More Christlike Than Christ? Uncovering the Real Message in the Canaanite Woman’s Encounter
We all know that Christianity has a really poor track record of actually loving people, but for those of us who still have a connection with it, it’s because of, well, Jesus.
Despite the faults of those of us who call ourselves followers of Jesus—and certainly the institutions themselves—even people who aren’t Christians usually say they like Jesus himself.
But there’s one story that can make that challenging for some of us.
If you know it, you might already be thinking of it: the story about Jesus and the Canaanite (Syrophoenician) woman from Matthew 15 and Mark 7.
Matthew 15 refers to her ethnic identity as Canaanite, and Mark 7 refers to her by the region where she lived. Either way, it’s emphasizing that she’s a Gentile. She’s the other.
And it looks like Jesus treats her like she’s complete garbage. At least until she earns his respect, and he changes his mind.
That’s not the Jesus we usually think of.
In fact, I personally know someone who was wrestling with their spirituality, trying to reconcile their own values of love and respect and treating people with dignity and helping those who were suffering with the active participation in causing that suffering they saw as fundamental to Christianity.
The one thing helping this person not just toss it all out was Jesus.
Then they read this:
21 Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”(Matthew 15:21-27 NRSVue)
Jesus seemingly snubs and insults her, even though her daughter was suffering, and she is desperate for help—just like countless others Jesus had no problem helping before.
It was too much, the last straw, the nail in the coffin. My friend rejected their identity as a Christian and their affiliation with Jesus. It was the loving thing to do.
No, seriously, it’s courageous and respectable AF. This person really did the most Christlike thing possible in the situation. They were willing to endure their own hardship for the sake of loving those who most needed love. It cost them their identity, their close-knit community, and even their home, which housed people in that Christian community.
So why does my friend seem to be more Christlike than Christ in this situation?
Well, I could give you all the cultural and historical reasons why it wasn’t really as bad as we think, but they’re never really satisfying. I’ve never heard anyone wrestling with this passage say, “Oh, well, if that’s the case, then I can really see how good it is what Jesus is doing!”
No. It’s never satisfying to read Jesus ignore someone pleading for help and then call them a dog as his reason for ignoring them.
But I want to show you something I discovered as I was translating this passage. I want to show you how the most popular English translations all make it say exactly the opposite of what it means.
This is one of those times where I’m acutely aware that I’m just a guy and people are completely justified in doubting that I would magically have the better and somehow opposite translation of all the many well-studied and peer-reviewed professionals.
You don’t have to take my word for it. If you have resources, whether it’s someone who studies Greek or even ChatGPT, fact check this.
The main difference is in verse 27. I’ll show you my translation and how one change making it far more literal and accurate than the usual translation makes all the difference.
Here’s my rendering of the passage:
21 After leaving that place, Jesus went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 Notice what comes next: A Canaanite woman from that land came outside and cried out, pleading, “Lord! Son of David, have compassion for me. My daughter is tormented by demons!”
23 However, Jesus didn’t respond a word to her. His students went up to him and asked him, “Tell her to go away because she’s following and calling to us.”
24 In response, Jesus said, “I was only sent to the house of Israel’s forsaken sheep.”
25 Then she approached and bowed down to him. She pleaded, “Lord, help me!”
26 Jesus responded, “It’s not appropriate to take the children’s food and toss it to the family pets.”
27 “Yes, lord,” she replied, “That’s because the pets eat the scraps that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus answered her, “Madam, your trust is impressive! May what you hope for happen,” and her daughter was restored from that moment on.
I know, it’s still hard to read without cringing, but if you’ve made it this far, stay with me. The most significant change is in verse 27. Let’s focus on that before filling in the gaps.
Here’s how eight of the most widely used translations handle it:
KJV: And she said, "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
ESV: She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
NASB: But she said, "Yes, Lord; but please help, for even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
NIV: "Yes it is, Lord,” she said, "Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table."
NLT: She replied, "That’s true, Lord, but even dogs are allowed to eat the scraps that fall beneath their masters' table."
NET: "Yes, Lord,” she replied, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table."
NRSVue: She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
CEB: She said, “Yes, Lord. But even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall off their masters’ table."
That last one, the Common English Bible, is gaining popularity though is probably the least well known of the bunch. It’s usually far and away my favorite of these. It still gets it wrong here. (There are actually two significant ones that do much better, but I’ll save that for later.)
I want to show you what the Greek actually says here, and then we can talk about why it matters.
Here it is in Greek lettering:
ἡ δὲ εἶπεν· ναὶ κύριε, καὶ |γὰρ| τὰ κυνάρια ἐσθίει ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων τῶν πιπτόντων ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης τῶν κυρίων αὐτῶν.
And here it is transliterated into the English alphabet:
Hē de eipen: Nai, Kurie, kai gar ta kunaria esthiei apo tōn psichiōn tōn piptontōn apo tēs trapezēs tōn kuriōn autōn.
The two words of focus are kai gar. If grammar rules make your eyes glaze over, just skim this part. If you’re interested in the data behind what I’m asserting, here it is.
Kai can be translated most commonly as ‘and,’ ‘also,’ ‘even,’ or ‘indeed.’ It can be used to contrast things, like ‘but’ or ‘yet,’ but it’s much less common.
Gar can be translated as ‘for,’ ‘since,’ ‘because,’ or ‘indeed.’
