Scripture Text (NRSV)
7:24 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,
7:25 but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit
immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet.
7:26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged
him to cast the demon out of her daughter.
7:27 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."
7:28 But she answered him, "Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the
children's crumbs."
7:29 Then he said to her, "For saying that, you may go--the demon has
left your daughter."
7:30 So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon
gone.
7:31 Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of
Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.
7:32 They brought to him a deaf man who had an impediment in his
speech; and they begged him to lay his hand on him.
7:33 He took him aside in private, away from the crowd, and put his
fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue.
7:34 Then looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, "Ephphatha,"
that is, "Be opened."
7:35 And immediately his ears were opened, his tongue was released,
and he spoke plainly.
7:36 Then Jesus ordered them to tell no one; but the more he ordered
them, the more zealously they proclaimed it.
7:37 They were astounded beyond measure, saying, "He has done
everything well; he even makes the deaf to hear and the mute to
speak."
Comments:
In Mark's gospel, encounters with women usually signify turning points
in Jesus' ministry. Here, a conversation with a Syrophoenician woman
marks the beginning of his mission to the Gentiles.
Miracle stories are problematic. For many of us they are too
primitive, too raw, even too unclean. They tread in arenas or
dimensions of life that are outside of our control and powers of
explanation. Miracle stories deal with events that violate our systems
of thought and the way we understand the world. We are cautious with
these stories, because they are not easily pressed into our categories
of explanation or thought.
When preaching upon such texts we must take care that the first move
we make is not to move on - either explaining them away or moving too
quickly into symbolic meanings. First let us encounter these outsiders
pounding at the door and heart of God; first let us encounter fingers
in ears, bodily fluids, and a strange word from an ancient tongue
spoken in a groan that bridges the distance between heaven and earth.
Today we hear a mother's plea and the begging by a blind man's
acquaintances. Sitting in hospital or hospice rooms we know of these
prayers and have uttered them ourselves. These stories honor and
affirm our human cries for the new and unexpected. These stories
situate hearers in familiar places where futures are bound and
determined by the "way things happen." These stories then break open
imaginations and lives that are closed in by "reality" and offer us a
God who comes near to touch and heal, to save and embrace.
Ephphatha! With this word and this touch, this miracle story opens us
up to move into textures and layers of meaning that are beyond the
event itself. As we move deeper into Jesus' story in the coming weeks,
we shall encounter disciples and religious leaders and crowds
struggling with spiritual hearing and sight. As we begin fall
schedules and programs, this word seeks to enact miracles that would
open up congregations and the baptized of God to the future promised
by this Jesus. Ephphatha! Be opened. Open to God, to one another, to
strangers, neighbors, and enemies. Open to the orphan and the widow,
to the Syrophoenicians and people of the Decapolis in our midst - the
"those people" we have excluded for so long.
by Erik Strand from Sundays & Seasons, copyright 2002 Augsburg
Fortress.
I have NEVER understood the story in Mark 7:24-30, and my
Interpretation commentary (by Lamar Williamson) didn't help much. I
have also heard several sermons on it in past years, and they haven't
helped much either. Can someone please explain it to me? What am I
missing in 7:27? Thanks! ~Desiree in Sacramento~
Desiree, Matthew's account of this same story sheds a bit more light
on the context here- ( see Mt 15:21-28) There, Jesus states that he
was sent " only to the lost sheep of Israel" (Mt 15:24)-- in other
words, his ministry was only to the Jews. I believe that "dogs" as
used in this passage was an ethnic or racial slur referring to
Canaanites. I agree-- the commentaries don't help much here-- my
personal understanding is that the story is about Jesus at his most
human- he moves from refusing healing to her (simply because she isn't
a Jew) to understanding that God's healing and grace is open to
all.Hope that helps!
Sharon in Nebraska
I love this story. Jesus is never so human as he is here. We actually
get to watch him change and grow. I’ve been struggling with the
connection between the two stories… It seems to me they are parallel
miracles of transformation, except in the first story the woman is the
agent of transformation and Jesus performs that role in the second. In
the first story, Jesus is the one transformed, freed from a limited
worldview and brought to embrace fuller possibilities. He then goes on
to bring that opportunity for fullness of life to the deaf man. If
Jesus can accept and embrace change in this way, it gives me hope that
I can too. PS in Ont
One of my recollections of this passage is that the term "dog" WAS a
racial slur used by the Jews, but the word used here translates better
"puppy dog" rather than the unclean, feral cur that ran around loose.
I have long believed Jesus said this with a twinkle in his eye,
letting the woman know that HE did not hold her in any contempt, but
still was pointing out the animosity between their people - which
would lead her to expect him to treat her badly. When he called her a
"puppy dog", she was able to join in the game and say "well, then, I
guess I can expect a little tidbit from you then, can't I? Maybe the
family (Israel) gets the nice slices of the roast,(the benefit of
Jesus' ministry) but I can get something out of it too, right? And I
want it, please!" (Now, this is an interpretation from a professor, so
I can't quote any reference sources for you.)
Her desire to receive what Jesus offered led to the experience of a
miracle.
KyHoosierCat
KHC, could you elaborate a bit about the "with a twinkle in his eye"
bit? You may be on to something, but I am tripped up by the image of
Jesus using a slur in jest almost more than by him using one in human
error, you know? Do you mean that he was making light of prejudice, or
that he was trying to show that he was above it, or some other
interpretation that I"m just not getting yet?
For me ... I guess my take on this troubling bit about dogs and crumbs
has always been that Jesus was able to hear the voice of God as it
came to him through the woman ... and that he listened and made the
necessary changes.
SqueezeVT
Hi, SqueezeVT.
I'll try, but remember, I'm just recalling what a Seminary prof. said
- and it's been 25 years!
