Title: The Story of the Canaanite Woman
the story of the Canaanite woman
Matthew 15:21-28, 9th Sunday after Pentecost, 14 August 2011
During his public life for nearly three years, Jesus did not settle in one place, but wandered around to proclaim the kingdom of God and undertake all kinds of healing work. The story in today's third reading, Matthew 15:21-28, takes place when Jesus went to the regions of Tire and Sidon, north of the Sea of Galilee. The area was inhabited by Gentiles. A woman came to Jesus. The writer of Matthew identifies the woman as a Canaanite. It means Gentile. Devout Jews do not approach Gentiles. The fact that this woman came to Jesus, a Jew, must mean that she had an urgent and urgent business. Her daughter is possessed by a ferocious demon. A normal life would have been impossible. I can only imagine how a mother raising a daughter like this would feel. You must have heard rumors about Jesus. Even though she was a foreigner, she came to Jesus with reproach and said, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me.” and exclaimed.
The position of the Matthew community
What are your thoughts on reading this story today? You will feel envious of the faith of the Canaanite woman whom Jesus acknowledged. Of course it is. This woman was something different from the start. Listen again to what he said to Jesus. “Son of David” is proof that he accurately grasped the messianic identity of Jesus. The same goes for asking to have pity on yourself. It is reminiscent of the early Christian hymn, 'Kyrie Eleisong'. In the conversation that followed, as pointed out just above, he spoke deeply spiritually that no one could have expected. Not only did he understand Jesus accurately, but he also had a great passion for Jesus. His faith deserves the envy of all. Is this what the text is trying to say? So, should we pray for “faith of crumbs” like this woman today?
To understand this story more accurately, we need to look at the parallel passage Mark 7:24-30. Compared to the Gospel of Matthew, the content of the Gospel of Mark is similar in a broad framework, but is slightly different in parts. Jesus said that you cannot throw your children's bread at the dogs, and the woman's answer is the same as the woman's answer that dogs also eat the crumbs that children ate. There are two other things. One is a title for Jesus. Unlike in Matthew, in Mark's Gospel, this woman is not referred to as a descendant of David. And I don't even ask you to have pity. He simply asks to cast the demon out of his daughter. It is also an indirect method. It's a loose sentence. The texts of the Gospel of Matthew are in direct speech. It's full of tension. Another is that there is no dialogue between the disciples and Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. The disciples do not appear at all, only Jesus and this woman appear. What is the reason for such a difference in a very simple event?
The first of the four Gospels is the Gospel of Mark. The other Gospels were written based on the Gospel of Mark. In fact, some documents were written before the Gospel of Mark. Scholars call it an anthemography, or Q resource. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew re-recorded Jesus' public life based on these documents. In this writing process, the place in the life of the Matthew community is important. Because the Gospels are all written for a specific audience. I mentioned earlier that there are two facts in the Gospel of Matthew that are not in the Gospel of Mark. It means that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew had no choice but to edit and supplement this way. That was the message the writer of the Gospel of Matthew wanted to convey through this story. What is it?
The writer of Matthew defends the position of the Israelites at the time through the mouths of his disciples. “I was sent nowhere except as the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). The concept of the ‘lost sheep of Israel’ is important here. They believe that the Messiah is coming to save the lost sheep of Israel. If we believe that Jesus is the Messiah, then of course, early Christianity should target the people of Israel for its mission. Things went the exact opposite way. The central weight of early Christianity gradually shifted toward the Gentiles. People in the Matthew community were very anxious and dissatisfied with this phenomenon. It's just that. The Matthew community was originally composed of people from a strong Jewish background. With these readers in mind, the writer of Matthew began his Gospel with a genealogy story from Abraham to Jesus. On this basis, the writer of Matthew supplemented the fact that, unlike the writer of Mark, in today's story about the Canaanite woman, Jesus came to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
There may be some people who think strangely that God's word can be added or subtracted at will, and if so, the authority will be lowered. You don't need to worry about that. Rather, it means that the Bible is a living Word. The Bible is not just a dead text like a car or computer manual, but a living word within the community of believers. Many traditions relating to Jesus were rewritten for the community in which they found themselves, in a way that was slightly edited by the spirituality of the New Testament writers. That's not to say I made up a story without it. Even today's text is the same. Matthew already knew that Jesus had come for the lost sheep of Israel, and he learned of it when he heard the story of a Gentile woman from Mark. Now these two stories have been put together as needed. As long as the essence of the gospel is accurately maintained, its interpretation and application may be developed in various ways. We believe that the Holy Spirit, the subject of the Word, is with the church community in this way.
religious stereotypes
The central shift in evangelism was not confined to Jews and Gentiles. Similar things have happened among the Jews from the early days of Jesus proclaiming the kingdom of God. It is logical that Judaism experts, such as the Pharisees, scribes, and priests, understand Jesus better. In the evangelists' point of view, this was not the case at all. Rather, they continued to confront Jesus. Most of the Gospels report this conflict. Jesus continued to be criticized by them during his life and was eventually crucified by them. At that time, publicans and sinners who were not religiously sophisticated were more receptive to Jesus. This phenomenon was reproduced in early Christianity after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. The weight of the gospel has shifted from the Israelites, God's chosen people, to the Gentiles, whom the Israelites at the time treated as dogs, as we see in today's text. And the responsibility rested not on Jesus and the early Christians, but on the self-proclaimed Jews who believed well in God. Why is this strange thing happening?
In my view, Israel's religious stereotypes are a key issue. They did not see the words and deeds of Jesus as they were, but only evaluated them according to the standards they kept. The Sabbath debate is a prime example. They could not accept Jesus' words that the Sabbath was for man, not man for the Sabbath. It's not because they're crazy. It is not because we do not understand the words of Jesus themselves. They denied everything about Jesus because they thought that if they accepted the words of Jesus as they were, all the values they had built up until now would be destroyed.