Pharisees and scribes came to him from Jerusalem. They did not come because they were amazed at the power in Jesus that healed people even if they only touched the edge of his cloak.^[1] Instead, they came with a faultfinding attitude and brought an accusation before the teacher. The accusation did not concern the transgression of a commandment of God but rather the transgression of one tradition of the Jewish elders. Probably the charge of the faultfinders itself displays the piety of the disciples of Jesus, because they offered no grounds at all for criticism by the Pharisees and scribes in regard to transgressing the commandments of God. The Pharisees and scribes would not have brought the charge of transgressing the commandment of the elders against the disciples of Jesus if, indeed, they were able to get a firm hold on the ones who were being accused and were able to show that they were transgressing a commandment of God.

It says that the Pharisees and scribes came to him then. When? When he had worked thousands of signs, when he had healed the sick with the touch of his tassel.^[1] It is for this reason that the Evangelist indicates the time, so that he might show that their unspeakable wickedness is second to none. But what is intended by the phrase the scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem? They were scattered everywhere throughout the tribes and were divided into twelve parts. But the ones who were in charge of the mother city were more wicked than the others, because they enjoyed more honor and had become extremely arrogant.

Now consider with me how they are convicted even by the very act of asking the question. For they do not say, Why do they transgress the law of Moses? Instead they say, Why do they transgress the tradition of the elders? From this it is clear that the priests were instituting many new practices, even though Moses with great fear and with dreadful words had commanded that one should neither add nor take away anything. For he says, Do not add to this word that I am commanding you today, and do not take away from it.^[1] But this did not at all stop them from instituting new practices. The issue here provides an example: eating with unwashed hands, which they thought unlawful. They focused inordinately on the outward rites of washing cups and things made of bronze and the rules for washing themselves. By this time they should have been released from needless observances. God’s timing had moved forward to that point. But just at that point they bound people up with many more observances. Why did they turn things upside down? Because they were afraid that someone might take away their power. They wanted others to be more afraid of them. They themselves had become the lawgivers. The issue of transgressing the traditions of the elders had gotten so inverted that they were insisting that their own commandments be kept even if God’s commandment was violated. They exercised so much obsessive control that the issue finally became a matter of formal legal accusation. But the indictment would instead fall against them in two ways. They themselves were instituting new practices and were devising punishments in regard to their own observances while placing no value on those instituted by God.

Among other observations, some of the Jewish elders ruled that a person should not take or eat food unless he first washed his hands. This observation, however, reveals a particular custom that is human and produces no beneficial effect. Therefore this tradition of the elders is practically useless, for it does not benefit a person’s health. No justification is gained from this tradition, and no harm is done in disregarding it. For God is not concerned whether a man washes his hands before eating but whether he has kept his heart washed and his conscience clean from the filth of sin. Truly, what good is it to wash your hands and to have a defiled conscience? The Lord’s disciples were clean of heart and were guided by an untainted conscience. Hence they were not overly concerned with washing their hands. They had washed them once in baptism with their whole body, in accord with our Lord’s words to Peter: He who has bathed needs only to wash, and he is clean all over, as you are clean.^[1]

The Savior summarized and explained two commandments of the law, one from the Decalogue in Exodus, the other from Leviticus or one of the other books in the Pentateuch.^[1] We have already described how they set aside the word of God that says, Honor your father and your mother. They say, One should not honor one’s father or mother if one has said to one’s father or mother, ‘Anything by which you might have derived benefit from me has been dedicated as a gift to God.’ But now someone might ask, Is not the next statement just an unrelated addition when it says, Let the one who speaks maliciously against one’s father or mother die under the death penalty. For it may be granted that one does not honor one’s father and mother when one has dedicated by the formula called Corban the things that would be given for the honor of father and mother?^[2] But how does the tradition of the Pharisees also set aside the statement, Let the one who speaks maliciously against one’s father or mother die under the death penalty? Perhaps the answer is that it is just as if one was heaping malicious accusations on one’s father or mother if one has said to them, Anything by which you might have derived benefit from me has been dedicated as a gift to God. It is as if one is saying that the parents are temple robbers if they receive the things dedicated by the Corban formula from the one who has dedicated them by that formula. For this reason if any person’s sons say, Anything by which you might have derived benefit from me has been dedicated as a gift to God, Jews punish them as the law demands as if they were speaking maliciously against their father or mother. But you, Jesus says, are setting aside two commandments of God by your one tradition. Then you are not even ashamed when you accuse my disciples when they are not transgressing any commandment. For they were walking blamelessly in all the commandments and ordinances.^[3]

