Crumbs (collage, 2009)
This miracle of Jesus is recorded in two of the gospels. There is much we could say concerning it, but I would like to just point out the relation of this narrative to others in the Bible in order to make the point that no passage of Scripture exists in a vacuum. Each one is interrelated in one way or another to the total teachings of the Bible. That is why it is so important to at least be generally aware of the whole counsel of Scripture.
One could feel in light of Beale and Carson's observation that Matthew 15:21-18:14 is “the longest stretch of text in Matthew without any formal quotations of the OT,” that no OT allusions are to be found in this narrative. But that would be an incorrect assumption.
The story begins with Jesus withdrawing to parts of Tyre and Sidon – Gentile territory. It has been suggested that He needed to get away for a while from the crowds that followed him everywhere. Mark's account only has Tyre in the earliest manuscripts and therefore “and Sidon” should be deleted according to Metzger. However, Grassmick disagrees and feels that those words have “excellent early Greek manuscript support.” You will see these conflicting opinions reflected in the various English translations of Mark 7:24.
In either case, the location may be especially pertinent, as Marcus explains: “Elijah performed a miracle for a Gentile woman in the Tyre/Sidon region (1 Kgs 17:8-16, cf. Luke 4:25-26), and this miracle is especially relevant because Jesus and John the Baptist echo the activities of Elijah and Elisha in Mark.”
France notes the same thing but is not as convinced that the parallels are that close: “Some similarities can be traced between the present pericope and Elijah's visit to Zarephath, a village in the territory of Sidon, in 1 Kgs 17:8-24, which also results in the healing of the child of a Gentile woman (and includes some mention of bread). But the links are tenuous, and there is no sign of deliberate verbal allusions beyond the name Sidon itself.”
Mark calls the woman a Greek (i.e. a Gentile) while Matthew more specifically labels her as a “Canaanite.” “Keener points out that two of the women mentioned in the genealogy [of Jesus], Tamar and Rahab, were actually Canaanites, so that a careful reader might find a special resonance in this woman's being described as 'Canaanite.'” (France)
It is appropriate that she is designated that way since, as Barbieri explains, “Centuries earlier that area's inhabitants were called Canaanites (Num. 13:29).” “In calling the woman a 'Canaanite,' “Matthew is deliberately conjuring up distasteful memories of the pagan Tyrians and Sidonians from OT times.” (Beale and Carson) Thus it builds up interest in how Jesus will deal with such a woman's request.
Spencer also comments on the the designation of the woman as a Canaanite: “Compared with Mark, Matthew's narrative uses the anachronistic designation of 'Canaanite woman' (Mt. 15:22), harking back to ancient Israel's Baal-worshiping foes in the promised land. Remarkably, however, this 'Canaanite' honors Jesus as 'Lord' (three times) and 'Son of David,' kneels before him, and beseeches him in a 'shouting,' challenging yet prayerful mode, as in a lament psalm.”
France notes, “The same appeal [to Jesus as 'Son of David'] has been used by the blind men in [Matt.] 9:27.” This title also appears in Matthew 1:1 and 12:23.
At first, Jesus refuses her request that He remove the demon from her daughter since His concern is only with the house of Israel. He follows this up with a simile by stating (in Mark's version), “Let the children first be filled; for it is not appropriate to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs.”
As to the “children” of Jesus' reply, Marcus refers us to texts in which the Jews are identified as the children of God. These passages include Deuteronomy 14:1 and Isaiah 1:2. Lane adds Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 32:6; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1, and Romans 9:5.
“References to dogs in biblical literature are overwhelmingly negative, and when the term is used metaphorically for human beings it is abusive and derogatory (e.g. 1 Sam, 17:43; 2 Sam 16:9; Ps 22:16,20; Prov 26:11; Phil 3:2)...” (France) Similarly, Marcus reminds us, “In Rev 22:15 the 'dog' is an outsider to the community of God's grace, an idolater whose life is based on a lie...” (Marcus)
At this point in the story, many readers are naturally a bit shocked that Jesus would not only deny her request on behalf of her daughter, but in addition compare the woman to a lowly cur. There are two facts that need mentioning in answer to that response. The first point, brought out by many commentators, is that Jesus here does not use the common terminology for dog but instead a different Greek word that could perhaps be better translated as “pet” or “puppy.” Also, subsequent events will show that Jesus is going to eventually accede to her request but wants to test the woman's faith first.
