Church Fathers Commentary Matthew 15

Rabanus Maurus: The men of Gennesaret and the less learned believe, but those who seem to be wise come to dispute with Him. This is in keeping with the words, You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to babes. This is why it is said, Then came to him from Jerusalem Scribes and Pharisees.

St. Augustine of Hippo: The Evangelist constructs the order of his narrative with the phrase Then came to him so that the sequence of events following the passage over the lake might be shown.¹

St. John Chrysostom: For this reason, the Evangelist also marks the time, so that he might show their iniquity was overcome by nothing. They came to Him at a time when He had performed many miracles and had healed the sick by the touch of His hem.

Regarding the fact that the Scribes and Pharisees are said to have come from Jerusalem, it should be known that they were dispersed throughout all the tribes. However, those who dwelt in the metropolis were worse than the others, as their higher dignity inspired them with a greater degree of pride.

Remigius of Auxerre: They were at fault for two reasons: first, because they had come from Jerusalem, the holy city; and second, because they were elders of the people and teachers of the Law, yet had not come to learn but to reprove the Lord. For it adds, Saying, Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?

St. Jerome: What astonishing infatuation of the Pharisees and Scribes! They accuse the Son of God because He does not keep the traditions and commandments of men.

St. John Chrysostom: Observe how they are trapped by their own question. They do not say, "Why do they transgress the Law of Moses?" but, "the tradition of the elders." From this it is clear that the Priests had introduced many new things, although Moses had said, You shall not add anything to the word which I set before you this day, neither shall you take anything away from it (Deuteronomy 4:2).

When they should have been set free from such observances, they instead bound themselves with many more. Fearing that someone might take away their rule and power, they sought to increase the awe in which they were held by presenting themselves as legislators.

Remigius of Auxerre: Mark shows what kind of traditions these were when he says, The Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not (Mark 7:3). Here, then, they also find fault with the disciples, saying, For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

The Venerable Bede: Taking in a fleshly sense those words of the Prophets, in which it is said, Wash, and be clean (Isaiah 1:16), they observed it only by washing the body. Hence, they had laid it down that one ought not to eat with unwashed hands.²

St. Jerome: But the hands that are to be washed are not the acts of the body, but of the mind, so that the word of God may be done in them.

St. John Chrysostom: But the disciples now did not eat with washed hands, because they already despised all superfluous things and attended only to what was necessary. Thus, they accepted neither washing nor not washing as a rule, but did either as the situation arose. For how could those who neglected even the food that was necessary for them have any care for this rite?

Remigius of Auxerre: Alternatively, the Pharisees found fault with the Lord's disciples not concerning the washing that we do from ordinary habit and necessity, but concerning the superfluous washing that was invented by the tradition of the elders.

St. John Chrysostom: Christ made no excuse for them but immediately brought a counter-charge, showing that one who sins in great things ought not to take offense at the slight sins of others.

He answered and said to them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?

He does not say that they do well to transgress, so that He might not give room for calumny. Nor, on the other hand, does He condemn what the Apostles had done, so that He might not appear to sanction their traditions. Nor, again, does He bring any charge directly against the elders of old, so that they would not dismiss Him as a slanderer. Instead, He points His reproof against those who had come to Him, thus at the same time rebuking the elders who had laid down such a tradition, saying:

St. Jerome: Since you neglect the commandment of God because of the tradition of men, why do you presume to reprove my disciples for paying little regard to the precepts of the elders, so that they may observe the commands of God?

For God has said, Honor your father and your mother. Honor in the Scriptures is shown not so much in salutations and courtesies as in alms and gifts. The Apostle says, Honor the widows who are widows indeed (1 Timothy 5:3); here "honor" signifies a gift.

The Lord, therefore, considering the infirmity, age, or poverty of parents, commanded that sons should honor their parents by providing them with the necessities of life.

St. John Chrysostom: He desired to show the great honor that ought to be paid to parents, and therefore He attached both a reward and a penalty. On this occasion, however, the Lord passes over the reward promised to those who honored their parents—namely, that they should live long on the earth—and brings forward only the terrible part: the punishment. He does this to strike them dumb and to get the attention of others: And he that curses father or mother, let him die the death.

Thus He shows that they deserved even death. For if he who dishonors his parent even in word is worthy of death, how much more you who dishonor him in deed! And you not only dishonor your parents but teach others to do so as well. You, then, who do not even deserve to live, how can you accuse my disciples?