The scribes were entirely preoccupied with something else. The Lord instead was teaching them to take care of the needs of the body, so long as they were encouraged to cultivate virtue. When the Pharisees observed his disciples unconcerned about washing, they censured him on the grounds that he had not taught them with enough care that it was a matter of utmost importance that they not eat what they had not washed. What reply, then, does the Lord make to this? Why do you transgress the commandments of God for the sake of your tradition? Thus he reframes the question into an even graver accusation. They had not only broken God’s command but also misused it for mistaken ends. The metaphor shifts: God had commanded that parents be honored by their children. That honor was owed to them to such an extent that whichever of their children sinned stubbornly against them merely by word would be condemned.^[1] But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father. You say that it is up to the children whether to honor their parents or not. You imply that a son says nothing out of bounds to a father when he says, I will give a thank offering instead of taking care of you, my own father, and no further care is to be taken of you.^[2] In this way, by your own peculiar traditions, you yourselves are dishonoring the gifts of almighty God.

I have previously quoted^[1] some of the words of Isaiah that precede the verse quoted in the Gospel and some of the words that follow the verse quoted in the Gospel.^[2] In this way we may show the way in which the word promises that it will close the eyes of those of the people who were out of their senses and drunken and who had been given to drink a spirit of stupefaction. The word also promises to close the eyes both of their prophets and their rulers who claim to see the hidden things.

I suppose that these very things happened after the Savior had dwelt with these people. For all the words, the words of the Scriptures in their entirety and also those of Isaiah, became to them as the words of a sealed book. Now the word sealed was said as if the book was sealed with obscurity and not opened with clarity. The book is unclear to those who right from the start are not able to read it simply because they are illiterate. It is also equally unclear to those who are literate because they do not understand the meaning in the things that have been written.

Hence the word rightly adds to these things that the people would fall into unconsciousness because of their sins and would be out of their senses with madness against the word.^[3] The word also adds that the people would be drunk against it with a spirit of stupefaction. The Lord would give them this spirit of stupefaction to drink when he closed their eyes, because they were unworthy of seeing. This would happen to the eyes of both their prophets and their rulers that claimed to see the hidden things of the mysteries in the divine Scriptures. The word says that when all these things had happened and when their eyes had been closed, then the prophetic words^[4] would be sealed and concealed from them. This is exactly what the people experienced along with those who did not believe in Jesus as Messiah.

Did you notice that prophecy agrees exactly with what was said here and that it long ago predicted their evil? For this very thing with which the Messiah now indicts them was also said long ago by Isaiah. Isaiah said that they despise the things of God: They worship me in vain.^[1] But Isaiah also said that they place great value on their own concerns: They teach as commandments the teachings of human beings.^[2] Therefore, it was on reasonable grounds that the disciples did not keep these teachings. Jesus thus strikes them with a mortal blow. He does this on the basis of the circumstances, on the basis of their own covenant to which they had consented, and on the basis of the prophet who had intensified the grounds of the accusation. He does not talk with the scribes at all because they had ceased to accept any more correction. Instead, he directed his message to the crowds so that he could introduce doctrine that is high and great and full of philosophical insight. He took this as his starting point and finally wove in that which was greater, even throwing out the observance of kinds of food. But note when in the sequence of events this happens. When he has cleansed the leper; when he has nullified the Sabbath; when he has displayed himself as king of land and sea; when he has instituted laws; when he has forgiven sins; when he has raised dead people; when he has supplied them with many examples of his deity. It is then that he talks with them about food laws. For all of Judaism is held together by this; and if you take this away, you also have taken away the whole thing.