The idea is that Jesus knew the Jews had no use for the Gentiles -
called them all "dogs" in the worst sense of the word. So, when this
Gentile woman approached Jesus about her child, Jesus sort of grinned
and said, in effect, "You know I'm not supposed to have anything to do
with you. You know I'm supposed to believe you're inferior to my
people. But, honestly, I don't think you are. So, I will make light of
what my people call you - I'll call you a "dog" all right, but it will
be a nice lap-dog kind of dog - the kind that people keep in the
house. I'm joshing with you when I call you a "dog" and I think you
know that." The woman picked up on the kindness (and the joke) and
said, in effect, joshing right back, "Yeah, I know I'm a nobody, but
hey, I think you've got something I want. So, call me whatever you
want, Jesus, just let me in on this. I'll take whatever you have left
after you've taken care of your own people; just don't leave me out
completely."
I also recall some conversations about this being one way Jesus showed
his disciples that the Kingdom would be open to Gentiles as well. The
Jewish leaders were in the process of plotting against Jesus by this
time, and the Gentiles - some of them, anyway - were starting to
gravitate toward Jesus.
Have I cleared up the confusion or have I muddied the waters even
more? All this is just an opinion, open for debate and disagreement!
KyHoosierCat
Think of it like a father who adores his kid picking that kid up in a
huge bearhug and says you're a rotten kid, just a rotten kid. The tone
of voice is the whole key here. If the tone is harsh, the kid feels
bad. If the tone is light and loving, the kid knows dad is just
kidding and there is no bad effect. Dad gives kid a final big hug and
puts him back down and everyone is happy. Maybe that is how Jesus
spoke to the woman, in a loving voice that took any sting out of his
words. Just a thought.
None of these passages keep with what I felt lead to preach on. It's
Grandpanrents Day. Celebration with a dinner after Church... Maybe the
proverb one with good name...but I don't feel it if Anyone has any
suggestions for Grandparents day service POST PLEASE
Clerically
Blonde in West Ohio
I think this passage challenged then, and challenges us now, with what
we consider the limits of God's grace and love. In the first half, the
one in need of help is a demon-possesed, hyphenated, foreigner girl
who can't even seek help on her own (absolutely nothing to recommend
this person to a righteous Hebrew adult male responsible for keeping
his own faith) -- yet God in Christ chooses this person and makes them
whole. In the second half, we find a man living on the "wrong" side of
the lake who can't/won't listen, and who can't be understood -- yet
God in Christ listens, hears and understands, and the man is made
whole, and now other people can understand them and hear them. That
also raises an interesting question: who in this passage is deaf (to
the cries of those seeking and needing God), and who is mute (when it
is time to proclaim good news)?
OLAS
OLAS, I like what you said about challenging any human-set limits of
God's grace and mercy. Thanks. I will likely follow that theme this
week. I love that God doesn't see what we see in people, but sees us
all with a whole different set of eyes, and makes judgment calls with
an entirely different set of standards than we use. The limitless of
God's grace and love continues to fill my heart with thanksgiving.
KyHoosierCat
RE: Grandparent's Day theme. ChristianityToday.com suggests Psalm
103:17-18 as a Scripture reading. Go to their site and see if there's
anything there for you.
KHC
A little off topic--but I wonder if anyone could help me out. I would
like to "commission" the new organist (who begins this Sunday) and the
choir on Sunday morning. Does anyone have any liturgies, suggestions,
etc. Really appreciate it, thanks. Roberta
In the Imaging the Texts section of this site, in the commentary on
this passage, the author spells woman, womyn. I have seen this else
where and do not know what the change in spelling means. Can anyone
help? Blessings LGB
I believe the central point in this passage is not the little dog name
but the faith of this woman. God is not moved by need but by faith. I
believe this is a lousy translation of the text here. Most
translations include the words great is your faith. It was only when
she showed her faith was Jesus moved. Harold in Alabama
Can God change his mind?
Or is it our perception of God that changes?
I am reminded here of Abraham interceding for Sodom and Gomorrah. What
part does faith play in seeing attitudes shift and change in our
world?
These are just some of the questions that this passage regularly
raises for me.
I also note that in each of these accounts presented in Mark, there is
an atmosphere of resolution on Jesus's part. A kind of deflated
frustration. Mark illustrates this in the second miracle, by Jesus
"sighing", as he says "Ephphatha".
I see this as God's (I am recognising here that Jesus is both fully
human and fully God) great frustration with human relationships, and
this insane process we have of determining what the boundaries are
between us.
The Syrophoenician woman is regarded as unworthy on the basis of her
religious beliefs. The man with the speech impediment is also regarded
as incomplete because he couldn't talk properly! How condescending are
these attitudes, and yet I encounter them everyday, and even more
frustratingly amongst my congregation.
I recently viewed the movie "The True Story of Anne Frank" and the
cruelty that was exhibited in that movie to all sorts of people simply
because they were Jewish.
Just how long are human beings going to treat each other like this?
Just how many categories and differences and diversities are there
between human beings. All of them absolutely frustrate the human
Jesus, because they could all quite simply be avoided, if everyone
accepted each other as we are.
Does Jesus change his mind here, or does he change ours?
What are the categories that we imply in our dealings with people, of
their unworthiness. Who are the people we regard as "dogs" (puppies or
otherwise), and who we don't think "talks proper".
We rely on so many communication tools to find out what and who people
really are, and yet we fail to appreciate that most people can never
fully express their inner self. Who they really are! Because the cloud
of sin, darkens our ability to see fully.
In some ways I find this a very sad passage. I have the same
frustrations that Jesus must have felt, because our society still
exhibits the same symptoms today.
My prayer is that we are slowly progressing towards a greater
tolerance of all diversity.
It is good to be back with you after a small sojourn in the
wilderness.
Regards to all for a challenging discussion again this week. The
potential looks great.
KGB in Aussie.
The Matthean account includes "Great is your faith", but it is absent
in Mark. I've looked at the Greek, and the English Marcan text seems
to be translated correctly. Is it possible Matthew was approaching
this from a slightly different angle than Mark had previously? Mark
doesn't seem so concerned about the woman's transforming faith as by
her desperate situation and by Jesus' response to a person "outside
the circle of Israel". How high, how deep, how broad is the love God
has for us all -- that thought just keeps coming through this
Scripture for me this week.
I guess we could all list those things that keep modern-day people
"outside the circle of acceptance", couldn't we? We have a man in our
small town who has had polio since childhood. He gets around in a
wheelchair. But the sidewalks in this town are in atrocious shape, and
this guy can't get anywhere without a major struggle. After years of
the town turning a blind eye to this, the man filed a lawsuit to get
the sidewalks repaired. And now people are mad because they are going
to have to pay money to get their segment of sidewalk replaced so this
man can get to the grocery store. He has lost friends over it. He is
the subject of some harsh words over it. But his dilemma was not our
dilemma, so we did nothing to correct it. Jesus immediately corrected
the dilemma of this Gentile woman who was outside the circle, giving
her what she asked with a gracious attitude and loving heart.
KyHoosierCat
The Matthean account includes "Great is your faith", but it is absent
in Mark. I've looked at the Greek, and the English Marcan text seems
to be translated correctly. Is it possible Matthew was approaching
this from a slightly different angle than Mark had previously? Mark
doesn't seem so concerned about the woman's transforming faith as by
her desperate situation and by Jesus' response to a person "outside
the circle of Israel". How high, how deep, how broad is the love God
has for us all -- that thought just keeps coming through this
Scripture for me this week.
I guess we could all list those things that keep modern-day people
"outside the circle of acceptance", couldn't we? We have a man in our
small town who has had polio since childhood. He gets around in a
wheelchair. But the sidewalks in this town are in atrocious shape, and
this guy can't get anywhere without a major struggle. After years of
the town turning a blind eye to this, the man filed a lawsuit to get
the sidewalks repaired. And now people are mad because they are going
to have to pay money to get their segment of sidewalk replaced so this
man can get to the grocery store. He has lost friends over it. He is
the subject of some harsh words over it. But his dilemma was not our
dilemma, so we did nothing to correct it. Jesus immediately corrected
the dilemma of this Gentile woman who was outside the circle, giving
her what she asked with a gracious attitude and loving heart.
KyHoosierCat
Roberta: "Does anyone have any liturgies, suggestions, etc. Really
appreciate it, thanks."
Ask your local Episcopal parish for a copy of "The Book of Occasional
Services". There is a good liturgy for commissioning of various
ministries including church musicians.
When people who are not Christians come to me for "service", eg - they
want me to marry them or "christen" their baby - I do not
automatically say, OK.
Usually, the first thing I will ask is - "Why do you want to be
married by a pastor if you don't attend church or worship God? Or, why
do you want your baby baptized into the Christian faith - and church -
if you don't intend to bring your child to church?
I use the ensuing conversation as a time of witness & conversation,
inviting these folks in, but also as a time of teaching about who &
whose we are, and what baptism or marriage mean to us.
Perhaps this woman was coming to Jesus to be served - trying for any
help that she could get for her daughter, even if it meant going
outside of her own faith. Perhaps this conversation that Jesus had
with her was for her to understand better who Jesus was - & where this
healing power was from.
JG in Jersey
When people who are not Christians come to me for "service", eg - they
want me to marry them or "christen" their baby - I do not
automatically say, OK.
Usually, the first thing I will ask is - "Why do you want to be
married by a pastor if you don't attend church or worship God? Or, why
do you want your baby baptized into the Christian faith - and church -
if you don't intend to bring your child to church?
I use the ensuing conversation as a time of witness & conversation,
inviting these folks in, but also as a time of teaching about who &
whose we are, and what baptism or marriage mean to us.
Perhaps this woman was coming to Jesus to be served - trying for any
help that she could get for her daughter, even if it meant going
outside of her own faith. Perhaps this conversation that Jesus had
with her was for her to understand better who Jesus was - & where this
healing power was from.
JG in Jersey
Roberta, you might try crafting a commissioning yourself for use
during the worship service. I know I'm off the lectionary track, but I
beg everyone's indulgence. You could use these steps for any such
service - 1) Introduce / explain the act using scripture reference -
"let us sing and play music to the Lord... or ...some are to be
teachers, prophets.... so on. 2) Then name and welcome the ministry
and person with words that teach /tell what the ministry is for is a
depth way - "...music that glorifies God in worship and leads us to
lift our hearts in praise and prayer..." or some such. 3) Then have a
brief prayer for everone to say together - "we give thanks for the
gifts of music and we promise our support and fellowship in this
ministry" or something...and close with a simple benediction -"Let us
go and serve the Lord with joy..."
Anyway, this is how I've tried to create commissionings and
dedications for a number of occasions. Hope it is of some use. Ji in
CT.
LGB,
I understand "womyn" to be a spelling that is chosen by people who
wish to take the "man" out of "woman" and the "men" out of "women" for
purposes you may surmise.
Michelle
I disagree with 2 things being said in this conversation:
#1) that Jesus was just "winking" when he called the woman a puppy
dog, or whatever. Scripture doesn't say that. There are terms of
supposed endearment that are really racially prejudiced. Calling
African Americans "Aunt" or "Uncle" was one. To be fair, neither does
Scripture say that he was ill-intentioned, either. All Scripture says
is that Jesus granted her request after she kept after him.
#2) that the woman was a gentle, helpless soul. The very fact that
she, as a female gentile, went up to a Jewish male leader speaks of
some chutzpah.
Sally in GA
just a comment here. I haven't read all of the comments but here goes
. . . to the Jews all dogs were filthy and towards the bottom of the
"animal kingdom" , I believe I remember from my New Test. class, not
even the "puppy-dogs) were held much higher. So I question the idea of
"puppy dog" being any better than just plain old filthy muts. I
believe that this truly is a turning point in Jesus' development and a
turning point in his ministry; showing his humaness and abbility to
grow and change. Keep up the good work everyone and Shlom (God's love,
health, holeness and peace) Rev. Nancy in NE USA
Roberta, the United Methodist Book of Worship also has a variety of
orders for occaisional services, including a installation of persons
in music ministries --#604.
Robbie in Central Kansas
Thanks Jim and Robbie. I'm in Canada and don't have the UM resource at
my fingertips. If there's a particularly meaningful prayer, would you
mind posting it? Thanks, Jim, I'll follow your advice. Roberta
A prayer for commissioning an organist or other church musician:
O God, whom saints and angels delight to worship in heaven, be ever
present with your saints who seek through music to perfect the praises
offered by your people on earth; and grant them even now glimpses of
your beauty, and make them worthy at length to behold it unveiled for
evermore; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
In the Name of God and of this congregation, I commission you (name)
as Organist in this Parish (and give you this ____ as a token of your
ministry). ((The latter part if some token is given.))
This is from The Book of Occasional Services - 1991 (The [Episcopal]
Church Hymnal Corporation)
When a person first reads this scriptural account, one's first
reaction is that Jesus really put the woman in her place. Anyone who
has experience being berated and put in his or her place knows just
how much that smarts. After getting over the shock of Jesus' harsh
treatment of the woman, I try to find a way to apply this lesson to
how I live my life as a Christian disciple. Could it be that I need to
think of Jesus putting me in my place, a sinner condemned and unclean
before I can hear the message that I am accepted anyway? And does this
relate to the miracle that follows where a man's ears are opened and
his tongue is loosed? TN Mack
Mark 7.24-30 presents an uncomfortable tale about Jesus and a
non-Jewish woman. In some respects it is hard to read the story of the
Syrophoenician woman without wincing, because of the apparently
abrasive portrait of Jesus it seems to convey. Jesus appears to be a
racist and a misogynistic person. Yet in fact, this impression is more
conveyed by the later Matthean version of the story than the Markan
one. Notice how in Mark Jesus says, "FIRST let the children of God be
fed," suggesting that others could be fed later. Furthermore, notice
that the woman accepts the honor challenge of Jesus, which places her
in the category of a dog but nonetheless gets her what she needs from
Jesus. In Mark the focus is on the aptness of the woman's verbal
reply. She has passed the honor challenge and is rewarded for her good
answer. Thus the scene needs to be seen as Jesus testing a foreigner,
not as Jesus merely reflecting the parochialisms of his day.
This story, then, on the surface, bristles with features that are
certainly not politically correct. Jesus calls the woman a dog. He
suggests that foreigners have no right to eat at the same table with
Jews (or at least that Jews, God's chosen people, must be fed first).
The woman obtains what she desperately needs by a wise or witty reply.
The picture of Jesus in Mark's Gospel is without doubt stark and
hard-edged. But the ready way that Jesus does respond to the woman
when she accepts the testing strictures he places on her suggests that
perhaps all along there was something in Jesus' voice that indicated
that he was willing to act if she pursued the matter in faith. The
very fact that Jesus was in foreign territory and prepared to
entertain foreign company already suggests that it would be wrong to
see this as a story about a xenophobic Jesus. Jesus' being in the home
region of this woman tells us clearly that he probably did not share
the views of many of his Jewish contemporaries about unclean lands and
unclean persons. Nonetheless, the story makes clear that Jesus saw it
as his first responsibility to feed and help God's people, but the
good news is that he was also prepared to help others who came to him.
We cannot really talk about a Gentile mission during Jesus' life, but
we can talk about Gentiles who were helped and healed by Jesus, a
precedent for the later mission of non-Jews.
from "The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary" by Ben
Witherington III, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.
What's the difference between Jesus calling the woman a dog, calling
the Pharisees hypocrits, and calling me a no-good sinner? I am the
dog, I am worthless, I don't deserve God's mercy.
I don't know why Jesus chose to use such an analogy, but it is,
nonetheless, just an analogy, I believe. I don't believe he uses it
mistakenly as a justification for not helping her and her daughter,
only to grow and develop at her response. I can't say for sure why he
answers as he does to her first request. However, in the end, there is
enough to go around even when the dogs eat first, when it comes to the
mercy of God.
Maybe one reason he first responds in the way he does is out of
frustration that the children are not eating as they should. They pick
at his offerings, neither benefitting fully themselves, nor opening
the door so that others can also be fed.
Lots to do, yet, here.
Michelle
The current issue of The Christian Century has an interesting article
on this passage. The author is looking at Matthew, but assuming the
presence of the Disciples with Jesus in Mark. The article's
implication is that helping a Gentile woman was a hard sell in Jesus'
culture, so he was using the logic that they expected him to use, but
not verbalizing his real intentions. The woman overcame the Jewish
rhetoric, thus demonstrating her great faith, and demonstrating more
about including "outsiders" than Jesus could have said by just doing
the exorcism without the verbal exchange. It's speculation, but it's
interesting. MTSOfan
The Syrophoenician woman had three strikes against her. She was a
woman, a Gentile, and a Syrophoenician. She was the wrong gender,
religious background, and ethnic group. She lived in a society whre
women's status was low. She was a woman without male connections, and
appeared to be a single parent with a daughter. This in itself
would've been viewed as a disadvantage, since daughters needed
dowries. She wasn't one of the chosen of Israel. She was probably a
pagan, and being a Gentile, a non-Jew, meant that she was considered
unclean by Jewish standards. Her Syrophoenician birth also put her in
a race that wasn't accepted by the Jews and had negative religious
connotations. Yet this didn't prevent her form accosting Jesus to heal
her daughter, who was possessed by an unclean spirit.
We don't even know how this woman gained entry to where Jesus was
staying. We read that Jesus went into a home incognito to get away
from the crowds. We aren't told if Jesus went to this home in Tyre for
some R&R, or shether he just wanted to et away to further teach his
disciples in peaqce and quiet.
This didn't seem to faze this very tenacious woman. She sought healing
for her daughter. The difficult part for us is that Jesus was rude to
this woman. No matter how we try to sugar coat it as him calling her a
mongril or a puppy dog, this was a racial slur. Pretty harsh words. We
don't know if this woman caught Jesus on a bad day when he was so
exhausted that he trated her abruptly. Are we seeing the human side of
Jesus, who needs time away fromt he crowd to rest before his journey
to the cross, and just wants to be left alone awhile? Was Jesus
testing this woman? We don't know why Jesus spoke to this woman in
this fashion, or the tone of voice he used. The Scripture doesn't
provide the answer.
Yet the woman wasn't put off that Jesus referred to her and her
daughter as dogs. She showed her understanding of this ridd.e She
understood that she and her daughter as Gentiles were being referred
to as pet dogs who snatched the crumbs that fell under the table when
the children of Israel ate. YEt what Jesus said left the door open.