But how they transgress the commandment of God is clear when He adds, But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or his mother, "It is a gift, by whatever you might be profited by me."

St. Jerome: For the Scribes and Pharisees, desiring to overturn this most provident, aforementioned law of God so that they might introduce their impiety under the mask of piety, taught wicked sons that if they desired to devote something to God (who is the true parent), the offering to the Lord should be preferred over giving those same things to their parents.

Glossa Ordinaria: In this interpretation, the meaning would be: "What I offer to God will profit both you and me; therefore, you ought not to take my goods for your own needs, but allow me to offer them to God."³

St. Jerome: And so the parents, refusing what they saw was dedicated to God so that they would not incur the guilt of sacrilege, perished from want. Thus it came to pass that what the children offered for the needs of the temple and the service of God went to the gain of the Priests.

Glossa Ordinaria: Or the meaning may be: "Whoever" (that is, of you young men) "shall say" (that is, shall either be able to say, or shall say) "to his father or mother, 'O father, the gift from me that is devoted to God—shall it profit you?'" This is like an exclamation of surprise, meaning: "You ought not to take it, so that you do not incur the guilt of sacrilege."⁴

Or, we may read it with this ellipsis: "Whoever shall say to his father, etc."... he shall do the commandment of God, or shall fulfill the Law, or shall be worthy of eternal life.

St. Jerome: Or, it may briefly have the following meaning: You compel children to say to their parents, "Whatever gift I was intending to offer to God, you take and consume for your own living, and so it profits you"—which is as much as to say, "Do not do so."

Glossa Ordinaria: And thus, through these arguments born of your avarice, this youth shall not honor his father or his mother. It is as if He had said: You have led sons into the most evil deeds, so that it will come to pass that afterwards they shall not even honor their father and mother. And thus you have nullified the commandment of God concerning the support of parents by their children through your traditions, obeying the dictates of avarice.⁵

St. Augustine of Hippo: Christ here clearly shows both that the law which the heretic blasphemes is God's law, and that the Jews had traditions foreign to the prophetical and canonical books—such as the Apostle calls "profane and vain fables."⁶

The Lord here teaches us many things: that it was not He who turned the Jews from their God; that not only did He not infringe the commandments, but He convicts them of infringing them; and that He had ordained nothing more than what He gave through the hand of Moses.⁷

Alternatively, the phrase could mean: "The gift that you offer on my account shall profit you." That is to say, "Whatever gift you offer on my account shall from now on remain with you." By these words, the son signifies that there is no longer a need for his parents to offer sacrifices for him, as he is of age to offer for himself. And the Pharisees denied that those who were old enough to say this to their parents were guilty if they did not show honor to them.⁸

St. John Chrysostom: The Lord had shown that the Pharisees were not worthy to accuse those who transgressed the commands of the elders, since they overthrew the law of God themselves. He proves this again with the testimony of the Prophet: "Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.'"

Remigius of Auxerre: "Hypocrite" signifies a dissembler—one who pretends one thing in his outward action but holds another in his heart. These men are rightly called hypocrites because, under the cover of honoring God, they sought to accumulate earthly gain for themselves.

Rabanus Maurus: Isaiah foresaw the hypocrisy of the Jews, that they would craftily oppose the Gospel, and therefore he said in the person of the Lord, "This people honors me with their lips, etc."

Remigius of Auxerre: For the Jewish nation seemed to draw near to God with their lips and mouth, since they boasted that they held to the worship of the one God. But in their hearts they departed from Him, because after they had seen His signs and miracles, they would neither acknowledge His divinity nor receive Him.

Rabanus Maurus: They also honored Him with their lips when they said, "Master, we know that you are true" (Matthew 22:16), but their heart was far from Him when they sent spies to trap Him in His speech.

Glossa Ordinaria: Or, they honored Him by commending outward purity, but because they lacked the inward purity which is true purity, their heart was far from God. Such honor was of no avail to them, as it follows: "But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." ¹

Rabanus Maurus: Therefore, they will not have their reward with the true worshipers, because they teach the doctrines and commandments of men in contempt of the law of God.

St. John Chrysostom: Having added weight to His accusation of the Pharisees with the testimony of the Prophet, and seeing that they were not amended, He now ceases to speak to them and turns to the multitudes: "And he called the multitude and said to them, 'Hear and understand.'"

