Thread: Dog food Board: Kerygmania / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002335

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Today's reading is Mark 7 24-30 - the Syrophoenician woman. You may remember the lines

quote:
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." But she answered him, "Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."
At face value, it seems Jesus is playing a kind of genial Nick Griffin who is tickled into being 'generous' by a witty response. This sounds more like a Herod trope than Jesus - to me.

I've a way of mangling this to fit what I think I know of Jesus, but I think it might be shaky (hint - it doesn't sit right with the woman coming in and 'bowing at his feet'). First, what does anyone else think?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
This came up once in the past, and someone who was familiar with Near East culture said that Jesus's words were more a test than a put-down.

If I had been that woman, I would have burst into tears and run away. The fact that she didn't indicates that she didn't take his words as I would have.

It's hard for me to bear in mind that this was a different culture.

Moo
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Heh. “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Slagging the woman might make sense to me in light of Orwell's quote:

quote:
A man receiving charity always hates his benefactor- it is a fixed characteristic of human nature
I have some experience of this - I've volunteered with a music project for ex-offenders for a long time. Now and again I meet someone who finds it hard to hide the contempt Orwell refers to above, and especially when I was younger I might pick up the vibe - 'so then, posh boy, are _you_ going to show _me_ how to play the blues?'. It's a wounded pride thing I guess.

If she gave off a vibe like that - 'could you _possibly_ see your way to driving this demon out of my daughter (you think you're so special, don't you, and I hate myself for having to bow at your feet but I've nowhere else to turn)' - then maybe his sending up her pride with a slag about 'yeah, you're just a dog...' and his delight when she 'gets over herself' - make sense.

But is it OK to read back into the text like this? That's a lot of reading back in...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Yeah, a bit of a tough one - either we see God-the-son being admonished by a woman, or we see God-the-son being "blackmailed" by someone outside of the faith, or we see Jesus-the-man somehow lacking in his divine love, or we see a woman arguing with God. None of those are a particularly good look.

I wonder if instead we are to see these episodes as cinematic, dramatic tellings of a story in order to get a particular point across.

At the end of the story we have Jesus healing the "wrong kind" of person. We might wonder how on earth that happened. Well, it turns out that God's mercy and grace is bigger than the thing we imagined and Jesus reached out and touched even those people we might think are unworthy.

The dialogue seems a bit stilted unless we instead see them as being part of the purpose of the narrative. If Jesus just healed the woman we might be left with unanswerable questions. What happened there? Was he just healing that particular woman? Did he give her a special pass (and we might think that it is just a mystery with no explanation like the Roman Centurion and the thief on the cross).

By having this dialogue, we're made to understand that this isn't just about this particular woman but that God's grace extends well beyond the boundaries that we usually operate within. It isn't just that God has pity randomly on this particular woman, it is that nobody is too far gone.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
or we see a woman arguing with God. None of those are a particularly good look.

What doesn't look good about someone arguing with God? There is surely plenty of precedent for that. Abraham arguing "will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" (Genesis 18). Moses seems to be regularly arguing with God when He plans to punish the people after yet another time when they do something wrong.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What doesn't look good about someone arguing with God? There is surely plenty of precedent for that. Abraham arguing "will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" (Genesis 18). Moses seems to be regularly arguing with God when He plans to punish the people after yet another time when they do something wrong.

Well I suppose I was more imagining it as a first-century Mrs Doyle jabbing her finger in Jesus' face and getting a concession from God-the-son by force of stubborness. Ye will, ye will, ye will etc.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What doesn't look good about someone arguing with God? There is surely plenty of precedent for that. Abraham arguing "will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" (Genesis 18). Moses seems to be regularly arguing with God when He plans to punish the people after yet another time when they do something wrong.

Well I suppose I was more imagining it as a first-century Mrs Doyle jabbing her finger in Jesus' face and getting a concession from God-the-son by force of stubborness. Ye will, ye will, ye will etc.
I don't see that sort of response in the story. For a start, it's difficult to jab your finger in someone's face when you're prostrate at their feet. The exchange reads much more as the woman persuading Jesus to act than demanding, humble desperation rather than entitlement.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Could it be that Jesus had to learn about his mission - learn that the divide between Jews and Gentiles had to come down?

It would match up with the encounter with the centurion, who asked Jesus to heal his servant without even coming under his roof. "Jesus was amazed", says Matthew 8. It seems that he wasn't expecting it - he had to learn that faith might be found among the Gentiles.

