Sermon: When Jesus Called a Woman a "Dog"

Introduction

Cultural Foundations for Ethics and Morality

As much as we may want to believe that we have an objective view of ethics and morality, the fact is that many things which we discern as good or bad, acceptable or not, normal or abnormal, are cultural constructs. Many of these are used as identity markers. They draw boundaries between who belongs and who doesn’t belong.

Can women wear pants? Depending on when and where in history, this had moral and ethical implications, and in some circles, they still do.[1]

Men and growing a beard or not had moral implications and may still.[2]

Is it better to eat with forks, spoons, and knives; or is it acceptable for adults to eat with their hands? Should you eat pizza with your hands, or cut it into pieces with a knife and fork? How you prefer to dine and how you view the use of utensils vs. hands offers an insight into culture and belonging, and in some cases may also carry ethical connotations.

The relative importance between individual freedom vs. collective action is another ethical and even moral consideration for a society and culture. Different societies and cultures place different values. One society might look at another’s and be quite convinced theirs is right and the other is wrong, and vice versa.

These are just a few examples.

Language as Encoders of Culture and Tradition

Furthermore, the language and words that we use are also a part of our culture and tradition. Even when we limit our examination to just English, we see diversity around the world in words and phrases. Within the United States, there are differences among regions. How we say things can be identity markers. These extend to professions, economic and class differences, and racial and ethnic differences.

Words can and are used to divide, harm, and hurt. This is especially true between groups that differ in their available societal power. Those with more power use words to protect their own position while keeping others down. This can be intentional, but it can also be quite unintentional. The words and ways of speaking by those in higher power positions are often absorbed unconsciously because those things said are the norm in that environment.

 

Problems of Blind Adherence to Tradition

The focus of today’s gospel reading is the story of the Canaanite woman and Jesus, the last part of the reading. But the extended reading before the story provides an important context that strengthens the surprises found in the story.

The first part of the reading involves the Pharisees and scribes coming to Jesus to ask why his disciples do not follow the tradition of the elders of washing their hands before they eat. Walter T. Wilson in his commentary on this text notes that handwashing was not a universal Jewish custom during 1^st century CE, but most closely associated with the Pharisees; making this ritual a sectarian identifier.[3] This leads to the implied conclusion that Jesus and his disciples were associated with the Pharisaic group, or at least seen to be most closely identified with that group.

Jesus’ rebuttal is a counterargument. He throws a question at the questioners: why do you place the tradition of the vow of Korban above the commandment to honor one’s father and mother? Jesus referred to a method of vowing Korban that could be used to sever one’s ties with family (it’s complicated and a malicious use of vows).[4] Jesus questions how a tradition, even one that involves a vow to God, could circumvent a commandment from God?

A short summary of this first debate is 1) the Pharisees ask how Jesus and his disciples could be part of the household of Pharisees, if they do not observe the proper ethical boundary markers passed down through tradition; and 2) Jesus rebuts by providing an example where an ethical and moral tradition in fact can be used to destroy a household. Jesus’ assertion is that the observance of tradition is relativized to its value in maintaining relationships.

Problems of Judging by Externals

The second part of the reading relates to the first in that it begins with the concept of eating something that may not be ritually clean, such as food eaten using unwashed hands (but the Markan version of this discourse includes unclean food categories as well). Jesus takes the argument about the boundary marker of ritual purity and turns it into a discussion about the ethics of speech. What one eats merely comes out as physical waste, but speech can destroy people, relationships, and community.

A summary of this section is 1) the Pharisees are solely concerned with external markers of purity; but 2) they mean nothing in terms of what true purity is. True purity is what is in the heart, and the evidence is found in the words that come out through speech.

 

Story of the Canaanite Woman and Jesus

It is with this prelude of tradition and speech that we come to the story of the Canaanite woman and Jesus’ interaction with her.