Because He was about to set before them a high and profound teaching, full of deep wisdom, He does not state it plainly but frames His speech so that it would be received by them.

First, He shows His concern for them, which the Evangelist expresses with the words, "And he called the multitude to him." Second, the timing He chooses commends His speech, as it comes after the victory He has just gained over the Pharisees.

He not only calls the multitude to Him but also rouses their attention with the words, "Hear and understand"—that is, "Pay attention and apply your minds to what you are about to hear." But He did not say to them, "The observance of foods is of no importance," or, "Moses commanded you wrongly." Instead, in a way of warning and advice, He draws His testimony from natural things: "Not what enters into the mouth defiles a man, but what goes out of the mouth, that defiles a man."

St. Jerome: The word hereⁱ "makes a man common" is peculiar to Scripture and is not overused in common speech. The Jewish nation, boasting that they are a part of God, calls those meats "common" of which all people partake—for example, a pig's flesh, shellfish, hares, and those species of animals that do not divide the hoof and chew the cud, and among fish, those that do not have scales. Hence, in the Acts of the Apostles we read, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common" (Acts 10:15). "Common," then, in this sense, is that which is available to the rest of mankind and, as if not a part of God, is therefore called unclean.

St. Augustine of Hippo: This declaration of the Lord, "Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a man," is not contrary to the Old Testament. As the Apostle also says, "To the pure all things are pure" (Titus 1:15), and, "Every creature of God is good" (1 Timothy 4:4). ²

Let the Manichaeans understand, if they can, that the Apostle said this about the very nature and quality of things. The letter of the ritual law, on the other hand, declared certain animals unclean not by nature but symbolically, for purposes that were necessary for a time.

For instance, in the case of the pig and the lamb, both are clean by nature, because every creature of God is naturally good. But in a certain symbolic sense, the lamb is clean, and the pig is unclean.

Consider the two words "fool" and "wise." In their own nature, as sounds or letters, both are pure. But one of them, because of the meaning attached to it and not because of anything in its own nature, may be said to be impure. Perhaps the fool among mankind is what the pig is in its symbolic representation; the animal and this two-syllable word (stultus) signify one and the same thing.

That animal is considered unclean in the law because it does not chew the cud; but this is not its fault, it is its nature. The people of whom this animal is an emblem, however, are impure by their own fault, not by nature; they readily hear words of wisdom but never reflect on them again.

What is it to spiritually chew the cud, if not to summon up what you have profitably heard from the inner region of your memory, through the sweetness of recollection, into the mouth of your thought? Those who do not do this are represented by this type of animal.

Such resemblances in speech or in ceremonies, having figurative meanings, profitably and pleasantly stir the rational mind. For the people of that former time, many such things were not only to be heard but also to be kept as commands. That was a time when it was necessary to prophesy those things that were later to be revealed not only in words but also in deeds. When these things were revealed through Christ and in Christ, the burdens of these observances were not imposed on the faith of the Gentiles, yet the authority of the prophecy was nevertheless confirmed.

But I ask the Manichaeans: is this declaration of the Lord, when He said that a man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, true or false? If it is false, why then does their teacher Adimantus bring it forward against the Old Testament? If it is true, why, contrary to its teaching, do they consider themselves to be defiled in this way?

St. Jerome: The thoughtful reader may object here and say, "If what enters into the mouth does not defile a man, why do we not eat foods offered to idols?" Let it be known, then, that foods and every creature of God are in themselves clean. However, the invocation of idols and demons makes them unclean, at least for those who eat what is offered to idols with a consciousness of the idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled, as the Apostle says.

Remigius of Auxerre: But if anyone's faith is so strong that he understands that God's creature can in no way be defiled, let him eat what he will, after the food has been hallowed by the word of God and by prayer. Yet, this liberty of his must not become an offense to the weak, as the Apostle says.

St. Jerome: In one of the Lord's discourses, the entire superstition of Jewish observances was cut down. They placed their whole religion in using or abstaining from certain foods.

St. John Chrysostom: When the Pharisees heard what was said before, they made no reply, because He had so powerfully overthrown them—not only refuting their arguments but also exposing their fraud. Yet it was they, not the crowds, who were offended by His words.

Then his disciples came to him and said, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying?”

