Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. Matthew 15:21-28 (NIV)

The following, pertaining to the story of the Canaanite woman, has really astonished me. I will explain why after you have read the writer’s view of the passage from Scripture alongside it here. We are seeing Jesus here in the process of gaining a new insight into the inclusiveness of God, and into his own part in extending that inclusion to others. And who opens his mind to that new insight? A Gentile woman. Some think that Jesus was simply testing the woman, to see whether she would push on to get what she wanted. But I don't see any reason for Jesus to act like that. I think it more likely that he had absorbed some of his cultural milieu without thinking it through completely. So when Jesus says that it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs, she replies, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.” She is respectfully pointing out to Jesus that the Jews might think of Gentiles as dogs, but if they can be called dogs, then they are the sort of dogs who belong to the family, the dogs who sit under the table and snap up the titbits that fall to the ground. She is saying that there is more than enough of God's goodness to go around and that non-Jews, strangers, foreigners qualify for God's provision. And then we see the greatness of Jesus in his humility. He is not too proud or defensive to be taught a lesson by “one of them”, one of the “out” crowd. Instead of telling someone to throw her out, he says to her, “For saying that, you may go — the demon has left your daughter.” He says, in effect, “You are right!” In effect, he says, “You have taught me something new, something true.” And he is so committed to this new insight that he acts on it by healing the woman's daughter. In this passage the Saviour of the world accepts a new insight about God from a Phoenician woman.

In the previous two entries to Judah’s Journal I raise the question of just who is Jesus. The evidence is compelling in its claim that He is indeed who He is said to be, the Son of God - God incarnate. We are told that He is the image of the invisible God ~ Colossians 1:15. He claims for Himself “I and the Father are one” ~ John 10:30. The Nicene Creed states this as “being of one substance with the Father”.

But Jesus was also born fully human, of flesh and blood, subject to the same temptations and tribulations as all humankind but not giving in to them. While being fully human, He is of one substance with the Father (God), and somehow these two states are held in tension in the one person of Jesus Christ. He is the perfect human. This may be hard to get one’s head around, but that is the conclusion reached by many great minds who have weighed the evidence and can see no better alternative. That is the belief of those who call themselves Christians.

So back to the story of the Canaanite woman…

The writer of the interpretation above sees no reason for Jesus to have the woman plead with Him for her daughter’s healing. I see the writer as having turned his back on the context in which this event occurred, and the knowledge we have of God’s overall plan that involved Jesus.

In the very first place, the Jews were God’s chosen people, those through whom He would recover the situation brought about by mankind’s fall from grace when man disobeyed God and went his own way - which is what we all do. Not to go into the details right here, Jesus was to be the One who would bring redemption - first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles and all the rest of us up through the ages. The Canaanite woman was not a Jew, and thus her situation was not first call for Him. This is the background to understanding the conversation between them.

It is important to realize that the Gospels are, beside an account of the “Good News”, a record of how Jesus taught His disciples. They had to learn God’s plan for His people, and the order and means by which it would come about. At that stage Jesus had not yet become the sacrifice that brought to fruition the plan of redemption. His work was among the Jews… until later.

The woman persisted and kept calling upon Jesus. As her cries became more urgent, her faith grew with it. Recognizing Him, she called Him her Lord. She humbled herself, acknowledging her own unworthiness in relation to Him. This is an essential part of the equation - we are not worthy of our own account, but only by His grace do we receive. Not of our own doing, but by He who shall have the glory. This “small matter” of humility must not be overlooked. Her answers were humble, made more so through her interaction with Jesus, and gave evidence of her great faith. Jesus commented thus, and as a result, He healed her daughter.

The writer ignores that point. He cannot see the reason for initially denying the woman’s request. I see four reasons - the three already mentioned (His purpose in relation to God’s plan, growing her faith, seeking her humility for God’s glory) plus another lesson for the disciples, that of refusing to act simply for the sake of expediency, for getting the woman off their backs so to speak. This was a teaching moment not to be missed.

And now the crunch! The writer states “I think it more likely that he had absorbed some of his cultural milieu without thinking it through completely” and “In effect, he says, ‘You have taught me something new, something true.’ ” What does this say about who Jesus is? He has become so human in this writer’s view that His perfect nature is now compromised such that He has become flawed like the rest of us. The writer has Him succumbing to the cultural conditioning of the day, not thinking something through completely, thus making an error of judgement and requiring to be taught by us instead. What kind of Jesus is that?

This looks to me like a revisionist argument, the product of more liberal theology. Jesus, in being made more man than God, is being reconstructed to be more believable to those who suffer from disbelief. Scripture is being redefined to accommodate our lack of faith - and also our lack of knowledge of God. There is a complete neglect of the context, both the immediate one whereby the disciples are being taught and the woman is attended to spiritually, and the over-reaching one whereby God’s plan for our redemption is revealed. There is a bending of Scripture to satisfy another agenda altogether - the notion of “inclusiveness” which is actually contrary to what this event is about.

What saddens me greatly (about this skewed interpretation that I found) is not just what I have written about it above, but that it is the teaching (a published written sermon) of an Archdeacon of the Anglican Church of New Zealand, the Vicar of my local parish …to which I do not belong.