© 2024 Evan D. Garner
Audio of this sermon can be heard here. Video can be seen here.
Twelve years ago next month, our family adopted a cat from the local animal shelter. After looking through the online database of available animals, we had decided that this particular black and white cat, whom the shelter had named Andrew, would be the perfect addition to our family. So I put the pet carrier in the car and drove to the animal shelter.
I walked in, carrier in hand, and declared, “I’m here to adopt Andrew the cat.” Only at that moment, when I saw the puzzled look on the shelter employee’s face, did it occur to me that I might want to meet Andrew and hold him before taking him home. But, when I picked him up and heard his loud, near-constant purr, I knew that he was the right one.
I went back to the front desk to confirm my choice. “Okay,” the employee said, “we’ll just need to take down some information.” Again, it hadn’t occurred to me that shelter would have any interest in knowing who was adopting its animals, but, as the questions became more and more personal, I realized that they were evaluating my worthiness as a pet owner.
Q: “How many pets do you currently own?”
A: “Just one—a dog.”
Q: “Are you confident that your dog will welcome a new kitten into your home?”
A: “Well, I hadn’t really thought about that, but he’s a pretty nice dog, so I think so?”
Q: “What is your household income?”
A: “Really? You need to know that?”
Q: “How much money can you afford to spend on vet bills, food, litter, toys, and other supplies?”
A: “Wow, this is pretty serious. Um, enough, I guess.”
Q: “What is the cat going to be used for?”
A: “Excuse me? What is the cat going to be used for? I don’t understand.”
Q: “You know, what will its purpose be? What role will it have? Why are you adopting it?”
I had always assumed that animals were adopted to be pets, to be companions, to be a part of your family. I didn’t know why else anyone would adopt a cat—except maybe to breed the cat, but all the animals at the shelter were fixed, so that was out. I was still confused, but I could tell that my answers were being scrutinized, and I didn’t want to fail now.
A: “I’m sorry. I’m not trying to be difficult. I really don’t understand your question. We’re adopting a cat because we want a cat. Help me understand what the options are.”
Q: “Are you looking for a mouser?”
A: “A mouser? As in am I adopting this cat because I want it to catch mice?”
Feeling the pressure of the interrogation, I panicked. Was that allowed? Or was a classic Tom and Jerry situation frowned upon? I didn’t know what to say.
A: “Well, I wouldn’t be opposed to this cat catching a mouse, but that’s not why we’re getting it. We just want a cat—a pet.”
Apparently, that answer was good enough because I was allowed to bring Andrew home to meet our family. I asked our children whether they wanted to keep the name Andrew. The shelter had given him that designation but hadn’t used it consistently, so he didn’t recognize it as his name, meaning that we could change it if we wanted to. “Do you want to change his name?” I asked. “Yes,” was the instant reply, “to Fetch.” “Fetch?” I asked. “Why Fetch?” “Because cats like to chase things,” which is true but not really in the sense that his name implies, but it stuck. We didn’t get a mouser, but Fetch regularly brings little presents into the house for us to chase around and catch. As is usually the case with cats, he’s in charge, and we seem to be there for his amusement.
In today’s gospel lesson, it’s the role of dogs in society that’s under investigation, and sorting through two radically different visions helps us understand what this passage is supposed to teach us.
Mark tells us that “[Jesus] entered a house and didn’t want anyone to know that 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 fell down at his feet.” By this point in the gospel story, this sort of encounter is familiar. Someone in need comes to Jesus and asks him for help. But, this time, the person who asks for help is a Gentile.
It's hard for us in twenty-first-century America to appreciate how clear and distinct the divide between Jews and Gentiles was for Jesus and his contemporaries. More than a religious distinction, this was a social, economic, political, and cultural chasm that separated two radically different and fundamentally irreconcilable peoples. Everything about them was different, including the kind of pets they kept at home.
