Saturday, May 17, 2014
Pentecost 9 Proper 15A ~ the Syro-phoenician Woman
…foreigners who join
themselves to the LORD,
…I will bring to my holy
mountain,
…for my house shall be called a
house of prayer
for all peoples.
“All peoples”. So what about the Syrophoenician woman? Why
did He call her a “dog”. What is the meaning of this harshness, so
uncharacteristic of our Lord – at least when speaking to the poor? As usual,
the answer may lie in the context – the part of the Gospel bracketed for
optional use! The incident of the Syrophoenician woman comes right after the
latest cryptic saying in this summer’s lectionary, followed as usual by a
helpful explanation for the disciples. [This time, perhaps, more helpful than
usual!].
This happened in the country we call Lebanon, the part of the
region of ancient Syria that became a separate country after WW I. That’s why
she is called “Syro-phoenician”. And
Phoenicia was the coastline of this country, named for the REALLY ancient,
sea-going civilization, from before the time of Moses, that may even have
traded with England. So, this woman makes a good representative for all the
“nations”. And let us remember that when our version uses these words:
“nations” and “peoples”, IT IS
TRANSLATING THE Hebrew goyim – a
none-too-flattering reference to those who were outside the Covenant with
Israel.
Now, the covenant had to do with keeping the Law given to
Moses. By Jesus’ time, this included elaborations regarding ritual purity.
Contact with what was considered “unclean” –
like dogs or goyim – was to be
avoided, as were a number of foods. I think that’s what this passage is really
about. In the optional part, we hear the teaching:
“ it is not what goes into the
mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that
defiles." And Jesus (or,
probably, the Evangelist) explains that “spiritual uncleanness is not a matter
of externals, but of what is going on in your own heart”.
So the incident in the Lebanon acts out the teaching. For the
disciples’ benefit, Jesus plays the part of those who took offense at His
teaching on spiritual defilement, comparing the woman to an unclean dog. I take
this to be irony. Because in the next breath, Jesus repudiates His own
pronouncement that His mission was only to “the lost sheep of Israel”, and extends
His healing ministry to a non-Jew, who represents all who trust in the goodness
of His Father, by whatever name they use. The Father has sent Jesus for
everybody. Anyway, that is the proclamation of the Church.
We find it in all three readings today: the prophetic hymn
about the inclusion of all the goyim
in the Temple, the House of Prayer for ALL People; the psalm in which all the goyim praise the Lord; and the extremely important observation of St. Paul
that those who, unlike himself and many other Jews, did not accept Jesus, were
in no way cut off from the promises of God. Those promises are irrevocable. The
love of God is never withdrawn. Human sin cannot conquer divine mercy. And the
Father, who shows mercy to the goyim
– like the Syrophoenician woman – does not withhold it from the descendants of
Abraham. His Covenant with them remains in force. Only now there is a New
Covenant that extends mercy to everyone else, too.
I would venture to say that the figure of speech the woman used,
about crumbs falling from the Master’s table to feed the dogs, may be
interpreted as a reference to Holy Communion: that which goes in through the
mouth not to defile but to sanctify. The little Crumbs we eat from the Master’s
Table include us in the meal he provides for His children. We even call this
meal the Sign of the New Covenant:
This is My Blood of the New
Covenant,
which is shed for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins.
“For many”, in the original language, I am told, has
the connotation of “for all”. “For you and for many” – for you Jews, and for
everyone else, too. “For the forgiveness of sins.” And here we come to the
second theme of today’s propers, found in the Collect.
…you have given your only Son to be for us
a sacrifice for sin, and also an example of godly life: Give us grace to
receive thankfully the fruits of his redeeming work, and to follow daily in the
blessed steps of his most holy life
Part II of this sermon takes us
into the modern revision of thinking regarding the “fruits of His redeeming
work”, a revision that involves the recovery of the teaching of the ancient
Church. It seems that in the flowering of Medieval theology in Western Europe (though
not in the Eastern part of the Church), the understanding of Christ’s work –
what He came to earth to do – was one of two things: satisfaction for sin OR an
example of godly life. Our collect – in good Anglican style – would include
both views. This was still a lively debate when the first BCP came out in the
16th Century. And Anglicanism was and is all about inclusion of as many warring
factions as possible. And both views are very much with us to this day.
The “satisfaction” doctrine holds that
everything is about “me and my sins”. I can’t pay for them myself, and God’s
justice demands satisfaction and SOMWEBODY has to pay, so He pays the price
Himself, by sending His Son to die. This is such standard teaching in the West,
that we call Christ’s work “atonement”. It is easy to forget that the Church
has never made a dogmatic pronouncement to that effect. Other views are
possible, such as that Jesus’ work was mainly to show us how to live in a way
pleasing to God. But in both Late Medieval theories, it’s all about us.
But there is a little problem:
God’s mercy is invincible and eternal. Our sins cannot conquer it, and our sins
were forgiven from all eternity – before we committed them, before the
Incarnation and Death of Christ. The Blood of Christ was not required to wash
them away. So what did He mean by saying that the Cup of His Blood of the New
Covenant was for the “forgiveness of sins”? How about this: God’s sacrifice for
sin was His vindication in OUR eyes.
Have you ever heard anyone say “I
can’t believe in your God, because how could a good God make a world with such
terrible evil and suffering?” That is what the Cross is for: not so much to pay
some price that we cannot pay, as to wash away our sinful way of seeing things
by showing us that God suffers the consequences of His own Creation. Like Adam,
we blame God for our own sin: “The woman – whom YOU gave me – she gave me and I
did eat”. It’s YOUR fault, for creating me in the first place! The Cross is
God’s answer to that original sin.
To sacrifice means to make holy, and maybe the “Sacrifice for
sin” is God’s way of making holy our sinful consciousness that blames Him for
our own embrace of death. His Blood is, indeed, shed for us – and for all –
could it be that it is shed so that we may forgive ourselves and one another,
and stop blaming Him?
The ancient view of the work of
Christ, recovered through study of the ancient theologians, is about a whole
lot more than “me and my sin”: it is about the Transfiguration of the cosmos.
The whole universe – everything that is – is perfected and bathed in glory by
the Incarnation, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are part of this
Redemption – a crucial part, infact, literally – but it’s not ALL about us.
Just as the Messiah came NOT “only
to the lost sheep of Israel”, but to all those unclean goyim the Syrophoenician woman represents, so the Redeeming work of
Christ is not ONLY for us human beings, but for all Creation.