He does not simply reveal to them what he has to say but first makes his message easy to receive by respect and courtesy. For the Evangelist showed this when he said, Jesus called the crowd to himself. Then he also makes his message easy to receive by its timing. For it comes after the rebuttal of his critics, his victory over them and the accusation cited from the prophet. It is then that he begins the process of instituting a law, when the things that he is saying were even more easily accepted.

In addition, he does not simply call them to himself but also makes them more attentive. For he says, Take notice, that is, Start thinking, wake up. For the law he was about to enact was such that it required attention. For you listened when the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem nullified the law because of their own tradition and at the wrong time. Since this is so, much more should you listen to me as I lead you into a greater philosophy at the appropriate time.

He also did not say, The observance of food laws is nothing, or Moses did a poor job of making laws, or Moses only made these laws as a way of coming down to your level. Instead, he speaks to them on the level of advice and counsel and took the testimony of natural phenomena. He does this when he says, Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man. In this statement he appeals to nature itself both in the process of instituting law and in the process of revealing what he has to say.

Now anyone who has come to this place in the text can agree that it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man, even if it is considered to be defiling by Jews. In exactly the same way it is not what enters into the mouth that makes the person holy. This is so even if that which is called the bread of the Lord is considered to make the person holy by some of the more impeccable disciples. The two cases are similar. It is not the food but the conscience of the one who eats with doubt about its propriety that defiles the person who has eaten. For the one who doubts is condemned if one eats, because one is not eating from faith.^[1] It is also like the case in which nothing is pure to the one who is defiled and unbelieving.^[2] The thing involved is impure not because of itself but because of the person’s defilement and unbelief. In the same way, that which is made holy through the word of God and prayer does not on its own account make the one who uses it holy.^[3] For if it did, it would also make holy the one who eats of the Lord in an unworthy manner and no one would become weak or sickly or would sleep because of this food. For this is what Paul showed in the statement, Because of this many among you are weak and sickly and a significant number are falling asleep.^[4] Therefore, in the case of the bread of the Lord, the one who uses it derives benefit when one shares in the bread with a mind that is undefiled and a conscience that is pure.

We are accused by the Jews and Ebionites^[1] of being violators of the laws that we read in Leviticus and Deuteronomy concerning clean and unclean food. But by means of what is said in this passage we are clearly taught by the Savior not to think that the simple meaning of these laws is the aim intended in the Scripture. For Jesus says, Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a person but that which comes out of the mouth. Especially significant is what is said in the Gospel of Mark: Thus he declared all foods clean.^[2] Since all this is so, it is obvious that we are not defiled when we eat things that are said to be unclean by Jews, who want to serve the letter of the law. Instead, we are defiled when we say whatever happens to be on our mind and we talk about things that we should not talk about, even though our lips should be bound with perception and we should make for them a measuring balance and a standard of measure. The spring of sins comes to us from such talking.

The Lord wanted to show up the uncalled-for offense taken by the scribes and the Pharisees about unwashed hands. So he beckoned the crowd to him and said, What goes into the mouth does not defile a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, that defiles a man. He explained that a man is defiled not from the food that enters his mouth but from the perverse thoughts of his mind, which proceed from his heart. For the food we receive for eating was created and blessed by God to sustain human life. So, it cannot defile a man. Indeed, wicked and perverse thoughts that proceed from the heart, as the Lord himself noted—murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, blasphemy,^[1] the author of which is the devil—these are the things that really defile a man.

