New Thoughts (04/20/08-05/02/08)
Open Questions (04/20/08-04/23/08)
While there are a few, shall we say technicalities to pursue at the start of this time of study, I do see a theme running through what I have gathered here, and that theme is persistence. Hardly a new revelation, that, but it runs through so much of what I’m seeing here, both the positive and the negative. As noted, though, there are a few things to be looked at before I get there, mainly the open questions that remain. Whether or not I shall arrive at any answer remains to be seen, but the questions are there, and ought to be explored a bit.
It seems that all my questions are wrapped up in Matthew 15:24. The first of them is purely linguistic, and I am not certain I have the necessary understanding to reach an answer. The question is to whom was Jesus directing His answer? What we have is “But He answered and said”. Is He, in this case, answering the woman’s cry, or the disciples’ complaint? I have seen at least one translation that feels it is the latter, yet I can find little in His answer that connects even slightly with their complaint. It may well be that He spoke in response to their prodding, but to say it came in answer to them seems doubtful, at least in the sense of answering a question.
As the text is given, neither woman nor disciple has truly asked a question. Both have requested a boon of some sort of the Lord, healing on the one hand, and commanded silence on the other. By definition, the word has to do more with responding, replying, declaring a decision. There is a Hebraic usage which would simply indicate the beginning of speaking to a preceding point. But this leaves us no closer to determining whose point he is speaking to.
Matthew Henry joins the camp of those who see this as directed to the disciples. He also suggests that their request was an effort to prod Jesus to manifest mercy to this woman. I fail to see this presupposition. Barnes sees the answer directed at the woman, noting that His personal ministry was constrained to the Jews alone, even though He caused the message to be spread to the Gentiles by His disciples at a later date. The Bible Exposition commentary follows Matthew Henry’s lead, suggesting that the disciples’ request was that her need be met, not that her tongue be silenced. Robertson sees this directed more to the woman herself.
Now, given that picture is given to us but in brief, my opinion and understanding of the disciples’ behaviors and attitudes in general must color my hearing of their repeated request. And I note that it was a repeated request. They were as persistent in asking Jesus to do something as this woman was proving to be. If I am inclined to view them in light of their future accomplishment, I can read this charitably, and see it as some of these men have: a joining with the woman’s request, seeking that Jesus might give answer to her need. If, on the other hand, I view them in light of their culture, I am inclined to see the picture much differently.
As Jews of their day, their view of this woman would not be far removed from what we hear on the surface of Jesus’ words. He’s our Redeemer, not yours. You are but dogs, deserving of little attention and less compassion. What might serve to ameliorate this dim view of the goyim is that the majority of these disciples were drawn from Galilee, the ‘heathen circle’. The people of this region had been living in close proximity to the Gentiles for as along as Israel had been in the land. The very fact that Jesus has come up here looking for ‘the lost sheep of Israel’ is evidence of their long-standing co-existence. They may not be so comfortable as to invite the Gentiles into their own homes, but they were comfortable enough doing business with them. Matthew, as a tax-collector, was working for worse, after all! So, no, it’s not inconceivable that they might prod Jesus to act on behalf of this woman. What would it hurt, after all? If nothing else, it would stop the annoyance of her shouting.
Yet, I see nothing in their request to suggest such a thing. What is far more in evidence is annoyance. They kept bugging Jesus, saying, “Send her away.” Recall that by and large what they have witnessed of Jesus dealing with such matters in the past has involved His touch and His presence. They have seen Him deal with the unclean repeatedly, and there is nothing in the tale of the Gaderene demoniac to suggest that he was a Jew, so even this would not be anything new. But, that they ask Him to send her away rather than suggesting He go see her child, leaves me thinking that their attitude is not terribly hospitable to her cause.
Given all of this, I would tend to conclude that the answer Jesus gives is most assuredly directed to the woman’s request. And yet, it is apparently of an accord with the disciples’ desires as well. It puts into word somewhat of their own view of the situation. One can almost see them nodding their approval of the answer He gives this poor woman. Yes, that should shut her up. Of course, it doesn’t, but it so echoes their own sentiments.
What I arrive at with these considerations is that Jesus, by seeming to accede to their desires, is setting them up for a lesson. This is an aspect of the situation that tends to evade us, because the focus is naturally drawn to the woman’s faith and the healing deliverance that Jesus provides. Our eyes are drawn by the miracle and so we may tend to miss the message. So much of what I see written on this passage has sought to somehow ameliorate the insult in Jesus’ words. Yes, He speaks of an exclusive ministry, but we know what He commanded later. Yes, He calls this woman a dog, but He’s talking about puppies, not the wild animals. It’s practically a term of endearment! But, in this we are largely reading our own culture back into the scene, and this is not fitting.
The fact is that His words are insulting. The fact is that what He is putting into word is very much of a piece with the cultural conceits of His countrymen. He is stating explicitly the quiet, or not so quiet prejudice of His own people. But, He is doing this with a very clear purpose in mind: to expose the great sin of His people in treating their Redeemer as contemptuously as they would treat this woman. Alongside this, He is exposing the sin of failing to treating others as themselves, for in so doing, they failed to honor God by respecting those He created in His image.
Recall the answer Jesus gave in summing up the Law (Mt 22:37-40). Fundamental to the whole of faith: love your Lord and God with everything that is in you: heart, soul, and mind. Alongside this, love your neighbor equally as you love yourself. These two, He declared form the foundation for everything else that the Law and the Prophets have to say. Recall as well His answer when He was asked, “Who is my neighbor?” (Lk 10:29-37). That answer made clear that being outside the race of the Israelites was no barrier of exclusion to God’s grace. These, too, would have to be treated in accord with that second pillar of the faith: love them as you love yourself. Accord them every bit as much honor, dignity and compassion as you would have for yourself. With this in mind, we cannot reasonably look at what is happening in this passage and think Jesus is declaring an exclusiveness to His own ministry.
There may be a matter of due order, even as there was for Paul later on. It was fitting – even necessary, he would explain to those in Pisidian Antioch, that they, the Jews, were first to hear the Gospel in that town. That he would now present that same Gospel news to the Gentiles instead was equally fitting and necessary (Ac 13:46-47). What the Jews had failed to grasp was that theirs was a position of precedence, not exclusion. They had been set in place to provide light to the lost nations around them, not to preserve that light by hiding it safely.
So, here, Jesus is in no way declaring an exclusive ministry to which no Gentile could hope to lay claim. When we hear Him saying, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, we must understand that there is some sort of temporal bound to the application He is making. It is not an eternal stance by which the Gentiles are to be excluded. That should be obvious by now. Has He not already given aid to the centurion back in Capernaum? That man may have been a god-fearer, but he was clearly no Jew. Couldn’t as much be said for this woman? Could it be said definitively that she was not a god-fearer? If she was not, how this understanding of the significance of Israel’s Messiah?
