Thoughts going in, Sunday Aug 14th

Matthew 15:21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly." 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." 25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. 26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." 27 "Yes it is, Lord," she said. "Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table." 28 Then Jesus said to her, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

I'm sure I say this almost every week, but this Sunday's gospel reading is FASCINATING--and also one of my favorites, in terms of nuances and layers.

On the surface, of course it's a rather troubling reading. The woman in the text seems--as one commentator put it--to have "caught Jesus with his 'compassion' down." At the very least, the Jesus of this reading does not fit well with our "gentle Jesus meek & mild" version of the Savior. But herein lies an interesting text-critical matter. We who take the Scriptures seriously, believe that the authors were *INSPIRED when they wrote. Luke gives us the clearest understanding of what that means in the first few verses of his gospel, but the thing is, what Luke says applies to ALL of the Bible's writers. INSPIRATION, in other words, was not God's wireless data transfer of inerrant facts from heaven to the minds of the authors. Rather, inspiration was the *drive...the *impetus...the "itch in need of scratching" that came from God to these authors to sift through the data: the data of their own recollection; the data of myriads of oral tradition & campfire stories; and the data of 'post-it' type fragments of Jesus wisdom-sayings that had already begun to be preserved. And perhaps most importantly of all, *INSPIRATION included the divine guidance of what to LEAVE IN & what to LEAVE OUT. In terms of the 4 gospels, this has given us a wonderful 4-view record of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.

But here's the point.....if you or I were writing a Jesus story, would we include a passage where Jesus calls some poor woman a "DOG??????" I doubt it. Jesus seems to embarrass us and our 21st century commitment to inclusivity. Yet, of all of the things Matthew left out of his gospel, he kept this part in. Why?

Well, to begin with we have to admit that not only does the Jesus of this text potentially embarrass us as 21st century Christians, this passage **could just as easily trouble the FIRST CENTURY Church. After all, Matthew wrote AFTER Easter; AFTER the Great Commission (go to **all the world & preach the gospel); and very likely after the conversion of St. Paul, the establishment of the Gentile Mission, and the Council of Jerusalem. In other words, regardless of what Jesus said & did during his earthly ministry, by the time Matthew sat down & wrote, Gentile believers in Jesus was a fact of life--an APPROVED fact of life. Surely this little story illustrating a cantankerous "Jesus-is-for-Jews-only" episode could/should be left out. This brings us again back to the question of 'why wasn't it?'

The best explanation that comes to my mind goes back to the idea of Matthew's gospel being written for a 'Jewish audience.' In other words, it is assumed that the gospel was written for, and was a favorite of, Jewish believers in Jesus. But this was not simply for their own internal spiritual well-being. It also served as a powerful evangelistic tool--and even a somewhat 'in-your-face' apologetic to the larger Jewish community that had rejected Jesus as Messiah.

It puts us today in a somewhat difficult position because our setting is quite different. Yet, I'm convinced that we miss what's going on in the text if we're naive or willfully ignore the 'sharp edges' of the 'in-your-face' passages.

Observe: this passage occurs within the wider context of a debate between Jesus & the Pharisees (downstream: Jewish believers in Jesus vs the Jewish leadership that rejects him) regarding PURITY; and of course, purity always equates to one's 'acceptance' in the eyes of God. The chapter begins with an accusation leveled by the Pharisees that Jesus & his disciples flout the "tradition of the elders" by not ritually washing before they eat. This washing has nothing to do with hygiene & everything to do with ceremonial/ritual purity. THEY are saying, in other words, this upstart rabbi Jesus & his band of disciples *can't be acceptable in the eyes of God because they disregard our rules. But Jesus turns it back on them and teaches that defilement (impurity, and hence rejection *by God) is not a matter of what "goes in" to one's mouth...& whether with ceremonially clean hands or not, but rather "what comes out" of one's mouth (vs 11 & 18), for what comes out comes from one's heart.

Then BAMMO! Matthew gives us an awesome illustration of exactly what Jesus means. They travel into Gentile territory (v21). In Mark's version of the story a "Syrophoenician" woman comes up to Jesus. Mark's designation merely marks her as a Gentile of a particular area (Mk 7:26). Matthew ratchets things up several notches by calling her a "CANAANITE woman" (vs 22). While you or I may not get difference in nuance, surely 1st century Jews DID. "Canaanite" is an old testament word; Canaanite denotes the traditional ENEMIES of God's people; Canaanites were Baal worshipers! Matthew could not have constructed a more DESPISED person within the Jewish mindest. It's as though he's 'teleported' someone from the Old Testament era into their present day...but not just any 'someone,' ...a Baal-worshiping Canaanite WOMAN! And what indescribably heretical filth does this woman spew forth from her mouth???

--- "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me" (vs 22...in the Greek the church's liturgical formula 'Kyrie Eleison' literally jumps off the page)

--- She adopts the posture of worship (v 25)

--- She identifies the upstart rabbi Jesus of Nazareth as ISRAEL’S Messiah (“Son of David,” v 22)

--- She repeatedly uses language reminiscent of the psalms (Israel’s prayerbook) in addressing Jesus as “Lord” (vss 22, 25, 27)

In short, the episode of the Canaanite woman in Matthew’s gospel is what we in our day would call a “smack-down!” The point isn’t how “polite” Jesus was or wasn’t with her, but rather, HER FAITH in Israel’s God as manifest in the Messiah vs their rejection of him.

How might we apply this episode in today’s church?
I think the most important application is to see the ‘mirror’ that is often offered to us by those outside of the church. How often do we hear the likes of Jon Stewart, Bill Mahre, or Christopher Hitchens slam Christians for their hypocrisy, intolerance and hatred? Too often our response is to HIT BACK at them; to claim our high ground as followers of Jesus; to smirk to ourselves that one day they’ll “get theirs.” This is wrong.

A common theme in the bible is that people who should “get it,” often don’t….whereas others who seemingly have less to go on,….DO. “Out of the mouths of babes,….. “even the rocks would cry out”….and “the heavens declare…” are all phrases that illustrate this. Frequently the gospels go a step further by showing Gentile/heathens with impressive faith, while those who were supposedly looking for the Messiah…miss him--even though he’s standing right in front of them.

Today we in the church are the ‘insiders.’
What is it that today’s outsiders are teaching us….that we’re largely missing? My hunch is that it has something to do with that Micah 6:8 thing: He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. 
 And what does the LORD require of you? 
To act justly and to love mercy 
 and to walk humbly with your God.

Cheers,

TM