The “Bitch” Who Outdid Jesus: On Matthew 15:21-28
[CAVEAT: Before readers hurl nasty epithets my way, please know that the title to this “Morning Muse” was crafted not as a shameless ploy for attention, but with a targeted didactic intention. I do pray that this title does not offend those, who like I, eschew the use of foul language in all of its forms.]
Rarely do modern readers recognize, let alone experience, the shock encountered by characters in (and original hearers of) the Biblical narratives without some kind of additional explanation that almost always weakens the force of the shock (many of Jesus’ parables are prime examples). The woman’s request for her daughter’s healing in Matthew 15:21-28 is no exception to this general rule.
The title, “The ‘Bitch’ Who Outdid Jesus,” passed editorial muster because it conveys to modern audiences a shock similar to that experienced by the original eye-witnesses and first hearers of this dramatic event that has much to teach us about the love and care of our God. A close inspection of first-century Near Eastern culture reveals how this is so.
From the smallest of social situations to the largest, most visible activities of the community, people in the New Testament world conducted their business, and indeed their lives, according to a deeply ingrained code of conduct based on honor and shame. Anyone who desired to improve his or her station in life gave careful thought to whether a contemplated action or reaction would incur honor or shame in the community.
Most modern readers of the Bible miss this important interpretive key entirely. The idea of guiding one’s life by a proper and healthy sense of shame hardly produces a single blip on the entire modern Western radar screen. Indeed, the most visible and vocal influencers of culture (Hollywood, the advertising industry, and virtually all media) are regressively transforming U.S. into a society whose honor is in our shame (see Philippians 3:19); these unabashed purveyors of self-indulgent ungodliness frequently honor (or at least reward) people for doing what is utterly shameful. (“Say it isn’t so, Ethel!!” “Ethel!! You shameless hussy!!”)
Is the modern situation as black and white or as bleak as I have painted it? Perhaps not, but it is surely moving in a decidedly negative direction, and it is surely going there at warp speed. Sure, there are some of U.S. who care about shameful behavior, but rather than forming the fabric of society (as in the Biblical world), we are being pushed to its fringes. In the Biblical world, exactly opposite was the case: those pushed to the fringes were those who paid no heed to shame; those at the focal point were those whose “sponses” and “responses” (pardon my “wordsmith-ery”) most closely reflected the ideals and values of the community, including its emphasis on honor and shame. If we want to understand our Lord’s response to the “female dog” (OH, that’s what he had in mind with the title!) in Matthew 15:26, we must understand Jesus’ “take” on the honor-shame system of His world.
Now we must here note that this “shame-less” way of policing one’s life is not exactly the Christian moral ethic. Rather, in the honor-shame system the values and ideals of the community are the guidelines for the behavior of its individual members; in other words, “the majority (community) rules.” It should therefore be apparent that the honor-shame ethic is only as good (i.e., righteous, justifiable) as the community’s judgment on what kind of behavior is worthy of honor and what kind is worthy of shame is itself good, and righteous, and justifiable.
Some values are common to all communities and cultures (e.g., the shame of betrayal); but some are not. Take murder, theft, and adultery. Most cultures frown on this sort of behavior; they view it as shameful. But in gang communities, murder and theft are not only the door to get in, but also a stairway to elevation in rank (honor, power, “juice”). Similarly, most cultures view marital infidelity and sexual promiscuity as shameful—other cultures, or subcultures, for example, the so-called “adult” entertainment industry and surrounding community, do not.
The point is, honor and shame work well as guides ONLY if the ultimate source of community values is GOD, not merely the “majority view” of any specific group—or even a bunch of groups. To put this point another way, the ultimate verdict on all cultures and all value systems belongs to God, and He delivered that verdict through His unique Son, Jesus (see especially the “beatitudes” Matthew 5:1-12; Luke 6:20-38). But Jesus did not confine his countercultural salvos to general teaching sessions on the Galilean hillside; He took them to the streets and marketplaces, indeed everywhere he went—including the passage in Matthew 15:21-28. And now the stage has been set.
After reading Matthew 15:21-28, readers who have read my previous posts on this passage might find themselves saying, “I see plenty of shocking things in this passage: Jesus actually ignores a woman asking for help (more than once!), and he refers to her as a “dog,” and this seems totally out of character with everything I know about Jesus; on the other hand, Jesus is totally in character when he commends her and heals her daughter.
The problem with this way of processing the story is that it is exactly the opposite of how the original actors and subsequent audience would have understood the event. In effect, Jesus is on trial and must be acquitted of charges of rude, disrespectful, and disorderly conduct. One way scholars have done so is to suggest that Jesus was speaking ironically to test the woman’s faith (peirastic irony). In other words, he didn’t mean the things he said literally, he was just testing her—probably with the intention that she would “come through as shining gold,” which she certainly does.