Could this be another example of the same thing? Jesus has to learn to transcend his specific culture?
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Alright - (pauses, prepares to reveal embarrassing lack of basic knowledge) - how does Jesus learning things square with His being, you know, consubstantial, co-eternal?

(That's not a challenge, so much as an open goal to someone who knows about these things).
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Could it be that Jesus had to learn about his mission - learn that the divide between Jews and Gentiles had to come down?

It would match up with the encounter with the centurion, who asked Jesus to heal his servant without even coming under his roof. "Jesus was amazed", says Matthew 8. It seems that he wasn't expecting it - he had to learn that faith might be found among the Gentiles.

Could this be another example of the same thing? Jesus has to learn to transcend his specific culture?

I'm not sure that's the same thing as what we usually call learning. Thinking your own culture is the be-all and end-all is normally categorized as a mistake, not just as a lack of knowledge. I can see Jesus having a lack of knowledge (humanly speaking)--I'm sure he had to be taught how to read, etc.--but having him actually mistaken, particularly in an area that has moral overtones (pride, xenophobia)--no, I just can't see it.

It appears to me that perfection is compatible with certain kinds of gaps (missing stuff, lacks)--for instance, a perfect newborn would still lack the ability to talk, as talking is not a normal characteristic of babies. A perfect squirrel (drat that joke!) would lack wings. To be perfect means to be and to have all the things you ought to be and to have--that's all.

But while perfection has room for gaps, it does not have room for positively wrong material that fills in those gaps. So a newborn may lack speech and still be perfect, but it certainly will NOT be perfect if it has (instead of human speech) barking or whinnying. And a squirrel may lack wings and be a perfect squirrel, but not if its back is covered with dragon scales.

Does that make any sense?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I don't think Jesus had any doubts that His ministry was going to extend beyond ethnic Jews. I think He needed to make sure that His disciples understood that. So, when He does interact with Gentiles (this instance, the Centurion, various Samaritans) He goes out of His way to both extend the conversation and to praise the responses and faith of the Gentiles.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Heh. “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”

Boom.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Could it be that Jesus had to learn about his mission - learn that the divide between Jews and Gentiles had to come down?

Thinking your own culture is the be-all and end-all is normally categorized as a mistake, not just as a lack of knowledge. I can see Jesus having a lack of knowledge (humanly speaking)--I'm sure he had to be taught how to read, etc.--but having him actually mistaken, particularly in an area that has moral overtones (pride, xenophobia)--no, I just can't see it.

It appears to me that perfection is compatible with certain kinds of gaps (missing stuff, lacks)--for instance, a perfect newborn would still lack the ability to talk, as talking is not a normal characteristic of babies. A perfect squirrel (drat that joke!) would lack wings. To be perfect means to be and to have all the things you ought to be and to have--that's all.

But while perfection has room for gaps, it does not have room for positively wrong material that fills in those gaps. So a newborn may lack speech and still be perfect, but it certainly will NOT be perfect if it has (instead of human speech) barking or whinnying. And a squirrel may lack wings and be a perfect squirrel, but not if its back is covered with dragon scales.

Does that make any sense?

It makes a lot of sense LC, and is the main reason why I'm uncomfortable with this interpretation. However, every other interpretation I've heard seems very difficult to reconcile with the text.

For example, I've heard it suggested that the woman and Jesus are putting on a show for the disciples - here his words to her are ironic, aimed at the listening disciples, almost a private joke between himself and the woman. I can almost see that, but it doesn't quite ring true to the text. It seems a stretch, what with the desperation of the woman etc. which has been mentioned upthread.

Let me defend my idea a bit more. As you say, Jesus's words here look dubiously racist to us. But how, humanly speaking, could he have had any other opinion, given the culture and (to somne extent God-given!) theology of the day?

To take your analogy, there might be something wrong with a baby barking and howling - but that might be because it had been raised by wolves, or people who howled like wolves. A fault in the culture, rather than a fault in the baby.

I've always been struck, as I said, by the fact that "Jesus was amazed" by the faith of the centurion. He was also "amazed" by the lack of faith he found in Nazareth (Mark 6:6). It does suggest that he wasn't expecting it. Hence my suggestion.

[ 11. February 2017, 20:08: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
But there were plenty of correctives to xenophobia and bigotry in that culture too, the strongest being the zillion OT passages about care for the stranger, reminders that Israel was chosen not for being any better than they, prophecies and some fulfillments that the gentiles, too, would worship the Lord as brothers and sisters with Israel... etc etc. There is also the fact that he grew up in Galilee of the gentiles, and probably crossed their paths daily.