The setting changes. Jesus is in the district of Tyre and Sidon, outside of the physical borders of the Jewish region. The narrator uses the term “Canaanite” to refer to the historical animosity between Israelites and Canaanites, and to recall the kind of practices that were associated with them. It reminds the readers of the history of problems that the Israelites had with keeping their religious practices pure and undefiled by Canaanite practices and gods. It also evokes the insider-outsider distinction, where the Jews are in favor with God and the Canaanites are outside of God’s favor.

Jesus Does Not Act Like He Usually Does

We next see the woman coming to Jesus and shouting at him, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” The act of a woman approaching a man directly, especially one who is not a family member, and a foreigner, it believed to have violated numerous social norms and boundaries. One commentator explains,

The woman’s behavior is unacceptable. Her culture expects women to be reserved in public. When she not only takes the initiative but also shouts her demand at Jesus, she violates social norms. Social affronts do not merit consideration, so Jesus seems to be playing by the social rules of his time when he does not even respond to her.[5]

She persists and the disciples urge Jesus to send her away. Jesus finally says something, but I read it as Jesus responding more to his disciples. The message contained is meant to be heard by the woman, but I see Jesus still avoiding a direct response to her. Another commentator opines, “In terms of civility, Jesus’ silence is the high moment of the pericope.”[6]

Jesus’ response is, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” This echoes his instructions to the disciples when they were sent out, described in Matthew chapter 10.

The woman continues to persist in her desperation. Her plea is reduced to, “Lord, help me.”

Racial Epithet

Jesus’ now responds directly to the woman, but it also hits the lowest point. “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

The interpretation of this response from Jesus goes all over the place. Many traditional Christian interpretations try to save Jesus from his words.

The difficulty with this text is that Jesus calls the Canaanite woman a “dog.” Scholars, theologians, and pastors have tried to tame this beast and tried to defang it. Among some of the traditional interpretations offered include:

1)     Jesus was trying to teach his disciples and really didn’t mean what he said. The woman could tell from his body language and vocal tone that he didn’t really mean it.

2)     Jesus used a specific word, “little dog,” instead of simply “dog,” so it wasn’t really an insult or a racial epithet.

3)     Jesus was testing the woman. He knew she had enough fortitude and faith to overcome an apparent insult.

More recent scholarship takes the position that Jesus did, in fact, use a racial epithet. [7] The difficulty then becomes how to reconcile the traditional position of an perfect Christ with what seems like an imperfect Jesus.

Broadly, the explanations given come down to the humanity of Jesus. In his full humanity, Jesus would have been affected by the cultural and social norms of his day and place.

Defining and Explaining Perfection

Somewhere along the way, we have created a picture of Jesus that is static: that somehow because of his divinity, he had complete human knowledge and could make no mistakes. From this assumption we get the line in Away in the Manger where it reads, “No crying he makes.” Or the story of Jesus, when he is twelve years old in the temple, totally oblivious to his family going home; but it is traditionally interpreted as Jesus doing the better thing and his parents should have known better. But the text actually seems to say that perhaps Jesus’ behavior was not correct, because he afterwards is described as being “obedient” to his parents and learning and maturing.[8]

Where we probably get the idea that Jesus was perfect from the beginning of his humanity comes to us from the Epistle to the Hebrews.

¹⁵ For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15 NRSVue)

⁸ Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered, ⁹ and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him… (Hebrews 5:8-9 NRSVue)

But even these imply that perfection was a process that came to fruition through his experience of crucifixion.

Did Jesus Learn?

Thus, while Jesus was able to see problems with many of the social structures of his time, those were things that he would have come to see as part of his learning and maturing. There would have been many other problems that he would not have seen, simply because he had not yet encountered them. When Jesus began his public ministry, did he suddenly stop learning and developing a more mature understanding of love? Did he get rid of all his blind spots before his public ministry? Or did he continue to learn and grow?

In the current story about the Canaanite woman, we might interpret it as one of the tests that could be included in the text in Hebrews. Would Jesus recognize his blind spot and learn from his interaction? Would he correct his initial mistake, coming from a perspective of cultural and social blind spots?