This segues me into answering that second question I have had pending. What does He mean by ‘only to Israel’? Are we to hear that as applying to the Jewish community, or to spiritual Israel, as Paul understands it? In what I have written already, it seems the answer begins to emerge. First and foremost, a study of the Old Testament clearly reveals that there has always been, at least in God’s intentions and purposes, a door open to the Gentiles. At most, we might hear this message from Jesus as applying to His personal ministry, much as we think of Peter sent to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Each spread the same Gospel, but they spread with a particular focus on reaching one group or another. So, we might think to hear Jesus indicating the focus of His ministry in this case. However, it seems to me even this is overstating the case. As I said previously, He has already given succor to some amongst the Gentile population, so whatever exclusivity He speaks of here, it is not that entire.
It would seem that we ought the hear Him applying this solely to His immediate purpose in coming to the regions of Tyre and Sidon. It is as though He were saying He had not come, in this instance, to convert but to recall. He had not come on a mission to procure more sheep for Himself, but to rescue those sheep that were already His by right, but had wandered from the fold. It’s really something along the lines of, “that’s not what I came up here for.” But, the wording is plainly chosen with a greater purpose in mind. As so many of the commentaries point out, He has the purpose of not just testing this woman’s faith, but exercising it to a greater strength. This is something I shall consider in greater depth in coming days, but the fundamental point we are seeing here is that a faith that cannot stand in the face of such seeming rejection is no faith at all.
Returning very briefly to the first question, that of who He is answering here, I find I come to the conclusion that He is actually answering both the woman and His own disciples with this response. That He speaks at all answers the request of His disciples, and if I have properly stitched together the combined account, it seems to have served their desired effect. She was quieted for a time, at least until they had come to a house, and she could be dealt with in a more private setting. It was also an answer, to her pleadings, although not the final answer. It was the first test of her faith, if you will.
That first test of faith (and again, I hope to touch on this more fully farther on in this study) is the test of presumption. What was this woman’s attitude? Had she come to seek unwarranted favor, or to demand her due? Did she come with the attitude of, “You’re a good God, so You have to do this”? Or was she coming with more of that, “Lord, I’m a worm” view to the matter. Indeed, in all her discourse with Jesus, we will find no accusation of unfairness leveled against God nor against Jesus. There is no pressing of a demand, only persistence in seeking a boon.
If there is any accusation of unfairness at all to be found in what she says, it is aimed at the ruler of those demons which possess her daughter. When she says, “my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed,” that word ‘cruelly’ may possibly carry a sense of unfairness. This would be as opposed to ‘justly demon-possessed’. Oftentimes, when we see the punishment somebody is under, we recognize that as justice served, something they have brought upon themselves. There are other cases which we see as grossly unfair. This is why there are so many books on the subject of bad things happening to good people. Of course, our eyes do not see things with the accuracy and clarity of God, so our concepts of good and bad may be askew. But, let us suppose we have enough light in us to tell the difference.
Let us suppose that there is, indeed, this sense of unfairness in how the woman speaks of her daughter’s plight. One could read into that the idea that had this happened to herself, she might understand it. Had it come about as a result of idolatry and debauchery, it would make sense. The justice of it could be seen. But this was her daughter, an as yet innocent child, not caught up in such things. And yet, she was suffering the punishment due for such activities. It’s just so unfair! Isn’t that, indeed, how we feel when we see children suffering? In all truth, it doesn’t matter whether we subscribe to the doctrine of original sin or we hold that children remain innocent until some age of reason is attained. We will still have that innate sense that there is something unfair in their bearing the punishment of sin. Indeed, that is the exact sentiment in the proverb that both Jeremiah and Ezekiel speak of. “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Jer 31:29, Eze 18:2). It’s so unfair to the children!
Well, of course it is! Our adversary is a slanderer by nature. His accusations, while they ever carry a grain of truth, it seems, are always embellished in the hopes of bringing a greater condemnation upon our heads. Guilt is one of his best chains for keeping us enslaved to him. If he can convince us that our punishment, the punishment which he tends to have charge of meting out, is really all we can expect, then we will never look for redemption, never look up to see our Redeemer come. So, yes, in some sense we can always proclaim, along with this woman, that the affliction of this demonic punishment is unfair. Yet, I think we must acknowledge that the unfairness lies not in the fact of our punishment, but in the excessive zeal of that punishment’s application.
It’s rather like the charges God laid against those nations that were sent by Him to punish Israel’s sins. The charge against them was not that they came. It was not that they punished Israel. Both of these matters were done by God’s command. No. The issue was that they took things too far. Their punishment exceeded the intent of the Judge. They moved from just retribution to malicious, sadistic torment, and for this, the Just Judge would require answer from them in their turn.
With all of that, let us consider those questions as answered. Now, I would turn briefly to something that came up in the commentaries as I sought out those answers. It is concerned with the image of the lost sheep, and the case for Gentile inclusion, as laid out by the prophet Isaiah, so it is not wholly an aside to the passage at hand. However, it is lengthy enough that I wished to pursue it after reaching conclusion on the questions at hand, and it serves well as a bridge to the next thing I was planning to address, as well.
Lost Israel – Persistence of History (04/24/08-4/28/08)
The IVP Background commentary makes the interesting point that His answer, combined with His later expansion of the mission to include the Gentiles fits with Isaiah’s depiction of the Suffering Servant. In support of this, they point to the following verses taken from his prophecies. Isa 53:6-8 – We all have strayed like sheep, each one going his own way. But, the LORD has taken our iniquity upon Him Who was oppressed and afflicted and yet did not say a word. He was like a lamb led to slaughter, silent before its shearers. He remained silent. He was removed by oppression and judgment, and those of His generation deemed Him cut off from life. Yet, all this was done to pay the due penalty for the sins of My people. Isa 40:11 – He tends His flock like a shepherd. He will gather the lambs in His arms and carry them close to His chest. He gently leads the nursing. Isa 56:11 – The greedy dogs are unsatisfied shepherds with no understanding. They have all gone their own way, pursuing their unjust gain. Isa 42:6 – I have called you in righteousness and I will take you in hand and watch over you. I will appoint you as a covenant to all peoples, a light to all nations. Isa 49:6-7 – Is it too small an honor that You should be My Servant to the tribes of Jacob, restoring the faithful of Israel? I will also make You a light to the nations, that My salvation may reach every corner of the earth. This is the word of the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, the Holy One given to the despised One abhorred by the nation, the Servant of rulers: “Kings will see it and arise. Princes will bow down because the Lord who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel has chosen You.”
That passage from Isaiah 56 deserves more attention in this regard. Isa 56:1-11 Be righteous in your actions for My salvation is near, My righteousness is soon to be revealed. He who keeps his hands from evil, who will not profane the Sabbath is blessed indeed. No, and the foreigner who has come to worship the LORD need not fear that he shall be kept apart from My people. Neither has the eunuch cause to think himself fruitless before Me. To those eunuchs who do the things I am pleased by, who honor My covenant, I will give a memorial in My house. Their names will be held in higher esteem than those of my sons and daughters. Their name will be everlasting. To those foreigners who have joined Me, ministering to Me for love of My Lordship; these servants have held my covenant fast. I will bring them to My holy mountain, and give them reason for joy in My house of prayer. Their sacrifices and offerings shall be accepted on My altar, for My house is a house of prayer for all peoples. God, the One who gathers the Diaspora, declares that He will gather others to add to those He already has gathered. He calls the animals of the wild to come eat. He tells them that His own watchmen are blind and stupid. They are dogs incapable of barking, sleeping dreamers. Worse, they are greedy dogs, who know no satisfaction. They are shepherds of no understanding, each doing as he pleases in pursuit of unjust gains.
