<p>7:28<em> But she answered and said to him- </em>Sometimes what is recorded as being actually said may be only a summary of the real words (consider what the Canaanite woman actually said: Mt. 15:27 cp. Mk. 7:28).</p><p><em>Indeed, Lord- </em>A word signifying her assent to what the Lord had just said. She agreed with the position that the bread of salvation was primarily for Israel and that Gentiles were but dogs.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>&nbsp;But even the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs- </em>She perceived the healing of her daughter as a mere &ldquo;crumb&rdquo; compared to the bread of the Kingdom, full salvation, which had been obtained for Israel by Jesus. She perceived too that that great salvation had been rejected by them, or at best, treated carelessly and without due respect, in that crumbs had fallen to her. The Lord at the end of Matthew 12 and throughout His subsequent parables of chapter 13 had explained how Israel had rejected the Gospel, and that He was therefore turning to the disciples for response. The parables of Matthew 13 were His attempt to help the disciples come to terms with the fact that in reality, Israel had rejected John&rsquo;s message. But this woman perceived it well, and thereby perceived that the bread of salvation must therefore be available to the Gentiles if Israel didn&rsquo;t want it. In this she was far ahead of the disciples themselves. It could be argued that she was not&nbsp;<em>seeking</em>&nbsp;&lsquo;crumbs&rsquo;, in the sense of equating the hoped for healing with the crumbs. It could be that she is saying that she is already eating of those crumbs, in that she felt she was feeding on whatever small parts of the bread of salvation were possible for her as a Gentile. She says that the dogs&nbsp;<em>are eating</em>&nbsp;the crumbs- rather than begging for them. The Lord was so deeply impressed by the woman&rsquo;s use of metaphor that He Himself builds it into a later parable- Lazarus the beggar desired to eat the crumbs which fell from the rich man&rsquo;s table (Lk. 16:21). The rich man clearly represents Judaism, which was to be condemned and rejected, whilst the beggar was saved. In this we see the Lord&rsquo;s humility as well as His sensitivity; He was deeply impressed by the woman, and absorbed her use of metaphor into His own mental material.</p><p>We can too easily assume that she is considering the Jewish children sitting at the table as the masters of the Gentiles. But she uses&nbsp;<em>kurios</em>&nbsp;for &lsquo;master&rsquo;, and I noted on Mt. 15:22 that she is recorded three times here as addressing Jesus as&nbsp;<em>kurios,&nbsp;</em>&ldquo;Lord&rdquo;. There is no Biblical nor spiritual warrant for thinking of Jews as &lsquo;masters&rsquo; or &lsquo;lords&rsquo; of the Gentiles. Her triple use of&nbsp;<em>kurios</em>&nbsp;regarding the Lord Jesus surely suggests that she is thinking of&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;table, with the bread of Israel&rsquo;s salvation placed upon it&nbsp;<em>by Him</em>, as the lord of the house and the feast- with the Jewish children sitting disinterested and disrespectfully at the table, throwing the food to the eager dogs beneath the table. It was exactly the attitude of the Lord Jesus to table fellowship, His eating with Gentiles and sinners, which was what led the children of Israel to reject Him. And this incident is sandwiched between the records of the feeding miracles, in which the Lord dealt His bread to all and sundry, including Gentiles. This amazing woman accepted Jesus as her Lord even though she felt that she was not fit to sit at His table; she got to be at His table by being as a dog. This amazing devotion to her Lord, fully accepting the barriers there were between them brought about by ethnic birth circumstances beyond her control- resulted in the Lord tearing down those barriers. Significantly, Paul uses the very same Greek words in 1 Cor. 10:21 about eating at the Lord&rsquo;s table- and he has the breaking of bread service in mind. The sharing of table fellowship with Gentiles was a highly divisive issue in the communities of Jewish Christians who first responded to Matthew&rsquo;s Gospel. He is surely making the point that in a strange way, Gentiles partook of the Lord&rsquo;s table in that even the dogs under the table still eat what is on the table.&nbsp; And this happened even during the Lord&rsquo;s ministry. They were &ldquo;under the table&rdquo; (Mk. 7:28)- but still&nbsp;<em>at</em>&nbsp;the table.</p>