Day 999 - Crumbs For The Dogs

A Bible Study for the Men's bible Study Group at Second Presbyterian Church, Chattanooga, TN, September 3, 2015

Gospel passage: Mark 7: 24-36

Chapter 7 of Mark’s Gospel begins with Jesus in Galilee assailing the Jewish religious establishment for interposing the “tradition of the elders” as the path to practice the Law and worship God. The first twenty-three verses quite harshly take the leaders into account for being stumbling blocks to faithful worship and living.

This week’s passage continues Mark’s account of Jesus’ treatment of the tradition of the elders by presenting two events that offer a practical rejection of the tradition. First Jesus leaves Jewish territory and enters Gentile land:

²⁴ From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice,

Tyre is Gentile country, modern day Lebanon. The reappearance of the persistent theme of secrecy in Mark signals something important is about to occur. What do you think were the reasons Jesus may wish people not to know he has gone into Gentile country?

An aggrieved woman with a troubled child finds Jesus:

²⁵ but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet.  ²⁶ Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician (Lebanon) origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter.  ²⁷ He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” 

This encounter involves (1) a woman, (2) a child with an “unclean” spirit, and (3) a Gentile. These three circumstances give any Hebrew concerned with the tradition of the elders (verses 1-23) cause to avoid them.

Although Jesus entertains the woman’s request, he amplifies this negative situation by using the word, dogs to refer to the Gentile woman. It is a surprising Jewish slur referring to Gentile.

What do you think about the attitude, or state of mind of Jesus from these comments? Several commentators say his language reflects misogyny, or religious bias towards Gentiles. Modern readers can read back into the text modern mores (not a good thing to do) that claim on the part of Jesus a disturbing bias towards women and non-Jews.

But we may want to focus on a word in verse 27, “Let the children be fed first…” By using the word first, does Jesus imply the time for Gentiles is also here but acknowledges the priority of preference for the Hebrews, the original chosen children?

Is there some relationship with tradition tied up to the reality that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah? You may wish to read Isaiah 23 concerning Tyre, and Isaiah 56 concerning the universality of the message of the Messiah, as well as the concluding verses of Isaiah 66:17-23. (If so, in our modern time we can see the ultimate Marcan irony as Judaism has essentially rejected Christianity as it did its own people who never left the land after the Captivity in Nehemiah’s time.)

I am inclined to think Jesus is mirroring the Jewish tradition of the elders in this situation.

²⁸ But she answered him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”  ²⁹ Then he said to her, “For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.”  ³⁰ So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

Do you recognize the pattern of miracles we see in Mark? Here again, someone responds on the basis of faith, or belief, even in the form of a persistent argument and Jesus responds kindly. Although the word “faith” is not used here, it is clear the woman believes Jesus can heal her daughter.  She persists and reasons with Jesus who acknowledges her faith and heals the child.

This passage clearly shows Jesus is returning to the theme of the tradition of elders in the most dramatic way. Judaism strictly forbids association or allowing Gentiles in worship. Every Jew looked for the messiah to bring repatriation to Judah and to break the shackles of the oppressors. Gentiles had no merit to them, they were dogs.

The tradition imposed very strict rules on how the family members of a Jew who married a Gentile could return to the fold (I believe it required something like 7 generations of faithful practice.) This healing act by Jesus of a Gentile dog is a flagrant refusal to follow the traditions that shroud the Law. Jesus makes clear that nationality, ethnicity or gender is no barrier to salvation, His message is addressed to everyone.

If you carefully read the earlier passages of Isaiah you will find that this eventuality is exactly what was prophesied. All who believe and faithfully worship are brought under the wings of the Lord.

The tradition of the elders is also the great split from Isaiah’s prophecy within Judaism. If you read Nehemiah 13, especially verses 1-3 and 23-31, the final chapters of the return of the exiles to Jerusalem and the inauguration of worship in the restored temple, you will see how the religious leaders interpreted (reversed) Isaiah’s scriptural warrant.

The returning Hebrews were the original elite of Jewish society. (The practice of conquering nations was to conscript the culturally elite of the defeated nation for the benefit of their own social structure.) These Jewish religious leaders, the crème de la crème of Judaism returning from exile fully rejected from their congregation not only non-Hebrews but even members of their own Jewish families who have intermarried with Gentiles - unless they reject the whole family.

The account continues.

³¹ Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.  ³² They brought to him a deaf man who had an impediment in his speech; and they begged him to lay his hand on him.

       Remaining in Gentile territory Jesus travels to another place and encounters a crowd who have brought a deaf-mute to Jesus. (I use mute because the Greek says the man has difficulty speaking.)

³³ He took him aside in private, away from the crowd, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue.  ³⁴ Then looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, “Ephphatha,” that is, “Be opened.”  ³⁵ And immediately his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly.

Notice as this healing action proceeds the element of secrecy reappears. Before he does anything, he goes into a private setting.

There is a very difficult part of this passage in the use of the word sighed, that is, “…looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, “Be opened.”

This word sigh carries the strong meaning of complaining with querulous or censorious feelings. It can also imply an act of praying. What is going on here?

Is Jesus frustrated by the crowd who demands he heal this deaf-mute (v32), is he frustrated at the lack of faith of the crowd who seek only a healing (see Mark 9:19-23), or is there something else? Is he frustrated that these Gentile dogs seek him out while the Jewish temple leaders seem intent on upon trapping him?

³⁶ Then Jesus ordered them to tell no one; but the more he ordered them, the more zealously they proclaimed it.  ³⁷ They were astounded beyond measure, saying, “He has done everything well; he even makes the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.”

These two healings are “sandwiched” by the effort of Jesus to maintain a private (secret) setting. Because Mark uses “sandwiches” and also puts stories inside stories that seem to disrupt but actually magnify the message, I want to look for such here in these two healings after Jesus’ taking the tradition of the elders to task in Chapter 7.

Chapter 7 is about faithfully practicing belief and how preoccupation with tradition to define how we worship or express our belief becomes a stumbling block to true faith. Jesus makes this point in detail in the first 23 verses.

Then we have these two healings of Gentiles, not Jews, at least one (the Syrophoenican woman) connected to faith. Her experience is a true intellectual discourse on the extent of salvation brought to humanity by Jesus.

Bound in that event is a fully outrageous violation of the tradition of the elders. He is talking to a woman alone, she is a Gentile, and the event involves a child, the least valuable thing in Roman society.

I often think Shakespeare adopted Mark’s literary devices, especially the use of witches and bystanders to provide illuminating insight into the story Shakespeare writes. The crowd who observe this healing of the man are truly dumbstruck with fear of being in the Lord’s presence, and speaking for God (refer to Mark 1:9-11), and the unnamed readers, voice the judgment of all to validate this extension of grace to all nations, “He has done everything well.”

Amen