That passage alone is sufficient to make the point, as far as God’s plans and purposes are concerned. The remainder simply serves to connect all of this activity with His Servant, and to point out the person of His Servant in the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. What a stunning picture Isaiah has painted in this! For those who have come from outside the family, who have made conscious effort and conscious choice to be joined to the house of Israel’s God, there is nothing but praise and promise. But, to those who had by birthright what these have sought after with such diligence, nothing. And, why? Because those who held these things by birthright valued them not at all. They were too busy doing as they pleased, seeking their own purposes and their own profits, to be concerned with any duty that might be theirs as servants of God Most High.
They are blind, stupid, slumbering watchmen. That is the sentence passed upon them. That is the role played by far too much of the visible church in every age. That is definitely the role of many who fill the pulpits today. Not all, to be certain, but many. What would become of the televangelism market were there no longer a profit to be had in it? How many would remain? What motivates a preacher who preaches things wholly anathema to the clear and solid message of the Bible, and still claim to be a Christian? If it is not profit of the material sort, then it is certainly the hope of profiting in some spiritual relief of guilt. Why, if we proclaim that God no longer hates sexual perversions, then we are free to pursue them to our delight! Indeed, with such moral gymnastics as these, we can do pretty much anything we like and claim heaven’s blessings on our choices. Of course, we know it’s all stuff and nonsense, but we can keep ourselves deluded pretty nicely along the way.
And, these are not the sheep. These are the shepherds! These are the embodiment of blind leaders of the blind, for they have followers to spare. Who doesn’t want a message of complete absolution combined with an equally complete permissiveness with which to face tomorrow? This is nothing new. Paul faced the same issues as he preached. People heard his message of God’s gracious forgiveness, and saw it as an eternal get out of jail free card. Why, if grace abounds to cover our sins, why be bothered with attempting the sinless life? It’s impossible anyway, don’t you know. Didn’t he just finish saying that no man is found righteous? So, what’s the point of trying. Better that we should eat, drink and be merry today, for there’s no guarantee of a tomorrow. The only guarantee is forgiveness. Might as well go out with something worth forgiving.
Sheep, being by nature hard-pressed to think, will gladly chase these seemingly benevolent shepherds. Of course, they will only find that they have fallen into the pit, as Jesus said must follow such choices (Mt 15:14). And yet, to these He was sent. To sheep who had no guidance, because they had willfully chosen such guides as those Isaiah describes. They had chosen the watchmen who kept watch over them. They had, by and large, chosen them for the very blindness and stupidity that made them worthless defenders. After all, they were less concerned with dangers from without the city than they were with enjoying their lawlessness within. The same watchman who watches the far horizon is equally capable (or incapable as the case may be) of decrying the crimes done in his own city.
Had this not been a large part of the prophetic duty throughout their history? It was not just to Tyre and Sidon that the woes were proclaimed, but also to Israel and Judea. And, here in their midst comes the Prophet, the point of all prophecy. What words has He for His people, who (at least in theory) have long awaited His arrival? His words are, “Woe to you. The unwashed Canaanite dogs of Tyre and Sidon would have done better than you have. Had they seen the tenth portion of what you have witnessed from Me, they would have long since repented. Yet, you have seen the whole, and continue on your rebel way.”
And yet, to these He was sent. Let’s be very clear about this. The Father Who sent Him was quite aware what His lost sheep were like. He was quite aware of their obstinacy, their rebelliousness. He was perfectly aware of how they would treat this Suffering Servant, this Shepherd Who came seeking to restore them to the fold. And yet, to these He was sent.
Let me say, “And yet, to me He was sent.” I cannot point the finger in their direction without recognizing myself as in a mirror. To me He was sent, on my behalf; and for how many years did I laugh at Him in scorn? For how many years did I go off looking for some other, more interesting god to ponder? To what degree do I continue these habits to this day? No, I no longer look for gods to ponder aside from my Lord and Savior, the Christ of God Almighty. But, service to idols? Harder to reject that charge, isn’t it? No, I don’t bow down to them, and think of them as idols to be worshiped. Yet, the behavior is not much different in the end. I will sacrifice time and money to serve those things. I will react with a holy furor against those who would threaten these things. Oh, but vengeance shall be in my hands should you disturb what matters to me! And yet, to me He was not only sent. He came.
To this lost sheep, who had most certainly put himself at risk, and developed a habit of looking around for further risk to put himself into, He came. And yes, He picked me up, took my by the hand, as it were, and carried me back to His fold, to His church. Don’t talk to me of being seeker friendly, for it is foolishness to suppose the lost sheep seeks his fold. No, rather train up the seekers to labor as His assistants, going out to find those who are wandering aimless and without guidance; worse yet, those who have chosen blind and foolish leaders to guide them to their own demise.
This is what those people of God’s family had done, who took up residence in Tyre and Sidon. They had wandered from the lessons of both Torah and history, and put themselves at risk. That risk was not solely a matter of this life, but also a matter of eternity. That risk was not solely a matter of eternity, but also a matter of this life.
This brings me to the third question I had asked, and the first answered. If Jesus was seeking lost sheep of Israel, what is He doing in Tyre and Sidon? Well, I suppose it would be a fools errand to seek lost sheep in the fold, wouldn’t it? By definition they are not lost. Overlooked, perhaps, but not lost. But, more to the point, a brief look at Tyre’s history, particularly its history after Israel’s arrival in the land, makes it clear that almost from the start, there had been those from the number of God’s people who had opted to live amongst the heathen Canaanites. After all, it was a prosperous place, and the one living in their midst had hopes of making a tidy profit on the trade that passed through this port city.
Never mind their practices, the reasoning apparently went. Let them practice what they please and we shall practice as we please, and we’ll all just get along with one another. It’s another attempt at multiculturalism, not unlike today. For all our practices today, we really ought to take a look at the history of these prior attempts and see what resulted, for the nature of mankind has not changed so very much in the intervening time. Look, then, at Israel’s experience in Tyre. They came to dwell amongst the heathen, and the result was that heathenish practices made their way into Israelite society.
That said, this woman who comes to Jesus is proof that there was at least some minimal influence going the other way. But, I note something here. The people of Israel did not go into Tyre and Sidon with any conception of changing that region, of declaring the true God and converting the masses to His worship. They went in search of profit, and profit was their god. For a time, it would seem, this agnostic tolerance for other beliefs seemed to serve them well. They dwelt with the heathen and they prospered on the heathen’s trade. But, look at the larger picture.