The surprise thing was, i think, the wholly human perplexity at seeing people with all the advantages still fuck up, while outsiders with crap all take first place. Nazareth had known Christ for most of his life, and should have recognized him. This lady had no such advantage but still read him right.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't think Jesus had any doubts that His ministry was going to extend beyond ethnic Jews. I think He needed to make sure that His disciples understood that. So, when He does interact with Gentiles (this instance, the Centurion, various Samaritans) He goes out of His way to both extend the conversation and to praise the responses and faith of the Gentiles.

Yes. Which tends to make this passage all the more odd (and therefore not one to build a whole theology around).

I've heard one preacher speculate (and it really is just speculation) that Jesus was parroting the words of the disciples back to them-- things they would say about this woman behind her back but not to her face-- to shame/shock them with the inevitable turn-around. Setting her up to be the "teacher" in the situation made his point all the more obvious.

Speculation, but in keeping with Jesus' style and, as you note, overall demeanor toward the Samaritans.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
The following is pretty similar to the way I tend to read the passage:

quote:
For example, I've heard it suggested that the woman and Jesus are putting on a show for the disciples - here his words to her are ironic, aimed at the listening disciples, almost a private joke between himself and the woman. I can almost see that, but it doesn't quite ring true to the text. It seems a stretch, what with the desperation of the woman etc. which has been mentioned upthread.

I put the parallel passages together, so it's a bit easier to see how this could unfold--just reading this version leaves the disciples out altogether, so yeah, it's really confusing. But the version in Matthew 15 has the disciples there horning in on the conversation, urging Jesus to get rid of her--which gave me the idea to start with. It's here:

quote:
22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word.

And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.”

27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

What gets me about the story is how very out-of-character it is for him to ignore someone pleading. We don't see him doing it with other people, even with the Gentile centurion or the Samaritan woman at the well (and there he himself started the conversation). It's not like him. Something's going on.

But seeing this ambiguous response, the disciples are emboldened to basically behave like jerks and say "get rid of her." It sounds to me like they knew Jesus well enough to keep such nasty sentiments to themselves until the surprising way he was acting made them think, "Hey, maybe he's coming around."

If that's really what they were thinking, Jesus only feeds it with his next reply about being sent only to Israel, and his third response which is totally outrageous (the dog thing). It's as if he is deliberately leading them on.

That's why I suspect the true audience for this interchange was not the woman but the disciples. The woman is a desperate mother; she can be counted on to stick around regardless of silence and even insults until she wrings what she wants out of Jesus.

I mean, think about it. If Jesus spoke that way to me, I'd be heartbroken. If I was asking for my own healing, I'd probably leave. But my child! Oh no, he'd have to go considerably farther than that to get rid of me in that case. He'd have to physically remove me.

That, by the way, is the reason I think she knelt down right in front of him. He's been walking while this whole thing goes on--that is, he's basically walking past and away from her. By kneeling right in front of him, she essentially forces him to either stop or walk right over her. Of course he stops. And then we have the nasty comment, the triumphant reply, and the healing of the little girl (which is when Jesus reverts to character).

Now the business about his words being ironic or somehow other than totally straight--and the "private joke" stuff. I don't want in any way to suggest that the woman was not desperate. She was. You can't get much more desperate than she was. What I'm not sure of is the moment she was sure he would grant her request.

I mean, he was always going to heal that girl--could anyone doubt it, given his past behavior? And it's very likely that the mother knew his track record backward and forward--not just his healings, but his surprising penchant for the poor, the outcast, the foreigners. With a sick daughter, she would have listened to every rumor she could possibly gather.

So when was she sure he would say yes? From before she came? From the moment he gave that carefully ambiguous answer about being sent to Israel (which does NOT rule out healing random Gentiles along the way)? From the moment he stopped instead of walking over or around her? From something she read in his face?

I think it very likely that whenever she knew, it came before that final sassy answer of hers and might have even given her the relief and joy to "smart mouth" him back.

[A parallel to this situation exists in every family where the children know that when Dad says "Hmmmmm" or "Let me think about that" or anything but a flat "No," that means the answer is finally going to be "Yes."]
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
I think a lot of the problems arise because we're seeing things with C21 liberal Western eyes. This is compounded by the customary screening out of the role of Israel in the Biblical narrative.

(Badly attempting to follow N.T.Wright here, predictably.)

It all takes place in a context.

