Hermeneutics
Then Jesus left Galilee and went north to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Gentile woman who lived there came to him, pleading, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! For my daughter is possessed by a demon that torments her severely.” But Jesus gave her no reply, not even a word. Then his disciples urged him to send her away. “Tell her to go away,” they said. “She is bothering us with all her begging.” Then Jesus said to the woman, “I was sent only to help God’s lost sheep — the people of Israel.” But she came and worshiped him, pleading again, “Lord, help me!” Jesus responded, “It isn’t right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs.” She replied, “That’s true, Lord, but even dogs are allowed to eat the scraps that fall beneath their masters’ table.” “Dear woman,” Jesus said to her, “your faith is great. Your request is granted.” And her daughter was instantly healed. (Matthew 15:21-28)
Hermeneutics – it’s hard enough to spell, much less define – but, simply stated, is a method of interpreting the Scriptures. The best, and the worst interpretations of this particular text, in my opinion, were both provided by a woman. The first – and the worst – is found in a book entitled, Feminist Interpretation of the Bible and reads as follows:
The Canaanite is an aggressive single parent who here defies cultural taboos and acts to free Jesus from his sexism and racism by catching him in a bad mood or with his compassion down, besting him in an argument and herself becoming the vehicle of his liberation and the deliverance of her daughter.
This feminist interpretation makes the Canaanite woman the “savior,” who rescues Jesus from his “ism’s” – take your pick. But the best interpretation of Jesus’ words comes from the Canaanite woman herself. She, more than any other (the Pharisees, the crowds, even the disciples), seems to get what Jesus is saying. The scribes and Pharisees may have been scholars of sorts, but they certainly didn’t understand Jesus. This woman did, however, and she alone is commended for her faith.
We are told that this woman had heard about Jesus. But what had she heard? Luke tells us that there were disciples in Tyre and Sidon, and that vast multitudes had come to hear Jesus and to be healed of their diseases, including unclean spirits. (Luke 6:17-19) So, maybe that’s what the woman had heard. There’s only one problem though: she’s a Canaanite, a descendant from a city that God had told the Israelites long ago to utterly destroy. (Deut. 20:16-18) In that day it was one thing to be a Gentile, but quite another to be a Canaanite – much less a woman. In the eyes of any respectable Jew, this was about as low as one could go, but the woman was desperate because her daughter was demon possessed and Jesus was her only hope. And so when she saw him she persisted in crying out, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is possessed by a demon.” (verse 22)
This woman was unfazed by the scowling disapproval of the disciples and their pressing Jesus to be rid of her – which doesn’t paint the disciples in a particularly favorable light. They found this woman’s persistence irritating and distracting so they reverted to their shop-worn solution, “Tell her to go away!” (verse 23) This was the same kind of “advice” that the disciples used to encourage Jesus to send the hungry crowds away in Matthew 14:15. Compassion – obviously – was not their strong suit that day.
I wonder what contributed to the disciples’ indifference, even their disdain toward this woman? Was it due to the fact that she was a Canaanite? We know that the disciples weren’t exactly filled with the milk of human kindness toward Samaritans. (Luke 9:51-55) Or, perhaps, was it the fact that this Canaanite was a woman? No one knows for sure, but they were shocked that Jesus was found speaking with her. Note that not one of the disciples said to the woman, “What do you want?” or to Jesus, “Why are you speaking with her?” The disciples simply pressed Jesus to get rid of her. But Jesus’ silence, followed by his words later, made it plain that his disciples had it all wrong.
Some people suggest that Jesus was wrong here, too, like the feminist’s view of this text. But was he? Well, we probably shouldn’t judge Jesus by the process but rather by the product of the process because look at its outcome: “Then Jesus answered her, ‘Dear woman, your faith is great. Your request is granted.’ And her daughter was instantly healed.” (Matt. 15:28) So what is it that troubles us about Jesus’ words and actions? Are we bothered by his silence? Perhaps, but if that’s true how often in the Psalms does the psalmist ask God how long will he remain silent? Rather, Jesus’ silence did several things. First, he had no obligation to respond; the woman had no basis upon which to appeal to Jesus, except to cling to his mercy. So, to her, Jesus’ silence was actually a source of encouragement which resulted in worship. Remember, the disciples are pressing Jesus to get rid of her. Thus, when Jesus kept silent he was refusing to give into the disciples’ request and, to this woman, Jesus’ silence was golden – since a command from him to leave would have altogether ended her hope for mercy.