The pet dogs would eventually be fed, of only the crumbs. This woman
sought more than a crumb form Jesus, yet she accepted the fact that
she as a Gentile deserved only the crumbs. She came humbly to Jesus,
unlike the Pharisees who challenged his authority. This woman came to
Jesus with empty hands and an open heart. She wasn't arrogant and
self-righteous as the Pharisees and scribes appeared to be. She wasn't
clueless to Jesus' riddle, as his disciples were, even after the
feeding of the five thousand. Pastor Laura in OH
I think we need to accept this passage as it is without explaining
away the harshness we experience about Jesus. To do so robs it of its
potential power for us as we struggle with it. That's precisely what
intrigues me about the passage and the woman: the struggle between
humanity and God that finds expression elsewhere in Scripture. Moses'
bargaining with God, Job's questioning, Jacob at the Jabbok; I know
that there are more. Does anyone even find it incredible as I do that
God even tolerates our questions, not to mention welcomes them, as we
stand toe-to-toe with him? Or have we domesticated God to the point
that this seems unremarkable? That's the nature of our relationship
with the creator of the universe: God is big enough to handle us being
in his face. In fact, I think he delights when we are wrestling with
him. What I think he finds discouraging is apathy. That's the
direction I think I'm going this week. Any insights would be
appreciated.
Scott in SE MN
I think we need to accept this passage as it is without explaining
away the harshness we experience about Jesus. To do so robs it of its
potential power for us as we struggle with it. That's precisely what
intrigues me about the passage and the woman: the struggle between
humanity and God that finds expression elsewhere in Scripture. Moses'
bargaining with God, Job's questioning, Jacob at the Jabbok; I know
that there are more. Does anyone even find it incredible as I do that
God even tolerates our questions, not to mention welcomes them, as we
stand toe-to-toe with him? Or have we domesticated God to the point
that this seems unremarkable? That's the nature of our relationship
with the creator of the universe: God is big enough to handle us being
in his face. In fact, I think he delights when we are wrestling with
him. What I think he finds discouraging is apathy. That's the
direction I think I'm going this week. Any insights would be
appreciated.
Scott in SE MN
Your post reminds me of Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof", feeling
completely at ease while he complained to God that he was not created
a rich man.
Hardly the "insight" you sought, but your words brought the musical to
mind.
KHC
This is Communion Sunday at my church. I've had a two-week break after
four weeks of preaching on the Lord's Supper, celebrating the elements
of bread and cup for three of them, and having a congregational dinner
as communion on the fourth Sunday.
On this Sunday, I beleive the Scripture is leading me to address "Who
Is Worthy?" The Syrophonecian woman is certainly viewed as unworthy
(and even Jesus' comments attest to that) by the Jews. Yet, in Christ
she is made worthy. One of the UMC's confessional statements notes "we
are not worthy to even gather the crumbs under your table," yet we are
made worthy through the shed blood of Christ.
Who are those we consider unworthy of ministry? Who are the people to
whom we say, "You brought it on yourself, now you have to deal with
it." "You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it."
In my real-time lectionary group, we discussed how some people avoid
Communion because they do feel unworthy. We also discussed how some
churches bar those determined to be unrepentant sinners from the
Communion table. Various traditions practice closed tables, basing
worthiness on church membership, age, or ability to comprehend.
Who is worthy?
PastorBuzz in Tennessee
To Pastor Buzz in Tennessee Re: the comment from your lectionary
group, We also discussed how some churches bar those determined to be
unrepentant from the communion table." My questions is, "Who
determines the unrepentant?" What comes to my mind is Jesus' parable
of the wheat and the tares. How do we know who are the wheat and who
are the tares. Appearances can often be deceiving. Folks who appear
unrepentant may actually be repentant and those who appear repentant
may be unrepentant. Only God knows for sure. That's not our decision
to make. We're vessels of Christ to proclaim the Word of God Incarnate
in Jesus the Christ. Yes, we set boundaries for Christian as modeled
by Christ. Yet to bar someone from Holy Communion due to "unrepentance"
strikes me as somewhat self-righteous and arrogant. One of my
professors at seminary once told of a story of one of his elders who
abused his wife, but was very much against "unrepentant" sinners. Of
course, these sins were hand picked by him. I also recall Jesus saying
something about not looking at the speck in our sisters' and brothers'
eyes and missing the logs in our own eyes. All to say, we're to call
each other to loving accountabilty, not judgment. Judgment is up to
God. It's not our job to limit God's gift of grace. Actually, none of
us are "worthy" of communion. It's a gift. Pastor Laura in OH
20 years ago in a seminar, the point was made that this SyroPhoenician
woman is the first, perhaps the only person in the Scriptures who
answered Jesus' metaphor with a metaphor. I've always thought this was
something to ponder. No wonder Jesus was impressed by her!
Jeanne in Bellevue, Washington
I am enjoying the discussion this week, even though I don't preach
this Sunday. I like how this passage opens the Gospel up. I like how
it shows that Christ alone is Worthy. I have become painfully aware of
how petty people are when it comes to sharing God's grace. Will
continue to read and enjoy. Tammy in Tex
I agree that we shouldn't lessen the harshness of Jesus' response.
Even he was "testing" her, isn't that kind of cruel? She came
vulnerable, at the end of her rope, not exactly prepared for a verbal
battle, when she's seeking compassion from the one who's rumored to
have plenty to go around. And then wham! it's like a slap in the face.