“But even if Mark understands Jesus' words in 7:27 as a test, he also takes them seriously as an outline of salvation history up to his own day. For in Mark's view, which is shared by other early Christian writers, God's children, the Jews, had in the economy of salvation to be 'fed' with the bread of the gospel first before the Gentiles could be nourished by it (cf. Rom 1:16; Acts 13:46...). The dog...though admittedly in a position inferior to that of the children, is still part of the 'household of faith' (cf. Gal 6:10).” (Marcus)
As to why Jesus didn't immediately grant the woman's request, this is not the only time in Scripture where such a delay occurred. Thus, Hendricksen points to OT texts where God had similarly waited before answering someone. These include Genesis 21:1-5 and Psalm 22:2 as well as delays in Mark 5:35; Matthew 9:27-28; and John 6:5-6; 11:6. “The same reasoning should, in all probability, be applied in connection with the Syrophoenician or Canaanite woman. Jesus delayed to heed her request in order to test her faith. Now was it not a very similar manifestation of determined perseverance in the face of opposition ('I will not let thee go except thou bless me,' Gen. 32:26) that changed a 'Jacob' into an 'Israel' (Gen. 32:28)? This woman, then was in that sense a true Israelite!”
So we see that rather than giving up at this point, the woman came right back at Jesus with the argument: “Even the dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their master's table.” Marcus says, “In the OT and later Judaism, as in our pericope [i.e. an extract from a text, especially a passage from the Bible], bright women occasionally overcame male figures in argument. The wise woman of Tekoa in 2 Samuel 14, for example, maneuvers King David into reversing his banishment of Absolom...” We could likewise point to Abigail, David's future wife, who cleverly talked him out of killing her husband at the time, Nabal (cf. I Samuel 25).
In relation to her clever saying, H. Anderson says that “Jesus may have shared the old prophetic view that on God's day when his purpose was finally consummated, the Gentiles too would be brought into the fold (Isa. 19-25; 66:19f; Mic. 4:1f; Zech. 8:20ff). No doubt the Evangelist himself saw in the saying and its sequel an exceptional illustration of the truth that the gospel was intended for all.”
At this point in the narrative, Jesus simply tells the woman that her daughter is healed. France sees this as only one of several correspondences with another healing miracle in the gospel accounts, namely, the healing of the centurion's servant recorded in Matthew 8:5-13. “In both the request for help comes not from the 'patient' but from a concerned superior officer/parent; both suppliants are Gentiles; in each case there is an initial show of reluctance by Jesus as a Jew appealed to by a Gentile; in each case the 'faith' of the suppliant is more highly commended than that of any Jew; and in each case (and only in these two cases in Matthew) the initial reluctance was quickly succeeded by admiration for the person's faith. Here the dialogue is more labored and painful from the woman's point of view, as Jesus apparently 'plays hard to get.” As a result, her eventual triumph is the more emphatic.”
A second parallel example adduced by France is the exorcism in Decapolis (Matthew 8:28-34) which “has also provided a precedent for the present case by showing Jesus as not reluctant to deal with demon-possession in a Gentile context.”
In my own mind, the healing of the demon-possessed girl also has definite affinities with the story in Acts 16:16-18. If you recall, that narrative involved Paul and his companions in Philippi being pestered by a demon-possessed girl. He becomes so annoyed with her constantly shouting out, “These men are servants of the Most High God,” that he charges the demon in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” Note (a) the Gentile setting in each story, (b) the fact that the healing of a possessed girl is featured in both, (c) there appears to be an inordinate delay before the exorcism takes place, (d) the miracle is accomplished by words only, and (e) a correct theological truth is proclaimed loudly in both (identification of Jesus as “Son of God” and Paul and companions as “Servants of the Most High God.”) But to me, the clinching detail is that Paul appears to carry out the healing (which will turn out to have immediate negative consequences for him) only after being exasperated with her hounding him. Compare this with what Matthew records in 15:23 – “And his disciples came and begged him, saying, 'Send her away, for she is crying after us.'”
Frustration may not appear to be an adequate motive in each case to effect an exorcism, but (a) we can probably safely assume that compassion on the two girl's similar plight was one of the reasons they were finally healed and (b) as several commentators have noted, the statement of Paul's followers can alternatively be translated as “Send it (i.e. the demon) out.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments