A few days ago, a friend and former parishioner wrote/emailed and asked me about the passage of Jesus and the Canaanite Woman that was the gospel from Wednesday and, as it happens, the upcoming 20th Sunday, Year A gospel on August 16th.

²¹ Then Jesus went from that place and withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.²² And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, “Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.”²³ But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, “Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.”²⁴ He said in reply, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”²⁵ But the woman came and did him homage, saying, “Lord, help me.”²⁶ He said in reply, “It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.”²⁷ She said, “Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.”²⁸ Then Jesus said to her in reply, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour. (Matthew 15:21–28) 

Pretty harsh to the modern ear. What is going on in this passage? The discussion around these verses raise questions of both Christology (who is Jesus) and biblical interpretation. Was Jesus being rude, reflecting a Jewish bias against Canaanites in general? Was Jesus being intentionally provocative as a means to get the woman to express her faith as a lesson for the Apostles who had remarked: “Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.” Was Jesus operating out of his human nature and the woman provides a corrective to refocus Jesus on his divine mission? There is a lot going on in this passage.

The Early Church Fathers had a pretty consistent take on the episode that Jesus is quite intentional is what he says and does in this episode. For them, Jesus’ harsh words are pedagogical, intended to reveal and strengthen the woman’s faith and to teach the disciples.

• St. John Chrysostom is perhaps the clearest. He asks why Jesus appears so severe. His answer is that Christ is drawing out the woman’s remarkable faith. He writes that Jesus delayed granting her request: “…that he might reveal the woman’s perseverance and make her virtue manifest.”  For Chrysostom Jesus is not learning; the disciples are learning as the woman herself is also drawn into an even deeper confession of faith.
• St. Augustine likewise sees Jesus as testing the woman, not rejecting her. The apparent refusal allows the greatness of her humility to become visible. Augustine beautifully comments that the Lord “fed her by delaying.” In other words, even the silence is grace.
• St. Gregory the Great sees the exchange as demonstrating the power of humble perseverance in prayer. Again, Jesus already knows the outcome. The conversation teaches everyone else.
• St. Cyril of Alexandria argues that Jesus first affirms the historical priority of Israel since the Messiah came first to Israel because that was God’s covenantal plan. The woman’s faith then anticipates the inclusion of the Gentiles. For Cyril there is no suggestion that Christ changes his mind because he has learned something.

The Patristic Fathers generally agree on four points. Jesus knows the woman’s faith from the beginning, intentionally delays, uses strong language pedagogically, and ultimately reveals that Gentile faith belongs within God’s saving plan.  The consensus for the early Church was that the story teaches us; it does not educate Jesus.

Some time in the 1960s and 1970s a new interpretation arose (at least not one that I could find a connection to) wherein “Jesus changed His mind.” Interpretation Come From? I suspect several streams contributed to this view.  One thread was the search for the “historical Jesus.” 19th century scholars that were interested in the “life of Jesus” include David Friedrich Strauss, Ernest Renan  and Albrecht Ritschl. None made the Canaanite woman a central argument for Jesus changing his mind but more that Jesus gradually came to appreciate the universality of his mission as He experienced his public ministry. Ritschl might come closest as he emphasized Jesus’ historical religious consciousness but again,  as growth in vocation rather than correction. In the 20th century neither Albert Schweitzer nor mid-century scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann offered “changed His mind” insights.

The specific claim that the Canaanite woman teaches Jesus something became much more common after about 1970. Several influences converged. Feminist interpretation by scholars such as Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza highlighted the agency of marginalized women. The Canaanite woman becomes one of Scripture’s strongest female interlocutors. Some interpretations explicitly say she changes Jesus’ understanding. Others are more restrained, saying she reveals the implications of his mission. Along with this perspective some theologians emphasized Philippians 2 wherein Christ “emptied himself.” This was extended to suggest that Jesus genuinely learned through experience – which has a basis in the Gospel of Luke: “Jesus advanced in wisdom…” (Lk 2:52).  The conclusion was that it was possible that Jesus could also grow in his understanding of his mission.

That is the range of biblical interpretation – which is never a “one and done” proposition. It is in the area of Christology where many scholars urge caution. The thinking is along this axis: If  Jesus needed correction regarding God’s saving plan, then several difficult questions arise.

• Did Jesus misunderstand the Father’s will?
• Did he possess incomplete knowledge essential to his mission?
• Was his initial exclusion of Gentiles morally mistaken?

Those questions touch directly on classical Christology. The Church has always maintained that Christ is fully human and fully divine, without confusion. That means genuine human development, but not moral error or ignorance concerning his divine mission.

