed his tone, and said, ‘Nay, but feed me as a dog is fed, who eats of the crumbs of the feast,’ and the Rabbi hearkened to his words, and gave him of the corn.”

Matthew 15:27 . Ναὶ , yea ) The woman seizes upon the appellation κυνάρια , for she says immediately, καὶ γὰρ , which must be rendered, for even (etenim). The particle ναὶ partly assents, partly as it were places on our Lord’s tongue the assent to her prayers, i.e. prays. The word is thus used in Philemon 1:20 , and Jdt 9:12 .[699]— ἘΣΘῚΕΙ , eat ) since the children often waste their bread.— ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων , of the crumbs ) She does not say the morsels , nor the bread .— τῶν πιπτόντων , which fall ) in opposition to λαβεῖν καὶ βαλεῖν , to take and cast , in the last verse. She asks for it as a favour, essential to herself, injurious to no one.— ἀπὸ , from ). She does not ask to be admitted to the table, but implies that she was not far distant from it. Her nation was contiguous to Israel.— τῶν κυρίων αὐτῶν , of their masters ) This indicates the prerogative of the children , and vet a certain tie of connection (necessitudinem) with them on the part of the little dogs . The language of the Canaanitess corresponds with the curse addressed to Canaan, Genesis 9:26 : “ A servant of servants shall he be,” etc. [699] Such modes of pleading she could not have learned from books by anticipation. The Spirit of faith supplies the best forms of prayer.—V. g.

Matthew 15:27 . Ναί , as in Matthew 11:9 ; Matthew 11:26 , confirms the whole statement of Jesus in Matthew 15:26 (not merely the appellation of dogs, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Maldonatus); and καὶ γάρ means, as everywhere in the New Testament, and even to a far greater extent among classical writers (who use it but rarely in the sense of namque , καί consequently is connective), for even ; see especially, Kühner, II. 2, p. 855. It gives a reason for the ναί ; but it is quite according to rule to regard τὰ κυνάρια as the expression to which καί is meant to give prominence. Consequently the passage would run thus: Yes, Lord , Thou art right in what Thou sayest, for even the dogs eat of the crumbs , and so on; or, to express it negatively (with οὐδὲ γάρ ): for even the dogs are not sent away empty, and so on. That is to say, this καί , so far as can be seen from the context, cannot be intended to serve any other purpose than to suggest a comparison between the κυνάρια and the τέκνα , so that the passage may be paraphrased as follows: Thou art right, Lord; for not merely the children are filled with bread at the family-meal, but—so richly is the table spread— even the dogs receive their share, inasmuch as they eat of the fragments , and so on. It would therefore be but the more unseemly to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs, so as possibly to leave the former unfed.

But in thus justifying her ναὶ , κύριε , the woman seeks to suggest the inference to our Lord that He might yet venture to give her that which is hinted at in those ψιχία with which the κυνάρια have to be contented. Of course by this she means a share of His abundant mercy, after the wants of Israel have been fully supplied. Following Grotius and Kuinoel, de Wette explains incorrectly: For it is even usual for the dogs to get nothing but the fragments . In that case we should have expected to find: καὶ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων ἐσθίει , κ . τ . λ . Fritzsche (comp. Bleek, Schegg) is likewise wrong when he explains thus: Yes, Lord, it is allowable to give the bread to the dogs, for , and so on. As against this view we have not merely ναί , which can only be taken as a confirming , a justifying of what Jesus had said, not simply the ignoring of καὶ γάρ , which it would involve, but also the “repugnandi audacia,” which is not to be excused in consideration of the κύριε , and the meaning itself, which would certainly not bear out the idea of a contradiction on the part of the woman. But if there is one thing more than another that must not be associated with the tender language of this woman, it is the appearance of anything like contradiction. Finally, all interpretations are wrong which would necessitate our having ἀλλά instead of καὶ γάρ (Chrysostom, Luther, Vatablus, Glöckler, Baumgarten-Crusius).

Mark reports it to the same sense, Mark 7:28 . She goeth on after three repulses, the last of which was not without a reproach, for our Lord had implicitly called her a dog. These words are as much as if she had said, Lord, I confess the Jews are children; I am a dog, a poor heathen, no proper member of the household of God; and it is truth that it seemeth unreasonable that I, being a dog, should be served before all the children are filled. Lord, I do not beg such a full manifestation of thy power and goodness for the Gentiles. I beg but a crumb of mercy for myself and poor child; and, Lord, though we do not use to give our loaves prepared for our children to the dogs that feed under our table, crumbs of our children’s bread, as Mark expresses it, yet we suffer our dogs to gather them up. Lord, I know thou hast a plenty of grace and blessing, the children may be filled, and yet I may have some crumbs. Three things are remarkable in her answer, besides her faith so eminently expressed. 1. Her humility; she owneth herself a dog. 2. Her modesty; she begs no more than a crumb. 3. Her fervency and importunity after three repulses. By this we learn our duty in prayer, to go to God humbly, to implore him modestly, and to be instant in prayer, going on in our duty, though we have not presently such an answer as we desire. These things, conjoined with faith, make an acceptable prayer.