The hero/heroine of this story is the woman. Despite being ignored, being insulted, being called a “dog”, she persists, and many commentators and scholars today see this woman teaching Jesus and expanding his understanding of how to love more fully. I realize this can be shocking and difficult for many of us who have years of traditional Christian teachings around Jesus. But perhaps it is not a coincidence that the earlier texts we discussed are ones critical of blind adherence to tradition and traditional teachings.

The woman helps Jesus break out of his traditional boundaries, the ones he has not recognized until this point. Through her words, she reveals faith that is in her heart.

²⁷ She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” ²⁸ Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that moment. (Matthew 15:27-28 NRSVue)

I wonder if by this point being seen and heard by Jesus was more important and affirming for the woman than the healing of her daughter. That the healing was the evidence that Jesus saw and heard.

Jesus’ Example for Us

I believe that the story of the Canaanite woman is Matthew’s illustration of how even Jesus could be bound by tradition and how he could judge by outward appearances, but then how he breaks through them to become more mature in love. In this way, as the writer of Hebrews explains, Jesus can relate to us and “sympathize with our weaknesses.”

The woman was an outsider, one that is initially depicted as having a wrong religion, and one who acts against social and cultural norms. Yet she was the one who had a better and more expansive vision of God’s love and inclusiveness.

Jesus, who was fully divine, was humble in his humanity to recognize his blind spots, could accept instruction and teaching from someone who initially didn’t appear to have anything to offer, and learn from his human mistakes.

We have our traditions, cultures, and social norms that we use to judge people. They blind us to opportunities to love and learn. Perhaps the best way to love someone is not necessarily to offer something to them, but when we take the time to see them as complete human persons, and to learn from them and accept what they have to offer us.

---

[1] The History Of Women Wearing Pants As Power Symbol | HuffPost Life (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-history-of-women-wearing-pants-as-power-symbol_n_5a99bb95e4b0a0ba4ad34fe7)

[2] All Men Have An "Aesthetic Obligation" To Grow A Beard; Here's Why (dmarge.com) (https://www.dmarge.com/why-all-men-should-grow-a-beard)

[3] Wilson, Walter T., The Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), on Matthew 15:1-20 (Kindle version, location approximately 1258).

[4] Cairus, Aecio E., “The Heartless Corban Vow”, Asia Adventist Seminary Studies (4: 2001):3-7. Retrieved from https://journals.aiias/edu/jaas/article/download/449/398/819

[5] Feasting on the Word: Year A, Volume 3, p. 832.

[6] Ibid., p. 836.

[7] McGrath, James F., What Jesus Learned from Women, “The Syrophoenician Woman”, p. 87-107.

[8] Luke 2:41-52.

Sermon: Breaking Down Boundaries

Lectionary Year B, Proper 18
Gospel Text: Mark 7:24-37

Introduction

None of us are born in isolation from society. From birth, we are a part of some kind of social group. From these social groups we absorb and learn many things; some good, some neutral, and some bad. Some of the things are taught and modeled explicitly, but many more we absorb implicitly. One of those things is how society values different kinds of people, and more specifically, how my in-group views people that are outside of my group. As we grow and interact with different groups, we have positive and negative experiences that can reinforce stereotypes for good or bad. While most of us learn and know intellectually that we should not look down on people different from us, we may still harbor fear, dislike, or feelings of superiority that unconsciously influence our actions.

Many of my childhood and teen years were lived among predominantly White communities. Whether accurate or not, as my young brain looked around, I observed that White people appeared to be more affluent and clearly were the majority. One result of this was that I subconsciously developed anti-Asian sentiment within myself, even though I am clearly Asian.

I think that most strongly reinforcing this idea occurred during a few of my middle school years and a year in high school, when our family spent some time in Singapore as missionaries. The missionaries, who were nearly all Western and White, had their own school for their children, in nice air-conditioned buildings and rooms in a compound just for them.

All of this added up so that for a good number of decades I tried to avoid associating with other Asians and preferred the company of White groups.