The disciples were saying these things not only because they felt pain on behalf of the Pharisees but also because they themselves were a little confused. But since they did not dare to say this out of concern for their own confusion, they hoped to learn further by listening to Jesus’ own elaboration of this issue. To show that this is so, listen to what is said after these things by Peter, who was hotheaded and everywhere arriving before the rest. He says, Explain this parable to us.^[1] By this he reveals the confusion in his soul. He does not dare to say openly, I take offense at this, but he expects that he will be released from his confusion by the interpretation of the parable. So he too was rebuked.

Since the scribes and Pharisees had burst forth in great arrogance and transgressed the divine law, they planted their own precepts but not God’s. They wanted these to be observed as divine law. So, not without good reason, did they too, with this planting of their own doctrine, deserve to be uprooted by the Lord. And so the Lord said, Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Indeed, that plant was not of God but of people. Any iniquitous plant, not only of the scribes and Pharisees but also of all heretics, shall be uprooted by the Lord. Though it may extend its branches of infidelity in due season, it cannot be firmly rooted, for such a plant is not of God but of the devil. Furthermore, it must be uprooted and consigned to perpetual fire, since it yields no fruit of faith and wholesomeness.

Why therefore does Messiah say, Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted? Those who are diseased with the ideas of the Manichaeans say that this was said about the law.^[1] But what Jesus had said before this shuts their mouths. For if he were speaking about the law, why did he earlier make a defense on its behalf and fight for it when he said, Why are you transgressing the commandment of God because of your tradition? And why does he bring in the prophet [Isaiah] in front of everyone?^[2] Contrary to what the Manichaeans say, Jesus says these things about the Pharisees themselves and their traditions. For God said, Honor your father and your mother. This statement from God surely is a plant of God.^[3]

Even what seems to be clear in the Scriptures presents many problems. Christ said, Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Does this mean, therefore, that there will be uprooted also that plant which the apostle speaks of when Paul says, I have planted, Apollos watered? The problem is solved, however, from the words that follow: But God has given the growth.^[1] He also says, You are God’s field, God’s building.^[2] And in another place we read, We are God’s coworkers;^[3] therefore, if we are his coworkers, with Paul planting and Apollos watering, God plants and waters with his workers.

They are blind guides of blind people. Who are these blind guides? The Pharisees, whose minds the god of this age has blinded because they are unbelieving, since they did not believe in Jesus Christ. The god of this age has blinded them so that the light of the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ would not shine on them.^[1] We ought to avoid being guided by those blind persons. Not only should we do this, but we certainly should also listen with caution in the case of those who claim to lead in the way of healthy teaching and ought to apply healthy judgment to what they say. We should do these things so that we ourselves do not appear to be blind because we do not see the meaning of the Scriptures. We would become blind like this if we were guided by the ignorance of people who are blind and people who do not perceive the issues of healthy teaching. If we were led by such people, both the one who leads and the one who is led would fall into the pit.^[2]

He then goes on to say, Let them alone; they are blind guides of blind men. But if a blind man guide a blind man, both fall into a pit. These words were intended to expose the scribes and Pharisees, who were blinded by the error of their unbelief. Not only were they unable to recognize the light of truth—not believing in Christ—but also they were attracting others into the pit of death. Nevertheless the words also apply to heretics.^[1] Denying that Christ is the true light from true light, and God from God,^[2] they too were steeped in blindness. Because of their perverse doctrine, they also proved to be guides and leaders to those adrift.

Without understanding is what the Lord calls those who, like the Pharisees, make a fuss about external matters and have not yet discovered the inner life. Meats, therefore, he says, have to do with filling up the body, but they do not reach into the heart. But that which does not reach to the heart is not able to defile the faithful [genuine] man or cause him to become unclean.

