1. She believes He is so good, that even the tiniest crumb from Him is enough to heal
2. She is confident - similar to the centurion - that He can heal at a a distance. Once He says He will heal her daughter, she believes and goes home. She initially has zero evidence about her daughter being healed other than that He said he would do it. Mark explicitly tells us she went home and found her daughter in bed and the demon gone.
Yes! Her faith is absolutely integral to the story. She very closely parallels the centurion—who is the first Gentile in these gospels to receive a miracle, if I recall correctly.
Similar to the faith of the women with the issue of blood pushing through the crowd, despite cultural restrictions labeling her as unclean, risking her life and focused on the belief and trust that merely touching the hem of His garment would heal her. And He felt the Glory and The Holy Spirit flow out from Him asking “who touched Me?”
This is great! What do you think of the reading that the biblical author is intentionally setting up the drama of the story, emphasizing the reversal in the end? Basically, this reading suggests that Jesus is treating the woman how you would expect a Jewish man to treat a gentile woman, only to flip the script in the end. Not sure this solves the tension either, but I appreciate both takes!
The authors are probably doing that, structurally. It’s compatible with a number of the possibilities I mentioned—especially if Jesus is using this interaction to teach his disciples. The reversal also really emphasizes her contrast with the Pharisees from the previous scene!
There are (interrelated) questions here, if we assume the basic historicity of the gospels (which I do): Why might Jesus have interacted with her in this way? And why do the gospel writers structure and frame the story like this?
I think readers feel a stronger tension when considering the first question, but both questions are important as we interpret the scene.
I've long viewed it as a lesson for the disciples. They want to chase her away, so at first Jesus seems to agree with their racism. I can only imagine them standing there nodding and folding their arms. But then she pushes back, not to change the Lord's mind but to highlight how the kingdom belongs to all those who receive it in faith. So, pretty similar to what you laid out! Jesus spends a lot of time in the gospels looking for faith in people. Maybe it's the same thing at Cana. Maybe he was looking for the faith of "do whatever he tells you."
Glad I could finally read this! Do you think the woman with the issue of blood would fit in this theme too? She doesn’t argue with Jesus but her persistence is pretty cool.
Maybe! I don’t know if there’s anything textually that suggests a parallel, but that would be really interesting to dig into—persistence across the gospels.
2. Re-reading the text, it makes you wonder if the Canaanite woman knew of the Egyptians who left with Israel/Moses. Did she know that God fed those "dogs", just the same as His own people? There's just so much with bread and nations in the Bible that it's hard to know. But I sort of wonder if this woman was playfully reminding Jesus of His own works.
Spot-on question! She knew Israel’s story well enough to call Jesus “Son of David,” which is a really interesting, evocative detail to me —and I’m not entirely sure what to do with it!
How and why did she know it? What else might she have known about Israel’s story?
With the Canaanite woman and Mary, at least, I think we English speakers are inclined to read disrespect into the stories where none was intended, or to perhaps read more than was intended. Change Jesus addressing each woman as a respectful “ma’am” instead of a blunt “woman,” and see how that changes the tone.
100%. When you look at all uses of “Woman” as direct address in the Gospels, he seems to use it gently, even endearingly—with a women he heals, Mary Magdalene after the resurrection, etc.
I appreciate you not approaching the text with a hermeneutic of suspicion. We know Jesus' kindness permeates all of Scripture, so surely there is something good going on here!
Oh! Oh! I love this!!! Also! Regarding women seemingly changing Jesus' mind: something I've been tracking in the Hebrew Bible is the theme of men listening to the voices of wise women. In his tradition, Jesus is acting like David listening to Abigail or Joab listening to the wise woman on the wall (2 Sam 20) etc. Obviously Jesus is better than David or Joab but acting as a Rabbi in his own tradition- he's listening to his wise allies and allowing them to guide him like the heroes of faith who went before him.
Oh! You’ve just sparked a thought! Could this be a reversal, of a sort, of Eden? Adam listened to the voice of the woman, which brings death. But here (and other moments you mentioned in the HB), listening to the voice of the woman brings life.
Thanks for highlighting the wider context of this story. It seems key that Jesus went on to feed the Gentiles after.
Like Terrorwhelming commented, I see the woman's own faith and confident expectation in Jesus's response to be key. She knew what kind of Man she was dealing with. If you consider her confidant banter with Jesus in light of the disciples slow emergence from sexism, racism, ageism (eg. children), and militant Zionism during Jesus's ministry, then this feels more like Jesus schooling the disciples with a mutually trusting exchange of banter/satire between understanding parties.
Nice work! In my reading, I would only change two prepositions:
[She] “came to faith in Jesus” is what you wrote.
I think, based on the text and what you’ve written further about the interactions and the additional context, that what you are describing is:
She came in faith to Jesus.
She already knew him for who he is (according to the text)… and she knew of this God (reference Ezekiel prophetic destruction of Tyre)… and she knew what Jesus was capable of, and she wanted in on it, even if she wasn’t a Jew.
When I have preached on this text and also from a conversation I had with my dad… it is ok, in all circumstances to just confess, “I don’t like this story.”
Then, it still lives, to offer you challenge, or revelation, but rumination and speculation are the futile ground the devil wants you treading. It is for us to trust that some words don’t belong to us just yet.