The tolerance they practiced had really been there from the very start. In truth, it finds its roots in a severe neglect of God’s command. Indeed, in other cases, such neglect as this would have been subject to a far stronger retribution. For such neglect as this Saul was removed from the throne! Yet, the tribe of Asher felt no compunction in allowing the Canaanites to remain in the land. Sure, God said wipe them out. Sure, He even warned them that the results of failure would be spiritually disastrous, but so what? These Canaanites were a clever people, and would be more profitable to the Asherites alive than dead. So, let them continue in their trade, so long as they are Israel’s slaves and servants. Thus, were the seeds of destruction sown.
From such inauspicious roots sprang this willingness to not only tolerate their presence, but dwell in their midst. Think about that for just a moment. These were a people that Israel considered as no more than dogs! They were to be tolerated, but shown no favor at all. They would not be destroyed, but neither would they be given any aid. These are not the favored family pets of modern life that we are talking about here. These are curs, tolerated insomuch as they are useful, and only so long as there is no cost.
If they can scrounge their living off our droppings, that’s fine. They serve well as guard against intruders, so let them have their corner. But, if they make the least bit of a fuss, if they cause the least disturbance to our household, they’re out! Dogs were to be useful, not to be loved. What these people had essentially done was to join their dogs in the corner, to share in their scraps, and left the house to whoever might occupy it! That’s the significance here! These sheep were so thoroughly lost that they had willingly taken upon themselves the habits of dogs and with those habits, the standing of dogs.
Others in Israel saw not how they had fallen spiritually, but how they were prospering materially, and this became a disease amongst the people. Apparently, such spiritual tolerance wasn’t such a bad thing after all. God can say what He wants, just look at the evidence! Our brothers to the north are growing rich in their tolerance while we continue as subsistence farmers here in our purity. What’s the point? Do they not show us a better way? And so, they joined in the spirit of multiculturalism. It wasn’t long before they had welcomed Baal-worship into the land. After all, these heathen visitors deserved to have the comfort of worshiping as they chose. Then, of course, curiosity got hold of the children of Israel. Here were visible gods they could pursue, unlike the unseen God Almighty. Well, He is, after all, God of gods, so He shouldn’t be offended if we give some of our attention to His underlings, right? Never mind what He says. The Torah is a living document, and we must adjust it for our own time.
Well, read the sad history of this cooperative venture. Comes the time when these foreign seekers of profit discerned that there was profit to be made in the sale of their Jewish neighbors, and so, those neighbors were sold. What a marvelous situation! Baal worship spreads right into the every temple in Jerusalem, a Jerusalem that was growing fat on its own trade deals. This in itself was cause of a barely hidden jealousy in the Canaanite cities, but they had family ties to the royals in Israel, and their idols in the temple, so this must be tolerated. But, once Josiah brought his reforms; the queen dead and the idols destroyed, well, what cause was there for tolerance now? So, off to slavery with these locals, and let us storm their cities while they’re down. Why should Jerusalem have any share in the trade profits? Whatever they know of trade, they learned from us, and clearly her profits are rightfully ours!
The prophecies regarding Tyre are not, however, exclusively prophecies of retribution. There are those hints in there that the riches of Tyre would, at some point, become fuel for the work of God (Isa 23). Interestingly, the way that particular message is given, it is clear that this doesn’t really signify a change of heart for Tyre as a whole. Her character is unchanged. The things she is willing to do to earn a buck are no less sordid. Yet, her gain will provide for those who abide in the presence of the Lord.
Some see this woman as the first of the converts promised from this city, promised by God. “There will be some amongst My people born in Tyre” (Ps 87:4). Indeed, we know there will be some amongst His people from every tribe and from every nation! But, that does not make every tribe a Christian tribe, nor every nation a Christian nation. Indeed, if we really pay heed to what He is saying, it should be clear to us that the truly Christian tribe or nation, if it even exists, is a rarity, an exception.
For a time, then, the population of believers in Tyre seems to have grown. Soon, they had their own bishop. They were a city of significance in the early church. But, once more, the foreign influence was felt. For, from their bishopric came the support for the heretic Arius; not from there alone, but from there in strength. So, this city that had indeed provided for the people of God from her wealth once more turned against God’s people, condemning Athanasius. Given their history, one can easily question their motives in this turn of events. Was it for any real conviction of truth that they did as they did, or was it just another case of chasing after profit?
Tyre and Sidon stand as symbols and examples of the world’s opposition to the kingdom of God. It is noted in Fausset’s that their methods rarely consist of direct conflict. That is not to say that the kingdom doesn’t see direct conflict with the world, but in the case of Tyre and Sidon, it is a different issue that is set before us. For them, opposition consisted of seeking gain at the expense of God’s people. To put it differently, when God’s people suffered calamity, they did not seek to comfort those who were afflicted, but to make a profit from what befell them. In sum, Fausset’s has this to say of the city of Tyre. “Greed of gain was her snare, to which she sacrificed every other consideration.” That article then goes on to say that this is the same spirit that continues in the secular humanists, and in such scientists as hold that reality ceases at the bounds of the purely physical.
I would further state that this poisonous worldview still finds ways to insinuate itself into the fabric of the Church. If you would seek those who place greed of gain before real faith, you needn’t look far. They are there on the boards of such industry giants as have discovered a profit to be made on Christian music. They are there in the marketers of Christian kitsch, in the so-called Christian bookstores which have barely reserved room for any books, and so few of those books they do care to display being of any consequence.
That worldview is in the very pulpits of many churches, proclaiming a gospel so far different from Paul’s that he would join with James and John calling down fire on those pulpits were he here today. How else does one arrive at the church of anything goes? How else do we arrive at preachers actively practicing the very things that God has clearly declared wholly unacceptable, and even promoting these same practices in their sad flocks (Ro 1:32)? It is indeed that same spirit which informs the bulk of society today. It is this same spirit which prompts its followers to honor the murderous terrorists as heroes while deriding the honorable Christian as dangerously deranged.
And yet, the Psalmist could easily have been writing of us when he declared that there would be those even in Babylon who know Him. Even amongst the native-born of Tyre there will be found those who by His grace have believed. Certainly, we can see seeds of that in this woman. Certainly we can look to a literal fulfillment of these proclamations. And, yes, we are quite awake and aware of the presence of Babylon on the current scene; quite aware that Tyre is also of some consequence in the events playing out today. But, in a larger sense, I do not think it unreasonable to look at ourselves as being a part of Babylon and Tyre.
As a nation, we are followers of a capitalist system, and the great worldwide promoter of the same. We, like Tyre, are a trader with all nations. We may do a bit of moralizing with those who are not pursuing a democratic path such as our own, but we will not let that stand in the way of business. No, they are more separated in our thinking than church and state. Quite likely, if unconsciously, they are separated for the very reason that they are church and state for so many. What a terrible thought, that we might be the modern spiritual equals of this fallen city! If you would understand just how terrible this is, if true, consider Ezekiel’s prophecies concerning Tyre.
When I read through Ezekiel 28, the thing I find most striking is that the prophecy segues from images of that city and its ways to what is clearly addressed to Lucifer himself. “You had the seal of perfection, […] you were in Eden, […] you were the anointed cherub who covers, and I placed you there” (Eze 28:12-14). These are clearly not spoken of Tyre alone, nor its king. They are spoken of the spirit that filled Tyre’s king, and drove him. That same spirit fills and drives many of the leaders of our time. It is the spirit of unbridled capitalism. It is the spirit of socialism. It is the spirit of Islamic totalitarianism.
