Michael David Graskemper
Biblical Exegesis Draft
17 November 2004
Like White on Rice: An Exegesis of Matthew's Story of the Canaanite Woman
Matthew 15:21-28
A cursory reading of the story of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:21-28 may suggest, without proper exegetical background, an inappropriate interpretation of Jesus' character and/or his message of salvation. Interpreting this pericope literally would most likely indicate that Jesus, crestfallen and retreating into the desert after failure among his own people, denies a pleading woman's possessed daughter aid on the grounds that she is a Gentile woman. It is only with the Canaanite woman's persistence that she finally convinces Jesus to heal her daughter. For millennia, this passage has challenged readers' understandings of Jesus; in fact, it has also confused many readers who see the text as "work[ing] against itself [and] showing Jesus as both the sovereign healer and the mindless bigot" (Taussig 264). However, when addressed and analyzed through the academic eyes of literary and social scientific exegetics, the pericope takes on a much different meaning. It is the goal of this essay to address the history of interpretation of this pericope, while also analyzing it via methods of literary analysis and modern hermeneutics. I intend to show that the passage of the Canaanite woman does not so much show Jesus as a prejudiced bigot, but rather focuses on the faith and honor of the Canaanite woman in assisting Jesus in his ministry to the Gentiles.
Amy-Jill Levine says that "when a literary approach is accompanied by social-scientific methodologies ... unique possibilities of understanding emerge (Levine 129). The truth of this statement convinced me to apply the same methods to this Matthean pericope. First of all, the literary approach that can best supply a thorough reading of this pericope is the rhetorical critical method and, subsequently, the narrative critical method. With this, I analyzed the layout and word choices in the pericope, as well as the place in the narrative of Matthew's Gospel. To look at the pericope from another angle --- for more clarity and better understanding of the significance of the passage --- I analyzed the pericope using social scientific hermeneutics, that is, looking at the pericope with an understanding of the cultural, social, racial, economic, and religious perspective of the author. Additionally, as Matthew's story of the Canaanite woman is redacted from Mark's story of the Syrophoenician woman, I will also address the history and possible reasons for Matthew's redactions. Of course, any reading of the Canaanite woman would be incomplete without an underlying feminist hermeneutic, which address at different points throughout.
I would like to address an interesting part of modern feminist scholarship before I start, In her article entitled, Not Without My Daughter: Gender and Demon Possession in Matthew 15:21-28, Elaine M. Wainwright addresses a Pseudo-Clementine epistle in which Pseudo-Clementine gives the Canaanite woman the name of “Justa.” While this name is only found in this epistle, Wainwright chose to give the Canaanite woman a name. Her reason is two-fold: first, to give a nameless biblical woman, a woman who has tremendous significance, a name; and two, to give the Canaanite woman the respect that she deserves (Wainwright 126). Since giving a person a name gives them a face and a story (figuratively), and out of respect for this aspect of feminist criticism, throughout this paper, when appropriate, I will call the Canaanite woman by her name, Justa. When referring to the Canaanite woman found in Matthew versus the Syrophoenician woman found in Mark, however, I will attempt not to confuse the reader by referring to these women by their biblical nomenclatures. However, when I am speaking of the Canaanite/Syrophoenician woman in general, I will call her Justa. (Section 1)
Now, let us look at the text itself: [here, I will go through each line of the text and incorporate rhetorical, social scientific, and feminist methodologies, as they apply]
Matthew 15:21-28: Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon." But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, "Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." He answered, "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered her, "Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed instantly.
To begin, the “scene locates Jesus in a world of ethnic, cultural, economic, political, and religious barriers” (Carter 321). However, while “Jesus is not exempt from these prejudices ... God's reign ... breaks [these religious barriers] down (321). The Canaanite woman is “geographically on the margins of Israel and is, as a Gentile, marginal in Israel's worldview. As a Canaanite, a member of a cursed people, destined to be subjugated as slaves (Gen 9:25), she belongs to a people dispossessed by Israel's occupation and possession of the land” [this imagery is in opposition to the reading of the Syrophoenician woman in Mark, who, some argue, was a wealthy Hellene, and therefore, dispossessor of the Israelites] (Carter 321). Going through, line by line, we can start to understand the context of this pericope in Matthew’s narrative, and in Jesus’ world as a whole.