The Pharisees, as Peter made clear, begrudgingly grasped the dictum of the Lord which says, It is not what enters the mouth that defiles a man. God indicated through Moses long ago that not everything about the use of food must be considered clean. He declared that certain things were clean and other things were unclean. But now we must ask why God prohibited the people long ago to eat these things. Since all things created by God to be used as human food were blessed at the very beginning and they remain no less so by their very nature, why is it that divine law later prescribed to the Jewish people certain things as lawful for eating because they were clean and certain things as unlawful because they were unclean? First, precepts of this type were given by the Lord because of the dissipation and immoderate appetite of the people. For since they were overly concerned with eating and drinking, these people began to overlook God’s precepts. They made for themselves a molten calf in Horeb, about which it was written, The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.^[1] Those necessary things were forbidden by the Lord, so that with the best food having been denied and their immoderate appetites mortified, the people might abide more easily by the discipline of divine observance. It was only after their disobedience with the molten calf that we find those things were prohibited. Concerning them, as though to rebuke this stiff-necked people, the Lord made a mild and merciful pronouncement: They shall be unclean to you. Not that they are in themselves unclean, but shall be. Nor did he say to all but to you. He thus made it clear that neither were they unclean nor would they be unclean to people other than themselves. And certainly they deserved this prohibition of many foods, for these people preferred the meats of Egypt, as well as cucumbers and muskmelons, to heavenly manna.

Note how sharply he deals with them and how he delivers his rebuke. He rebukes with a view to their cure. He appeals to our common human nature when he says, Whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and so passes on. Even if it did abide for a while, it would not make one unclean. Yet they were not able to hear this. Because of this the lawgiver allows just so much time for the law to have effect. After it has gone through one’s system, it is dispelled. At evening he asks you to wash yourself and so be clean. The time of digesting and excreting is a limited time. But in matters of the heart, they abide within. He is not making a refutation of the goodness of the nature of things. Rather, Jesus is speaking of the difference between what proceeds from the stomach and what proceeds from the heart. One does not remain; the other does. One enters in from the outside. The other goes out from the inside, and having gone forth it may defile, and the more it goes out the more it defiles. They were not yet able to be taught these things.

Out of the heart, he said, come evil thoughts. Therefore the soul or principle of action is not in the brain according to Plato but in the heart according to Christ.^[1] On this point, those who believe that thoughts are introduced by the devil and do not originate from our own will are to be repudiated. The devil can aid and abet evil thoughts but he cannot originate them, even though, ever lying in wait, he kindles a small spark of our thoughts with his tinder. We must not hold the opinion that the devil can also probe the depths of our heart. However, he can judge from our demeanor and gestures what we are thinking about. For example, if he sees us gazing often at a beautiful woman, he surmises that our heart has been wounded with the dart of love.

These things are what defiles the person when they come out from the heart and, after they have gone out from it, go through the mouth. Thus if they did not occur outside of the heart but were held by the person somewhere around the heart, not being allowed to be spoken through the mouth, they would very quickly disappear and the person would not be defiled any longer. Therefore the source and beginning of every sin is evil reasonings. For if these reasonings did not prevail, there would be neither murders nor acts of adultery nor any other of such things. Because of this each one ought to keep one’s own heart with all watchfulness.

To eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man. Let us learn then what are the things that defile the person. Let us learn them and flee from them. For even in the church we still see such a custom prevailing among many that gives great attention to what we are wearing and whether we have our hands washed. But as to presenting a clean soul to God, they make no account. I say wash to what degree is fitting, but above all wash with virtues and not with water only. No one is forbidding the washing of the hands or mouth, but the real filth of the mouth is evil speaking, blasphemy, reviling, angry words, filthy talking, inordinate laughter and immature jesting. If you are not conscious of yourself doing these things or of being defiled with this filth, then draw near with confidence. But if you have often done these things and received these stains, why do you think that washing your tongue with water is going to change anything? You labor in vain to wash it out externally, while you are still inwardly carrying such deadly and hurtful filth.

After our Lord departed from the Jews, he came into the regions of Tyre and Sidon. He left the Jews behind and came to the Gentiles. Those whom he had left behind remained in ruin; those to whom he came obtained salvation in their alienation. And a woman came out of that territory and cried, saying to him, Have pity on me, O Lord, Son of David! O great mystery! The Lord came out from the Jews, and the woman came out from her Gentile territory. He left the Jews behind, and the woman left behind idolatry and an impious lifestyle. What they had lost, she found. The one whom they had denied in the law, she professed through her faith. This woman is the mother of the Gentiles, and she knew Christ through faith. Thus on behalf of her daughter (the Gentile people) she entreated the Lord. The daughter had been led astray by idolatry and sin and was severely possessed by a demon.