It is this spirit that places profit above covenant. It is this spirit that guides such corporate heads as will through morality and ethics to the wind in their efforts to ensure profitability. It is this spirit that guides these politicians who willingly subvert their position to line their own pockets, and to keep their constituents paid off. There is, in them, no concern for right and wrong, no concern for morality. Their only concern is to preserve their own position of power. Shall we declare them a great evil? Certainly, the spirit that leads them and to which they seem so willingly to submit is worthy of that label. Yet, the great admonition of Scripture is to pray for them, to pray for such leaders who are not blind to this blight, and who will do what is in their power to counter it.
Now, let me consider Sidon: In her we discover a people notorious for their self-indulgence, a people whose only concern was in maintaining their own lifestyle of wealth and easy living. Who cares what happens to allow this life? Who cares if others are suffering and starving to support our habitual comforts? Let them fend for themselves. We are at ease. If Tyre had provided idols to be placed in the temple, it was Sidon who paved the way. They did not accomplish this by frontal assault, but by insinuating their ways into the house of the king. From Sidon came wives for Solomon, and they proved to be too much for his vaunted wisdom. In these wives, in the interest of keeping peace in the house, Solomon allowed himself to be drawn into worshiping the Ashtoreth, in spite of all God had done for him! Had Solomon not paved the way as he did, would Tyre’s idol have found such an easy path into the temple?
Listen! Again, the finger points to us. For, we, too, have made deadly concessions in the name of keeping peace in our household! For some of us, that image may be very literal. Perhaps we entered into a marriage that joined us to an unbeliever, or even to a believer in other gods. This, we find as Solomon found, will tend to lead us astray. For, if our belief had been solid, we would not have allowed ourselves to get into such a situation, and the enemy of our soul knows this very well. He knows, too, how to exploit that weakness for all it’s worth.
More than that, though, this describes too much of our societal issue. We have been a nation of religious tolerance, but we have allowed this founding principle to be twisted around out of all recognition. Whereas the intent had been to keep the government from dictating the forms of Christian observances and practices, as had long been the habit of monarchies, it has become an umbrella clause, allowing anybody who wants the freedom to do as he pleases to declare his particular proclivities to be a new religion. What gets promoted as religious tolerance or multiculturalism in our day is really a religion unto itself, and one that is utterly intolerant of any other system of belief.
In the name of tolerance they insist that nobody believe in anything as true. There is your truth and then there is my truth, and these, they hold, can be perfectly contradictory and yet be valid. It is utter nonsense, of course, but to this they insist that one and all sign on. To hold up your truth as self-evident and binding upon all men today comes close to being a criminal offense! Particularly, if it is found to have some connection to this man, Jesus Christ. Just about any other belief would be acceptable. Can it be because at heart, these promoters of unbelief realize that any other belief has no connection to truth? It is, after all, such concrete standards as Truth that the new religion of multiculturalism abhors above all else.
They insist that we must compromise. We are permitted to hold our viewpoints so long as we keep them to ourselves. We can believe as we wish, so long as we ignore the implications of our own beliefs and leave everybody else to theirs. Just do what you must to keep peace in the house. But, if we fall into this, we have fallen into a trap. We have neglected the lesson of Solomon who by keeping the peace of his house may well have destroyed his very soul, and brought endless woe upon the very people of God.
Faith – Persistence of Future (04/29/08)
Over against the danger of compromise stands the example of faith. This woman stands as an exception to the rule of Tyre. In the same way, we are called to stand as exceptions to the rule of worldliness. What empowers this woman to break with the spirit of her people is the same thing that empowers us to break with the spirit of this world: faith, and that a gift of God. That she could hear the discouraging word of the Lord to her and still press her need is evidence of faith, as Jesus Himself declares.
Faith such as this woman displays is not something to be worked up. It is not some emotional lather. Faith such as this is a confidence, a certainty. That confidence is not primarily on the outcome, but on the ability of the One she has approached. Where has she found this confidence, she who is not of the house of Israel? Well, I find answer to that in a comment from Thayer’s Lexicon on this matter of faith. “Faith is a power that seizes upon the soul.” As Paul said, this faith by which we stand is a gift from God (Eph 2:8).
I have heard it explained that this only speaks of that initial, salvific faith; but that it then falls to us to exercise that faith into a thing of power. I cannot hold with that view, though. For one thing, that view is too concerned with obtaining personal power, and has lost its focus. That is a faith such as Simon the Magi held. He had faith that the things he had seen done by the apostles had actually happened and he had faith that if they could do these things, they could teach him how to do likewise. There was nothing of loving God in it, though. It was only loving power.
Another issue I take with this is the very question of whether there are indeed such degrees or types of faith in the first place. That is a study in itself, I suppose, but not one I am going to take up at present. Let me allow, for the moment, that there were these different sorts of faith. Even so, I find no reason to think that some sorts of faith are His doing and others are mine. No, if it’s all about Jesus, then it’s all about Jesus. If there is grace upon grace it is not simply that He has given that first bit, and I have piled on the rest. Not at all! It has all of it been poured out upon me from His storehouse. If one has faith to believe unto salvation, another has faith to heal and another yet has faith to persevere to the end, are these indeed different things? And if so, are any of these more a cause for boasting than the other?
Let me ask that a bit differently. If I have faith unto salvation, but not so as to persevere to the end, how was that even faith unto salvation? If I have not persevered I have not been saved! If it is up to my faith to bring me healing, and healing does not come, should this give me cause to doubt my salvation? Some would say so. Personally, I would say my faith has not been in God but in health, and if health fails me, my faith will fail.
This woman is in no such danger, as I see it. See, that power of faith has seized her soul. God has taken the initiative. Think about it! Jesus has come some fifty miles from his base. He reaches town after being harangued by this woman. He enters a house, apparently telling His companions He wants to get away for awhile. But, this woman comes in and presses her case until He accedes to her desire and exerts His essence, His power, to heal her daughter of her demonic affliction. And then, if we follow the narrative a bit further, He turns around and heads back. What happened to those lost sheep He was sent for?
I tell you, this woman, in spite of His discouraging words to her, is the reason He came! This was none of it a surprise to Him, for He was here upon the Father’s mission in accord with the Father’s will. After all, it was the Father who had appointed this woman’s soul to be seized by the power of faith! He was not about to let that faith that had seized her prove void.
This is, of course, one of the great theological divides in the beliefs of the Church. Those who hold that it is solely grace, solely the work of Jesus that saves and preserves have cause to see their faith as unshakable, for it has no foundation in fleshly weakness, nor does it find any supporting pillar there. Thus, we hold that those in whom faith has truly been planted will of necessity persevere, for it is God Who is at work in them.
