Why Did God Do That?
by RIH
In the 15th chapter of Matthew (recounted again by Mark) is an interesting account of an encounter between Jesus and a Gentile woman. The account begins: And, behold, a woman of Canaan (Mark describes her as a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation) came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil”. But he answered her not a word.
It would seem that even though she is begging Him to do what He easily could, Jesus shows no compassion and is simply ignoring her pleas and suffering. The account continues: And his disciples came and besought him, saying, “Send her away; for she crieth after us.” But He answered and said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
The principal of Jew first then the Greek would seem to apply, but this is not the first time a non-Jew had sought Jesus’ help. For example: Matthew 8 (Mark 7) recounts the request by a Roman centurion (a non-Jew) for Jesus to heal his servant. It would be a mistake to assume the servant was a Jew, that the centurion was of the Jewish faith or that Jesus responded because of the centurion’s position and good deeds - the passages do not provide any information of that sort. Nor would it be proper to assume Jesus’ response was because Jewish elders conveyed the request – the one making the request (centurion) was a Roman soldier whose faith however is contrasted with that of the Jews. The account of the Gentile woman continues.
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.” Here is the most startling statement in the whole account. Jesus, a man of compassion for the suffering - whose harsh statements have been reserved for the self righteous and faithless – has, by allegory, called the woman a dog. While the Greek term used properly means little (perhaps domesticated) dog rather than the more reproachful term used in Matthew 7 (dogs, swine) – it most certainly is not a term of endearment. In fact, the entire statement is a rebuke, almost an insult - a declaration that it would be dishonorable (not meet) to give something good (cast) to someone unworthy (dogs). That the woman did not respond with anger or turn away humiliated but did respond as she did is itself both interesting and revealing.
Perhaps her response even answers the question, “Why Did He Do That?”
Consider: the account appears totally out of character for Jesus, an anomaly that is not fully explained by His eventual healing of her daughter. To suggest the account has been recorded incorrectly is not worthy of comment; nor is the suggestion that Jesus needed to be persuaded worthy of discussion. Both dishonor the Holy Spirit and Jesus. Rather, consider that the disciples wanted to send her away; she was a Gentile and an annoyance. Would they have agreed that she should be ignored and finally ‘put in her place’ as Jesus did? Perhaps so. Therefore, is it possible that Jesus’ behavior was actually preparation to ‘make a point about faith’ as He so often did? But wouldn’t it have been a risk to treat the woman as He did, she might have turned away. On the other hand, considering all the occasions when Jesus knew the very thoughts of others, knew events before they occurred, is it possible that He knew she would respond, “Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” so that the self righteous and arrogantly pious of His disciples - and we - could see the result of humble faith? Is that – perhaps -
“Why He Did Do That”?
___________________________
