“Nobody left out”
By Rev. Michael Stonhouse
Meditation – Monday, March 11, 2024
Mark 7:24-37 (Forward, p. 42) CEV p. 1036
It is truly ‘amazing’, if not rather upsetting, how ‘hot and bothered’ certain people get with regards to Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman. They cast all sorts of aspersions against Him, aspersions, for instance, that He is sexist and racist. And furthermore, that He is slow-witted as well and needed to be taught a lesson by this nameless woman.
They say all this because they are at a loss to explain—to their satisfaction anyway--what Jesus says and does in this account.
So, let’s set the record straight and see what really took place, and then try to explain Jesus’ behaviour. First off, we need to notice the context. Jesus has been extremely busy with ministry in general, and most recently, with fending off the attacks and criticisms of the Pharisees and scribes who’d come from Jerusalem to question Him. And so, Jesus feels a need to get away from it all and withdraw to foreign territory where He’d not be seen and known—or harassed. Mark tells us expressly that He entered a particular house and ‘would not have anyone know it.’ And so, Jesus would not have wanted to meet with anyone, Jew or Gentile, during this needed time of rest. It was, you might say, His ‘day off’, and we all know how people resist being ‘bothered’ on their day off. So, that sets the stage for today’s encounter.
Even so, this woman found out, and in her great need, sought Him out and came to Him anyway. She fell down at His feet and begged Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. Now, here’s where it gets interested, and where Jesus’ present-day critics have a field day. Jesus replied to her request in what ‘seems’ to be a rather harsh and degrading manner. He says, ‘Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs’ (verse 27). Describing Gentiles as ‘dogs’ was normal practice for Jewish believers at that time, and probably this woman was well-accustomed to this insult. But then, Jesus does not use the normal word for dogs, kuon, but the diminutive, kunarion, which means ‘little dogs’ or ‘puppies.’ This may still seem rather insulting and dismissive, but perhaps Jesus didn’t mean it in this way.
And notice—this is something that many commentators miss out on—Jesus doesn’t rule out ministering to Gentiles. He says only that ‘the children should be fed first’, not at all implying that He couldn’t afterwards go to the Gentiles. So, contrary to what some have said, maybe Jesus didn’t need to be taught a lesson by her. Maybe He knew all along that He needed to go to the Gentles at some point. In fact, He’d already ministered to them in the case of the Gadarene demoniac (see Mark 5:1-20).
So, instead of being purposely demeaning and exclusive, maybe Jesus was calling forth her faith, a faith He already suspected was there, by His interesting choice of words. In fact, the woman immediately picks up on this. “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs (the puppies) under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” She is picking up on the fact that God’s chosen people, the Jews, the very ones that Jesus is called to minister first, haven’t been listening and have discarded, like children at a highchair, the very food they were given to eat. And so, she is claiming the right to pick up, to enter into, their discards.
In response, Jesus applauds her for this faith, this insight, and tells her that her wish has been granted, that her daughter has been healed.
Forward notes: “He said to her, ‘Let the children be fed first, for it is not faith to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs” (verse 27).
“This crass remark from Jesus unnerves everyone. Some argue that Jesus was annoyed to be disturbed by the woman because he was on retreat with his disciples. Others say he was still in the process of understanding his total mission. Maybe Jesus was just tired.
“We might be tired, too, and our communication with others might also be sharp. Our ability to text one another doesn’t help. Once, I was texting that her pet was dying. In the second text, she indicated she was going for a walk on this beautiful day. To the first message, I replied, ‘Oh no, that’s terrible.’ To the second, I replied, ‘That sounds great; have fun!’ The responses were not received in sequence, and she was very hurt by the exchange. Healing this breach of communication took real effort and a substantial amount of time. Perhaps when we encounter communication breakdowns, Jesus’s predicament can show us a new way forward.”
Moving Forward: “Extend grace when miscommunication causes pain.”
A concluding note: Or, maybe as I have indicated, there was no breaches of communication at all, no miscommunication, and the woman understood completely what Jesus was getting at and was encouraged in his faith and in her determination by His carefully nuanced choice of words.