On the other side stand those who, while forced by Scripture to confess that this faith unto salvation is the work of God alone, yet insist that man must have a hand in its development, else he is an automaton. Such as believe this do not necessarily have a lower view of God. They are earnest men of earnest belief in the same triune God Almighty. They have earnestly pursued the Scriptures and have yet come to a different conclusion on this matter. For this, they are not less saved. They have, perhaps, a more elevated view of man than is justified, but they have not, for all that, lowered their view of God. From their viewpoint, He has proclaimed quite clearly that He wills for all men to be saved, and yet, it is manifestly evident that all are not saved. They seek explanation for this disparity and find it in God’s determination that man should be an agent of free will. His will is that they should be saved, but if they will not have it, He will not force the issue.
With a viewpoint such as this, there must necessarily be an accompanying uncertainty. Faith cannot be certain of perseverance, however confidently it may feel salvation at present. There is always the risk of falling. There is always that risk because now, in spite of my proclamation that it’s all about Jesus, I really see things as being all about me, now that He’s done His bit.
I tell you bluntly, faith such as that would never have survived the words Jesus spoke to this woman. Faith like this requires feedback, a constant flow of evidence to show that it is still there, that it hasn’t been lost. Faith like this would crumble when it heard that initial, “Not for you. Not now.” This sort of faith comes to the church looking for some necessary miracle and, if that miracle be withheld, it withers and dies. It withers and dies precisely because it was never faith in God at all. It was faith in some material outcome. The power of faith which seizes the soul is no matter of material blessing, no matter of physical comfort and well-being in this life. The power of faith which seizes the soul has freed the soul from the chains of physical concerns. This is not to say that the soul of the saved despises the body. No! The body, being created in the image of the God in Whom our faith is found, is worthy of honor! But, that faith which is unto salvation is concerned with that salvation. It is so absolutely certain of the future that the temporary issues and setbacks of the present life are no longer of any consequence.
That is the faith that Job had. That is the faith this woman has. I feel certain that even if Jesus had not fulfilled her wish, yet her faith in Him would have remained unchanged. I feel certain of this because her faith, if it was of any value at all, was not only in Him, it was from Him. It was His irrevocable gift, given by His power and maintained by His power. Her faith, her certainty, was not that Jesus would heal her child, but that He could. That, really, was the important part. Her faith is the same as that leper who had come to Jesus and said, “if You are willing, You are able to make me clean” (Mt 8:2). The power is never in question, but the will that determines is not mine but Yours.
You see, faith such as this acknowledges not only the power of Jesus, but the authority. Faith such as this truly means it when it calls Him, “Lord”. Faith such as this recognizes Who is in charge and who is the bondservant. It does not place demands upon the King, but seeks His limitless favor. Neither will such faith find fault with the King should He choose to answer differently than we would like Him to.
This woman’s faith is fixed upon something greater than her daughter’s healing, as powerful and as important as that was. Her faith is fixed on the certainty of her future. That she is clear about this future can be heard in her opening cry. “Mercy, Lord! Mercy, Son of David!” To call to Him by these titles already displays recognition of His Office and the certain future He represents. At the very least, she understands what He means for Israel. When she accepts His answer regarding throwing bread to the dogs as perfectly valid and true, she reveals her recognition of what He means for the world. He is Lord. He is not just the Mighty One of Israel, He is her own Lord, her own King, and as such, she will abide by His decision. Yet faith in Who He Is, faith He has caused to seize her soul, all but requires her to press her case even with this understanding.
Presumption (4/30/08)
While I will not be entering into a full exploration of the topic of faith here, there are a few important lessons we can learn about faith by considering the woman before us. For in her we see faith tested. More importantly, we see that her faith, being tested, is found satisfactory. So, consider what we see of her faith and its testing. As I noted earlier, the first test of faith is that of presumption. It is on this point that so many fail. We come to Christ with a need or perhaps it’s only a want. We come because we know His ability. Like that leper, we can come to Him and say, “I know you are able.” That’s fine. But, so often we fail to take the other half of the equation into account. He does not just have the power and ability, He has the authority. That authority includes in it the right of decision. It is His to give answer or to decline as He chooses.
We know this, yet we are constantly moving from the supplication of a loyal subject to the demanding of an equal or even a superior. We move from addressing our prayers as the leper did: “If You are willing,” to the demand of a ruler: “You must!” The moment we do that, we have moved into the place of presumption. We are no longer addressing our Lord, but declaring ourselves His lord. We may have every reason to expect a positive response from Him. We may even have the terms of covenant to back us up in that expectation. But, when we approach Him with demands rather than requests, we have forgotten our part in that covenant.
Covenants are not generally agreements made between equals. They are contracts made between a superior and his subject, between victor and vanquished. The covenant agreement is, to be sure, willingly entered into by both parties. The vanquished can refuse the terms and accept the consequences. The victor was under no obligation to offer the terms in the first place. Clearly, though, the vanquished has a compelling interest in agreeing to the terms for the preservation of his own life.
For the vanquished, these are the terms of surrender. They spell out the rules he must abide by in return for his life. After all, if he refuses the surrender, the war goes on, and if he is at the point of negotiating his surrender, that war is already as good as lost. If he will not surrender now, he will not survive. In return for being allowed to live, then, he is putting his seal to abiding by such rules as are declared in the covenant.
It is a measure of the victor’s magnanimity that these terms are not wholly one sided. There are promises given, assurances made. If you will do as these covenants require, then I, though in the position of power, promise to do thus and so to your benefit. If you heed the rules here laid out, I shall not exact further retribution.
To this covenant both victor and vanquished set their seal as proof of their oath of obedience to the terms. That oath is most solemn, as we witness in the ritual Abraham went through in making covenant with God. As the sacrifice was slaughtered to seal the agreement, so the participants must suffer to be slaughtered should they break faith with that covenant. If I do not do all that this requires of me, I accept that you have the right to come and cut me asunder even as these animals have been cut asunder.
So, yes, by the terms of covenant we have cause to demand something of the victor, but only if we have, for our part, abided by its terms. If we come before this victor demanding the fulfillment of his covenant obligations, we are implicitly claiming that we have abided by ours. If we have not done so, we have no business laying demands on him. We have already nullified the covenant by our own failures, and the only binding part of that agreement which remains is the penalty due our failure. We do well to recognize this when we come before our King with our lengthy list of requests. If we will but be honest with ourselves for a moment, we must recognize that we have not upheld our end of the bargain. Abraham recognized that even as he set his pledge to the terms. He knew he could not hope to abide in perfect adherence to those terms, but he knew his life depended on trying.
We do well to remember this. We come to our King not as loyal subjects demanding what is covenanted to us as the due reward of our obedience. We come as those who know full well that strict adherence to that covenant now would require our death. For we have all of us failed of the terms. All of us, that is, except God. God is faithful. That we dare to come before Him at all can only be put down to our understanding of His faithfulness and His mercy. We continue to come to Him because we know that however unfaithful we have been to that covenant, He has remained faithful and He always will. There is, therefore, no place in us for making demands on our heavenly account. There is no place for, “You must!” It is the height of presumption to come to Him with complaints of, “You said”, or “You promised!” By our own actions, we have made those promises nonbinding. It is only by His mercy that He continues to uphold them in spite of our failings.