I do believe this approach has good merit. In my recent reading of the passage, however, something grabbed my attention and led me to look at the event, not from the perspective of the woman, but from the perspective of the audience. This discovery has led me to conclude that in this single event Jesus delivered a “double whammy.” Let me explain.
Jesus has set a trap for his audience, and he springs it on them at just the right moment. As the story opens, we learn that the setting is somewhere in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon—both of which were probably inhabited chiefly by Gentiles, although the Jewish population of Tyre may have been more substantial. The woman is labeled a “Canaanite,” so this fixes her identity as a Gentile.
Two verbs describe this woman’s behavior, the first suggests “approach” and the second “crying out.” The grammatical construction suggests, at the least, that the woman “kept on crying out” (people cry out for a lot of reasons, but this particular Greek verb was predominately used for a cry for help—as the context also bears out later). But the grammatical construction may also suggest that she came repeatedly. What is clear is that she cried out multiple times, and this creates great tension in the story at the outset (have you ever had your cell phone alarm go off in a public meeting and not been able to get it off quickly).
Modern audiences get more than a little a bit perturbed at Jesus’ apparent insensitivity for, at least, making her wait (ever feel as if God is making you wait for an answer?). But this woman was committing a serious breach of protocol in an honor/shame culture—she was approaching a male in public.
A depth of love that only a mother can know prompts this social outcast Gentile female dog to throw decorum to the wind and brazenly approach a man to solicit His help; she is willing to appear as a “shameless hussy,” if that’s what it takes to get help for her daughter.
Jesus, on the other hand, follows protocol to the letter; He does what everyone in the audience, Jew or Gentile, would expect him to do: He answers her not a single word. But the woman simply will not be dissuaded (or, from the disciples’ perspective, she simply would not shut up!)
Now the disciples figure they have discerned the mind of the Lord. Ever in tune with the Spirit (Ha!), they sense God’s will in this situation: “Divorce the woman!” What? “Yes! Divorce her! Send her away . . . permanently!” [the verb means to “dismiss” or “send away,” but in marital contexts it is used for “divorce.” I translated it thus here because it expresses in English the force of disciples’ intention] The picture is graphic: Every time the woman approaches and cries out, they go to Jesus and cry . . . well, whine anyway. I can only imagine what they were thinking, “That Jesus! Always got His mind on spiritual truths and witty sayings! He is obviously oblivious to this obtrusion!” (Do you ever feel as if God is oblivious to the obtrusions in your life?) Nevertheless, as always, Jesus has a better idea. [bear this in mind for today’s troubles!]
The solution the disciples keep on proposing is exactly the same solution that they proposed when people were starving after Jesus’ lengthy hilltop sermon outing (one chapter earlier!): “Divorce the crowd!” (so they can supply their own need!) I mean, at least they could have been a little more creative! “Get rid of woman, get rid of problem.”
Perhaps I’m being too harsh on the disciples, misreading their motives. Perhaps my tendency to see their motives as tantamount to sweeping away unwanted trash reflects my own (thankfully not too frequent) insensitivity to the needs of others. In any case, we all can thank God that He NEVER treats us in such cavalier fashion.
According to nearly all translations, Jesus responds with something like: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” Here is where I noticed something about the underlying Greek original. In Matthew’s account of this event, only one verbal response that Jesus makes in this entire episode is specifically directed to the woman and it is not here. In fact, the only words specifically identified as having been spoken “to her” are the final words of Jesus, AND THEY ARE POWERFUL IN WHAT THEY AFFIRM!!
Matthew (guided, of course, by the Holy Spirit) almost certainly crafted his account of this event with his Jewish audience in mind, arranging the narrative details and emphasizing key features in order to entrap them in their own web of pride and prejudice. Whether or not Matthew was actually conscious of it, entrapment certainly is the rhetorical effect of the narrative’s design and its placement in the gospel. Readers and auditors cannot help but distance themselves (mostly vertically) from this persistent female.
The woman has multiple strikes against her from the time she enters the picture: first, as a female, she has inferior social status; second, as a Gentile, she has inferior ethnic status; third, as a Canaanite, she has decidedly inferior religious status; and forth, she has a demon-possessed daughter. In addition to these identity flaws, she behaves in altogether unseemly ways: she breaks established protocol not only by appearing in public (ostensibly without her husband), but also by approaching a male and engaging him in conversation and, of course, she is creating a public disturbance.
Jesus, on the other hand, was a well known and respected teacher who had already performed many miracles and now here performs in full accordance with established decorum; He refuses to engage her in conversation (Matthew 15:23). The disciples cast their negative vote, asking Jesus to send her away. Jesus responds (to the disciples!) according to their preconceived notions: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” But what if there was a twinge of sarcasm, detectible by tone, but not by grammar: “[Of course! You’re right! After all] I wasn’t sent anywhere, except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). According to this understanding, Jesus statement follows protocol on the surface, but hints at a deeper hidden truth.
