Sunday, August 20, 2017

Matthew 15:10-28


Matthew 15:10-28 (NRSV)

10 Then he called the crowd to him and said to them, “Listen and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.” 12 Then the disciples approached and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?” 13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit.” 15 But Peter said to him, “Explain this parable to us.” 16 Then he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. 19 For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.”

21 Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting 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 He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food 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, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly. 

Matthew 15:1-20 contains sayings on the theme of points of Jewish law. The source is Mark, although verse 14 contains two sayings from the material common to Matthew and Luke. The mode of a disputation is the cast of the whole episode like those that took place between Pharisees and Christians after 70 AD.  The saying in verses 10-11 continues some of the reflections of Jesus on points of Torah, especially its concern for ritual purity and cleanliness. Jesus challenges the received Jewish tradition. Part of the concern for ritual cleanliness focused on food, and thus, what went into the mouth could make one clean or unclean. Jesus directly assaults this tradition in a way that assaults a way of life. It would appear to assail kashrut and thus the continuing significance of an important element of the Torah and the oral tradition. Such a view explains in part why Jesus could so easily cross boundaries that Torah and its oral tradition had established. Verses 12-13 relate an exchange between Jesus and the disciples, in which the disciples inform Jesus that he has offended the Pharisees by his statement regarding ritual cleanliness and purity. Speaking the truth in public does not mean people will welcome it. Taking a stand invites the opposition to stand up as well. His response is simple. In a saying, common lore or a common proverb, he says that anything God does not sponsor will fail. Besides, in two sayings from the material common to Matthew and Luke that likely come from common lore, Jesus warns his followers that Pharisees are like a blind leader leading blind people, resulting in both falling into the pit. All of this foreshadows the developing and deadly relationship between Jesus and religious leaders. Verses 15-20 represent an explanation of the view of Jesus on ritual purity. Our bodies will eventually expel the food we eat. The body purges itself of any impurity that might come from food. It will do so naturally. However, the truly impure and unclean has its core definition in the Ten Commandments: murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, and slander. Matthew still considers the Ten Commandments to be God’s Law and binding. Such a list is similar to what we find in Romans 1:28-32, where Paul will refer to degrading passions, coveting, envy, murder, strife, deceit, gossips, slanderers, as well as other expressions of wickedness and evil. It would seem that the moral element of the Ten Commandments remains in play for Jesus, the earliest Christian community, and Paul. We might also think of the list in Colossians 3, where if we are to live authentic lives we will not lie to each other. We will bear the burden of the other. We will practice love and forgive. We are at peace. We live gratefully before God and each other. We might also think of Galatians 5:22-23, focusing our lives on love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. This text shows that followers of Jesus are to focus upon the real wrongs human beings do toward each other and therefore against God. These moral infractions make one impure and unclean; they arise from our hearts. The point is simple. The path to solid, supportive, healthy relationships, as well as to self-respect and a life of quality, starts with the painful decision to do the right thing. Humanity always wants to avoid this, for we are uncertain if truth and falsity, right and wrong, even exist. Yet, it would appear that avoiding the question would lead us down a self-destructive path.
Matthew 15:21-28 has the theme of the healing of the daughter of the Canaanite woman. The source is Mark. Peter, then later James, led the Palestinian branch of the early church.  Paul, on the other hand, understood the focus of his missionary work on gentiles.  Paul was closer to Jesus on this point than Peter or James.  Yet, for us to reach this conclusion, we have some difficult sayings of Jesus to consider. Jesus leaves Galilee and goes to Lebanon, biblical Phoenicia, foreign and unclean territory for Torah. To our knowledge, this story represents the only time Jesus goes outside Israel. It foreshadows the Gentile mission. In context, then, we have another way Jesus challenged ritual purity. Jesus makes this move largely because he wants to escape the crowd, but again, human need finds him. The need comes to him in the form of a Canaanite, a people who had long been enemies of the Jewish people, considered pagan, and opposed to the monotheistic faith of Judaism. The need comes to him in the form of a woman who willingly breaks strict behavioral codes of decency in approaching him. She approaches Jesus in a theologically correct way. She refers to him as Lord, the title offered by believers in the stories of the Gospel. She refers to him as Son of David, a title offered by the common folk who were able to see Jesus as the Messiah of Israel. We wonder about the character of a woman who has a demon-possessed daughter. Verses 23-25 are only in Matthew. The first response from Jesus is silence, suggesting he is off-guard and considering a response or even trying to ignore her. The disciples want Jesus to give her what she wants so that she will go away and stop pestering them. They seem to have no concern for theological matters or for the mission of Jesus. Their advice to Jesus arises out of their convenience. The second response of Jesus to the woman, then, is to remind the disciples and her that the Father has sent him to Israel, who is truly like lost sheep. The response surprises us. He treats her with apparent cold heartedness. Yet, the response is theologically correct. His mission is to Israel. He affirms the primacy of the covenant of God with Israel, in spite of a form of disobedience that makes them more like lost sheep. Jesus will not abrogate the promises of God to Israel for the sake of this woman. In context, we can see that his concern was not so much with ritual purity. He was open to the non-conforming elements of Israel. He would have had regular contact with Gentiles in Galilee. Jesus did not view himself as forming a remnant in contrast with Israel. His movement was open to Israel as a whole.[1] The woman responds by coming to Jesus again in a theologically appropriate way. She properly kneels before him in reverence, the sign of faithfulness in the Gospel story. She again addresses him with the theologically correct term, Lord. She offers a pathetic plea for help. She is tenacious. She has enough faith that she seems to turn Jesus from his view of his mission. In this case, if we think of the context, the exterior matters, such as her being Canaanite and a woman, do not make the encounter ritually unclean. The danger is that this encounter will lead to moral uncleanness. Zeal for ritual purity here, in the guise of doing what is right, could lead to much that would be wrong. The harsh response of Jesus surprises us even more, as he suggests that the children of Israel deserve to receive their spiritual food before the domesticated dogs of Gentiles and infidels. Yet, this woman responds with the theologically correct address, Lord. She has humility, faith, trust, confidence, love, persistence, and cheerfulness. Hearing the cutting remark from Jesus, she responds with playfulness and wit, using an ironic sense of humor. We see evidence in the exchanges in the gospels that Jesus had with his contemporaries that he could appreciate such humor. She acknowledges her secondary position in the mission of Jesus, but she has her place as well. Her response impresses Jesus. Yet, the humor or cleverness of the woman is not what impresses him. Rather, he focuses upon her faith.  The table is broader than Jesus may have thought. Jesus had attempted to keep his focus upon Israelites. However, the encounter with this woman pushed Jesus beyond the perimeters of his vision and moved him further along the road toward the plan of his Father for human salvation.



[1] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 310.

No comments:

Post a Comment