I love Helen Bruch Pearson's book "Do What You Have the Power To Do"
and her chapter on this passage. She presents it as one of the "hard
sayings" of Jesus. How Jesus seemed to be out of character to say the
least!! In Matthew she's a Canaanite, a long-time enemy of Jesus'
people the Jews. In Mark, she's Gree, bringing nationality and
politics into it. She's the mother of a demonic, on top of everything
else!! She is a MOTHER whose child is suffering. Jews,as Pearson
points out, were not dog lovers. Dogs were dirty, scavengers, roamed
the streets, and not usually let in the house. They wouldn't even get
scraps from the table at a Jews' house, nor let anywhere near the
children. This is an insult to dogs as well! :-) But to the GEntiles,
dogs were pets, loved, fed scraps from the table, played with the
children. From a Jew, to be called a dog was a harsh insult. And this
is from JESUS! Ouch. Pearson talks about Jesus being human, as well as
divine, and at moments being limited by that humanity in that time and
on this earth-- he was raised a Jew at that time with all the
traditions and prejudices of his people. In Matthew, he'd sent his
disciples only to the lost children of ISRAEL. After his encounter
with this woman, their ministry is expanded to the Gentiles. As if
maybe GOD (ooo, and then there's the whole Christology thing!!) used
the woman to guide Jesus into a broader ministry. After all, in the
OT, people like Moses changed God's mind, why can't a woman change
Jesus' mind?? A woman, a "pagan", a Gentile!, a perhaps single
mother?, a mother of a demon-posessed child.... seems fitting. Seems
the sort of thing Jesus would like recorded about him. In my own
reflections, I wondered why the two stories were together. Then I
thought, the man was deaf, the woman-- with all her characteristics--
was mute. She had no voice. She came seeking to be heard by the One
who was known to hear all. And she would not be turned away. And so
because of that encounter, a woman was given a voice, was given life,
and a man had his ears opened-- and then, who knows what else? How do
we need to "be opened"? How do we need to be heard and who needs to be
given a voice in our congregation, our community and our world? I used
to hate this passage, but I always have fun with it, challenging
Jesus, asking the questions that the congregation was afraid to ask,
and then we all find God's mercy together... for us all.
Great stuff here! Thanks for your help! PM in PA
The way the story reads, the meeting with the woman was the only thing
of significance that happened in the region of Tyre. He went there,
without fanfare, had the encounter with the woman, and then returned
from the region of Tyre.
Is it possible that this was the reason he had gone into that region?
Maybe this was the reason he didn't want anyone (else?) to know that
he was there. He was there to give the bread to the dogs, and did not
(yet) wish to advertise that fact.
This would be supported by the following story, in which Jesus ordered
the people not to spread the news. But I may be stretching a bit.
However, it is something to ponder.
Michelle
PM in PA's post brings Jesus' words "when you do this for the least of
these my brethren, you do it for me" to mind. Also the story of the
Good Samaritan with the idea of "who exactly IS my neighbor?" Thanks
for a great post.
KyHoosierCat
I enjoy these, and I tent to agree with KyHoosierCat's take on Jesus
and the woman. It has never made sense to me otherwise. I have seen
this as Jesus' "strange sense of humor" (if you don't think he had
one, look at the 12 he picked to follow him). Anyway, this has
appeared to me as his way of "suckering" the hearers into the story by
"appearing" to take their side; however, she catches on quicker than
they do and plays along with the argument --- which Jesus allows her
to "win." After they recover from the shock of what has happened, they
have learned a new lesson. How can we "sucker" our hearers into
hearing this in a fresh way... how can we take the side of the "world"
and surprise our congregations with surprising "good news" --- as the
gospel affirms those who have felt rejected, and opens the eyes of
those who were comfortable with a church that met their needs but
never challenged them to look beyond themselves (Hey, we've been
guilty of this ourselves in many ways). Joe in MD
Is is possible that Jesus was in Tyre to get out of Herod's
jurisdiction and the plotting of those trying to kill him(ie the
children?) I think that Jesus' use of dog might have been a sarcastic
aside directed more to the disciples who would have resisted this
woman's approach to their master. Here I am having to "hide out" from
the children while the one you refer to as a "dog" comes to me in
faith, persisting through all the barriers before her.
Lewis in Al
I am concentrating on the healing aspect of this passage. Jesus heals
with a touch - Jesus heals with a long distance word. this is
Communion sunday for us too - the image of the ultimate healing. I am
also going to offer anointing with oil &/or laying on of hands as part
of the service. We have many within our congregation going through
alot of hurts - physical, emotional & spiritual. In the UM BOW PG 614
it states, "The greatest healing of all is the reunion or
reconciliation of human being with God. ,,, for the christian the
basic purpose of spiritual healing is to renew & strengthen one's
relationship with the living Christ." I & my worshp team are praying
for the Spirit of God to touch & heal. MZinWV
I think OLAS has a great point that the passage is saying something
about the boundaries of God's grace and mercy are beyond ours. Both of
these stories, the Syrophoenician woman and the Deaf/Mute man, were
outside of God's grace according to the Jews. The woman being Gentile
and the Deaf/mute man, must have been that way because of sin in his
life. But Jesus heals both the demon possessed daughter of the woman,
and the man, giving them both a place in the kingdom. And I love the
wording of Ky HoosierCat, saying," You can call me whatever you want,
I will take even the leftovers,after you have fed your own people,
just don't leave me out completely" WOW, that has some interesting
things to discuss with our own people about those outside the church
walls who are hungry, and would take whatever amounts of grace they
are offered, even the parts that we in the church have left on the
table or worse, knocked off the table onto the floor. I need to noodle
that one for awhile!!
Susan in Wa.
Hey everyone, I have this need to face the Markan text with questions
about astonishment and wonder. I share a sense of wonder with many
people of faith; but I am not sure wonder best describes the believer
as he/she moves from one day to next in their real lives.
We are people who have lost our willingness to wonder about things.
I accept miracles with a deep sense of wonder...not how did this
happen or why does this happen or what makes this happen, but "My God,
Look what has happened!" I need little more than that!
I want to explore this great gift of wonder that really needs to be at
the center of every human being...we live well because of it! When you
meet old friends it is not long and conversation turns to the
wonder-full things that have happened since we last got together!
Would worship have more energy if we all came with the sense of wonder
and anticipation that comes with the feeling that we are about to
stumble onto a great and life-changing moment? [a moment of miracle]
I need and want us to be astounded beyond measure in the next moment!
Am I foolish or does any of this make sense? Terry
MZ in WV
One of the commentaries I was flipping through just yesterday
(Abingdon Bible Commentary) indicated that this healing was the first
Jesus performed from "long distance" - the person healed was not in
front of him but was healed anyway. I just thought I'd throw that into
your good thoughts as a bit of support for your healing theme.