Modern Catholic scholarship on this Matthean passage is far too wide to list all the voices, but two did stand out for me:  Fr. Daniel Harrington and Fr. Raymond Brown.. Harrington was among the most respected Catholic Matthew scholars. He acknowledges the historical priority of Israel as he recognizes the tension in the passage. But he ultimately interprets the episode within Matthew’s larger theology of salvation history rather than as evidence of Jesus abandoning prejudice.  

Raymond E. Brown is interesting since he is noted for historical-critical methods. He fully accepted genuine human development in Jesus. Yet even Brown generally avoids saying that Jesus changed his mind” because of the woman’s argument. He tends to leave the narrative tension intact rather than psychologizing Jesus. But then restraint is characteristic of Brown.

Dr. Brant Pitre is a current scholar (with tons of great videos available on Youtube). Pitre frequently explains that Jesus’ earthly ministry is intentionally directed first to Israel because God is fulfilling his covenant promises. The woman’s faith is extraordinary precisely because she understands this order yet still trusts God’s mercy. He sees the story as revealing the priority of Israel, the universality of grace, the greatness of Gentile faith – not Jesus changing his mind.

This passage reveals something fascinating about the history of interpretation associated with this passage. If you line up the major interpreters chronologically, the trajectory is almost circular. 

• The Fathers: Jesus already knows; the dialogue reveals the woman’s faith.
• Nineteenth century historical criticism: greater interest in Jesus’ developing historical consciousness.
• Late twentieth century: some scholars propose that the woman changes Jesus’ perspective.
• Many contemporary Catholic exegetes: while fully accepting Jesus’ genuine humanity and historical development, they have largely returned to an interpretation surprisingly close to the Fathers—not because they reject modern scholarship, but because literary analysis, Jewish historical context, and classical Christology together make that reading both textually and theologically compelling.

It is worth noting that the phrase you might hear in preaching:”The woman changed Jesus’ mind ” might be a catchy phrase not well supported in scholarship. But underneath the phrase, a more accurate (and no less intriguing) view is that Jesus’ consciousness matured, or His vocation unfolded historically or that Jesus gradually perceived the universal scope of his mission. And that is something well worth exploring.

Maybe all this “history of interpretation”  echoes one of Schweitzer’s enduring insights. While every generation uncovers genuine historical and literary insights, every generation is also tempted to read its own central concerns back into the Gospel narratives. The enduring task of exegesis is to let the text challenge our assumptions rather than simply confirm them.

And on another note… the historical priority of Israel to which Jesus refers is true. His earthly ministry was directed first toward Israel, something that Matthew repeatedly emphasizes. For example, when the Twelve are first sent, Jesus tells them: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles… Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Mt 10:5-6). Yet the Gospel already anticipates the Gentiles.

Matthew has already included: the Magi, Gentile women in Jesus’ genealogy, the centurion, and will conclude with: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations.” (Mt 28:19) The universal mission has always been present. The Canaanite woman becomes one more anticipation of Pentecost and the Church.

Perhaps one more comment on the pedagogy (the method and practice of teaching) in this passage. If you accept that Jesus is in “teaching mode” rather than reflecting 1st century Jewish bias, there are two possibilities for his teaching method. First, Jesus voices the conventional Jewish understanding in order to expose and transcend it. The dialogue is directed at the disciples as much as at the woman. This fits Matthew’s pedagogical style well. Second (or both) Jesus states the historical order of salvation: Israel first, then the nations. This is something the woman accepts and Jesus publicly commends precisely her faith in accepting that order while trusting God’s mercy.

I think the view of pedagogy is more compelling because of the way the text reads to me. Jesus appears unusually silent, He engages the woman much longer than expected and He praises her in extraordinary language. It suggests to me an intentional pedagogy rather than a surprise response. Moreover, Matthew’s Gospel consistently portrays Jesus as knowing people’s hearts before they speak. I think it less like and somewhat out of character for Matthew to suddenly present Jesus as discovering his mission through debate. 

I think Jesus is very intentional and allows the conversation to unfold so that:

• the disciples confront their own assumptions as Jesus publicly praise the faith of a Canaanite woman in language he rarely uses even for Israelites
• the woman’s humility and perseverance become visible, and
• the Church is reminded that faith, not ethnicity, is the true qualification for entrance into the Kingdom.

That interpretation preserves both Jesus’ genuine humanity and the integrity of his mission while still allowing the Canaanite woman to stand as one of the most remarkable examples of faith in the Gospels.

---

Image credit: Jean Germain Drouais, Christ and the Canaanite Woman, 1784, Louvre Museum |
Public Domain