She was apparently not from the people of Israel, from whom came the patriarchs, the prophets and the parents of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh; from whom came the Virgin Mary, who brought forth Christ. Clearly this woman was not from that people but from the Gentiles. For, as we read, the Lord withdrew into the regions of Tyre and Sidon; and then the Canaanite woman, having gone beyond those borders, insistently sought help to heal her daughter who was beset by the devil. Tyre and Sidon were not cities of the people of Israel but of the Gentiles, although they were close to that people. She therefore cried out, eager to get help, and kept insisting. But she was ignored, not that mercy might be denied but that desire might be enkindled; not only that desire might be enkindled but, as I said before, that humility might be praised.

To grasp the inner motive of the Canaanite woman for obtaining what came to pass, we must reflect on the impact of her words. There is a firm belief that there was and still is in Israel a community of proselytes who passed over from the Gentiles into the works of the law. They had left behind their previous life and were bonded by the religion of a foreign and dominating law as though from home. The Canaanites were inhabiting the lands of present-day Judea. Whether absorbed by war or dispersed to neighboring places or brought into servitude as a vanquished people, they carried about their name but lacked a native land. Intermingled with the Jews, therefore, these people came from the Gentiles. And since a portion of those among the crowds who believed were proselytes, this Canaanite woman most likely had left her territory, preferring the status of a proselyte—that is, coming out from the Gentiles to the community of a neighboring people. She was appealing on behalf of her daughter, who was a type for all the Gentile people. And since she knew the Lord from the law, she addressed him as Son of David. For in the law, the king of the eternal and heavenly kingdom is referred to as the rod out of the stem of Jesse and the son of David.^[1] This woman, who professed Christ as both Lord and Son of David, did not need any healing. Rather, she was begging for help for her daughter—that is, the Gentile people in the grips of unclean spirits.

Mark says that Jesus was not able to escape notice after he had come into the house.^[1] But why did he go away to these parts of the region at all? When he released them from the observance of food laws, then he finally also opened a door to the Gentiles as he proceeded on the road. This anticipates the similar act of Peter, who first received a command to put an end to this law and then was sent to Cornelius.^[2]

But if anyone should say, Why then does he allow this woman to approach him when he says to the disciples, ‘Do not go in the way of the Gentiles’?^[3] We first note that he himself, being who he is, was not, strictly speaking, required to obey the command that he gave to the disciples. We observe, second, that Jesus was not going there to preach. This is the very point that Mark implies when he says both that Jesus hid himself and that he could not escape notice. The fact that he did not run to them first was consistent with the order of the tasks set before him. In exactly the same way, driving away people who were coming to him was unworthy of his love for humanity. For if one should pursue those who are trying to escape, much more should one not try to escape those who are pursuing.

Therefore this woman besought the Lord on behalf of her daughter, the church of the Gentiles. But he did not answer her a word. It was not that the Lord was unwilling to heal her but that he might reveal her great faith and humility. Then the disciples were moved to mercy and pleaded with the Lord, saying, Send her away, for she is crying after us. But he answered and said, I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Now he said this to the crowd of Jews that they might have no excuse on the day of judgment, when they might pretend to say, He wanted to come to the Gentiles rather than to us.

The Lord remains patiently silent, reserving the privilege of salvation for Israel. And the pitying disciples join in a plea. But he, holding in his hands the secret of his Father’s will, answers that he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. It thus became absolutely clear that the daughter of the Canaanite woman represented a type of the church when the woman kept asking for what was bestowed upon the others. Not that salvation was not to be imparted also to the Gentiles, but the Lord had come to his own and among his own, awaiting the first fruits of faith from those people he took his roots from. The others subsequently had to be saved by the preaching of the apostles. And so he said, It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.^[1] The Gentile people are dubbed with the name of dogs. But the Canaanite woman is saved because of her faith. Certain of the inner mystery, she responds by talking about crumbs that fall from the table, to be eaten by little dogs. The disparagement of dogs was mitigated by the blandishment of a diminutive name.

