Comments on: So…

By: Idara A

Idara A — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:52:38 +0000

Good day,
I’ve heard this verse preached before about the exchange between Jesus and the woman so I can’t say that remember being caught off guard. The way I had grown up in the word, from an elementary level emphasis was always put on God being the God of the Jews but now through His son Jesus the Gentiles were given the opportunity to als be called His children. Verses like these were common in illustrating the God of all, or for lack of a better term, an equal opportunity God. Of course I didn’t fully grasp what it all meant as a child but it sounded good to me. The part in the verses cited that stood out for me the most was verse 24:

“Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret.”

As my small group (gathering?) could probably tell you, I was always a little unsettled when any verse in the Bible seemed show Jesus with limitations. I would wonder: If He’s God how could He have any limitations? Why didn’t He have the ability to keep His presence secret if he wanted it? If He knew that the things He had done would get out anyway, why tell people not to speak of it? Why not try a different tactic that is sure to work in keeping the people silent?

A few things occur to me. There are things in our daily life that God often tells us to do (or to not do) and more often than not we get it wrong. Not because we purposefully want to disobey God, but because sometimes we allow our own enthusiasm or interpretations of what we think He wants for us to block our ears. God never forces us to obey Him, He just asks us to. But luckily (and as we can also see in His scripture) He is a God of second (and third and fourth and fifth and sixth etc…) chances and despite how many times we mess up God can still make a way. His will can still be done. Jesus was fully man and therefore lived with the hinderances that we all live with as man (or woman.) However, also being fully the God, His ultimate will, to die on the cross for our sins, was done.

It does make me think, if everything Jesus did on Earth was all within His capabilities as man, how far outside of our capabilities are we operating?

This is what my conversations and ponderance with God has produced, I’m really interested to hear other thoughts on v. 24.

By: Brian Robinson

Brian Robinson — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:54:34 +0000

OK, Keri,

Time to slam you for your lame explanation…

Just kidding! I agree with you- social status is the heart of the issue. In Philippians, Paul calls the Judaizers “dogs,” in essence turning their own words about Gentile Christians who haven’t converted to Jewish practices back on the Jews themselves.

The woman’s willingness to see beyond the first words of Christ and continue to “ask, seek, knock” showed her faith and Christ responded by casting out the demon (or, as it’s rendered in the Greek, the “politician”- same thing, really…).

By: Keri Starr

Keri Starr — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:43:07 +0000

and just because i didnt fully explain myself…
From my understanding dogs were not a domesticated animal during this time…by calling her a dog he is referring to her social status-a Gentile.

By: Keri Starr

Keri Starr — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:48:13 +0000

This passage is also similar to the one found in Matthew 15:24-27.
This does come across as harsh at first however, I do not believe He meant it to be that way. When he called her a “dog” he wasn’t necessarily calling her a dog…it was speaking to her status. The “children” are the children of God, the Chosen people. In the Matthew passage, Jesus says, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”. So i think in essence Jesus was saying He couldn’t take the goodness that was meant for the chosen people of God and give it to just anyone. However, upon further reading the woman calls Him Lord, and shows her faith to Him, by quickly responding, “but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” She proved she believed Jesus is the Savior and that she had faith in Him.

By: Travis

Travis — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:48:06 +0000

This is yet again an example of an outsider simply hearing about Jesus and their life being changed. Someone should count up the number of times in the Gospels when someone hears about Jesus, comes to Him, and has their life radically changed. Craig can do a series about all those stories and call it, “Rumors:How hearing about Him changed lives”.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:48:45 +0000

This post is making me look forward to Thursday night even more.

By: Shanna

Shanna — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:46:41 +0000

“she took her sue”…. sorry, that’s meant to be “cue”.

By: Shanna

Shanna — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:42:38 +0000

Wow, when I first read that, all I could think was, “Wow, that’s a little harsh Jesus!” but then I did some research. Yeah, it still sounds a bit harsh, but the word that Jesus uses for “dogs” is not a negative one. He’s not calling her a dog in the sense of a scavenger (a word sometimes used by the Jews to refer to Gentiles), but instead he’s using the term to refer to a household pet. The woman is not overly sensitive, she took her sue and added to His analogy of pets under a family dining table and she just runs with the analogy like a pro! Her attitude was expectant and hopeful, not hypersensitive. She knew what she wanted and she believed Jesus could provide healing for her daughter. We can learn from this woman’s singular purpose and optimistic resilience.

This also goes back to how He came for the Jews first, then the Gentiles. Which makes sense because He was a Jew and what better people to reach out to first than your own. But in dying for everyone, He made it so that everyone could come to Him and be saved, regardless of Jew or Gentile.