I’ll try not to go into too much grammar detail, but Greek has something called the second position rule, meaning that even though gar is the second word in the clause, it’s really starting the thought. All translators know and use this rule.
So what you see in all the translations above is that they are translating gar as ‘yet’ or ‘but’ and kai as ‘even.’ Or they’re ignoring gar (which some might argue being appropriate) and translating kai as ‘but even.’
However, ‘but’ is NEVER a meaning of gar. To translate gar as ‘but’ can only be incorrect. Even if they’re ignoring the second position rule, and translating it as ‘even’ that puts them in the same boat. It does not ever mean ‘even.’
And kai only rarely means ‘but.’ It also doesn’t typically mean ‘even’ in the way most of us read it, as an unlikely inclusion. It is used as the older or less common meaning of ‘even’ in English, which is emphatic or specifying what is being referred to.
Therefore, there is no situation when it is an acceptable translation for kai gar to be translated as ‘but even.’ None.
To make it worse, there is a rule about what putting them together means, especially directly following an affirmative, which it does here.
In "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics," Daniel B. Wallace provides information about the combination of gar and kai. According to Wallace:
"γάρ (gar) is a causal conjunction meaning 'for,' 'because,' or 'since,' and it typically introduces a clause that explains the reason for the preceding statement. When combined with καὶ (kai), as in καὶ γάρ (kai gar), the phrase adheres to the Second Position Rule in Koine Greek, where γάρ must occupy the second position in the clause. This combination often follows an affirmative statement to provide a clear and emphatic reason or explanation for that statement."
(Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 48)
So, not only can the words not mean ‘but’ (ever) and ‘even’ (in this context) independently, but also, they do consistently and frequently join forces to clarify when there is an emphasis on causation.
***If you glazed over, you can come back now***
So, in contrast to ‘but even’—which it can never mean—it clearly means instead an emphatic “BECAUSE.”
And that’s why I translated it as “That’s because.”
So, how does that change things?
Let’s look at it all together again:
26 Jesus responded, “It’s not appropriate to take the children’s food and toss it to the family pets.”
27 “Yes, lord,” she replied, “That’s because the pets eat the scraps that fall from their master’s table.”
Jesus is not contemptuously calling her a dog and saying she doesn’t deserve anything because she’s not from Israel. He’s using the image of children and their pets to talk about appropriateness, purpose, and timing. The word for ‘dog’ here is an affectionate term for puppies or pet dogs, not the word for feral dogs that appears elsewhere. Even that word for feral dogs was not used as an insult in Greek the way it is used in English.
He's essentially saying, “That’s not why I’m here right now.” He’s addressing her with the rhetoric of a teacher, affording a Gentile woman the same respect he affords Jewish men, with the expectation that she is smart enough to follow the conversation.
Then the real impact is in her response. She does in fact understand what he’s saying, and she asserts that what he says is true precisely because there’s already a plan for the puppies to be provided for.
There’s enough to go around. Giving the leftovers to the pets doesn’t take anything away from the children. The woman asserts that Jesus helping her won’t take away from what he does for Jewish people. Fear of scarcity is what drives oppression, and this woman reminds Jesus of his own message: the Heavenly Reign is about providing and including people in abundance, not excluding people to protect ourselves from scarcity.
Of course, she’s right, and Jesus affirms that. He gives her the same response he gave to the Gentile Centurion in chapter 8.
In fact, that’s the whole point of including this story in Matthew and Mark. It’s wedged between two stories of miraculous provision where food abounded and there were plenty of leftovers: the feeding of the 5,000 and the feeding of the 4,000.
The 5,000 were in a Jewish region, and the 4,000 were in a Gentile region. The point of Matthew 14-15 is to show that Jesus abundantly provides for everyone—Jews and Gentiles both. This story is part of that.
It shows us Jesus already fulfilling what Paul defines as the good news in Galatians 3:8: that through Abraham’s seed (whom he identifies as Christ), “All peoples will be praised as worthy” (LIT).
Why, then does he ignore her in the beginning? I honestly don’t know. My guess is that he’s not planning to stop for anyone in that moment, that he was on his way somewhere else and he was lost in thought or that in his mind it wasn’t the right time.
My guess is that it’s an issue of appropriate time and place, not whether this particular woman and her daughter are worthy. But I don’t really know. I do know what the point of the story overall is, and it’s such good news. Women and foreigners are included in a story the gatekeepers only wanted to be for Jewish men. Jesus busts it wide open.
As we discussed earlier, love and care for those who need it most is essential—not because God tells us to, but because it’s what makes us good humans. This passage fully affirms that.
But translation matters, and when translations obscure the actual meaning of the text for whatever reason—I suspect it was just started with the King James and everyone else just followed suit without questioning it—it’s a real problem and it creates evil rather than the loving justice that Jesus was and is all about.
By the way, I mentioned there are two translations out there other than mine that handle it better. I’m sort of surprised but not really. They are the NABRE (a widely used Catholic translation) and the CSB (the primary translation of Baptist denominations). Check them out if you’re interested. I’ve been pleasantly and routinely surprised by the CSB.
With all this in mind, I’m curious: What do you see in the passage now? What else are you wrestling with? What concerns still linger, whether with the passage or with my train of thought about it? What might you be finding that actually seems like good news?
