Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 15:26
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.
26. to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs ] The “children” are the Jews; the “dogs” are the Gentiles. This was the name applied by the Jews to all outside the chosen race, the dog being in the East a symbol of impurity. St Paul, regarding the Christian Church as the true Israel, terms the Judaizing teachers “dogs,” Php 3:2. Christ’s words, as reported by St Mark (ch. Mar 7:27), contain a gleam of hope, “Let the children first be filled.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 26. The children’s bread] The salvation provided for the Jews, who were termed the children of the kingdom. And cast it to the , little dogs – to the curs; such the Gentiles were reputed by the Jewish people, and our Lord uses that form of speech which was common among his countrymen. What terrible repulses! and yet she still perseveres!
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark saith, Mar 7:27, Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled; for it is not meet, &c. By the children here he means the Jews, by the dogs he means the heathen. The Jews are called the children of the kingdom. Israel is called Gods son, his firstborn, Exo 4:22. The apostle, Rom 9:4, saith, to them belonged the the adoption. By bread here our Saviour means the publication of the gospel, and the miracles by which the truth of the doctrine of it was confirmed; by dogs he means the heathen, whom the Jews did count as dogs, no members of the household of God: it was a term of contempt, 2Sa 3:8; 2Sa 16:9; 2Ki 8:13. When our Saviour saith,
It is not meet he means it is not just, nor equal.
Objection: How came it then that the gospel was ever carried to the Gentiles?
Mark expounds our Saviours meaning, or rather gives us an account of our Saviours words, more perfectly: Let the children first be filled; for it is not meet, &c. The Jews are Gods children, a people whom he chose out of all the nations of the earth, to whom he gave many privileges; it is his will the gospel should be first preached to them, and then to the Gentiles. Gentiles are as dogs, of whom God hath not taken such a care; but they shall have their time. Only it is not consonant to my Fathers will that the gospel, and the miracles by which it is confirmed, should be exhibited unto you Gentiles, till it hath been fully preached to the Jews, and they be first filled with the sound, and with the confirmations of it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
But he answered, and said,…. To the woman, as the Persic version reads it, and the sense requires:
it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs; which he said, to try her faith the more, and make it the more illustrious; and that not so much from his own sense of things, as in the language of the Jewish people, and which she might not be a stranger to. By “the children”, are meant the Jews, to whom the adoption belonged; who, as a nation and people, were the children of God in a large sense; being distinguished by many blessings and favours, which others had not, and being under the more peculiar care and notice of God; not that all of them were the children of God by special grace: by “the bread”; which belonged to them, is meant the external ministry of the word, and the miracles of Christ wrought among them: and particularly such outward favours which related to the good of the bodies of men, by healing their diseases, and dispossessing them of devils: and by “the dogs” are designed the Gentiles, so called by the Jews in a way of contempt, because of their ignorance, idolatry, and impurity. Christ here speaks not his own mind, as if he reproached the Gentiles, and held them in scorn and contempt, but uses the common dialect of the people; and which, this woman, living upon the borders of the Israelitish nation, was acquainted with; so that it was not so shocking and surprising, or quite so discouraging, as it would otherwise have been. The Jewish doctors say k, that the idolatrous Gentiles are not called men, that they are comparable to the beasts or the field l, to oxen, rams, goats m, and asses n: the foetus in the bowels of a Canaanitish servant, they say o,
“ymd hmhb yemb dlwk, “is like the foetus in the bowels of a beast”.”
Take the following passage, as an illustration of this, and as a further proof of the Jews calling the Gentiles dogs p.
“A king provides a dinner for the children of his house; whilst they do his will they eat their meat with the king, and he gives to the dogs the part of bones to gnaw; but when the children of the house do not do the king’s pleasure, he gives the dogs the dinner, and the bones to them: even so: while the Israelites do the will of their Lord, they eat at the king’s table, and the feast is provided for them, and they of their own will give the bones to the Gentiles; but when they do not do the will of their Lord, lo! the feast is , “for the dogs”, and the bones are their’s.”
And a little after,
“”thou preparest a table before me”; this is the feast of the king; “in the presence of mine enemies”; , “these are the dogs” that sit before the table, looking for their part of the bones.”
In which may be clearly discerned the distinction between children and dogs, and the application of the one to the Jews, and the other to the Gentiles, and the different food that belongs to each: and hence it is easy to see from whom Christ borrowed this expression, and with what view he made use of it.
k T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 114. 2. Zohar in Exod. fol. 35. 4. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 1. 4. l Zohar in Gen. fol. 31. 1. & 34. 1. 2. m Jarchi in Gen. 15. 10. n T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 68. 1. o lb. fol. 69. 1. p Zohar in Exod. fol. 63. 1, 2. Vid. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 147. 4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Children ‘s [ ] . Bengel observes that while Christ spoke severely to the Jews, he spoke honorably of them to those without. Compare Joh 4:22.
