The Pulpit Commentary — Mark — Volume 1 — Section 326

Or is it dislike and contempt for a descendant of a sinful and accursed race? And yet she must have heard of his compassionate kindness and tender pity, as also of the ready relief he was in the habit of granting to every son and daughter of affliction. She must have heard, from all who told her of him, that no applicant had ever met with repulse or refuse.I at his hand. Is she to be an exception? Will he not con- descend to take the slightest notice of her? Another sore discouragement arose from the inconsiderate and unsympathetic conduct of the disciples, who came forward and actually besought him to dismiss her. "Send her away," they said, "for she crieth after us "-send her away at once (,bro;\.vuov, aorist imperative), and get rid of her annoyance; it is troublesome and even indecorous to have her following us, and painful to have to listen to her crying after us in this fashion. Either dismiss her summarily or grant her request, that, one way or other, we may get rid of her. Even if we understand the disciples in this latter sense, as asking their Master to give her what she wanted and let her go, it was a cold selfishness that prompted it, and an ungracious spirit that thus wished to be done with her importunity as speedily as possible. 'fheir interference, however, had only the effect of drawing forth in reply a reason for refusal. When our Lord did break silence, it was only to indicate the circumscribed sphere of his present mission, and thus to imply her exclusion: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." It appears to some that even in this refusal there was a faint gleam of hope, and that this despised woman of Cana.an might have replied,-Though not of the house of Israel, yet I am a lost sheep, and greatly need the Good Shepherd's care; and though he has not come specially on an errand of mercy to my race or me, yet I am come in quest of him and to seek bis favour. But another obstacle, seemingly more formidable, bars the way. '!'here had been silence and seeming indifference; there had been a refusal, and that backed by a reason-a strong reason, and one that did not admit of any questioning; and now there is reproach-apparent reproach. This sorrowful woman, in this her direst extremity and the darkest hour of her misery, summoned up all her strength of resolution to make one final effort ; and coming closer to the Saviour, and with still greater reverence as well as earnestness, she "worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me." And yet, the reply to all this profound respect and unflagging importunity appeared at least to be of the most discouraging character, and in fact the unkindest cut of all: "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs." VII. HEB PERSEVERANCE AND HUMILITY. Her perseverance was truly wonderful, and her humility was equal to her perseverance. She turns the seeming slight into an argument. Our Lord, in the similitude he employs, does not refer to the wild, ferocious, gregarious dogs of the East, that are owned by no master, but prowl about for food, and that supply, in some sort, the place of street-scavengers. He refers to young or lit de dogs (Kvv&pu1), and to children, or little children (,rc116/wv), and the friendly relations that are well known to exist between them, denying the propriety of defrauding the &hildren of food in order to feed even their canine pets-to take their bread and cast it to, dogs (where observe the paronomasia in M,{Jeiv and {JaJl.ew). "Yes, Lord: for indeed the little dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs." The proverbial expression implied (1) the impatience of dogs desirous of food; and (2) the impropriety of taking the ~read intended for children and giving it to dogs before the children had got their portion; consequently (3) the injury of conferring benefits on one to the detriment of others, n~d prematurely before the claims of those others had been properly met and fully satisfied. Such might be the feeling of the Jews, if the Gentile stranger should step in~o _some privilege before they had received their proper place and promised share. The opm1on of Theophylact, and of many besides, that the Gentiles are meant by the- dogs, because they are looked upon as unclean by the Jews, or the narrower notion oi Chr;rsostom, that this woman herself is stigmatized by the name of dog from her persistence and blandness of entreaty, are unnecessary, if not unwarranted. Tho appropriateness of the provr 1rb, and of the mode of treatment it implied, is admitted by this woman wk...> gives it a most felicitou11 turn and favourable interpretation on her own behalf. She frankly and fully admits the reasonableness of supplying food to the children first, but insists at the same time on the humane principle and considerate practice of allowing the little dogs tu eat the crumbs that fell accidentally, or were let fall on purpose, beneath the table. She r.cccptcd the situation thus indicated; she was 324 THE GOSPEL ACCOR.DING TO ST. MARK. [cu. VIL 1-37,