But even within the broad category of Asians, I also absorbed a national and ethnic hierarchy that placed my people, Japanese, at the top and other Asians further down the ladder. Although I had close Asian friends that were not Japanese, I held to negative stereotypes when thinking about other groups as a whole. Even though I would have never thought of myself as racist, I thought it was fine and good to maintain internal hierarchies of race and nationality, and to have negative ideas about groups that I didn’t identify with.

I bring all this up because a human individual’s social environment, their culture, and their upbringing all contribute to what they assume is moral and ethical. What they learn and absorb from their in-group defines much of what is assumed to be right. I didn’t think any of what I’ve mentioned was wrong. I simply believed and accepted that that’s just how the world worked. I bring this up because many decades later, as I’ve learned and matured, I am finally at a point where I can begin to see how my upbringing and the experiences I had shaped me and can take conscious steps to break away from recognized negative aspects.

Was Jesus Exempt from Human Upbringing?

Was Jesus exempt from experiencing this part of humanity?

Dr. James F. McGrath, professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University writes,

“Was he [Jesus] entirely free from human biases in his upbringing and culture? As a genuine human being, I think there is no way he could have had a human upbringing in which he learned language, culture, customs, and values, and yet be entirely free of all prejudices and biases.”[1]

And Loye Ashton in the commentary Feasting on the Word writes,

“To be the Son of God, the Messiah must suffer, not only at the hands of those of us who do not understand him, but also under of the conditions of existence, the challenge of the human condition itself. To be otherwise would not allow Jesus to be fully human… Mark provides an interesting way of seeing how the divine and the human can be completely combined in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.”[2]

Jesus and Ethnic Traditions

Today’s gospel text is the middle of a series of stories arranged by Mark to show how Jesus went from caring for the Jews, his in-group, to breaking rigidly established boundaries of purity, religion, ethnicity and race to include all humanity in his care. The Syrophoenician woman is the fulcrum on which this shift occurs.

Up to this point the series of stories show Jesus challenging traditional Jewish norms and even disregarding purity codes. But these were all debates within Judaism and having disagreements or practicing differently did not automatically place one outside of the community.

To offer God’s divine power to someone outside of the Jewish community would be something else entirely. That is the challenge that Jesus is confronted with when the Syrophoenician (or Canaanite; c.f. Matthew 15:22) woman comes to him with a request to cast the unclean spirit out of her daughter. This was not only a Gentile, but a woman; a woman with an unclean daughter, and even more problematic, a descendant of the Canaanites, Israel’s mortal enemy.

And that is the point at which Jesus hesitates. He seems to have some intellectual recognition that God’s mercy should go to all of humanity, but his social norms acquired through his upbringing seems to erect an emotional block. Jesus responds as a Jewish man would be expected to respond to a request from a Gentile woman. It is rude and insulting, but simultaneously, it is an entirely acceptable and expected response.

Rev. Marcea Paul of the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd, in Austin, Texas writes,

“We believe and profess that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, and this week, we encounter Jesus in his full humanity.”[3]

We don’t have the time to go into the problem of this apparent portrait of a less-than-perfect Jesus. For now I hope it is sufficient to note that the problem may lie in our overreliance on John’s gospel and some of the Christological texts in the epistles as fully explaining Jesus, and through them our assumptions about what it means to be perfect and without sin. From the quotes I’ve already used, there are biblical scholars and practicing pastors who are raising the problem of an underdeveloped doctrine of Jesus’ humanity.

Jesus Challenged

Jesus responds as a Jewish man might be expected to respond. But the woman, instead of going away, as would have been expected, she responds with a challenge to Jesus’ response, thus invoking an honor contest – again, something that is completely unexpected across social, ethnic, and gender boundaries.[4]

Her response, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs,” (7:28) get the better of Jesus. This is the only story recorded in the gospels where Jesus loses an honor contest, and it is to a Gentile woman. Whereas in Matthew’s account Jesus praises the woman’s faith, in Mark’s account Jesus recognizes the superiority of the woman’s reason and logic.

In commenting on this the Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries: Mark reads,

The Syrophoenician woman’s reply in v.28 is startling. The fact that she talks back is itself a sign of boundary-crossing persistence… She engages Jesus in a clever, rhetorical riposte that while not undoing the offense of naming, breaks and thus bests its logic… The gentile woman works cleverly within the metaphor that Jesus uses. But in doing so, she breaks it open for newness and healing.[5]

The woman of this story is the hero. She extracts honor from Jesus, and he is compelled to accede to the woman’s request.

What Jesus Learned

Jesus had been pushing and crossing boundaries within his own Jewish tradition. But the Syrophoenician woman challenged boundaries that defined ethnic, national, social, religious, and gender separations. She challenged Jesus to break those boundaries as ones that were hindering a broader mission to all of humanity. In healing her daughter, Jesus appears to have learned that there were far more traditional boundaries that would have to be broken and crossed.

The next story where a man who is deaf and has a speech impediment is healed shows how Jesus puts into practice what he has learned. He no longer shows reluctance to immediately respond to a Gentile person’s needs. But Jesus’ manner of healing in this story is strange in that he does not lay hands on the man, as was asked of him, but rather pokes his finger into the man’s ears, spits onto his fingers and touches the man’s tongue. It is almost as if Jesus is adopting certain healing practices and goes through motions that were more common in the Greco-Roman world. Karen Pidcock-Lester offers the following observation in the commentary Feasting on the Gospels,

The significance of the spittle is unclear. Some evidence indicates that the Greco-Roman culture viewed it as having curative effects, while other evidence from Jewish texts indicate that it is an unclear discharge. This would actually make a difference in how one views the healing act. Given that Mark has been picturing Jesus breaking boundaries, I would suggest that it is viewed in the Jewish fashion as unclean. By an unclean act Jesus heals; this makes the boundary breaking even stronger.[6]

The final story in this Markan sequence of narratives showing Jesus’ boundary crossings is the Feeding of the 4,000 which takes place still in a Gentil area. In this story, as was found in the feeding of the 5,000 which was in Jewish lands, the Markan text includes that Jesus had compassion for the crowd which had been with him for three days (8:2). Jesus who had compassion for the Jewish crowds, but responded rudely to the Syrophoenician woman, comes around to having compassion for a Gentile crowd.

What We Can Learn

Since we are human, we don’t always know the kinds of boundaries that we hold on to. Many are handed down through our families and the society that we are born into. Others we might choose along life’s way.

Jesus did not say all boundaries should be eliminated. He clearly has at least one – that of sacrificial love for one another which is the defining marker for his people and community.

Any boundary that is antithetical to sacrificial love for one another is, therefore, a boundary that should be questioned. Another might be any boundary that builds and maintains hierarchies of power. And yet another might be any boundary that assigns a degree of value differently from one person to another depending on where they fall. Do our stated values always match what we hold on to internally?

Another area to consider is the ways in which we respond when we are externally confronted and challenged on boundaries that we adhere to, both consciously and subconsciously. Do we become defensive or are we open to the possibility that we might be wrong and take corrective action?

Jesus was crucified, at least in part because he refused to stay within what society demanded were proper and necessary boundaries. Jesus crossed boundaries to love those that were considered enemies by society. He not only crossed boundaries, but he sought to remove them. One could say that Jesus was a traitor for the cause of love. We, who claim the name of Jesus Christ and follow him, are being asked to do no less.

---

[1] Was Jesus a Racist? | James McGrath (patheos.com) (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2021/09/was-jesus-racist.html)

[2] Feasting on the Word: Year B, Volume 4, Kindle location approximately at 1716.

[3] Crumbs for Healing, Pentecost 15 (B) – September 5, 2021 – The Episcopal Church (https://www.episcopalchurch.org/sermon/crumbs-for-healing-pentecost-15-b-september-5-2021/)

[4] Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries: Mark, p. 103-104.

[5] Fortress, p. 104-105

[6] Pidcock-Lester, Karen (commentary contributor). Feasting on the Gospels: Mark. Approximate Kindle location 7608.