In order to follow the underlying principle operating within these events which took place, we must consider the force of the words presented in the person of the Canaanite woman. A certain confidence that the number of proselytes has been and still is within the people of Israel, those who passed from paganism into the works of the Law. Once they left their former way of life, they were incorporated—like those in a household—in an unfamiliar religion and placed under the dominion of Law. The Canaanites have lived on the land that is now Judea. They were either absorbed by war, or dispersed throughout local regions, or subjected to slavery as a conquered people. The result is that they bear only their name, possessing no ancestral land. This people, now mixed with Jews, came from the pagans. Because some of those among the crowd who believed were undoubtedly proselytes, this Canaanite woman should rightly be considered as a model of the proselytes because she left her territory, that is, one who transferred her identity from the pagans to another people. She who pleads for her daughter is evidently pleading for the people of the pagans. Since she knew the Lord is from the Law, she called him the Son of David. For it is contained in the Law that “a sprout” comes “from the root of Jesse” and that the Son of David is King of an eternal and heavenly Kingdom.
This one who confessed Christ as Lord and Son of David is not herself in need of healing, but pleads on behalf of her daughter, that is, for the pagans who have been weighed down by the domination of unclean spirits. The Lord says nothing, reserving by his maintenance of silence the privileges of salvation for Israel. And the disciples, feeling pity for her, join in the supplication.
He who comprises the mystery of the Father’s will responds that he has been sent to the lost sheep of Israel, making it absolutely clear that the daughter of the Canaanite woman represents a figure of the Church. She sought what was offered to others, not because salvation should be denied to the pagans, but the Lord had come for his own in his own land. He was waiting for the first-fruits of faith from those among whom he had been born. The others would later be saved by the apostolic preaching. For this reason he said: It is not right to take the children’s bread and give it to the dogs. Honor has been accorded to Israel. God’s affection for Israel is augmented by his jealousy for it; next to Israel the pagans received the name “dog.” But the Canaanite woman, already saved by faith, responded with a certainty of inward mysteries by saying that little dogs feed on the crumbs fallen from the table. The reproach of the name “dog” was thereby softened under its guise as an affectionate nickname.
Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 15.3–4
No comments:
Post a Comment