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 1st 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.
.jpg)
