"What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love,
No not just for some but for everyone.'
These words were written in 1965 and have been sung by others to greater effect, but they're still true today. They were true even in the time of Jesus, and certainly during the time when Matthew's gospel was written.
Most scholars believe that Mathew's audience was mostly Jewish — and some curious seekers as well — and probably worshiped in synagogues and followed the teachings of a local Rabi. As they began to follow the way of Jesus, they learned quickly that he was different. Jesus moved around a lot and taught and healed, and word spread of his amazing work.
There were these stories of healing and power over spiritual forces that must have been circulating about him long before his death and resurrection. Why else would the keepers of tradition come all the way from Jerusalem to the Northernmost part of Judea unless they were afraid of this radicalizing young Rabi named Jesus? And when they came, they found something all right. He and his disciples were not washing their hands before eating. Can you believe it?
The issue here is not what you might think. It's not about hygiene. It may have started that way, but no — this was about ritual purity. This was about cultural identity. This was about something that was being claimed as an identifier of their culture and heritage as God's people that actually had nothing to do with their culture and heritage as God's people. It was about control.
Now, before we get too heavy in our criticism of these Pharisees, it's important to remember that Judea is the closest thing the people of Israel are going to get to having sovereignty under Rome. The whole Mediterranean region — the known world and parts further out — were under the submission of Rome, which seemed to have an inexhaustible supply of soldiers and military might. Their job as Pharisees and scribes was to ensure the survival of the culture and customs as God's people.
And that's where the problem lies, isn't it? Culture and custom had taken over the care of the vulnerable and fidelity to God. They charged Jesus with ritual impurity for not becoming clean in the eyes of God before breaking bread (makes me wonder if they were there for the feeding of 5,000), and then Jesus counters to prove that their ritual purity is just a convenient justification for continuing in sin.
He calls them out about a practice of earmarking money for the temple instead of caring for the elderly, and he quotes Isaiah to show them how empty their worship has become. Then he turns to the crowd — who must have heard alt the rest — and shares a parable about the things that can defile a person.
Now, this is the part that affirms Jesus' humanity for me. I can't help but think there is some exasperation in his voice, but also some wry humor. It goes like this. Peter says, "Um... Jesus? I think you made the Pharisees mad." Jesus says, "So, what? They are the blind leading the blind." Peter says, "OK, um, can you explain the whole what goes in and out thing?" Jesus says, "It's a poop joke, Peter. Get it?"
But then he goes on to say that the things that come out of our mouths indicate the intentions of our hearts. Are we inclined to honor and glorify God, or are we inclined to honor and glorify ourselves? It kind of reminds me of a friend who once said that you can tell a lot about a person's heart by the way he or she treats the service staff at a restaurant or retail place.
So, Jesus has this great moral victory over the Pharisees, and then he goes even further North — basically going out of their jurisdiction — to the region Tyre and Sidon. This is where it gets really interesting for the "human one" as some translations call him. This woman, this Canaanite woman, comes out of nowhere. OK, actually Tyre and Sidon is where the descendants of Canaan fled, so it's not totally unexpected.
The thing is, Mathew's gospel is very intentional here. The Canaanites were the ones that God approved for genocide in the Pentateuch. They were descended from the line of Ham, who was sent away from Noah and cursed for seeing him naked. To start the story this way, instead of calling her Syro-Phoenician like Mark, is a culturally loaded, racially divisive term. There's just no getting around that. In fact, the theology of conquest over Canaanites is even woven into the fabric of our nation by Puritan founders like William Bradford of the Mayflower Compact who compared corn taken by scouts from Indian stores to the Biblical story of grapes carried back from Canaan by two spies. (Numbers 13—14; Deuteronomy 1: 19—46; Joshua 2).
So, this woman — this Canaanite woman — called Jesus "Lord" and "Son of David" and begged that her daughter be healed, but he ignored her. Still, she persisted, and the disciples called her (as some have translated) an "annoying shrieking woman." They begged him to send her away, and Jesus told her, "l was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." And when she persisted, he said, "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs."