Gentile families, like this Syrophoenician woman, were fond of puppy dogs. In Pompeii, under the ashes from Mount Vesuvius, the mummified remains of a dog were found, still wearing its collar, having been kept tied up in its family’s garden when the volcano erupted in 79AD. But back then Jewish people almost never kept a dog in their home. Dogs were notoriously unclean—not just in the roll-around-in-the-dirt sort of way but in the ritual, religious sense as well. Dogs like to dig and scavenge, and there’s always a chance that a dog will uncover and come into contact with something that will make them a carrier of ritual impurity. Under rabbinic rules, dogs were not even allowed in the city of Jerusalem (4QMMT B 58-62).
In Jewish culture, therefore, the term dog became a familiar slur for Gentiles, not only because they kept dogs as pets but also because they were thought to act like them. Unlike their Jewish counterparts, who kept kosher as an act of faithfulness, Gentiles ate more or less indiscriminately—at least without regard for their religious identity. Similarly, the Book of Deuteronomy uses the word “dog” as a label for male prostitutes, again probably because Gentile culture did not observe the same prohibitions on sexual behavior that the Jewish faith taught (Deut. 23:19).
So when Jesus said to the Syrophoenician woman, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs,” he was embodying a cultural divide as old as the patriarchs. He was reflecting a long tradition of faithful Jewish people who thought of their Gentile neighbors as ritually speaking no different from the stray, four-legged scavengers who roamed the streets of a city like Tyre. But that doesn’t mean Jesus was right. And the woman’s bold, clever, and self-effacing response helps us see it.
When Jesus compared the woman to a dog, he must have had in mind the kind of stray animal that threatened the religious purity of God’s people. For a faithful Jew, dogs were not a beloved pet but an unwelcomed obstacle to faithfulness. But that’s not how the woman understood it. She came from a different place—a different perspective. To her and to her people, a dog was a delight, a playmate, a companion, a best friend. To a Gentile like her, a dog belonged among the people of the house, not the garbage in the street. Why would anyone refuse to allow a sweet puppy dog to come into their home? Why would anyone not welcome a canine companion as a beloved member of their family?
With an insight that only an outsider like her could have, the Syrophoenician woman looked up at Jesus and said, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” And, with those words, she challenged not only Jesus’ denial of her request but the centuries of tradition that had taught that only the descendants of Jacob could be called children of Abraham. She might be different from Jesus and his disciples. She might not speak the same language, eat the same food, or tell the same bedtime stories to her children. But she was a child of God who belonged among God’s family because the salvation of the world, which begins with God’s love for the covenant people of Israel, can never be confined to the few. God’s love must always be given to everyone. All means all.
Jesus didn’t come to Tyre, a predominantly Gentile community, looking to heal a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter. He travelled there to get away from the religious authorities with whom he had been quarreling over issues of ritual purity. As Lora mentioned in her sermon last Sunday, they were upset that Jesus allowed his disciples to eat without washing their hands in the way that strictly religious Jews did. In response, Jesus taught them that it isn’t what goes into a person that makes them unclean but what comes out. In effect, Jesus cast aside the dietary and purification practices that helped distinguish the Jews from their Gentile neighbors, but even he may not have thought through how far the implications of that teaching would go.
Now, confronted by a Gentile mother who effectively asked Jesus to cast aside the ethnic distinctions that defined the boundaries of salvation, Jesus was forced to make a choice. How far would God’s love reach? This woman showed Jesus that to expand the circle does not threaten God’s salvation; it only increases it. I believe that the gospel tradition records and preserves Jesus’ shocking words because it recognizes that what takes place is more than the healing of one Gentile daughter. This is an opportunity to put on the lips of a religious authority—even Jesus—the fullness of our instincts to define the family of God along ethnic lines in order that that tradition might be obliterated. In effect, because of Jesus’ exchange with the Gentile woman, her request challenges not only his presumptions about the family of God but ours as well.
No matter where she is found in relation to those at the master’s table, this gospel story shows us that our place is always standing beside the Syrophoenician woman. We cannot call ourselves Christians if we allow our religious traditions to exclude someone from the family of God, no matter how familiar and important those traditions seem to be. This woman recognizes something in Jesus that no one else has seen before, maybe not even Jesus himself. She is the one who reveals to us that, because of Jesus, no one belongs outside of God’s love.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.