This week one of the Daily Scripture readings for the Adult Bible Studies series was Mark 7:24-30.
From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Then he said to her, “For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.” So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.
I've contemplated this passage in the past, but found myself paying particular attention this week. First, I saw some comparisons that might be made to the Wedding at Cana passage that I wrote about recently. In both passages, we're struck by the seemingly callous initial response of Jesus. And, in both passages, we see the faith of the woman in the story prevail, but we also see that they don’t allow potential distractions to get in their way. Of course, in this post, we’re going to see where distractions might lead . . .
It also called to mind last year’s controversy involving remarks attributed to United Methodist Bishop Karen Oliveto concerning the parallel passage in the Gospel of Matthew. Without going into detail , the Bishop's remarks (preserved by John Lomperis in screenshots which I’ve taken the liberty of combining into one image) raised questions not only concerning the motivations of Jesus, but seemed to call into question his divine nature. Did he misunderstand his mission as being limited to the children of Israel? Did he change his mind because of the woman's plea? Was Jesus merely human, trying to figure his life out as he went?
Frankly, I find Oliveto’s post to be symptomatic of what happens when we engage in “meology” instead of theology. By “meology” (which hasn’t made it into the OED), I mean putting ourselves first in our quest for understanding the Divine. One of the worst aspects of “meology” is that we end up wanting to create God in our own image. That way ultimately leads to the killing fields.
Was Jesus being racist?
There’s a thoughtful post on that question which is long, but worth reading. Like the author of that post, I was challenged and disturbed the first time I read this passage (just as I have been challenged and disturbed by many passages in the Bible). I continue to be challenged by the encounter between Jesus and the Syrophoenician (or Canaanite) woman. But I think that the problem is that we tend to think of Jesus in human terms and so want to judge him accordingly.
Well, let's dispense with any idea that Jesus was overcoming prejudice, "changing" or "growing" in relationship to God, or just trying to figure out who he was. John's Gospel was pretty clear regarding the concept that Jesus and the Father were one and that Jesus did nothing apart from the Father.
Instead, let's ask what he meant when he said to the Syrophoenician woman,
"Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”
Unlike Matthew's Gospel, where Jesus stated that he was sent "only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (although even that depends on how you translate εἰ μή εἰς - which I won't attempt), here he simply says, "let the children be fed first . . ."
I think that the two versions can be reconciled by understanding what Matthew meant by "the House of Israel".
In Matthew 10:5-6, Jesus sends out his disciples, limiting their mission: “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’.”
As Tommy Givens, in We the People: Israel and the Catholicity of Jesus, states —
"The directions . . . keep the apostles from leaving the promised land and are primarily geographic rather than ethnic or religious in scope (which are both hopelessly overgeneralized categories). To say that the restriction is ethnic or religious in the sociological parlance of our time would exclude Jews of the Diaspora from Israel, but surely such Jews remain Israelite. The time in which they will be touched directly by the gospel of the kingdom of Israel’s God is coming, but it is not yet."
— pp. 314-315, emphasis added
In Matthew 15:24 this geographic limitation is reinforced with even greater emphasis, but it is still geographic in its limitation and focused on its intent to achieve the ultimate salvation of all through the redemption of the House of Israel.
What then of Jesus’s harsh statement that “it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” How do we square this with Jesus, at the start of his ministry, angering the people in his hometown of Nazareth by suggesting that the Messiah might be coming to save those beyond the House of Israel? Where are the kind words that he had when asked to heal the Centurion’s son? Mark’s Gospel doesn’t contain the passage regarding the Centurion, but it does contain the account of Jesus healing the Gerasene demoniac — a Gentile — earlier in his Gospel.
Although his primary mission was to the House of Israel, Jesus did extend healing to non-Jews. Even if there was a particular reason for making the point that he had come first to the children of Israel, why use such insulting language?
How could the loving Jesus call this desperate woman, whose daughter is severely afflicted, a “dog”.
Ben Witherington, in his commentary, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, gets to the point and doesn’t sugar coat the issue:
“Regardless of whether one thinks the term κυναριον is a diminutive or not, the use of the term is likely an insult or slur, especially when spoken by a Jew to a Gentile. It is not impossible that there is a reference here to the practice of giving unwanted bread which was not worth saving to the dogs.”