Jesus did not say this to accord with the pride of the Pharisees or the arrogance of the scribes but lest he seem to contradict the instruction he had earlier given: Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans.^[1] For he was unwilling to give his detractors an opportunity to accuse him and was reserving a fully accomplished salvation for the Gentiles at the time of his Passion and resurrection. The disciples, yet unaware of the mysteries of the Lord or having been moved to mercy, beseeched the Lord on behalf of the Canaanite woman (whom the other Evangelist calls a Syro-Phoenician). Or else they wanted to be rid of this importuning woman, for she repeatedly called upon him loudly, not as though he were a kind but an austere physician.

A question arises here on that point: How is it that we have come from the Gentiles to the sheepfold of Christ if he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? What is the meaning of this puzzling dispensation? The Lord knew why he came—certainly to have a church among all the Gentiles—and he yet said that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? We accordingly understand that he had to manifest in due sequence to that people first the presence of his body, his birth, the display of miracles and then the power of his resurrection. It had thus been predetermined from the beginning, such and such had been foretold and fulfilled, that Christ Jesus had to come to the Jewish people and to be seen and killed and to win for himself those whom he knew beforehand. The Gentiles were not to be condemned but to be winnowed like grain. A multitude of chaff was there, the hidden dignity of grain was there, burning was to take place there, and a storehouse to be filled there. In fact, where were the apostles if not there? Where was Peter? Where were the rest?

Then, in face of the Jews who were rejecting him, this Gentile woman asked him to heal her daughter. But the Lord turned a deaf ear to her. She fell down at his feet and adored him, saying, Lord, help me. The Lord then said to her, It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs. What have the Jews to say to this? Plainly he implied that they were children and called the Gentiles dogs. The woman agreed, saying to the Savior, Yes, Lord. That is to say, I know, Lord, that the Gentile people are dogs in worshiping idols and barking at God. Yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table. In other words, you came to the Jews and manifested yourself to them, and they didn’t want you to make exceptions. What they rejected, give to us who are asking for it. Knowing the importunate faith of this woman, our Lord said, O woman, your faith is great! Let it be done for you as you desire. Faith accepts what work does not merit, and through faith the Gentiles were made children out of dogs. As the Lord spoke through the prophet: In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people’ it shall be said to them, ‘Sons of the living God.’ ^[1] On the other hand, the unreceptive Jews were made loathsome dogs out of children, as the Lord himself said in his Passion through the prophet: Many dogs surround me; a company of evildoers encircle me.^[2]

See her humility as well as her faith! For he had called the Jews children, but she was not satisfied with this. She even called them masters, so far was she from grieving at the praises of others. She said, Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table. Behold the woman’s wisdom! She did not venture so much as to say a word against anyone else. She was not stung to see others praised, nor was she indignant to be reproached. Behold her constancy. When he answered, It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs, she said, Yes, Lord. He called them children, but she called them masters. He used the name of a dog, but she described the action of the dog. Do you see this woman’s humility?

Then compare her humility with the proud language of the Jews: We are Abraham’s seed and were never in bondage to any man.^[1] We are born of God.^[2] But not so this woman. Rather, she calls herself a dog and them masters. So for this reason she became a child. For what does Christ then say? O woman, great is your faith.

So we might surmise that this is the reason he put her off, in order that he might proclaim aloud this saying and that he might crown the woman: Be it done for you as you desire. This means Your faith, indeed, is able to effect even greater things than these. Nevertheless be it unto you even as you wish. This voice was at one with the voice that said, Let the heaven be, and it was.^[3]

And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Do you see how this woman, too, contributed not a little to the healing of her daughter? For note that Christ did not say, Let your little daughter be made whole, but Great is your faith, be it done for you as you desire. These words were not uttered at random, nor were they flattering words, but great was the power of her faith, and for our learning.

