Crumbs

Still in the story of the Gentile woman who's daughter is demon-possessed, there is a very interesting twist that involves the spirit and the letter of the law. The letter of what Jesus says is found in two statements. "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."  That sounds pretty exclusive. Only means only, doesn't it?  His mission target was laid out as were other aspects of the mission. For instance in the next chapter (Matt.16) Jesus told his apostles that he MUST go to Jerusalem to suffer and die, at which Peter rebuked Jesus and told Him "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to you." You remember the counter-rebuke of Jesus calling Peter "Satan" for not minding the things of God, but the things of men. Well, isn't our present case the same? It is God's will for Jesus that He go ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Doesn't that prevent Him from going to others, to Gentiles and Samaritans? Well, He has already gone to the Samaritans (John 4). He has already told His apostles to go ONLY to the towns of the Jews (Matt.10) which is consistent with God's will for Jesus' earthly ministry. God sets the parameters of the mission. God commands and Jesus is to obey. Jesus came to do the will of His Father who sent Him, not His own will, right? So why didn't Jesus just explain this to the woman? He tried, it seems.

Next He says, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." That pretty much settles it. "It is not good." The word "good" has three meanings: 1) Good as to quality and character; 2) Good as to its effect or influence (useful, profitable); 3) Good in the moral sense, i.e. virtuous. So in which sense is it not good for Jesus to give this women the children's bread. I don't like my choices. Since Jesus does give her bread He is going to be guilty of violating one of these standards of goodness, and that prospect does not seem good to me. Was the pressure too great for Jesus? Was the woman too persuasive (you know women can be persuasive!)? Was Jesus caving? How could Jesus say something was "not good" and do it anyway? I recall when Jesus asked if it were lawful to do good or evil on the Sabbath day, to save life or destroy? (Mark.3:4) But what was the higher "good" in this case, i.e. to not give the children's bread to a Gentile, or to heal a little girl who was suffering? Wow!  Is Jesus trapped? Does He follow the letter or the spirit of the law?

The answer comes in two ways. The word ONLY can mean primarily. Jesus did come primarily to the Jews, and his ministry was primarily to them, but not exclusively. The mystery of Jews and Gentiles being one in Christ( Eph.2-3) and Jesus bringing both parts of His flock together (John 10) was certainly in the will of God. But God's strategy was the Jew First (primarily) and also the Greek. The second key to understanding this passage is that the woman did not expect the loaf but the crumbs. She understood, it seems in some way, that Jesus' primary mission was not to her. So instead of asking for the Jewish share, she asked for crumbs. It was NOT GOOD to give her the loaf, but it was GOOD to give her the crumbs, and the crumbs of Jesus are sufficient to heal her daughter. Jesus certainly was within the spirit of the law, and did not get trapped by the letter of it.