Dogs [] . Diminutive : little dogs. In ver. 27, Wyc. renders the little whelps, and Tynd., in both verses, whelps. The picture is of a family meal, with the pet house – dogs running round the table.
Their masters. The children are the masters of the little dogs. Compare Mr 7:28, “the children ‘s crumbs.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
26. It is not seemly. Christ’s reply is harsher than ever, and one would think that he intended by it to cut off all hope; for not only does he declare that all the grace which he has received from the Father belongs to the Jews, and must be bestowed on them, otherwise they will be defrauded of their just rights; but he disdainfully compares the woman herself to a dog, thus implying that she is unworthy of being a partaker of his grace. To make the meaning plain to us, it must be understood that the appellation of the children’s bread is here given, not to the gifts of God of whatever description, but only to those which were bestowed in a peculiar manner on Abraham and his posterity. For since the beginning of the world, the goodness of God was everywhere diffused—nay, filled heaven and earth—so that all mortal men felt that God was their Father. But as the children of Abraham had been more highly honored than the rest of mankind, the children’s bread is a name given to everything that, relates peculiarly to the adoption by which the Jews alone were elected to be children The light of the sun, the breath of life, and the productions of the soil, were enjoyed by the Gentiles equally with the Jews; but the blessing which was to be expected in Christ dwelt exclusively in the family of Abraham. To lay open without distinction that which God had conferred as a peculiar privilege on a single nation, was nothing short of setting aside the covenant of God; for in this way the Jews, who ought to have the preference, were placed on a level with the Gentiles.
And to throw it to the dogs. By using the word throw, Christ intimates that what is taken from the Church of God and given to heathens is not well bestowed. But this must be restricted to that time when it was in Judea only that men called on God; for, since the Gentiles were admitted to partake of the same salvations—which took place when Christ diffused everywhere the light of his Gospel—the distinction was removed, and those who were formerly dogs are now reckoned among the children. The pride of the flesh must fall down, when we learn that by nature we are dogs At first, no doubt, human nature, in which the image of God brightly shone, occupied so high a station that this opprobrious epithet did not apply to all nations, and even to kings, on whom God confers the honor of bearing his name. (418) But the treachery and revolt of Adam made it proper that the Lord should send to the stable, along with dogs, those who through the guilt of our first parent became bastards; more especially when a comparison is made between the Jews, who were exempted from the common lot, and the Gentiles, who were banished from the kingdom of God.
Christ’s meaning is more fully unfolded by Mark, who gives these words, Allow the children first to be satisfied He tells the woman of Canaan that she acts presumptuously in proceeding — as it were, in the midst of the supper — to seize on what was on the table. (419) His chief design was, to make trial of the woman’s faith; but he also pointed out the dreadful vengeance that would overtake the Jews, who rejected an inestimable benefit which was freely offered to them, and which they refused to those who sought it with warmth and earnestness.
(418) This is probably an allusion to Psa 82:6, I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are CHILDREN OF THE MOST HIGH. — Ed.
(419) “ De vouloir ainsi mettre la main sur la table des enfans, au milieu de souper;” — “in wishing thus to put her hand to the children’s table in the midst of the supper.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(26) To cast it to dogs.The word used was diminutive in its form, and as such pointed not to the wild, unclean beasts that haunt the streets of an Eastern city (Psa. 59:6), but to the tamer animals that were bred in the house, and kept as pets. The history of Tobias and his dog, in the Apocrypha, furnishes the one example in Biblical literature of this friendly relation between the dog and his master (Tob. 5:16).
The answer has, even taking this into account, a somewhat harsh sound, but it did not go beyond the language with which the woman must have been familiar, and it was probably but a common proverb, like our Charity begins at home, indicating the line of demarcation which gave a priority to the claims of the family of Israel to those of strangers. We may well believe that there was no intentional scorn in it, though it emphasized an actual distinction.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
26. It is not meet Not fitting. It is not in the order which God has established. Children’s bread dogs The original is little dogs; so that with the contempt, there is a tenderness in the epithet. Yet our Lord begins to recognize in her a Gentile that may prove an Israelite indeed if fully tested. He therefore puts her in a most humble place, to see if she has an humble, though a Gentile heart.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he answered and said, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” ’
So He turns to the woman and says, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” The picture is vivid. The family is sitting at their meal with the family dogs lying underneath. Would it be right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs? We cannot doubt that He Himself has in mind here the bread with which He had fed the five thousand and more at their ‘family’ meal, and its deeper significance as offering life to Israel. But the woman will recognise more that He is talking of the spiritual food which He offers to the Jews (compare Isa 55:2). It is the equivalent of ‘salvation is of the Jews’ (Joh 4:22). Nor, however, can we doubt that His demeanour encouraged her to reply. She would see hope from the smile on His face and the compassion in His eyes.