He left the certain test and demonstration, however, to the issue of events. Her daughter accordingly was immediately healed.

Having seen her advocates unsuccessful, the woman then appeals for herself and does not stop but in effect says to the Lord, Help me, I haven’t been asking this for my own sake. Then the Savior in turn says, It is not good to take the children’s bread and to cast it to dogs. He uses the term dog on account of the Gentiles’ unclean lifestyle and proneness to idolatry, while he calls the Jews children on account of the fact that they appeared to be devoted to God. But he uses the word bread not only to speak of his teaching, which was through words, but also of that which nourished the faithful by means of signs. But in this case the word preceded the condemnation of the Jews, since when life in the Lord had been given to them as bread, they did not accept it. The woman does not complain, even when insulted. What does the Savior do? By his answer, he showed what he had premeditated from the outset. For it was for this reason that he postponed giving a reply: that the woman might cry aloud with this word. Thereby he would show her to be worthy of a thousand crowns. For it was not because he did not want to give her the gift that he delayed but because he sought and took care beforehand to reveal her faith. With his accolades he honors her as presenting a type of the church that is from the Gentiles. Note that he did not say, Let your child be healed, but Be it done for you as you desire, in order to show that it was the power of her faith that elicited the healing. Even if she were worthy of even greater things, nevertheless that which she wanted was what was given to her.

See, brothers, how in this woman who was a Canaanite—who came from the Gentiles and represented a type (namely, a figure of the church)—how her humility is highly praised. Indeed, the Jewish people, as castigated in the Gospel, were puffed up with pride because they were chosen to receive the law, because the patriarchs proceeded from that people, the prophets appeared and God’s servant Moses performed great miracles in Egypt, which we hear about in the Psalms.^[1] He led the people through the Red Sea with the waters receding, and he received the law, which he gave to the same people. These were the grounds for extolling the Jewish people. Because of that pride, they were unwilling to respond to Christ the author of humility, the restrainer of swellheadedness, the physician God who, because he was God, became man that as a man he might know himself as man. What great medicine! If this medicine does not cure pride, what could possibly cure it? I do not know. God became a man. He put aside his divinity. That is to say, in a certain measure he kept out of sight—he hid what was his own, while it was evident what he had taken upon himself. He became a man, even though he is God. Yet man does not yet recognize that he is a man, that he is mortal; he does not recognize that he is weak, a sinner, sick, and that being a sick person, he should seek a physician! What is even worse, he sees himself as being healthy!

Because of this, that people did not draw near—that is, because of their pride. And they were called from the olive tree—that is, from that people begotten of the patriarchs—broken natural branches (namely, Jews by right, barren in the spirit of pride). And in that olive tree a wild olive shoot was grafted. This wild olive shoot represents the Gentile people. But the apostle says that the wild shoot was grafted into the olive tree but the natural branches were broken.^[2] They were broken because of pride; the wild olive shoot was grafted in because of humility. The woman manifested this humility, saying, Yes, Lord, I am a dog. I desire crumbs. Jesus found favor also with the centurion, who had this humility. After he asked the Lord to cure his servant, the Lord said, I will come and cure him. He responded, Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. I am not worthy that you should come under my roof.^[3] He did not receive the Lord under his roof; he received him in his heart. The more humble a person is, the more receptive and full he becomes. Hills repel water; valleys are filled up. What did the Lord reply, after the centurion said, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof? He said, Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith^[4]—that is, among those people to whom I have come, I have not found such faith. What is the meaning of the word such? So great. In what way great? To say the least, great in humility. I have not found such faith: like a grain of mustard seed—the smaller it is, the more potent it is. The Lord therefore grafted the wild olive shoot into the olive tree. He did this when he said, Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.