The faith of a dog-woman
At Tangent the other night, we discussed the story of the Syrophoenecian woman as recorded in Mark.
For those that aren’t familiar with the passage, it tells the story of a moment when Jesus was trying to get just a few minutes by himself and was interrupted by a gentile woman nattering on about Jesus curing her sick daughter. Fed up with the unceasing demands of far too many people, Jesus snapped at her, likening her to a dog, and suggesting that she was not worthy of any of his attention. Apparently she was a bit of an upstart, because she back-chatted the Son of God. He responds by healing her daughter. This is of course a paraphrased version (much in the model of Eugene Petersen’s work); you can read the more usual version at the link above.
I find this passage tremendously interesting and difficult to reconcile, regardless of your theological background. It shows Jesus doing something that seems very unlike the vision of Jesus many of us have. In short, he is nasty to someone asking for help. Even more inexplicably, he seems to change his mind or his view or his behaviour after been spoken to nastily by the woman.
Some people argue that this is a demonstration that Jesus is fallible or that he made a mistake. But how can someone who is God be fallible? How is it possible that someone who is human could be anything but fallible? We could take this even further and suggest that Jesus is teachable - that the unexpected advocacy of the woman has revealed a truth to him which previously remained hidden. And if this were impetuous Peter or sanctimonious Paul, then we would most certainly draw this conclusion - stumbling over their own pre-conceived notions until the wisdom of God expressed from an unlikely quarter brings them pause.
In fact, this story seems like it should be about a disciple. It would make so much more sense if it were the disciples intervening to keep the woman from Jesus. In that version of the story, Jesus would gently reprimand them, and demonstrate how they had missed yet again the true nature of the kingdom of God. But instead, it is Jesus, with nobody to reprimand him but the reader.
Or better still, the part of Jesus could be played by a Pharisee or a scribe - to be exposed by Jesus as an example of straining out gnats while swallowing camels. That would make a heap more sense - the religious leaders refusing to extend charity to anyone who was not a part of the house of Israel.
But instead we have Jesus. I suspect, depending on your experience, you might take different things from this passage (as indeed the congregation members the other night did). You might have experienced rejection from unexpected quarters, from people who you believe to be good but mistaken. In that case, you might be heartened by the fact that even Jesus makes mistakes and has the grace to correct them. You might be labouring under oppression and take heart from the example of a low status woman smashing through the expectations and unwritten rules of society to obtain a just outcome. You might be a mother and consider that the story was an inevitable consequence of a woman’s determination to do everything possible for her children, regardless of the cost.
Or you, like me, might consider it possible that Jesus of all people could learn more about the Kingdom of God from one of the “least of these”. How arrogant, then, that I often assume that I could not.
July 13th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
love your last paragraph, dan. great thoughts.
July 13th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
I would love to comment on this but I am obviously reading a different bible, obviously the people who wrote some of the commentaries I have just read have as well!
This is quite remarkable and silly however for some reason I am just going to ignore the whole thing.
July 14th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Thank you for your insightful commentary their BBEPALP, its great to get such a meaningful post from people. I’m not sure how other blogs survive without your input B.
My problem with your closing comment ~author~ is that I have trouble accepting Jesus as falible about his message. Otherwise I have to wonder what would have happened if Joseph had have abused Jesus as a child, christianity could have taken a significantly different tack.
July 14th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Gareth, I am not sure that I understand your last sentence. How does Joseph abusing Jesus relate to Jesus being fallible?
July 14th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
(I love how ‘he’ ignores it in a ‘claytons’ fashion - kinda cute really!)
July 14th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
If Jesus wasn’t infalible then wouldn’t his message have been corrupted by the falible people around him.
(the sentence in question was just a poorly choosen exsample of such theoretical corruption)
July 15th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Is there a difference between infallibility and perfection?
I believe that Jesus was God incarnate. He was sinless. But was He perfect? Being without sin does not mean that He could not have made mistakes, been insensitive to people around Him at times (e.g. His mother when making the comment about His true family), and even learned lessons from other people.
If Jesus was absolutely perfect in all His ways, no one would have been able to relate to Him. I believe He needed to be imperfect, not fully complete in human form, still needing to learn from others, being subject to mistakes (not sin) so that people could relate to Him as a human. Afterall, no human is perfect…..
July 17th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
surely having stuff to learn doesn’t equal sinfullness.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Cheryl - you said a mouthful with very few words. Many people I have spoken to about this very part of scripture have thought I was saying Jesus was sinful - NO NOT AT ALL!!!
I think it means that we as a community of believers actually need to review what sin actually is. I don;t think making a mistake is a sin - I don’t think that even being not nice to people is a sin - arrogance? perhaps - but not a sin.
Homer - love your work!!!
July 17th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
It begs the question- What does it mean to say Jesus became human? Is being human just a body that we wear, two arms, two legs, etc? Do we see God as being syphoned into it, like a convenient disguise? Or was Jesus ‘really’ human? With human knowledge, awareness, frailties, moods, warmth and understanding.
My personal view is of Jesus as a real person, with some extra awareness, extra purpose. The bible speaks about him in various examples as experiencing fear, wanting to be alone, feeling rejection, changing his mind as well as eating, drinking and washing.
Though I guess if you focus on the miracles, walking on water, quieting the storm, healing lepers, than it would lend weight to the “God syphoned into a human body” theory.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
I agree with you Laura about Jesus being a “real person”. He experienced emotions and fears just as we do. It was how he handled such emotions and fears that set Him apart.
When you look at his miracles, it could well be that the gospels give us the noteworthy events of his ministry time much like a biography of a person tells only the significant moments of a person’s life. I don’t think Jesus healed every person that crossed his path, or was doing miracles 24/7. Perhaps his miracles were interspersed with weeks of “mundane” living and relating to ordinary, everyday people in ordinary, everyday ways. Sounds very human to me….
July 18th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
I have been toying with the idea that Jesus was perfect, and that the message is that perfection includes being teachable.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
I like that alot - So when Paul writes be perfoect like your father in heaven is perfect it becomes a whole lot easier to achieve if that doesn;t mean that you;’ve go tto get it right each and everytime with no need to learn anything!
July 19th, 2006 at 10:08 am
It makes sense to me in that a lot of Jesus’ message is about being open to the wisdom of God preached from places that you wouldn’t expect - or from people that we devalue. Jesus put a high value on “those that have ears to hear”.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
That’s why the whole pride/pharisee thing is so deadly, it takes us to a place where we presume God is only going to speak through certain channels, and so,when He does speak we refuse to hear him because the means didn’t come through the right channels. For some reason I’m reminded of the storyof Naaman, who thought he ought to be able to bathe in the river of his own cultural choice to be healed, but had to submit to the Jordan instead. That’sthe stupefying part, that God chooses to flow His life through our polluted streams!
July 19th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
This is crazy…I hadn’t seen you about for awhile BP and I was just thinking I wonder how blestpickle is going…and lo and behold…I think I’ll take my powers and use them for good…
I wonder how Nicole Kidman is going….
July 19th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
LOL! fascinating definition of good .. (and no, I don’t want Keith Urban — his name always makes me think of urban cowboy) i was away on holidays .. driving trip to Hervey Bay and back — missed the whales but had a great time anyway. And now I’m about to go out to lunch (my lucky day)
cya!