In 15:21, Jesus withdrawals from the Jewish territory where he had been preaching. Here, Jesus "goes not into a city...but into a rural area, into the district controlled by Tyre and Sidon.” [These were] “proverbially wicked Gentile cities, attacked by the prophets.” 15:22 describes Tyre and Sidon as “place[s] of tension and prejudice: Josephus declares ‘the Tyrians are our bitterest enemies’ (Con Ap 1.70), and there were clashes between Tyrians and Jews in the 60s (JW 2.478). Along with ethnic conflict, there are competing religious understandings (Israel is God's chosen people), economic needs (the urban centers Tyre and Sidon require food from rural areas), and political goals” (321). “The woman comes not from the cities of Tyre or Sidon but from that region, suggesting perhaps her poverty as a rural peasant” (322). [I will compare this to book review #2, which holds that the woman was in fact a wealthy Hellene]. “As a Canaanite (cf. Rahab in 1:3-5, who also crossed ethnic lines to find a place in God's purposes), she is a Gentile (cf. 8:5-13, 28-34; 12:18-21; cf. Josephus, Con Ap 1.70). Her identity evokes the land that God gives the people (Exod 3:8; 6:1-4; 15:15; Num 13:2), a gift at the expense of the Canaanites” (322). “Yet like other Gentiles (2:1-11 [the magi]; 8:5 [the centurion]), she defiantly crosses this ethnic boundary to seek help from a Jewish itinerant teacher and miracle worker” (322). “She is the first woman to speak in the gospel; as is common in miracle stories, she was crying out, a verb that can denote prayer (8:29; 9:27; 14:26 [with fear], 30). The imperfect tense suggests her persistence. Further, she uses a liturgical phrase to pray: Have mercy on me (9:27; 9:13 [consistent with God's will]; 12:7; Pss 6:2; 27:7; 30:10). Also, she calls Jesus Lord in recognition of his authority over demons (cf. 4:1-11; 17:15), and son of David (322).
15:23 is about Jesus' silence. A motive is not given, but “the ethnic, cultural, religious, economic, and political factors ... as well as her gender, suggest numerous reasons for Jesus to ignore her” (322). [he rebuffs her, in some translations, he doesn't ignore her]
15:24 is where “Jesus explains why he ignores the woman. He does not respond to her because his mission upholds Israel's temporal priority. I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (322). “Jesus' declaration affirms God's election of Israel, God's faithfulness to God's covenant purposes, Israel's priority in those purposes, Jesus' identity as commissioned by God, and Jesus' persistence in mission to Israel despite the hostility of the religious leaders ad the non-committed interest of the crowds” (323).
15:25 addresses the Canaanite woman’s kneeling. “Kneeling [was] a recognition of authority” (323). “She defiantly continues to challenge an ideology of chosenness” (323). Or does she? Some biblical scholars indicate that Jesus may have respected the woman for her challenge, as in Jewish culture of the first millennium was very oral.“The dialogue is an instance of the kind of wit that was and is admired in the Near East, the same wit that is called wisdom in the OT; it is the ability to match riddle with riddle, to cap one wise saying with another, to match insult with insult or --- as here --- to turn the insult into a commitment. There is nothing unrealistic about the exchange at all; Jesus would not have been a genuine Palestinian if he had not occasionally engaged in a duel of wit. The scene is much more a scene of peasant good humor than it is of solemn theological debate. Mark appreciates the tone when he has Jesus tell the woman that the favor is granted because of her faith, the same theme that is illustrated in the healing of the slave of the centurion” (Brown 8:13).
15:26 is where Jesus refers to her as a dog or bitch. “Even a "little bitch" or puppy, since a diminutive form is used, is offensive and insulting” (Josephus, Con Ap 2.85). [compare to book review #1, which holds that Jesus may have meant to insult in a less harsh way by using the diminutive form of the word for dog] Jesus seems to be "caught with his compassion down" (324). [Ringe, "Gentile Woman's Story," 69]. [Also, here, I will bring in feminist criticism of the meaning of being called a “dog” in the ancient Near Eastern perspective] Jesus uses a food metaphor because, as G. Thiessen suggests, “Jesus' comment may reflect the bitterness of an exploited rural area that has supplied urban Tyre with food (324). [I will also be doing a lot more with Thiessen]
15:27 shows that, “whereas disciples do not understand Jesus' parable (15:16), she understands this one so well that she recasts it to accomplish her goal” (324). “His comment maintains the status quo of ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, and political division. But her response moves beyond these barriers to possibilities that are faithful to God's promises to bless all the nations of the earth (Gen 12:1-13) Without questioning the priority of the children (Israel), and while recognizing the authority of the masters, she reframes the significance of dogs (Gentiles). It is not a matter of food or no food (Jesus' alternative), but food for both” (324).
