Matthew 15:24 question

[Christian2]

Matthew 15:24
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

I am reading a commentary on Matthew and the author said the Greek could be read:

"Was I only sent to the lost sheep of Israel."

Is this true?

Thank you.

[John Reece]

I am reading a commentary on Matthew and the author said the Greek could be read:

"Was I only sent to the lost sheep of Israel."

Is this true?

No, that is not true (assuming a question mark rather than a period at the end of the quote). What commentary are you reading?

NA27 Text (Matthew 15:24):

ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· οὐκ ἀπεστάλην εἰ μὴ εἰς τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἰσραήλ.

Transliteration:

ho de apokritheis eipen; ouk apestalēn ei mē eis ta probata ta apolōlota oikou Israēl.

Translation (ESV)

He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Analysis (Zerwick):

ἀπεστάλην : I was sent, aorist passive of ἀποστέλλω.
οὐκ ... εἰ μή : not ... except only.
εἰς = πρός : to.
πρόβατον : sheep.
ἀπολωλότα : accusative of ἀπολωλώς lost, perfect participle of ἀπόλλυμι.
οἴκος Ἰσραήλ : house of Israel, absence of article due to Semitic association (construct state).

[Christian2]

John, I'm reading:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Message-Ma...2967705&sr=8-4

Yes, he put a question mark after the sentence.

I didn't think he was correct simply because I do not believe the context allows it.

It is not unusual to find some commentators making mistakes. I brought it up because puts a different spin on Jesus' mission.

Thank you for your reply. :)

[John Reece]

John, I'm reading:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Message-Ma...2967705&sr=8-4

Yes, he put a question mark after the sentence.

I didn't think he was correct simply because I do not believe the context allows it.

It is not unusual to find some commentators making mistakes. I brought it up because puts a different spin on Jesus' mission.

After checking the information about Michael Green at Wikipedia, and noting that John R. Stott is the editor of the series in which Michael Green's commentary was published, I could not assume ― without further research ― that Green is mistaken.

Although all the Greek texts punctuate Matthew 15:24 as a statement rather than a question, and nearly all commentators (including R. T. France in his 2007 NICNT commentary) treat the text as a statement rather than a question, I find support for Green's comment in R. T. France's Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), pages 233-234:

A closely similar story of Jesus' response to Gentile faith occurs in 15:21-28. There is the same sequence of emphasis on the suppliant's non-Jewish origin, testing question by Jesus on the appropriateness of his extending his ministry outside the 'house of Israel', a refusal to be put off and an humble but insistent reply by the woman, which evokes Jesus' commendation of her faith, resulting in instant healing by a word alone. It is important to note that it is precisely in this context that we find the one clear statement in Matthew's gospel that Jesus' mission was limited to 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (15:24). It is remarkable how often this verse is quoted out of context as a proof-text for the parochialism of Matthew, but it is nothing of the sort. While it is indicative in form, it functions in the dialogue more as a question, a test of faith, a statement of position which invites (and receives) a counter-proposal, and it is that counter-proposal which wins Jesus' assent and carries the day. The narrative itself negates the apparent absoluteness of 15:24. Jesus is sent to the lost sheep outside the house of Israel; there is plenty of bread for the 'dogs' as well! The whole story is one which, if read with wooden literalism, gives good reason to complain of the 'chauvinistic' attitude it displays, but which, if read within its total literary context and with a due openness to a dialogue conducted not so much by sober propositions as by verbal fencing, fits well into Matthew's theology of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel ― and of all those who respond in faith.

[BookerG]

It seems to me that it would be rather difficult to translate this as a question. Greek questions that begin with a negative are used to imply one particular answer. If they start with mh they expect a no answer. For example, Jesus asked his disciples "You don't want to go away, too, do you?" (John 6:67). When they start with ouk (as Matthew 15:24 does) they expect a yes answer. It would come out something like: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, wasn't I?" But this passage actually has a double negative. Literally "I was not (ouk) sent if not (ei mh) (or "except", or "but only") to the lost sheep of Israel." It has both ouk and mh. But the mh (in "ei mh" = except) is almost always used in subordinate clauses following a main clause that makes a statement including either an ouk or some type of negative concept. (For example, "No one is good, except God."). I'm not exactly sure what that would do to the expectation of a certain answer.
The one example I found that fits this construction was in Luke 17:19, "Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” Following that pattern, we could come up with the translation, "Was I not sent, except only to the lost sheep of Israel?" It's awkward, but it still implies that the correct answer would be that he was not sent for outsiders.
Of course, as John's commentary points out, the whole point was as a teaching tool that would lead the woman to show her faith, and then Jesus would demonstrate that he was sent for all people, by healing her daughter. So the point is the same. Jesus was sent for all. But the commentary you used, by translating as a question that expects the opposite answer, "Was I only sent to the lost sheep of Israel?" (Seems to imply that the correct answer would be, "Of course not"), it spoils the teaching moment. Jesus is testing her faith. Making the answer so simple would not have served his purposes.