Yes, by our adoption, because of the unparalleled efforts of our Brother and Lord, we have access to the throne of God, and we have been given cause to come boldly before Him as more than subjects. We come as family. But, we dare not come with presumption. We ought not dare to suggest that we are in any position to lay demands upon Him. We come as a people who recognize that they have failed to abide by the rules of the house. We come as children who know they have broken trust. But, we come as children who know the love of our Father. We come as needy, disreputable children in need of forgiveness and restoration. We come as prodigals repenting of our willful wickedness. Else, we come in vain.
It is insulting in the utmost to come to God demanding action of Him. This attitude declares that He is not God, He is not in charge; we are. It throws the covenant in His face, declares that we, in our superiority are not bound by its terms and yet demands that He be so bound. The best light one could cast this action in is that we are lying to His face; that we are claiming we have upheld our end of the deal. How futile is that? What cause does that give Him to answer?
No, if we come in faith, we must necessarily come in worshipful supplication. We don’t come for what we deserve and we know it. We come for something we manifestly do not deserve: the mercy of the very Sovereign against Whom we have sinned. We come not because we have faith in our having complied, but because we have faith in His mercy to forgive our sins against Him. We come not because we hold His promise, but because we know the certainty of His mercy. Our faith is in His faithfulness. You see, we have heard from His representatives that if we will but confess our sins and repent of them, He is faithful to forgive us. This is not in the nature of a promise. This is simply a declaration of His character. We are not coming to Him to insist He fulfill His promise, for we have no grounds to do so. We are coming to Him because faith knows Who He Is.
This is what we find in this woman. She has not simply called Him, ‘Lord’. She approaches Him as that office of Lord deserves. She has not come making demands above her station and her right. She has come bowing before Him in true supplication. This is why she does not reject His equating of her with the dogs of the house. By His office and authority, the assessment is entirely accurate. She is no more deserving of His provision or His kind attentions than those dogs. She has no basis upon which to lay claim to His benevolence, and she doesn’t pretend the situation is otherwise. There is no demand in her approach to this one she acknowledges as her King. There is only the wholly appropriate laying herself upon His mercy. Everything about her approach to Him acknowledges that she has no claim to being worthy of the boon she seeks. Yet, everything about her approach also acknowledges His character, and it is her confidence in His character that allows her to press her point, to continue seeking His aid even when He expresses a certain reticence to act.
Persistence (04/30/08)
Now, if the first test of faith is to steer clear of presumption, the second test is persistence. The first response to her request is not at all positive. It is positively negative! It is rejection, a clear no. Here is faith tested! We have prayed and received no answer. Worse yet, we have received the answer and it goes against what we have sought. How are we to respond? It would seem, in light of His position of sovereignty, that respect for His office and His wisdom would demand that we simply accept His decision and depart. Yet, He has Himself advised us to persist. Pray without ceasing. Storm the gates of heaven with your supplication. Continue to present your case. Even an unworthy judge will eventually render justice to the one who will not go quietly away, and He is worthy.
He invites us to this persistent pestering. He seeks this persistent pestering. Why is that? I say it is simply because that persistence stands as evidence that we know His character. We have heard His initial response, but we know Who He is. We know how He is. Unbelief will simply write Him off as cruel and capricious in His ways, but this only serves to make clear that the unbeliever does not know Him. Faith will persist, even in the face of such a negative response from Him, because faith knows He is faithful and merciful.
So, when we read Mark’s account of this woman that she kept asking Him. She had been rejected in a most humiliating fashion out there on the streets, but she did not stop. She begged Him again and again to take on her case. When He had found a place to stop for the night and retired with His disciples, even then she did not give up. She came and found Him, entered His chosen house – and she, a heathen! What an affront to Jewish sensibilities! No doubt, she was quite aware that no Jew would willingly stand such a thing. But, this too was a recognition that He, the King of kings, was not a typical Jew. This was recognition of the Scriptural Messiah above and beyond the understanding of those He called His own sheep! This displayed an understanding and a belief that exceeded that of those who claimed to be waiting for Him.
By the evidence of the senses, and even the evidence of reason, it would seem this woman had no reason for hope. She had been told that the power and mercy that were His to dispense were not for her. Yet, her faith persisted. She did not, for all this, lose hope. She still found in Him reason to believe, and in belief, to hope.
I would note that real faith doesn’t deny the situation as the senses present it. Real faith doesn’t pretend to have received what has clearly not yet been given. Daniel, praying those long days before God’s angel arrived in answer, did not pretend he had already been answered. He did not pretend that the deliverance he sought for God’s people had already been accomplished. He persisted. You see, he did not believe the answer had been given yet, either pro or con. He recognized that the answer was yet to come, and that the answer would surely come, and so he pressed on.
That is ever the story of people of faith. That is the testimony of the famous chapter of Hebrews describing the heroes of faith. They went to their graves still waiting, still looking to the fulfillment of those things they longed for, still certain that those their prayers would be answered. How long had David been the anointed king of Israel before ever he took the throne? Yet, he did not behave as one who already held that promise. He did not present himself as king before God’s time. He persisted in seeking God and God’s purposes. He persisted in praying for God’s provision and preservation until such time as God fulfilled his prayers.
We love to quote Psalm 121:1-2. I lift my eyes to the mountains. Where will my help come from? The eyes of man see only the mountains, and in those mountains they see something strong, lasting, unshakable. But the eyes of faith see those mountains as evidence of something much greater. They look beyond the mountains to the One who made the mountains! They recognize that the mounts are strong, lasting and unshakable solely because their Maker makes them so. Yes, the unbelievers go up and worship on the mountains, because they think mountains are a place of power, a place to draw closer to their gods and perhaps be heard more clearly. The man of faith looks at the strength of his opposition and knows with absolute certitude that the God he serves is Lord of all and Creator of all. His eyes look to that One in Whom all authority resides and knows that if there is help to be had, it must come from Him. More than that, faith knows that help will come from Him, because it is in His nature to help those who serve Him.
Faith sees the situation. Faith acknowledges that the situation is dire. Enemies surround me like a flood. They come seeking my life, and I am powerless to oppose them. But, the God I serve has declared that He works all things for the good of those who serve Him, and I am His servant. If He has said it, I know it is true. Whatever my current situation, I know He is faithful to His Word, for His Word is the expression of His character and His character is Faithful and True. If He has declared that He works even such trials as these to my good, then I know He does precisely that, and therefore, I know I can face these trials and that I shall indeed come through these trials.
Faith will reverence God as He Is. It will not set Him up according to our own standards and desires, but will simply believe that He Is Who He says He Is. It is this recognition of God’s essence that leads the faithful to come to Him not with demands, but with reverential requests. Faith will never demand its rightful due, for faith knows it has no rights. No. Faith comes in the certainty of God’s grace, for grace is at the essence of Who God reveals Himself to be. Therefore is faith answered, because it has given true testimony to God and God is pleased to add His testimony to the testimony of such faith.