Israel (via Abraham) had been set a task- to free the world from decay/sin/death, by obedience to Torah. It had failed, requiring God-in-Jesus' intervention. Jesus, as Israel's representative, rescued Israel, enabling it to complete its task in setting the world free. Think of Israel as a car repair truck that breaks down, requiring Jesus as a second repair truck to sort Israel out so it can go off and deal with the original problem.

Furthermore, 'children' here symbolises 'Israel, the sons and daughters of God' and 'bread' the salvation of the Kingdom. Note the Gentile woman's use of the title 'Son of David', the Jewish Messianic title (in Matthew).

Hence the conversation subtext is-

Jesus: I am here to see that salvation comes to Israel, not just to wander around the planet healing people.
Woman: Yes, but us Gentiles are also supposed to get the blessings of this salvation, including healing, albeit secondhand.

There are a number of possible reasons for the silence (praying for guidance?) and for the sharp retort (making a memorable and essential point in the pro-Gentile battle to come?).
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The following is pretty similar to the way I tend to read the passage:

quote:
For example, I've heard it suggested that the woman and Jesus are putting on a show for the disciples - here his words to her are ironic, aimed at the listening disciples, almost a private joke between himself and the woman. I can almost see that, but it doesn't quite ring true to the text. It seems a stretch, what with the desperation of the woman etc. which has been mentioned upthread.

I put the parallel passages together, so it's a bit easier to see how this could unfold--just reading this version leaves the disciples out altogether, so yeah, it's really confusing. But the version in Matthew 15 has the disciples there horning in on the conversation, urging Jesus to get rid of her--which gave me the idea to start with. It's here:

quote:
22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word.

And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.”

27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

What gets me about the story is how very out-of-character it is for him to ignore someone pleading. We don't see him doing it with other people, even with the Gentile centurion or the Samaritan woman at the well (and there he himself started the conversation). It's not like him. Something's going on.

But seeing this ambiguous response, the disciples are emboldened to basically behave like jerks and say "get rid of her." It sounds to me like they knew Jesus well enough to keep such nasty sentiments to themselves until the surprising way he was acting made them think, "Hey, maybe he's coming around."

If that's really what they were thinking, Jesus only feeds it with his next reply about being sent only to Israel, and his third response which is totally outrageous (the dog thing). It's as if he is deliberately leading them on.

That's why I suspect the true audience for this interchange was not the woman but the disciples. The woman is a desperate mother; she can be counted on to stick around regardless of silence and even insults until she wrings what she wants out of Jesus.

I mean, think about it. If Jesus spoke that way to me, I'd be heartbroken. If I was asking for my own healing, I'd probably leave. But my child! Oh no, he'd have to go considerably farther than that to get rid of me in that case. He'd have to physically remove me.

That, by the way, is the reason I think she knelt down right in front of him. He's been walking while this whole thing goes on--that is, he's basically walking past and away from her. By kneeling right in front of him, she essentially forces him to either stop or walk right over her. Of course he stops. And then we have the nasty comment, the triumphant reply, and the healing of the little girl (which is when Jesus reverts to character).

Now the business about his words being ironic or somehow other than totally straight--and the "private joke" stuff. I don't want in any way to suggest that the woman was not desperate. She was. You can't get much more desperate than she was. What I'm not sure of is the moment she was sure he would grant her request.

I mean, he was always going to heal that girl--could anyone doubt it, given his past behavior? And it's very likely that the mother knew his track record backward and forward--not just his healings, but his surprising penchant for the poor, the outcast, the foreigners. With a sick daughter, she would have listened to every rumor she could possibly gather.

So when was she sure he would say yes? From before she came? From the moment he gave that carefully ambiguous answer about being sent to Israel (which does NOT rule out healing random Gentiles along the way)? From the moment he stopped instead of walking over or around her? From something she read in his face?

I think it very likely that whenever she knew, it came before that final sassy answer of hers and might have even given her the relief and joy to "smart mouth" him back.

[A parallel to this situation exists in every family where the children know that when Dad says "Hmmmmm" or "Let me think about that" or anything but a flat "No," that means the answer is finally going to be "Yes."]

I think this fits, but don't think the woman needs to be "in on it" for it to work. She is, as you say, desperate, and desperate mothers will say/do anything. She knows Jesus is her only hope, so she's not giving up.

The real puzzle is Jesus acting so out of character. I think you are right that the audience for Jesus' words is not the woman but the disciples. Jesus is setting up a teachable moment-- an enacted parable so to speak-- by making this Samaritan woman the unexpected heroine of the story, the "teacher" in front of the disciples-- knocking them down a peg or two out of their arrogant perch.

The fact that she came up with a sassy and wise retort is the icing on the cake.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0