We must not see ‘dogs’ as demeaning, except in so far as they indicated the difference between those who thought rightly, in contrast with the heedless (compare the idea of the son of man and the wild beasts in Daniel 7). The point Jesus is making is of non-relationship. The dogs are not part of the family. And the woman recognises it for what it is. He is telling her that they have no relationship to the master of the house, and therefore have no right to food from the table. (It is in fact doubtful as to how far Gentiles were generally seen as ‘dogs’ at this time, and how far the idea grew up later, but compare Mat 7:6).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 15:26. It is not meet to take the children’s bread, &c. The Jews gloried greatly in the honourable title of God’s children, because of all nations they alone knew and worshipped the true Jehovah: they gave the name of dogs to the heathens for their idolatry and other pollutions, by which they had in their judgment degraded themselves from the rank of rational creatures. By this appellation the Jews intended to mark the impurity of the Gentiles, and their odiousness in the sight of God; at the same time conveying an idea of the contempt in which they were held by the holy nation: though in some respects it was applicable, it must have been very offensive to the heathens. Nevertheless, this good woman neither refused it, nor grudged the Jews the honourable title of children: she acknowledged the justness of what Christ said, and, by a strong exercise of faith, drew an argument from it, which the candour and benevolence of his disposition could not resist.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 15:26 . It is not allowable (see critical notes) to take ( sumere , circumstantial way of putting it, not: to take away ) the bread belonging to the children and cast it to the dogs , a general proposition for the purpose of expressing the thought: I must not allow the Gentiles to participate in my blessings, belonging as they do only to the people of Israel (the children of God, Rom 9:4 ). Jesus speaks “ex communi gentis loquela potius quam ex sensu suo” (Lightfoot); for it was the practice among the Jews to designate heathens (and subsequently, Christians also) as dogs ; see Lightfoot and Wetstein, likewise Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth . I. p. 713 ff. For the diminutive, see note on Mat 15:27 . In this passage it is intended to mitigate the harshness of the expression.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.
Ver. 26. And to cast it to dogs ] To whelps, saith St Mark. a So he calls her bitch, her daughter whelp. This might have easily damped and discouraged her. But she was that well-resolved Christian, whose part Luther saith it is to believe things invisible, b to hope for things deferred, and to love God when he shows himself most angry with him, and most opposite to him. Our Saviour was no sooner gone from this Canaanitess, but he heals the deaf and dumb man (though far weaker in faith than her) at first word, Mar 7:33 ; Mat 15:30 , the Galileans no sooner laid their sick and lame friends at his feet, but he cured them without any more ado. He is “a God of judgment,” Isa 30:18 , and knows how and when to deal forth his favours. He lays heaviest burdens on the strongest backs and proportions our afflictions to our abilities, holding us off for deliverance till he finds us fit for it, and giving us hearts to wait and want it till his time is come.
a , catellis, ut maiore contemptu loqui videretur. Beza.
b Credere invisibilia, sperare dilata, et amare Deum se ostendentem contrarium. Luth.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
26. ] No further contempt is indicated by the diminutive , still less any allusion to the daughter of the woman: the word is commonly used of tame dogs, as diminutives frequently express familiarity. So in Xen. Cyr. viii. 4. 20, , , .
Mat 15:26 . , etc.: seemingly a hard word, but not so hard as it seems. First, it is not a simple monosyllabic negative, leaving no room for parley, but an argument inviting further discussion. Next, it is playful, humorous, bantering in tone, a parable to be taken cum grano . Third, its harshest word, , contains a loophole. does not compare Gentiles to the dogs without, in the street, but to the household dogs belonging to the family, which got their portion though not the children’s.
meet = fair.
the children’s bread = the bread of the children, with emphasis on children. Figure of speech Enallage. App-6.
children’s. See App-108.
dogs = puppies, or little household dogs; this is true only of such. Dogs are not cared for (in the East) when grown. The Lord used the Figure of speech Hypocatastasis (App-6), implying that she was only a Gentile, and thus had still no claim even on that ground. Gentiles were known as “dogs” by the Jews, and despised as such (Mat 7:6; 1Sa 17:43. 2Sa 3:8; 2Sa 9:8. 2Ki 8:13. Php 1:3, Php 1:2).