St. Jerome: Since the word "scandalum" (offense or stumbling block) is used so frequently in church writings, we will briefly explain it. We could translate it into Latin as "offendiculum," "ruina," or "impactio." Therefore, when we read, "Whoever shall scandalize," we understand it to mean anyone who, by word or deed, gives another an occasion to fall.

St. John Chrysostom: Christ does not remove the stumbling block from the path of the Pharisees but instead rebukes them, as it follows when He says, “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.”

Manichaeus claimed this was spoken about the Law, but what has already been said is a sufficient refutation of this idea. For if Christ had said this about the Law, why would He have previously defended the Law, saying, “Why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”

Would He have cited the Prophet? And if God said, “Honor your father and your mother,” how could this command, which is spoken in the Law, not be a plant of God?

St. Hilary of Poitiers: What He means, then, by a plant not planted by His Father is the human tradition under whose cover the Law had been transgressed. He teaches that this tradition must be rooted up.

Remigius of Auxerre: Every false doctrine and superstitious observance, along with those who practice them, cannot endure. Because it is not from God the Father, it will be rooted up along with them. Only that which is from God will endure.

St. Jerome: Will that plant also be rooted up of which the Apostle says, “I planted, Apollos watered”? (1 Corinthians 3:6). The question is answered by what follows: “but God gave the increase.” He also says, “You are God’s field, God’s building,” and in another place, “We are co-workers in God’s service.” If Paul and Apollos, when they plant and water, are co-workers with God, then God plants and waters together with them.

Some people misuse this passage by applying it to two different kinds of people, saying, "If every plant that the Father has not planted will be rooted up, then what He has planted cannot be rooted up." But let them hear these words from Jeremiah: “I had planted you a true vine, wholly a right seed; how then have you turned into the bitterness of a strange vine?” (Jeremiah 2:21).

Indeed, God has planted it, and no one can root up His planting. But since that planting was established through the disposition of the will of the one who was planted, no one else can root it up unless that person's own will consents.

Glossa Ordinaria: Alternatively, the plant spoken of here may be the teachers of the Law and their followers, who did not have Christ as their foundation. He explains why they are to be rooted up by adding, “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind.” ¹

Rabanus Maurus: They are blind, meaning they lack the light of God's commandments. And they are "leaders of the blind" inasmuch as they draw others headlong, both erring themselves and leading others into error. This is why it is added, “If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

St. Jerome: This is the same as the apostolic injunction to “reject a heretic after the first and second warning, knowing that such a person is perverse” (Titus 3:10-11). To the same end, the Savior commands that evil teachers be left to their own will, knowing that they can hardly be brought to the truth.

Remigius of Auxerre: The Lord was accustomed to speaking in parables, so when Peter heard, That which entereth into the mouth, defileth not a man, he thought it was a parable and asked, as it follows: Then answered Peter, and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. And because he asked this on behalf of the rest, they are all included in the rebuke: Are ye also yet without understanding?

St. Jerome: He is reproved by the Lord because he supposed that what was spoken plainly was actually a parable. This teaches us that the hearer is to be blamed who would take obscure sayings as clear, or clear sayings as obscure.

St. John Chrysostom: Or, the Lord blames him because he did not ask this from any uncertainty, but from the offense he had taken. The crowds had not understood what had been said, but the disciples were offended by it. This is why they had initially desired to ask Him about the Pharisees but had been restrained by that mighty declaration, Every plant, etc.

But Peter, who is always zealous, is not silent despite this. Therefore, the Lord reproves him, adding a reason for His reproof: Do ye not understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

St. Jerome: Some object to this, arguing that the Lord is ignorant of physiology in saying that all food goes into the belly and is cast out into the latrine. They claim that as soon as food is taken, it is distributed through the limbs, the veins, the marrow, and the nerves.

But it should be known that the lighter juices and liquid food, after being reduced and digested in the veins and vessels, pass into the lower parts through those passages which the Greeks call “pores,” and thus go into the latrine.