Or, what about Jesus’ seemingly harsh words to this Canaanite woman regarding Jews, Gentiles and dogs, no less? Well, Jesus’ conversation with another woman, this time at a well, sheds a little light on that question. In John 4:19-26, Jesus explains to the Samaritan woman (who, by the way, also came to faith) that in order for her to come to faith she needed to understand that her religion would not save her. The short version was, “salvation is from the Jews.” (John 4:22) And just as the scribes and Pharisees had to renounce their distorted version of the Jewish religion, the Samaritans had to reject their “faith” and trust only in Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. Thus, the same held true for the Canaanite woman. It had to be clear to her that Jesus came to Israel first, then to the Gentiles and that his words to her were the truth – the truth necessary for her salvation. They were no harsher than the words of John the Baptist to the Jews when he spoke of the coming judgment of God on (Jewish) sinners.
So, did Jesus humiliate this woman by comparing her to “dogs”? No, because she, like us, needed to be humbled if she was to come to God for mercy. What Jesus says to this woman is what the gospel says to every sinner: “You’re not worthy to be in God’s presence. Confess that you are a sinner, worthy only of his eternal wrath, and call upon him for mercy and grace.” Frankly, the gospel is not meant to flatter, but to save us from our sins and the penalty of eternal wrath. The things Jesus said (and didn’t say) to this woman resulted in one of the greatest declarations of faith in the New Testament. Why, then, do we seek to second guess Jesus in his dealings with this Canaanite woman?
Having said that, let’s focus on the woman’s hermeneutics – her method of interpreting Jesus’ words and actions – which led to her response of faith. Unlike the feminists of our day, this woman was not offended by Jesus. She was not seeking to correct any flaws in Jesus’ thinking. She saw herself for what she was – a woman in desperate need of help because she could not rid her daughter of the demon that tormented her. She saw Jesus for what he was – a gracious and compassionate Savior who was able (and hopefully willing) to extend mercy to her and to her daughter. I believe she, and she alone, rightly interpreted Jesus’ silence and the words that followed. He said he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel: that was his mission. She wasn’t seeking to dissuade him from fulfilling that calling; she simply persisted, pleading with Jesus to have mercy while on his way to fulfilling that very same mission.
And what seemed to be our Lord’s most inflammatory words (“It isn’t right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs” (Matt. 15:26)) did not put her off either, as Jesus’ choice of words for “dogs” is significant. He didn’t use the term used for dogs that run wild in the streets (See, Matt. 7:6; Luke 16:21), or the term that was used negatively of men. (See, Phil. 3:2; Rev. 22:15) Instead, Jesus used a term which might be better translated, “lap dog,” because it was the word used for a household pet. And the Canaanite woman was listening carefully to Jesus, even to his choice of words. She’s thinking, “Did he just refer to me as a ‘lap dog,’ like a ‘pet’? Great!” And she seized on that word and made it the very basis for her appeal. It was as though she’d said, “Did you say it would be wrong to take bread away from the children and feed it to the dogs? But you said these dogs were pets. They don’t run wild in the street; they sit at their master’s feet. And if their master is at the dinner table, they’re probably under the table near his feet and, you know, uhhhh….. crumbs might fall from the table and the pet dog will eat them. And hey, who knows? Maybe the master might even throw the dog a scrap every once in awhile. So, if I’m a ‘lap dog,’ or your pet, then simply give me a scrap of bread; that’s all I’m asking.”
Far from being offended by Jesus, she was inspired by him to ask for what she desired. And how she must have delighted in Jesus’ response to her request. Jesus commended her faith in a way that no Jew had ever been commended, much less a Canaanite Gentile woman. Only the Gentile centurion, a male Roman citizen, was commended in a similar way. (Matt. 8:10-12) And she, like the centurion, trusted Jesus to heal her loved one from “long distance.” Taking Jesus at his word, she returned home to find that her daughter had been delivered from her tormentor.
So, was this Canaanite woman that “aggressive single mom who defied cultural taboos to free Jesus from his sexism and racism by catching him in a bad mood”? You be the judge. And then did she “best him in an argument and herself become the vehicle of Jesus’ liberation and the deliverance of her daughter”? I guess it depends upon your hermeneutics, but I think the better interpretation is that she had a good understanding of her condition and that, only by God’s mercy, could she be heard, and only by his grace could her daughter be healed.
It may be a matter of interpretation, of course, but given Jesus’ concluding statements to this woman I think she got an “A” in hermeneutics. Class dismissed.
Grace,
Randy
No comments:
Post a Comment