Lewis in AL: that same segment in Abingdon would support your idea of
Jesus moving out of the line of fire in Israel. Things were starting
to get tense there, and since he still had much (MUCH) to do, it was
not yet time for The Sacrifice. But, need was never far away, and
Jesus found a new and willing recipient of grace in a foreign land.
KyHoosierCat
Whew! My, oh, my! I just finished catching up on the posts since I was
here yesterday. I feel like my head is spinning, but a blessing from
reading them all back-to-back like taht was that a theme started to
develop. I'll follow that in a minute, but I first want to add a
wrench in the works.
The word "dog" refered not to her race or nationality, but her
religion, according to the New Interpreter's Study Bible. and v. 28,
"she takes his slur and uses it to undercut his argument. members of
an importnat Greco-Roman popular philosophical movement were called
"dogs," the Cynics, because they often used their impudent wit to
undermine the pretensions of conventional opinions and customs. The
woman's response suggests such a Cynic role."
that fits with what Jeanne in Bellevue said about her being the only
one who responded to Jesus' metaphor with a metaphor. Though, I
disagree that it was a metaphor. I think it was direct. Yet, it
explains why she used his own wit impudently against him.
Next, Helen Pearson's book "Do What You Have the Power to Do" (which
someone mentioned before I could) calls her "The Woman Who Extended
the Lord's Table." Powerful metaphor for those of us celebrating Holy
Communion this week.
I just finished an e-mail with a friend who was very disturbed at some
peoples' bigotry. Spiritual leadership is new to her, so I told her a
little about self-differentiation, a la Friedman. I recalled how I
serve communion to people in my own congregation who are bigoted
against others in this congregation - it's a race thing here. Yet, I
figure Jesus has the last laugh - it's one body, one bread, one table,
no Greek, Jew, Slave, Free, male, female ... and so despite the
bigoted opinions, Christ is making them one with each other. I recall
that moment on the cross "Forgive them; they don't know what they're
doing." Forgiveness for the very ones who sought to destroy him.
Perhaps he was able to do that by this woman's impudent witness.
Last, Susan quoting HoosierCat - "Call me whatever you want, I'll take
the leftovers..." reminds me of a guy in my first appointment. I asked
his name and he said, "Call me whatever you want, just don't call me
late to dinner."
This woman, who expanded the Lord's Table, makes sure that none of us
is called late to dinner.
Sally in GA
While I hesitate to sugar-coat this, if Jesus somehow knew she was a
Cynic (he called her "dog," a popular name for Cynics and a definite
insult), could it be he sensed that she'd be able to withstand the
attack?
We all know that sticks and stones break bones - AND that words DO
hurt, but if he knew she was a Cynic, one who used rather harsh words
herself, was he meeting her at the point of her need?
Hmmmmm ... Yet, I recognize that it's pure conjecture.
Sally
ONe thing that I also have thought about is the way Jesus used the
story of the Good Samaritan as a lesson to the disciples on caring for
each other. He took the one kind of person, a Samaritan, who was
despised, and painted him a good light, as the only one who showed
love to this person left beaten on the road. Is he doing the same
thing with the Syrophoenician woman, who also was despised and
marginalized on a number of different levels: A gentile, a woman, a
single mom, mother of a demon possessed child,. . . and he met her
request of bringing ministry of healing grace and mercy, and
recognized her faith? Also with the deaf/mute man. He healed him and
gave him voice and hearing; an ability to participate more fully in
life. Just some more thoughts.
Susan in Wa.
The geography in verses 24 and 31 reveals theology: Jesus moves beyond
the normal boundaries. He does not always travel among his own. Verse
24 suggests he goes out of his way to find retreat or isolation. In so
doing, however, he opens himself up to encounters with those who
inhabit the area and their needs. What expansion of his ministry would
have been missed had Jesus not ventured out? How is Mark's community
expanded by this story?
Two miracle stories take place while Jesus is out and about, both of
which involve no small degree of boundaries and openings and advocacy.
In the first, a Syrophoenician Gentile woman persists in seeking
Jesus' intervention. The details of her story raise walls and
boundaries that should not have been breached. Her ethnicity set her
apart from Jesus. Her religion set her apart from Jesus. Her gender
set her apart from Jesus. On any one of those accounts, public contact
and conversation with him risked censure for her and for him. But for
all that set her apart, one matter connected them: the well-being of a
child. For the child's sake, the woman is tenacious even when Jesus
sounds an uncharacteristically harsh word. However one might interpret
the condition that afflicts the child, the important point is that
this woman pleads on behalf of one who is vulnerable and suffering. In
such circumstances, boundaries are of little consequence. She will not
relent until she pries open Jesus' compassion on behalf of this other,
even if it is just a crumb of concern. Jesus sends her on her way with
what she asks. Mark is rather matter-of-fact about Jesus' response in
conveying that to her. In Matthew's telling, Jesus cannot help but
exclaim, "Great is your faith!"
In the second story, an unidentified "they" bring a deaf man with a
speech impediment to Jesus. Who they are is not revealed. Are they
family members? Friends? Neighbours? This omission of a detail can
serve as a reminder that it is not the precise nature of relationship
that matters when it comes to advocacy, so much as it is the
willingness to act on behalf of the one in need. As did the woman for
her daughter, "they" also beg Jesus. Begging entails humility. In
these instances, it is not to secure pity or alms for themselves, but
healing for another.
The boundaries in this story are different but no less severe than in
the first story. This man cannot hear for himself, nor can he speak
for himself. For hearing and speaking, others must be willing to act
on his behalf. For his part, he must rely on others.
Such reliance involves trust. Consider the encounter with Jesus and
how much trust it required. Fingers pry into the man's ears. The rabbi
spits and touches his tongue. Jesus speaks words the man could not yet
hear, but he also makes gestures the man could see and gives touches
he could feel. Jesus places his hands precisely on the boundaries that
separated this man from others. And then, as if another boundary
remained to be broached, Jesus looks up to heaven and sighs. Only then
does he speak to the man - "Ephphatha," or "be opened." A word ends
this individual's separation from sound, from community, from
communication. Jesus stills the stillness, and lets loose speech and
hearing. Ears, and life, are opened.