St. Augustine of Hippo: The nourishment of the body, after first being broken down—that is, having lost its original form—is absorbed into the substance of the limbs and repairs their wear. It passes through a medium into another form and, by the spontaneous motion of the parts, is separated. Those portions adapted for the purpose are taken up into the structure of this fair, visible body, while those that are unfit are rejected through their own passages.¹

One part, consisting of feces, is restored to the earth to reappear in new forms; another part is released as perspiration; and another is taken up by the reproductive system for the continuation of the species.¹

St. John Chrysostom: In speaking this way, the Lord is answering his disciples according to their Jewish weakness. He says that the food does not remain but passes out; yet even if it did remain, it would not make a man unclean. But they could not yet hear these things. Thus Moses also pronounces them unclean for as long as the food remained in them, for he bids them wash in the evening, at which point they would be clean, calculating the time for digestion and expulsion.

St. Augustine of Hippo: And in this, the Lord includes man's two mouths: one of the body and one of the heart. For when He says, Not all that goeth into the mouth defileth a man, He clearly speaks of the body's mouth. But in what follows, He alludes to the mouth of the heart: But those things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and they defile a man.²

St. John Chrysostom: For the things that are of the heart remain within a man and defile him in going out of him, as well as in remaining in him—indeed, even more so in going out. Therefore He adds, Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts. He gives these the first place because this was the very fault of the Jews, who laid snares for Him.

St. Jerome: The seat of the soul, therefore, is not in the brain, according to Plato, but in the heart, according to Christ. By this passage, we may refute those who think that evil thoughts are suggestions of the Devil and do not spring from our own will.

The Devil may encourage and abet evil thoughts, but he does not originate them. If he is able, being always on the watch, to blow a small spark of thought within us into a flame, we should not conclude from this that he searches the hidden places of the heart. Rather, he judges what is passing within us from our manner and movements.

For instance, if he sees us direct frequent looks toward a beautiful woman, he understands that our heart has been wounded through the eye.

Glossa Ordinaria: And from evil thoughts proceed evil deeds and evil words, which are forbidden by the law. This is why He adds Murders, which are forbidden by the commandment of the Law, Thou shalt not kill; Adulteries, fornications, which are understood to be forbidden by the precept, Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thefts, forbidden by the command, Thou shalt not steal; False witness, by the command, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour; and Blasphemies, by the command, Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain.³

Remigius of Auxerre: Having named the vices forbidden by the divine Law, the Lord beautifully adds, These are they that defile a man—that is, they make him unclean and impure.

Glossa Ordinaria: And because these words of the Lord were prompted by the iniquity of the Pharisees, who preferred their traditions to the commands of God, He therefore concludes that there was no necessity for the aforementioned tradition: But to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.⁴

St. John Chrysostom: He did not say that eating the meats forbidden in the Law does not defile a man, so that they would have nothing to say in reply. Instead, He concludes on the very topic that had been disputed.

St. Jerome: Leaving the Scribes, Pharisees, and those critics, He passes into the regions of Tyre and Sidon so that He may heal the Tyrians and Sidonians: And Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

Remigius of Auxerre: Tyre and Sidon were Gentile towns, for Tyre was the capital of the Canaanites, and Sidon was the northern boundary of the Canaanites.

St. John Chrysostom: It should be observed that when He delivered the Jews from the dietary observances, He also opened the door to the Gentiles, just as Peter was first commanded in the vision to break this law and was afterward sent to Cornelius.

But if anyone should ask how it is that He commanded His disciples, go not into the way of the Gentiles, and yet now walks this way Himself, we will answer this. First, the precept He had given His disciples was not binding on Him. Second, He did not go there to preach, which is why Mark even says that He purposely concealed Himself.¹

Remigius of Auxerre: He went so that He might heal the people of Tyre and Sidon, or that He might deliver this woman's daughter from the daemon, and so through her faith condemn the wickedness of the Scribes and Pharisees. The account of this woman follows: And, behold, a woman, a Canaanite, came out from those parts.

St. John Chrysostom: The Evangelist says that she was a Canaanite to show the power of Christ's presence. For this nation, which had been driven out so that they might not corrupt the Jews, now showed themselves wiser than the Jews, leaving their own borders to go to Christ. And when she came to Him, she asked only for mercy, as it follows: She cried to Him, saying, Have mercy on me, Lord, you Son of David.

Glossa Ordinaria: The great faith of this Canaanite woman is shown in this: she believes Him to be God, in that she calls Him "Lord," and man, in that she calls Him "Son of David." She claims nothing of her own merit but pleads only for God's mercy. She does not say, "Have mercy on my daughter," but rather, Have mercy on me, because the daughter's affliction is the mother's affliction.