Humility (05/01/08)
One more test of faith remains to be considered yet, and that is the test of humility. However various commentators may seek to mitigate the message, when Jesus speaks of throwing food to the dogs, He is not saying anything kind. Even if it is a household dog He speaks of and not the dogs of the street, this is but a very small improvement. For that culture in that time, dogs were the very emblem of all that is unclean and scornful. Think, for instance, of the insult that was laid upon Jezebel when the nature of her death was prophesied, and when that prophecy came to pass. She, who had been such a power, would be thrown to the dogs.
It is true that the dogs of the house were creatures somewhat more tolerated, but only that: tolerated. They were allowed to live. They could have a corner to sit in, and they could eat whatever they might glean off the floor, but no more. No affection, no food of their own, just this bare tolerance. Such is this woman of Canaan called, by the One she has honored as Lord and King. It occurs to me, as I write this, that perhaps there really is a seed of hope for this woman in the choice of wording Jesus has used. He has spoken of being sent to the lost sheep of the house. Now, He speaks of the children of that house and the dogs. But, let it be noted that though this woman is being compared to a dog, it is a dog of the house. She is not so thoroughly outside the house as to disallow all consideration. She is not cast into the outer darkness. She is at least in the house. There’s a chance.
It is evidence of a true humility in this woman that she does not react in anger to the insult implied in those words. No, she accepts the assessment. “True, Lord, we have no right or reason to expect more from the Lord of Israel’s house.” We are not family. We are not kin.
I think about her answer, and I think about my own response, before coming to Christ, to the suggestion that I was in need of saving. What? You’re calling me a bad person? How dare you! Admittedly, I’m not perfect, but I’m a pretty good guy, better than many, maybe even better than most. You’ve got a nerve, saying I need saving. That, my friends, is not the voice of humility. That’s the voice of pride and vanity. It took a good while after that for God to convince me to concur with His assessment of me. I’d grown rather attached to my own. This woman has either long since come to grips with a very similar assessment, or she has already shed her pride. She does not rise up in offense at the suggestion that she deserves nothing. She agrees. You’re right, I don’t. I’m not here for my rights. I’m here for Your kindness.
Of course, she doesn’t stop with this point. She has her own point to make, a point thoroughly in keeping with all that Jesus has said. It has nothing to do with some claimed unfairness. It in no way denies the propriety of all He has said. Yes, I understand that You, as King of Israel, must be concerned with the wellbeing of Your people, Israel. Yes, I understand that I, being a Canaanite, a Gentile, am not Your concern. Yet, I also understand this: You may not care about that dog, but that dog still eats from the crumbs of Your table constantly. I am not asking for a place at the table. I have no grounds upon which to ask for such great favor. I only ask to be sustained by what Your own children apparently don’t care to eat.
I hear this in part as a judgment against Israel. Here is the utmost Holiness in their presence, here is the Bread of Heaven, and they deem His mercy and His goodness as nothing more than crumbs to be swept to the floor. Consider this parable which Jesus had spoken. “Don’t give holy things to dogs and don’t throw pearls to swine. They will only trample them and then turn on you” (Mt 7:6). Here was the holiest of holy things, and here was one who was as a dog. And why is He here? In a sense, it is because the children of the house have thrown Him hence. They have given their Holy One to the dogs, and the dogs are glad enough to be constantly eating of His holiness, if the children are so careless of it.
Children don’t allow the food they love to hit the floor. If it’s something they want to eat, they will go to great lengths to prevent any accidental spillage. It is only the stuff they don’t really want, the stuff their parents make them eat, that they let fall with impunity. Thus, the dogs by and large wind up with a better diet than the children. They may not eat as much, but it is likely to be healthier.
It is the humble acceptance of her answer, and this tacit agreement as to His great worth, that really marks out her faith in this Jesus to Whom she has come. In every respect, she has acknowledged Who He Is, and who she is. She has neither sought to bring Him down to her level, nor to raise herself above her level. And the response from Jesus is wonderful, indeed.
A Teachable Moment (05/01/08-05/02/08)
“Woman, your faith is great!” I can picture Him looking around at His disciples as He says this, drawing their attention to what she has said, and how marvelously well she has presented her case. “And you were going to send her away.” In some respects, it is as though this was the real purpose for which Jesus had come. He is, after all the Teacher and these disciples are His students. In its way, then, this whole trip up to Tyre has been a field trip. There has been this issue with the disciples: they still don’t understand that this is bigger than Israel. They still don’t see the full magnitude of the Gospel, and of the prophecies of the Messiah they know is here.
Their picture of Messiah, their perspective on God Himself, is incomplete. I have heard it said on numerous occasions, that “your God is too small.” I’ve used that line myself, because it so often describes our perspective here in this life. We believe, but not in full. We know Him, but only in part. So it was with the disciples. They believed He was Messiah, but only for Israel. They believed He would save, but not the whole world.
So, consider the way Jesus has addressed this situation. When His disciples suggest that He get rid of this noisy foreign dog that’s yapping at Him, He responds in words that seemingly echo their own sentiment. “I was only sent to the house of Israel.” Yes, they might be thinking. That’s exactly our point, so get this woman off our case. I would note, though, that Jesus is more specific in declaring His mission. He was sent to the lost sheep of that house. One might here Him suggesting by this that it is not those who think themselves faithful and obedient that He has come, but to those who have completely forgotten about God and can’t remember how an Israelite is supposed to be. This is, once again, counter to the typical Israelite’s sense of self. They are the chosen people. That, they suppose, is enough.
It seems to me that this foreign woman has understood the words of Jesus more clearly than His disciples in all this. For, far from being discouraged and turned back by His words, she comes seeking Him out all the more. And, when He suggests to her that it would be poor form on His part to give to a dog, a Gentile unbeliever, what is properly meant for the children of the house, she does not deny His point. Of course, the fact that He must now round them up like the lost sheep they are says much of how greatly they value what is theirs by right. Certainly, the power of Messiah is the food of the chosen people, but they treat it with neglect, let it fall from the table upon which that power has been served for their benefit. If they deem the Gentiles as no more valuable than dogs, they apparently deem their Messiah as no more valuable than the crumbs that those dogs feed on. So, why shouldn’t these dogs have their fill from the crumbs?
The summation is that He is so pleased by her display of understanding that He accedes to her request. It is not that deep understanding and mental agility please the Lord so very much, it is simply that by her understanding, her faith in Him is made evident. She trusts Him not because of some sense of it being her right, but because of her sense of His character. She does not demand of Him, she asks. And, in all this, she displays a greater sense of the God of Israel than much of Israel has displayed. She displays a greater sense of God’s Messiah than Messiah’s disciples have displayed. She is here as a representative of all the nations. His disciples saw no reason for Him to trouble Himself on behalf of this foreigner. They concurred with the idea that He was for Israel alone. By this conversation and its outcome, He has allowed this woman, this representative of the nations, to teach His students to see Him more clearly.
They will need to review the prophecies again. They will need to expand their sense of mission. Indeed, the record shows that even with the earthly ministry of Jesus drawn to a close, it would take some doing before they understood the full scope of what God had just accomplished. But, here are the seeds of understanding firmly planted.