Let's sit with that for a minute. Maybe he was tired and cranky, but he was being truthful. The context of the writing is clear. She was the last person in the world any of them wanted to deal with. He wasn't testing her with a smile and a wink. He wasn't talking about a pet or surrogate family member. Dogs were either utilitarian or a wild nuisance, and it's pretty clear he had no use for her at the moment.
Then she turned the tables on him, saying, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." And he answered her, "Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed that moment.
So, what do we make of all that? Could it be that Jesus — who we believe to be both fully God and fully human — responded to another human being in very human terms — terms that were conditioned by race and region and history and culture? Could it be that the humanity of Jesus was limited by previous experiences and that he became more aware of his mission and purpose through this woman's persistence? Could it be that the reason that we can have a story like this and still say that he is without sin is because he was able to see the content of her heart through her words? Could it be that his recognition of her faith is what kept him from defiling himself?
You see, I don't believe this story is there to say that God wants us to beg for grace and mercy. I believe this story is there because it shows us how wide the table has been spread. It has been spread for those that we least expect, and even those we believe the least worthy, because it never was about our worthiness, but only and ever about God's willingness to love us as we are while moving us toward what we may become.
And I believe that we have received this story today for one more reason. It is to show us that there is no moral equivalency between the petition of the Pharisee and the Canaanite Woman. It is to show that there is no moral equivalency between the one who wants to place a boot on the neck and the one who believes that there is a boot on her neck. And we will do well to remember this.
So, in our debates about culture and heritage, purity and fidelity, flags and monuments, race and entitlement, privilege and responsibility, let us all do our best not to defile ourselves. Let us remember that sometimes the key to being without sin is in the hands of the one for whom we have no regard or use. For while we must name sin and evil for what they are as Jesus did with the Pharisees and scribes, we must not neglect the faith of someone else who may have the power to save you and me. For love is love is love, and the world needs it now as much as it ever did.
Let's not be the ones who send her away. Let's be the ones who can say clearly what we have been called to do, even as our expectations are shattered by the scandalous and beautiful love of God, again and again and again. And to God be the glory for that. Amen.
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love,
No not just for some but for everyone.'
These words were written in 1965 and have been sung by others to greater effect, but they're still true today. They were true even in the time of Jesus, and certainly during the time when Matthew's gospel was written.
Most scholars believe that Mathew's audience was mostly Jewish — and some curious seekers as well — and probably worshiped in synagogues and followed the teachings of a local Rabi. As they began to follow the way of Jesus, they learned quickly that he was different. Jesus moved around a lot and taught and healed, and word spread of his amazing work.
There were these stories of healing and power over spiritual forces that must have been circulating about him long before his death and resurrection. Why else would the keepers of tradition come all the way from Jerusalem to the Northernmost part of Judea unless they were afraid of this radicalizing young Rabi named Jesus? And when they came, they found something all right. He and his disciples were not washing their hands before eating. Can you believe it?
The issue here is not what you might think. It's not about hygiene. It may have started that way, but no — this was about ritual purity. This was about cultural identity. This was about something that was being claimed as an identifier of their culture and heritage as God's people that actually had nothing to do with their culture and heritage as God's people. It was about control.
Now, before we get too heavy in our criticism of these Pharisees, it's important to remember that Judea is the closest thing the people of Israel are going to get to having sovereignty under Rome. The whole Mediterranean region — the known world and parts further out — were under the submission of Rome, which seemed to have an inexhaustible supply of soldiers and military might. Their job as Pharisees and scribes was to ensure the survival of the culture and customs as God's people.
And that's where the problem lies, isn't it? Culture and custom had taken over the care of the vulnerable and fidelity to God. They charged Jesus with ritual impurity for not becoming clean in the eyes of God before breaking bread (makes me wonder if they were there for the feeding of 5,000), and then Jesus counters to prove that their ritual purity is just a convenient justification for continuing in sin.
He calls them out about a practice of earmarking money for the temple instead of caring for the elderly, and he quotes Isaiah to show them how empty their worship has become. Then he turns to the crowd — who must have heard alt the rest — and shares a parable about the things that can defile a person.