And to excite His compassion all the more, she declares to Him the whole of her grief: My daughter is sore vexed by a daemon. In this way, she unfolds the wound to the Physician, revealing the extent and nature of the disease—its extent, when she says she is sore vexed, and its nature, when she says it is by a daemon.²

St. John Chrysostom: Note the wisdom of this woman: she did not go to men who made false promises or seek useless remedies, but leaving all demonic charms, she came to the Lord. She did not ask James, pray to John, or appeal to Peter; instead, putting herself under the protection of penitence, she ran alone to the Lord. But behold, a new trouble arises. She makes her petition, raising her voice in a shout, and God, the lover of humanity, does not answer a word.³

St. Jerome: This was not from pharisaical pride or the arrogance of the Scribes, but so that He might not seem to contradict His own decision: Go not into the way of the Gentiles. He was unwilling to give His critics an opportunity to object and reserved the complete salvation of the Gentiles for the time of His passion and resurrection.

Glossa Ordinaria: And by this delay in answering, He shows us the patience and perseverance of this woman. He also did not answer for this reason: so that the disciples might petition for her. This shows that the prayers of the saints are necessary to obtain anything, as it follows: And his disciples came to him, saying, Send her away, for she crieth after us.⁴

St. Jerome: The disciples, still ignorant of the mysteries of God or perhaps moved by compassion, beg for this Canaanite woman; or maybe they were just seeking to be rid of her persistence.

St. Augustine of Hippo: A question of discrepancy is raised here, because Mark says the Lord was in the house when the woman came praying for her daughter. Matthew could be understood as having omitted mention of the house while still relating the same event. However, when he says that the disciples suggested to the Lord, Send her away, for she crieth after us, he seems to indicate clearly that the woman was raising her voice in prayer while following the Lord as He was walking.⁵

We must understand, then, that as Mark writes, she entered the place where Jesus was—that is, as Mark had noted above, in the house. Then, as Matthew writes, He answered her not a word, and during this silence on both sides, Jesus left the house. The rest of the account then follows without any contradiction.

St. John Chrysostom: I believe the disciples were sorry for the woman's affliction, yet they did not dare to say, "Grant her this mercy," but only, Send her away. This is similar to how we, when trying to persuade someone, often say the very opposite of what we wish.

He answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

St. Jerome: He says that He is not sent to the Gentiles, but that He is sent first to Israel, so that when they would not receive the Gospel, its passing over to the Gentiles would be justified.

Remigius of Auxerre: In this way also, He was sent especially to the Jews, because He taught them through His physical presence.

St. Jerome: And He adds the phrase of the house of Israel with this design: that we might use this passage to rightly interpret the other parable concerning the lost sheep.

St. John Chrysostom: But when the woman saw that the Apostles had no power, she became bold with a commendable boldness. Before, she had not dared to come into His sight; but, as it is said, She crieth after us. When it seemed that she would have to leave without being helped, she came nearer: But she came and worshipped him.

St. Jerome: Note how perseveringly this Canaanite woman calls Him first "Son of David," then "Lord," and finally came and worshipped him, as God.

St. John Chrysostom: And therefore she did not say, "Ask," or "Pray to God for me," but, Lord, help me. But the more the woman urged her petition, the more He strengthened His denial. For He now calls the Jews not sheep but "sons," and the Gentiles "dogs": He answered and said to her, It is not right to take the children's bread, and give it to dogs.

Glossa Ordinaria: The Jews were born sons and brought up by the Law in the worship of one God. The bread is the Gospel, with its miracles and other things that pertain to our salvation. It is not right, then, that these should be taken from the children and given to the Gentiles, who are dogs, until the Jews refuse them.⁶

St. Jerome: The Gentiles are called dogs because of their idolatry. Given to eating blood and dead bodies, they turn to madness.

St. John Chrysostom: Observe this woman's prudence: she does not dare to contradict Him, nor is she angered by the praise of the Jews and the harsh word applied to her. But she said, Yes, Lord, yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. He said, It is not good; she answers, "Yes, Lord, even so." He calls the Jews "children"; she calls them "masters." He called her a "dog"; she accepts the role of a dog, as if she had said, "I cannot leave the table of my Lord."