26. ] No further contempt is indicated by the diminutive, still less any allusion to the daughter of the woman: the word is commonly used of tame dogs, as diminutives frequently express familiarity. So in Xen. Cyr. viii. 4. 20, , , .
Mat 15:26. , the childrens) Our Lord spoke severely to the Jews themselves, but honourably of them [to those without]; see Joh 4:22. Thus we, concerning the Evangelic Church. , to little dogs[697]) who are not worthy to receive it. But yet , the word employed by our Lord, is a diminutive, and Jesus thereby gives a handle to the woman to take hold of Him. Midrasch Tillim.[698] says, The nations of the world are like dogs.
[697] Diminutives are used as terms of endearment. Therefore probably here means the household dogs-pet dogs.-ED.
[698] i.e. Allegorical Commentary on the Psalms, a Rabbinical work of high repute among the Jews.-(I. B.)
Even the third effort was seeming likely to be abortive. Yet she did not give over.-V. g.
It is not: Mat 7:6, Mar 7:27, Mar 7:28, Act 22:21, Act 22:22, Rom 9:4, Gal 2:15, Eph 2:12, Phi 3:2, Rev 22:15
dogs: [Strong’s G2952], “to the little dogs,” lap dogs, etc., the diminutive of [Strong’s G2965], a dog. The Jews, while they boasted of being the children of God, gave the name of dogs to the heathen, for their idolatry, etc.
Reciprocal: 2Sa 9:8 – a dead dog Isa 56:3 – The Lord hath Mat 8:8 – I am Luk 15:19 – make
5:26
Jesus made his answer much more in the nature of an argument in figurative form. Dog is from KUNARION which Thayer defines, “a little dog.” No special disrespect was intended to her personally by this term, for it was commonly known that the Jews were regarded as God’s children, and the Gentiles would logically be in a lower class. Besides, Jesus knew the heart of the woman whose faith he was drawing out, and purposely furnished her the illustration by which she could make one of the most touching appeals I have ever known. With all this in view, he compared the Jews to God’s children, the favors he was bestowing on them to the bread provided by the Father, and the Gentiles to the little dogs that might be playing at the feet of their master.
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and cast it to dogs.
[To the dogs.] By this title the Jews, out of spite and contempt, disgraced the Gentiles, whose first care it was to hate, to mock, and to curse, all beside themselves. The nations of the world [that is, the heathen] are likened to dogs. From the common speech of the nation, rather than from his own sense, our Saviour uses this expression, to whom ‘the Gentiles’ were not so hateful, and whose custom was to speak with the vulgar.
This ignominious name, like a stone cast at the heathen, at length fell upon their own heads; and that by the hand and justice of God directing it: for although they out of pride and contempt fixed that disgraceful name upon the Gentiles, according to their very just desert, the Holy Spirit recoiled it upon themselves. See Psa 59:6; Phi 3:2; Rev 22:15; etc.
Mat 15:26. It is not meet. The reply is not harsh, nor is it a refusal (Mark: Let the children first be fed). It calls forth the womans faith, and convinces the disciples that it is proper to bless this heathen woman.
To take (lit., to take away) the childrens bread. All present understood this as referring to the blessings provided for the Jews.
To the dogs, lit., little dogs. A reference to the large savage dogs so common in the East, would be very contemptuous; household dogs are meant; a sense the woman skilfully used.
Observe here, the seeming severity of Christ to this poor woman; he calls her not a woman but a dog: and as it were spurns her from his feet with an harsh repulse. Did ever so severe a word drop from those mild lips? What shall we say? Is the lamb of God turned a lion? That a woman in distress, imploring pity, yea, a good woman, and an humble supplicant, should be thus rated out of Christ’s presence for a dog!
Learn hence, that Christ puts the strongest faith of his own children upon the severest trials; the trial had never been so sharp, if her faith had not been so strong. Usually, where God gives much grace, he tries grace much.
Verse 26
Meet; suitable or proper. The blessings of the Savior’s ministry were designed, specially, for the Jewish nation; and this woman was a foreigner.
Jesus again clarified the difference between Jews and Gentiles to challenge her. Parents normally feed their children first. The house dogs get whatever might remain. God, of course, was the Person providing the spiritual Bread of Life to His chosen people, and the dogs were the Gentiles, as the Jews regarded them popularly.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)