Now, this is the part that affirms Jesus' humanity for me. I can't help but think there is some exasperation in his voice, but also some wry humor. It goes like this. Peter says, "Um... Jesus? I think you made the Pharisees mad." Jesus says, "So, what? They are the blind leading the blind." Peter says, "OK, um, can you explain the whole what goes in and out thing?" Jesus says, "It's a poop joke, Peter. Get it?"
But then he goes on to say that the things that come out of our mouths indicate the intentions of our hearts. Are we inclined to honor and glorify God, or are we inclined to honor and glorify ourselves? It kind of reminds me of a friend who once said that you can tell a lot about a person's heart by the way he or she treats the service staff at a restaurant or retail place.
So, Jesus has this great moral victory over the Pharisees, and then he goes even further North — basically going out of their jurisdiction — to the region Tyre and Sidon. This is where it gets really interesting for the "human one" as some translations call him. This woman, this Canaanite woman, comes out of nowhere. OK, actually Tyre and Sidon is where the descendants of Canaan fled, so it's not totally unexpected.
The thing is, Mathew's gospel is very intentional here. The Canaanites were the ones that God approved for genocide in the Pentateuch. They were descended from the line of Ham, who was sent away from Noah and cursed for seeing him naked. To start the story this way, instead of calling her Syro-Phoenician like Mark, is a culturally loaded, racially divisive term. There's just no getting around that. In fact, the theology of conquest over Canaanites is even woven into the fabric of our nation by Puritan founders like William Bradford of the Mayflower Compact who compared corn taken by scouts from Indian stores to the Biblical story of grapes carried back from Canaan by two spies. (Numbers 13—14; Deuteronomy 1: 19—46; Joshua 2).
So, this woman — this Canaanite woman — called Jesus "Lord" and "Son of David" and begged that her daughter be healed, but he ignored her. Still, she persisted, and the disciples called her (as some have translated) an "annoying shrieking woman." They begged him to send her away, and Jesus told her, "l was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." And when she persisted, he said, "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs."
Let's sit with that for a minute. Maybe he was tired and cranky, but he was being truthful. The context of the writing is clear. She was the last person in the world any of them wanted to deal with. He wasn't testing her with a smile and a wink. He wasn't talking about a pet or surrogate family member. Dogs were either utilitarian or a wild nuisance, and it's pretty clear he had no use for her at the moment.
Then she turned the tables on him, saying, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." And he answered her, "Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed that moment.
So, what do we make of all that? Could it be that Jesus — who we believe to be both fully God and fully human — responded to another human being in very human terms — terms that were conditioned by race and region and history and culture? Could it be that the humanity of Jesus was limited by previous experiences and that he became more aware of his mission and purpose through this woman's persistence? Could it be that the reason that we can have a story like this and still say that he is without sin is because he was able to see the content of her heart through her words? Could it be that his recognition of her faith is what kept him from defiling himself?
You see, I don't believe this story is there to say that God wants us to beg for grace and mercy. I believe this story is there because it shows us how wide the table has been spread. It has been spread for those that we least expect, and even those we believe the least worthy, because it never was about our worthiness, but only and ever about God's willingness to love us as we are while moving us toward what we may become.
And I believe that we have received this story today for one more reason. It is to show us that there is no moral equivalency between the petition of the Pharisee and the Canaanite Woman. It is to show that there is no moral equivalency between the one who wants to place a boot on the neck and the one who believes that there is a boot on her neck. And we will do well to remember this.
So, in our debates about culture and heritage, purity and fidelity, flags and monuments, race and entitlement, privilege and responsibility, let us all do our best not to defile ourselves. Let us remember that sometimes the key to being without sin is in the hands of the one for whom we have no regard or use. For while we must name sin and evil for what they are as Jesus did with the Pharisees and scribes, we must not neglect the faith of someone else who may have the power to save you and me. For love is love is love, and the world needs it now as much as it ever did.
Let's not be the ones who send her away. Let's be the ones who can say clearly what we have been called to do, even as our expectations are shattered by the scandalous and beautiful love of God, again and again and again. And to God be the glory for that. Amen.
Comments