Now the woman comes bowing before Jesus worshipfully and keeps on pleading with him: “LORD, Help me!!” Jesus responds: oujk e!stin kaloVn labei’n toVn a!rton tw’n tevknwn kaiV balei’n toi'” kunarivoi”. Most translations render the Greek as something like: “It is not good to take the children’s bread and give it to the dogs.” If this accurately conveys the meaning, then Jesus has the audience (except for the woman and perhaps other Gentiles present) fully on His side; He is following their protocol to the letter.
But again the text does not specifically say “Jesus . . . said to her.” What if Jesus addressed this to all those present? Moreover, what if His tone delivered this as a question: “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs, is it? In this case, the teacher is calling each person in the audience to a public vote. In an honor/shame culture, no one wants to be shamed by delivering a wrong answer. However, if the answer given shows up the teacher, they will gain honor at the loss of the teacher’s. Any response is therefore a gamble.
Evidently everyone the audience is too afraid to weigh in, everyone, that is, except this woman. She boldly delivers the answer: “Yes, Lord!” And immediately she supplies the rationale, “but even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from their masters’ table.”
If I were directing the movie version of this episode, I would freeze every actor on the stage for a “dramatic pause” right here to allow the audience to anticipate how Jesus would respond to this woman’s answer (perhaps Jesus did in fact pause here for that very reason!). Prior to this moment, virtually every word of Jesus has primed the audience to expect that He would have a comeback, that He would show Himself a superior debater, and that He would ultimately send the woman away. This is precisely what they all have wanted from the outset—and they believe that Jesus is fully on their side of this issue.
Then suddenly, with the tension at peak palpability, Jesus delivers His verdict (explicitly “to her”): ‘Oh! Woman! GREAT IS YOUR FAITH! Let it be to you just as you are desiring!'” The first word of Jesus’ response lights the fuse for the rhetorical bomb encased in what followed. Only one letter in Greek, the interjection “Oh!” here packs a powerful wallop: “I STAND AMAZED!!” In essence Jesus was saying, “You have answered correctly!”
The crowd thought that Jesus would put this woman in her place, and they were right! Jesus did put the woman in her place, but surely not in the way His audience imagined. Both Jesus and the crowd agreed that the woman should be put in her place; they simply disagreed radically in what that place was. For the audience, her place was second-class citizenry at best, complete foreigner and outcast pagan at worst. But Jesus judged her worthy of high honor, and He acted on her behalf to bring it about. Let’s briefly unpack how He did it.
If Jesus’ response “It is not good to give the children’s bread to the dogs, is it?” is a question posed to the crowd, as we have outlined above, this despised, religious outcast, Gentile, “female dog” has achieved honor at the crowd’s expense (shame). But if Jesus’ responses in this episode are understood as declarative rather than interrogative, then, by outdoing him in public debate, she has gained honor at Jesus’ own expense (shame), and here’s why: Jesus has built a direct, ironclad case justifying his decision not to help this woman. She agrees in principle, but takes the argument a step further by pointing to natural exceptions to the rule. Though she has done so in a respectful manner throughout (she not only hails Jesus as “Son of David”—a Messianic title—and “Lord,” but also bows at His feet), she nevertheless has outdone Jesus in this public debate. In this case, the religious outcast Gentile “female dog” has achieved honor at Jesus’ expense (shame). In fact, she has the notable distinction of being the only person to have outdone Jesus in a debate—EVER!
So what do we make of all of this? Are we to believe that this Jesus who at age twelve had astounded the law scholars by His knowledge of the Scriptures and who had repeatedly and masterfully foiled every single attempt of the Jewish religious hierarchy to catch him on a point of interpretation and essentially hung them with the very noose they had prepared for him simply had a bad day? Or was distracted? Or fatigued? Or that the woman simply had more brain power or better critical thinking and skill in argumentation? Seriously? Surely Matthew’s narrative disallows any of these hypothetical scenarios. It should be clear that Jesus quite simply allowed Himself to be outdone in this debate, both, as a test of the woman’s faith and as a challenge for his audience.
In an age when many ministers are overly (and in some cases, inordinately!) concerned with their “image,” Jesus’ willingness to be humiliated so that a disenfranchised person could be honored stands in stark relief. Lest anyone have the misimpression that the proactive humiliation Jesus displayed in this passage was an anomaly, a mere bump in the road of Jesus’ life, we must note here (1) that this attitude of humiliation characterized Jesus’ earthly mission from “basket to casket,” and (2) that the very ground of our salvation, Christ’s atoning sacrifice was at once His deepest humiliation and crowning achievement.
Christ’s word to us today is “Go, and do thou likewise!” Paul’s word is “Let this attitude be in you . . . (Philippians 2:5-8)