Both stories tell the same story. Because of persistence, because of
advocacy, because of Jesus' willingness to walk outside the
boundaries, boundaries tumble down, lives open up, and advocates
mediate the gospel. For whom will we cross a boundary to speak by word
or deed, "Ephphatha"?
To all on this page: I thank you for all of your contributions. I
wanted to let you know, I have just placed a call to worship that I
believe would be very appropriate for this week's service, from A
worship resource I have from Corrymeela Community, a ministry of
reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Sally, I especially think it would
be great for your congregation in light of what you have shared
regarding the racial tensions that are there in your congregation. I
hope many of you find it useful.
Susan in Wa.
Sally in GA.
THANK YOU for the Cynics angle! I admit ignorance on the Cynics, so I
have spent some time just now doing some quick research.
Apparently, it was their normal greeting to call people derogatory
names upon meeting! (Diogenes, the "original Cynic", called Alexander
the Great a b****rd at first glance, told him to step aside, he was
blocking the sunlight!!) The "game" of interaction is to start off by
hitting the other person right in the pride; if that does not push the
accepted boundaries too far with that person, (i.e. they don't kill
you) then the attacked person responds and thereby agrees to play this
game, to choose to engage in discussion. (page 6 of documents). I do
not know who Foucault is; he/she gave a seminar on this in 1983
somewhere.
Now, all this seems quite bizarre to the western mind, but it starts
to clear up the problem of why Jesus spoke to this woman as he did. At
least it does to me! If she were indeed a Cynic (and they had been
around since the 2nd century BC) then Jesus was meeting her on her own
social turf by speaking to her that way. She might have actually
expected him to say something startling! If this is true, she would
not have been put off by it at all, but would have seen it as an
invitation to have a conversation! How intriguing!!!
Sally in GA, you have really helped! Thank you SO much!!!! This is the
kind of "wrench" I like!
KyHoosierCat
Hi KyHoosierCat,
Our interpretation of 'a nice lap-dog kind of dog - the kind that
people keep in the house' is very western idea and foreign to the
biblical text, I think ;)The dog the text referring here are the
street, dirty, wondering, domesticated dogs waiting an opportunity to
eat what will be left or what will be thrown out.
Jesus comment here is not so friendly and 'no wink here either':-)
eric terrado
Dear eric terrado,
Could be. However, the Greek would indicate a difference between a
street mongrel (kuon) that was considered unclean, from a "little dog"
(kunarion). This and the Matthean account of the same story are the
only time the word "kunarion" is used; the rest of the time it is the
more foul "kuon". The OT makes no distinction between dog and dog
(they're all keleb) but in the NT, there is a distinction. Jesus calls
this woman "kunarion", translated in every Greek resource I can find
as "little dog", decidedly a notch above "cur". It would seem to me
that if Jesus were really trying to slam this woman to the very core,
he would have called her "kuon" to let her know her place in his mind.
A wonderful thing about the Scripture, I think, is that it is open to
interpretation. I'm not a "one right view" kind of person, so I'm
certainly willing to admit I could be way off course here. But it's
what I see, and that is how I will bring it to the folk in the pew.
And, as a part of my introduction to the day's passage, I will briefly
mention the thing about the Cynics. They like these "background info
times", and it seems to clear up any confusion as to the context of
the Scriptures.
Thanks for sharing, Eric. Blessings.
KyHoosierCat
I was looking at the Greek myself this morning- and this form of the
word dog only appears in this perciope and in it's parallel text in
Matthew. Nor is he in a Jewish environment. He is in Tyre.
Second, this dialog follows the passage on what is clean and unclean.
Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes
into a person from outside cannot defile, 19 since it enters, not the
heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared
all foods clean.) 20 And he said, "It is what comes out of a person
that defiles. 21 For it is from within, from the human heart, that
evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22 adultery,
avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride,
folly. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a
person."
What better way to follow up this teaching than through the example of
healing a the daughter of a woman who is considered unclean and
outside the favor of God. Michele in PA
KyHoosierCat or his tutor is really making things up. Aramaic and
Hebrew have no word for puppies or doggies. Whatever Jesus said it was
not that.
SJM
Sjm, I looked at the Greek myself. And this greek no Hebrew and not
Aramaic. The word is "kuvapiov" It is the diminutive of the word for
dog- "kuwv"
Further, I read two commentaries this morning which stated exactly as
KyhoosierCat did- that the word means "puppy" or lap dog.
And I am sorry if you disagree, you have that right- but can you
please restain yourself from saying people are making things up.
Thank you Michele in PA
Yes it's Greek but highly unlikely that Jesus spoke Greek to the
woman. I am surprised how much people on the list readily accept what
is written in commentaries.
SJM
Pastor Buzz In TN, Our congregation will also be observing Holy
Communion this Sunday. I am going to suggest to my congregation that
we try to relate to the SP woman's feeling unworthiness and left the
word's found in one of our rituals for HC, "We are not worth so much
as to gather up the crumbs from under thy table." I wonder if the
author of that ritual had this scripture in mind. TN Mack
Well, to continue this debate....... Greek was the prevailing language
in most of that part of the world. Just about everyone could manage to
speak some Greek in order to do any trading, etc. It was the one
language they could unify otherwise very different people -- not too
different from the modern-day Japanese or German being able to at
least do basic communication in English. Used to be French was the
International Language everyone had to know. Who knows which one will
be next???
So while Aramaic was Jesus' first language, and Hebrew was his
"religious language", Greek was not far from him. Surely, in that very
Greek world, he picked it up along the way. Seems that most people
did. Anyway, the people who wrote these 2 Gospels knew enough about
Greek to differentiate between "mongrel" and "doggy" and would not
have used "doggy" when "cur" was intended.
Just my opinion, you understand, but there is some strength of (other
people's) scholarship behind it. I've been at this work for 25 years,
and I still stand amazed at what I don't know, and how much I continue
to learn from so many sources!
Thanks for writing.
KyHoosierCat