— p. 232
The woman’s response is to take up the characterization and point out that —
— even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs
Some would have the lesson mean that the woman has bested Jesus in a verbal sparring match with her quick-wittedness. Others, like Bishop Oliveto, want us to see Jesus as changing his mind and letting go of his prejudice. Both of these propositions miss the point that the woman has accepted the characterization. Jesus’s mission is to the House of Israel first — it is through his mission that he and the Father intend to do the work of salvation for Israel that result in the ultimate conquest of the world for that salvation.
As N. T. Wright concludes in his Mark for Everyone —
“The point at issue, rather, is that Jesus was conscious during his ministry, and the early church was conscious thereafter, that his personal vocation was not to spread the gospel to the Gentile world, but to tell the Jewish people themselves that their long-awaited deliverance was at hand, and indeed to bring it about by completing his vocation in Jerusalem. (The same point comes through in, for example, Matthew 10:5–6 and Romans 15:8–9.) He believed, as any Jew of that period might, that if and when Israel was redeemed, that would be the time for the rest of the world to be brought under the saving (and judging) rule of Israel’s God, the world’s creator.”
— Page 95
In other words, this isn’t about a racist Jesus coming around to a broader perspective, but about Jesus being focused on his salvific mission. Givens has a similar take on the parallel passage in Matthew —
“What does Jesus’ encounter with the Canaanite mother tell us? The time for Israel’s victory over its enemies has come. It is not a model for how Jews should treat gentiles. Nor is it a model for how men should treat women. It is how Israel’s history of enmity with the Canaanites is coming to an end in and through Jesus. This indeed has implications for other gentiles, for if Jesus can deliver Israel from the Canaanites forever, then what can it mean but peace between Israel and the rest of the gentiles? But let the terms of this peace be understood. There is for these gentile enemies of Israel, as well as less threatening gentiles, no Son of David, no Christ, no being Christian, no holy people, apart from the covenant people of Israel. The eschatological blessing of gentiles—their salvation—obtains only at the table of Israel and its God, only within the covenant of the one true God.”
— Pages 322-323, emphasis added
All of this makes good theological sense — in a way. The question is one of application in our lives. Here, I’ll turn to N. T. Wright again —
“The story is therefore a sharp reminder to us that Jesus wasn’t simply called to go around being helpful to everyone. He had specific (and controversial) things to do and a limited time to do them. If we remake Jesus in the cosy image of a universal problem-solver, we will miss the towering importance of his unique assignment. If he must not be distracted from the messianic vocation that will lead him to the cross, nor must we, readers of the gospel and followers of Jesus, be distracted from focusing on that too by our natural, and indeed God-given, desire to spread the healing message of the gospel as widely as possible.”
— Page 96, Mark for Everyone
I’m not sure I understand what potential distractions Wright is referencing. Is he talking about distractions of this world (wealth, prestige, standing, possessions, etc.)? Is he referencing focusing too much on answering the material needs of the world to the detriment of the ultimate, eternal spiritual needs?
Maybe he means that we shouldn’t be distracted by Jesus brusquely saying to his mother, “Woman, what concern is that to you and me?” or to the unnamed woman in Mark, “it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” Instead, we should stay focused on the issue at hand, whether it be the lack of wine for the wedding or the need for healing our afflicted daughter.
I come back to my first thought on reading the Daily Bible Study meditation and that was a comparison of faith of Mary, the mother of God, to that of the Syrophoenician woman. Two mothers — one of a son capable of miracles, the other one of a little daughter suffering from affliction.
Mary’s response was assured, because she knew Jesus. She didn’t engage in argument with him, but simply instructed the servants to do as he said.
The Syrophoenician woman’s response was persistent, not because she knew Jesus (she only knew of him), she didn’t have the assurance of the angel Gabriel’s pronouncement or witnessing Jesus increasing in wisdom and in years, in divine and human favor.
No, what the woman had was the persistence of a mother for her ailing child.
Jesus didn’t come to save every suffering child or desperate mother. I suspect that this woman, based on her actions, believed that Jesus had the power to save her child, but she could not have known that Jesus would have felt it within his mission to do so.
And yet, she persisted even when apparently rebuffed. Even though she didn’t know what the outcome was likely to be, she didn’t give up.
We’ve heard it said that God answers all prayer, just that sometimes the answer is “yes”, sometimes it is “no” and sometimes it is “wait”. The examples of Mary and the Syrophoenician woman instruct us that we should pray nonetheless.
The Syrophoenician woman was like Mary in this regard —
She wasn’t distracted.