Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 15:27 - 15:27
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_15:27. Ναί , as in Mat_11:9; Mat_11:26, confirms the whole statement of Jesus in Mat_15:26 (not merely the appellation of dogs, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Maldonatus); and καὶ γάρ means, as everywhere in the New Testament, and even to a far greater extent among classical writers (who use it but rarely in the sense of namque,
καί consequently is connective), for even; see especially, Kühner, II. 2, p. 855. It gives a reason for the ναί ; but it is quite according to rule to regard τὰ κυνάρια as the expression to which καί is meant to give prominence. Consequently the passage would run thus: Yes, Lord, Thou art right in what Thou sayest, for even the dogs eat of the crumbs, and so on; or, to express it negatively (with οὐδὲ γάρ ): for even the dogs are not sent away empty, and so on. That is to say, this καί , so far as can be seen from the context, cannot be intended to serve any other purpose than to suggest a comparison between the κυνάρια and the τέκνα , so that the passage may be paraphrased as follows: Thou art right, Lord; for not merely the children are filled with bread at the family-meal, but—so richly is the table spread—even the dogs receive their share, inasmuch as they eat of the fragments, and so on. It would therefore be but the more unseemly to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs, so as possibly to leave the former unfed. But in thus justifying her ναὶ , κύριε , the woman seeks to suggest the inference to our Lord that He might yet venture to give her that which is hinted at in those ψιχία with which the κυνάρια have to be contented. Of course by this she means a share of His abundant mercy, after the wants of Israel have been fully supplied. Following Grotius and Kuinoel, de Wette explains incorrectly: For it is even usual for the dogs to get nothing but the fragments. In that case we should have expected to find: καὶ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων ἐσθίει , κ . τ . λ . Fritzsche (comp. Bleek, Schegg) is likewise wrong when he explains thus: Yes, Lord, it is allowable to give the bread to the dogs, for, and so on. As against this view we have not merely ναί , which can only be taken as a confirming, a justifying of what Jesus had said, not simply the ignoring of καὶ γάρ , which it would involve, but also the “repugnandi audacia,” which is not to be excused in consideration of the κύριε , and the meaning itself, which would certainly not bear out the idea of a contradiction on the part of the woman. But if there is one thing more than another that must not be associated with the tender language of this woman, it is the appearance of anything like contradiction. Finally, all interpretations are wrong which would necessitate our having ἀλλά instead of καὶ γάρ (Chrysostom, Luther, Vatablus, Glöckler, Baumgarten-Crusius).
The reason why we find Jesus, Mat_15:26, and consequently the woman also, Mat_15:27, making use of the diminutive κυνάρια (a classical term, Plat. Euthyd. p. 298 D; Xen. Cyr. viii. 4. 20, although discarded by Phrynichus, p. 180), is because His idea is that of a family-meal, in connection with which it was not unnatural to think of the little house-dogs that ran about under the table (comp. τραπεζῆες κύνες , Hom. Il. xxiii. 173). The plural τῶν κυρίων may be ascribed to the fact that, in what she says, the woman is understood to be stating what is matter of general experience.