15:28 is where “the initial O Woman indicates considerable emotion (BDF [section] 146.2, 1b) as well as great (and newfound) respect. Her persistence in the face of Jesus' obstructions, her challenge to the ethnic, gender, religious, political, and economic barriers, her reliance on his power, and her recongnition of his authority over demons comprise her faith (see 8:10; 9:2, 22, 29)” (325). Also, “...great ... faith, the only time this adjective is used to describe faith in the gospel” (325). [And yet, it is still her faith that saves her, not her word, as argued in book review #2...compare this to Mark, later on in the Markan expose]. “In performing the miracle, Jesus overcomes ethnic, cultural, political, gender, and religious barriers “(325). But is it Jesus that does this, or is it the Gentile woman's faith --- is it the Gentile woman's Word? [I will take a close look at pp. xvii-49 to get gain a greater understanding of sociopolitcal/religious exegesis and its implications for Matthew].
(Section 2)
[Here, I will use redaction criticism to enumerate the differences between the Matthean pericope and its Markan source. I will also elucidate on why the differences are significant, literally, rhetorically, social scientifically, and from the feminist perspective of many of my sources]
Mark 7:34-30: 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, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 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." But she answered him, "Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." Then he said to her, "For saying that, you may go --- the demon has left your daughter." So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.
In Mark’s account, as if wearied with the casuistry, Jesus wanders away to a region supposed to typify disbelief and paganism at its worst (84). This is territory ... known to us from the Old Testament as a symbol not only of wealth and commerce but of seduction to false gods and hostility to the Jewish people (85). Yet there is a saying of Jesus in judgment of his own people, comparing them negatively to Tyre and Sidon, with the words, For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you (Matthew 11:21-22; see also Luke 10:13-14) (86). As we can see, Jesus had a negative opinion of that area before he ever set foot there.
In the Markan narrative, there is a hint of secrecy in Jesus' journey to this region: Jesus wanted no one to know. This may have been one of the reasons that Jesus was so impatient with this woman who wanted a miracle (86). In Mark, the Syrophoenician woman may have been an allusion to the Phoenician princess Jezebel, who showed the Jews what happens when one marries outside of the Jewish nation (87). Also, it was important that the woman had come alone, without a male escort [explain and explore further]. The woman leaves a believer (88), her faith seemingly saving her daughter from afar. But is it really her faith that saves her?
Considering that the actual miracle was such a small part of the story, Mark seems to imply that this miracle is really an opportunity to address the mission to the Gentiles, an issue that greatly concerned his Church (89). The Church remembered and repeated this story because it is Jesus' authorization for the Gentile mission to proceed unimpeded (89).
As opposed to Mark's account, the Canaanite woman in Matthew's account makes her request in the form of a prayer (89). The woman's faith is only implied in Mark, but Matthew makes it explicit (89).
[Is the woman in Matthew less revolutionary than the woman in Mark? Is Matthew's presentation of the woman as more prayerful and submissive challenge the Markan woman who faced Jesus and whose Word ultimately saved her? --- explore further]
(Section 3)
Church leaders throughout the ages have interpreted this pericope in a variety of ways.
Traditionally, this pericope has been interpreted as an indication of God’s call to Jesus to mission to the Gentiles. As such, the Canaanite woman is often seen as the mother of the Gentiles in this imagery. Epiphanius the Latin, for instance, saw the story as imagery indicating that Gentiles should leave behind idiolatry (as the Canaanite woman did, he would argue), and find Jesus through faith (Simonetti 26). Furthermore, Epiphanius said that the Canaanite woman’s role was to take from Jesus for the Gentiles the salvation that the Jews had denied. Hilary of Poitiers saw the story as symbolic of the Gentile recognition as Jesus as the Messiah, and also as an indication that Jesus did not come to offer salvation to the Jews alone (Simonetti 26). John Chrysostom interpreted the passage as indicating Jesus’ nullification of ritual food laws that separated the Gentile peoples from the Jews, and furthermore that Jesus’ compassion was the reason for healing the woman’s daughter (Simonetti 27). Theodore of Mopsuestia interpreted the story as Jesus’ testing of the Gentiles, whereas Augustine saw the Canaanite woman as a type figure for humility (Simonetti 27). While these traditional interpretations explain liturgical nuances and bolster a case for Gentile salvation, they do not (and, considering their place in specific eras, cannot) offer the reader any more than ancient reader-response criticism, and are therefore lacking important aspects such as seen in the modern development of biblical exegesis. I will now look at some of the implications that modern scholarship of this pericope addresses.