Dogs still getting the crumbs?

[duxrow]

He told her "It isn't right to give the Children's food to the DOGS", Mark7:27.
The "Children" were the 'Children of Israel', the Jews, and the "Dogs" were the Gentiles, and this Syrophenician (Greek) woman was appealing to him for healing for her daughter.
Rather than being insulted, and taking offence at being called a dog, she
replied that "Even the dogs get the crumbs under the table", Matt15:27. This
story is only found in Matthew and Mark, and she probably wasn't aware that
Jesus was the True Bread and source of the crumbs, but he definitely liked her persistence and faith, and her daughter was healed in absentia.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

He told her "It isn't right to give the Children's food to the DOGS", Mark7:27.
The "Children" were the 'Children of Israel', the Jews, and the "Dogs" were the Gentiles, and this Syrophenician (Greek) woman was appealing to him for healing for her daughter.
Rather than being insulted, and taking offence at being called a dog, she
replied that "Even the dogs get the crumbs under the table", Matt15:27. This
story is only found in Matthew and Mark, and she probably wasn't aware that
Jesus was the True Bread and source of the crumbs, but he definitely liked her persistence and faith, and her daughter was healed in absentia.

What do you think Jesus would have said if she took offense at being called a "dog?" Would he have apologized?

[Beck]

What do you think Jesus would have said if she took offense at being called a "dog?" Would he have apologized?

Is that apart of the Male Bias?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Is that apart of the Male Bias?

I don't know .... but this issue made me think of how we think of Jesus so differently than anyone else. Anything the Bible says he did is automatically OK. No one could imagine that he would apologize for anything he said or did. And I guess I can understand why. I mean, he called her a dog and then miraculously healed her child, so his idea that she was a "dog" must be validated by his ability to heal.

Or .... or maybe Jesus didn't really say that. We can't know because the parallel accounts in Matthew and Mark say he said different things, and they can't both be correct. So maybe it reflects the prejudice of the first century Jew who wrote it.

[duxrow]

We all play that "What If?" game, but I accept the story as from the Holy Ghostwriter himself and believe the account is there for OUR benefit, further endorsing the Two Covenants: for the Jew first, and then the Gentile.
As for any "differences", I see them as None being the whole truth, but the HG laying them out in different accounts so we could put 2 and 2 together. Even then, there are details we can only IMAGINE, and hope it's all saved on tape for us... ha :wink: