Making God’s word effective: The Syro-Phoenician Woman & the theology of inclusion

“In this way you make God’s word

ineffective for the sake of your own tradition.”

--Mark 7:13

 

I have always had trouble with the way Jesus speaks to the Syro-Phoenician woman.  She comes to Him seeking help for her daughter who is possessed by a demon.  This is a classic situation for Jesus to reveal His power, and His Father’s healing love.  But instead Jesus responds to the woman’s plea with a kind of parable or koan-like statement about taking food away from children and feeding dogs.

“The children should be fed first, because
it is not fair to take the children’s food
and throw it to little dogs.” (Mk 5:27)

Upon first reading, it sounds not only like Jesus is being dismissive of her pain (and her daughter’s suffering), but also a little insulting. Why?  This is not the Jesus we expect. He doesn’t seem to be the same guy who just  walked on water, fed 5000, healed Jairus’s daughter (as well as the woman with her bleeding), and anyone the crowds brought to Him, the guy who ate with sinners, calmed the sea and taught that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Clearly, he’s not someone who seems wrapped up in rules and regulations. And, prior to this, has shown no hesitance when asked for help.  And yet, what He says to the Syro-Phoenician woman sounds like a dismissal and a veiled reference to a rule is the only explanation He offers.  To me, this strangeness is a theological speed-bump. It slows me down, in fact--stops me in my tracks—and demands my attention.  I don’t like it.  It makes me uncomfortable. Why is Jesus acting like this?  What does it mean?

 

Often when this story is discussed, the emphasis is put on the fact that the woman is Syro-Phoenician (a Gentile; non-Jew). There is a tradition of Jews referring to Gentiles as dogs, and so this makes some sense.  Yet, Jesus has just cured another Gentile of demonic possession back in chapter 5 (cf. Mk 5.1-20 the Gerasane demoniac & the 2000 pigs). So, why is He suddenly hesitant to cast out another demon from another Gentile?  Why this sudden change? Again—a theological speed-bump, encouraging us to slow down and take a moment (or a life-time) and pay attention. Contemplate this.  Let the Word of God open itself to you and see where it leads.

 

And so, here is where it lead me—backwards.  I remembered that in Matthew’s version of this story, the disciples complain to Jesus about the woman.  They want Him to do something so she will stop following them.  And so, in Matthew’s Gospel it makes sense to read this story as a lesson for those same disciples.  They have come from a world where people like this woman are often referred to as dogs. So, when Jesus refers to throwing food to the dogs (Mt. 15:21ff) it seems quite plausible that He is making a point specifically for His disciples. He is demanding that they confront their own language and prejudices against the Gentiles.  But here in Mark there is no mention of the disciples.  We have only the woman and Jesus.  Within that context, we must ask ourselves, what is Mark saying here?  And a trick I learned from N.T. Wright (an Anglican theologian) is to look at the surrounding text. What has just happened prior to the troubling verse, and what comes after.  Well, just prior to this, Jesus has been having a discussion with the Pharisees and scribes about the rules.  They want to know why the disciples eat with unclean hands. Why don’t the disciples follow the rules about washing their arms up to the elbow before they eat?  These rules come not from the Torah, but from tradition; in effect, they are an interpretation of scripture, a reading of God’s law; they arise out of theologizing –thinking about God and God’s law.  But here’s the problem. Jesus points out to the Pharisees and Scribes that their form of theologizing ends up being very exclusive. It tends to “rule” people out.  Just as it does here with this question about clean hands, the way they read God’s law ends up excluding people for a variety of reasons. In fact, it seems that the lens they use for reading God’s law is a lens of exclusion. It tends to read God’s law (God’s love) as being only for an exclusive group—those who meet certain qualifications.  And so it is constantly looking at the rules to measure out who meets those qualifications.  It is as if they have a telescope turned round the wrong way and are looking at everything through the wrong end. Everything looks smaller, looks tighter, looks narrower through this lens.  Harder to attain, and much less open for discussion (or inclusion).

 

Jesus tells them point blank:  In this way, you make God’s word ineffective for the sake of your tradition. They put their tradition, their interpretation, above everything; including the effectiveness of God’s word.  And with that in mind, let us return to this Syro-Phoenician woman and those dogs under the table.

 

I wonder if this vignette, this very brief miracle story, is actually a lesson in interpretation.  A kind of lesson in theologizing. Think about it this way: who is she talking to? The Word made Flesh.  What is she doing? Humbly coming to the Word seeking healing, seeking comfort, seeking guidance.  But what does she find?  She is confronted by an unpleasant truth (or what seems like an unpleasant version of the Truth, the Way, and the Life). But, how does she react? Does she go away in search of another religion? Another miracle healer? Another way, truth or life? No. She accepts the terms that Jesus puts forward, accept the truth of what He says and then she offers a theological reading of that truth.  She offers an interpretation based on His terms, His words, His Truth. She says:

“Ah yes, sir… but little dogs under the table eat the scraps from the children.” (Mk 7:28)

 

And with that response, becomes, it seems to me, an icon of the Christian theologian. Unlike the Pharisees who seem only to see the law as a way to exclude others, she--without contradicting the truth of God’s word, accepting it completely under its own terms-- discovers in it an effectiveness that resounds with the love of the God that has been revealed to us, a God of love and grace and mercy. She discovers even in this unpleasant saying, a broadness and a grace that at first was not apparent.  It is as if in her words here, in this brief response, she teaches us a theological approach: how to read the Word of God through a lens of inclusiveness, how to discover in even the most difficult sayings and unpleasant passages a love that transcends human understanding. 

 

Is that not the true work of theology: to discover and reveal the truth of God’s love? And should that not be the tradition that guides us?  A tradition of love, of mercy, of compassion, a tradition that opens doors, lights lamps, makes pathways straight; a tradition that proclaims always the loving message of a loving God: Come unto me, all you who are weary, and I will give you rest. A tradition that proclaims: At this table, all are welcome.