St. Jerome: The faith, patience, and humility of this woman are wonderfully shown. Her faith, in that she believed her daughter could be healed; her patience, in that she perseveres in her prayers even after being overlooked so many times; and her humility, in that she compares herself not to dogs, but to puppies.

I know, she says, that I do not deserve the children's bread and that I cannot have the main meal or sit at the table with the master of the house. But I am content with what is left for the puppies, so that through humble fragments I may come to the fullness of the perfect bread.

St. John Chrysostom: This was the reason Christ was so reserved: He knew what she would say and did not want her great excellence to be hidden. This is why it follows, Then Jesus answered and said to her, O woman, great is your faith; be it to you according to your will.

Observe how the woman herself contributed significantly to her daughter's healing. Therefore, Christ did not say to her, "Let your daughter be healed," but, Be it to you according to your will. This is so you may perceive that she had spoken in sincerity and that her words were not flattery, but came from abundant faith.

And this word of Christ is like the word that said, Let there be a firmament (Genesis 1:6), and it was made. So here, And her daughter was made whole from that hour.

Observe how she obtains what the Apostles could not obtain for her; such is the great power of earnest prayer. He would rather that we pray for our own offenses ourselves than that others should pray for us.

Remigius of Auxerre: In these words, we are given a pattern for catechizing and baptizing children. The woman does not say, "Heal my daughter," or "Help her," but, Have mercy on me, and help me. Thus, the practice has come down in the Church for the faithful to be sponsors to God for their young children before they have reached an age and reason where they can make a pledge to God for themselves. Therefore, just as the daughter was healed by this woman's faith, so too might the sins of infants be forgiven by the faith of mature Catholics.

Allegorically, this woman represents the Holy Church gathered from the Gentiles.

The Lord leaves the Scribes and Pharisees and comes into the regions of Tyre and Sidon; this represents His leaving the Jews and going over to the Gentiles. This woman came out of her own country because the Holy Church departed from its former errors and sins.

St. Jerome: And I suppose the daughter of this Canaanite to be the souls of believers, who were severely tormented by a daemon, not knowing their Creator and bowing down to stones.

Remigius of Auxerre: Thus, those of whom the Lord speaks as "children" are the Patriarchs and Prophets of that time. The "table" signifies the Holy Scripture; the "fragments" signify the best precepts or inner mysteries on which the Holy Church feeds; and the "crumbs" signify the carnal precepts that the Jews keep. The fragments are said to be eaten under the table because the Church humbly submits itself to fulfilling the divine commands.

Rabanus Maurus: But the puppies eat not only the crust but the crumbs of the children's bread. This is because the despised among the Gentiles, upon turning to the faith, seek out in Scripture not the outer shell of the letter, but the spiritual sense, by which they may be able to profit in good works.

St. Jerome: What a wonderful change of things! Once Israel was the son, and we were the dogs. The change in faith has led to a change in the order of our names. Concerning them it is said, Many dogs have come about me (Psalm 22:16), while to us it is said, as to this woman, Your faith has made you whole.

Rabanus Maurus: Great indeed was her faith. For the Gentiles, who were neither trained in the Law nor educated by the words of the Prophets, immediately obeyed with the hearing of the ear upon the preaching of the Apostles, and therefore deserved to obtain salvation.

Glossa Ordinaria: And if the Lord delays the salvation of a soul at the first tears of the pleading Church, we ought not to despair or to cease from our prayers, but rather continue them earnestly.⁷

St. Augustine of Hippo: That He does not go to their houses to heal the Centurion's servant and the daughter of this Canaanite woman signifies that the Gentiles, among whom He did not go Himself, would be saved by His word.

That these are healed on the prayer of their parents, we must understand in relation to the Church, which is at once mother and children. The whole body of those who make up the Church is the mother, and each individual of that body is a son of that mother.⁸

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Alternatively, this mother represents the proselytes, in that she leaves her own country and forsakes the Gentiles for the name of another nation. She prays for her daughter—that is, the body of the Gentiles possessed by unclean spirits—and having learned of the Lord through the Law, she calls Him the Son of David.

Rabanus Maurus: Likewise, whoever has a conscience polluted with the defilement of any sin has a daughter severely tormented by a daemon. Also, whoever has defiled any good they have done with the plague of sin has a daughter tossed by the furies of an unclean spirit and needs to fly to prayers and tears and to seek the intercessions and help of the saints.