The gospel lectionary reading for Trinity 15 in this Year B is Mark 7.24-37, which includes the episode of Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman that often brings readers up short, containing as it does what appears to be a rather shocking insult.
It has become very popular to read this as a story about a woman who teaches Jesus not to be a bigoted Jew, so that he is the problem and she is the hero in the story. But this way of reading raises a huge number of problems—and fails to attend to what the text actually says, or the context in which it is told.
In this conversation, we explore the issues this raise, what the text actually says, and what we learn from this about Jesus and his teaching. Come and join Ian and James as they explore these questions!
Full written commentary behind the discussion can be found on the blog each week.
Buy me a Coffee
It has become very popular to read this as a story about a woman who teaches Jesus not to be a bigoted Jew, so that he is the problem and she is the hero
As non-Christians scarcely bother with the story, this presumably means popular inside the church, which is ominous…
Anton
I’ve only ever heard one person suggest this and I have quite a lot of liberal Christian friends.
…… but is it any more ominous Anton (Galatians 4:4 notwithstanding) than heralding Jesus as being ‘Middle Eastern’; an assertion made by a well known Church leader as the “most biblically accurate assessment”? In the light of this, perhaps the epithet “bigoted” will no longer be relevant?
I’m unclear as to what you are trying to say here. I would say that Jesus was “Near Eastern”, as in “Ancient Near East”, but geography seems to have lost that region. That seems fair, given that Jesus was born a Jew, descended from David, etc.
Your final sentence is precisely my point! Of course Jesus was Jewish. However, within certain circles, not least those of an ‘evangelical’ hue, for reasons that are essentially political and theological, Jesus’ ethnic identity is played down. Hence, and not only in relation to those factors pertaining to the present impasse in the Middle East, it is deemed to be more “diplomatic!” to generalise his pedigree. Hence, as you have cited David, “Near Eastern” would fit that category. And then, referring to Ian’s quote, Jesus might no longer be viewed as a “bigoted Jew”. Indeed, Jesus might no longer be seen as a “problem” or the woman as a “hero”.
“not least those of an ‘evangelical’ hue, for reasons that are essentially political and theological, Jesus’ ethnic identity is played down.”
I’ve been part of /led churches “of an evangelical hue” for nearly 60 years and I’ve never come across this “played down”. So at the very least I challenge it as anything like a common occurrence. Indeed it would rather diminish the Messiah /OT prophecy fulfillment that’s is common to these church surely?
Ah, so your point is that Jesus was not described as “Jewish”. I do not know the context was for the remark you were alluded to. However, I suspect it might have been one in which the person saying this was contrasting “Middle Eastern” with “European”, perhaps talking about appearance.
Thank you,
I feel that James got to the nub of the passage admirably.
From my prior notes/comments on this passage: –
With enemies without and within Jesus departs their coasts; I wonder is this akin to the glory of God departing from Israel 1 Sam 4:21 And she named the child Ichabod, saying, The glory is departed from Israel: 4:22 And she said, The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken.
Jesus departed to the borders of Tyre ans Sidon, the region of the Phoenicians where the glory of the Lord was once [First?]“taken captive.[1 SAM.]
Naturally the presence of Jesus leaked out, and perhaps the very effort to avoid notice attracted it. Rumour would have carried His name across the border, and the news of His being among them would stir hope in some hearts that felt the need of His help.
Such was this woman, whom Mark describes first, generally, as a ‘Greek’ {that is, a Gentile}, and then particularly as ‘a Syrophoenician by race’; that is, one of that branch of the Phoenician race who inhabited maritime Syria; here Jesus in effect went amongst the Godless and people who had no theological or political baggage, of which the Kingdom of Heaven had no need of.
Jesus indeed healed a few people but did He give them the bread of the kingdom?
Was that still the bread for the covenant people? Until there was a final rejection of Him?
And Paul’ departing from them to take the Gospel where Christ was not known?
No Jesus was not racist only loyal to the Covenant.
Perhaps we to need to jettison some of our theological baggage and conundrums and go into the Highways and to the Hedgerows amongst the Godless.
Which brings us to the closing sentiments /characteristics of our teachers .
Is Provocation a/always good thing or destructive thing?
How do we know the difference?
How do we provoke to love [Heb 10:24] or faith?
Yes, it may be a useful Academic Tool in some instances or might it be coercive?
As a prep reading of the subject see-
/digitalbible.ca/article-page/modern-topics-what-does-the-bible-say-about-provoking.
Of which, more later. Sela.
My interpretation of this passage is Jesus recognizing individual faith rather than national/racial faith.
In the UK, some of the hostility towards immigrants is ostensibly because “they are not Christian” (I suspect those voicing that aren’t actually Christians themselves!). Here in the US we sadly have yet another election which sadly has racial and religious bigotry as a major factor.
I am nmot aware of any hostility in the UK toward Hindu or Buddhist immigrants on grounds that they are not Christian. There may be concern about their number. There is also concern about Muslims specifically. As to whether that is justified, let all read the Quran for themselves – and the Sirat Rasul Allah, so that we may see how Muhammad himself interpreted the verses of the Quran.
Interesting to hear your comments about being provocative. In case you don’t make the connection we met at that session and the “study bibles are of the devil” comment did indeed stick in the memory and was something I recounted to others in subsequent conversations about the evening, though putting it forward as something I didn’t entirely agree with (whilst suspecting that you probably didn’t fully mean it either – as you have now suggested you might not).
I found my first study bible (ESV) immensely helpful in progressing to thinking around the text but was warned about the risk you mention. My practice when I worked through it was to read the commentary in my head and the text out loud to try to maintain a separation. I’ve now probably gone beyond study bibles but might still recommend it as a step forward for some.
I was somewhat tipped off in terms of what to expect from you because at the start of the church’s series on Revelation we were pointed towards the Think Conference where you spoke and I remember you saying “clearly Beale knows nothing about metaphor”.
Not sure I see Jesus’ words in this passage though as exaggeration in quite the same way.
I was also interested in comments about inhabiting the parable. Links to the questions I emailed you about after that Revelation evening about think in terms of Revelation imagery and using Revelation imagery when praying.
Glad that it stuck! Yes, an interesting connection with ‘inhabiting’ the imagery…