Thanks Catherine for the reflection on scripture texts. I’m going to bookmark this for its great questions!
Splendid essay! This kind of positive attitude towards difficult passages in the Bible is most welcome. Are you familiar with the practice of lectio divina? It's Latin for "divine reading."
I think it's mostly associated with Catholicism (hence the Latin), but any Christian can use it. What you are doing here with this passage reminds me of lectio divina, especially when you imagine the scene with such detail.
I love what you wrote, especially the connections between the 2 feasts and the crumbs to abundance even with Gentiles. I was enjoying comparing this story with the widow of Zarephath (Phoenician). There Elijah goes during a famine and is provided for by an outsider, who is then blessed. In that context, Jesus’ statement could be almost ironic, and harkens back to a story when an outsider fed a man of God. Also the backdrops have similarities. In Kings there is a famine and Elijah is led to the woman. In this story John is killed and there is upheaval, leading to this moment. In both situations it is scarcity/fear leading out of the land, but it is revealed that God’s provision is so abundant that even being “outside” doesn’t exclude participation. Also, the very places that feel like interruption are actually the front edge of what God is doing.
I love this! I have never seen this pointed out before, that this conversation was a pivot point from ministry to Jews to ministry to Gentiles. Whether it was explicit or implicit, I have generally been taught that ministry to the Gentiles was a post-resurrection innovation--Peter and the sheet full of unclean animals and all that.
I love what Kenneth E Bailey said in all of his commentary on Jesus & women in "Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes," this episode especially. He asserts that this was a lesson for the disciples, where he took on their racism & misogyny and pressed it to its furthest extent, making them uncomfortable when confronted with their own prejudices, and turning the whole thing on its head with the contrast of the righteousness of this unclean foreign woman with the wickedness of the Pharisees.
One thing to note is the woman’s faith.
1. She believes He is so good, that even the tiniest crumb from Him is enough to heal
2. She is confident - similar to the centurion - that He can heal at a a distance. Once He says He will heal her daughter, she believes and goes home. She initially has zero evidence about her daughter being healed other than that He said he would do it. Mark explicitly tells us she went home and found her daughter in bed and the demon gone.
Yes! Her faith is absolutely integral to the story. She very closely parallels the centurion—who is the first Gentile in these gospels to receive a miracle, if I recall correctly.
Similar to the faith of the women with the issue of blood pushing through the crowd, despite cultural restrictions labeling her as unclean, risking her life and focused on the belief and trust that merely touching the hem of His garment would heal her. And He felt the Glory and The Holy Spirit flow out from Him asking “who touched Me?”
This is great! What do you think of the reading that the biblical author is intentionally setting up the drama of the story, emphasizing the reversal in the end? Basically, this reading suggests that Jesus is treating the woman how you would expect a Jewish man to treat a gentile woman, only to flip the script in the end. Not sure this solves the tension either, but I appreciate both takes!
The authors are probably doing that, structurally. It’s compatible with a number of the possibilities I mentioned—especially if Jesus is using this interaction to teach his disciples. The reversal also really emphasizes her contrast with the Pharisees from the previous scene!
There are (interrelated) questions here, if we assume the basic historicity of the gospels (which I do): Why might Jesus have interacted with her in this way? And why do the gospel writers structure and frame the story like this?
I think readers feel a stronger tension when considering the first question, but both questions are important as we interpret the scene.
I've long viewed it as a lesson for the disciples. They want to chase her away, so at first Jesus seems to agree with their racism. I can only imagine them standing there nodding and folding their arms. But then she pushes back, not to change the Lord's mind but to highlight how the kingdom belongs to all those who receive it in faith. So, pretty similar to what you laid out! Jesus spends a lot of time in the gospels looking for faith in people. Maybe it's the same thing at Cana. Maybe he was looking for the faith of "do whatever he tells you."
Yes! I definitely block the scene in my head with the idea that some of it is posturing for the disciples.
Glad I could finally read this! Do you think the woman with the issue of blood would fit in this theme too? She doesn’t argue with Jesus but her persistence is pretty cool.
Maybe! I don’t know if there’s anything textually that suggests a parallel, but that would be really interesting to dig into—persistence across the gospels.
1. I really enjoyed that footnote.
2. Re-reading the text, it makes you wonder if the Canaanite woman knew of the Egyptians who left with Israel/Moses. Did she know that God fed those "dogs", just the same as His own people? There's just so much with bread and nations in the Bible that it's hard to know. But I sort of wonder if this woman was playfully reminding Jesus of His own works.
Spot-on question! She knew Israel’s story well enough to call Jesus “Son of David,” which is a really interesting, evocative detail to me —and I’m not entirely sure what to do with it!
How and why did she know it? What else might she have known about Israel’s story?
With the Canaanite woman and Mary, at least, I think we English speakers are inclined to read disrespect into the stories where none was intended, or to perhaps read more than was intended. Change Jesus addressing each woman as a respectful “ma’am” instead of a blunt “woman,” and see how that changes the tone.
100%. When you look at all uses of “Woman” as direct address in the Gospels, he seems to use it gently, even endearingly—with a women he heals, Mary Magdalene after the resurrection, etc.
Well done!
Thank you!
I appreciate you not approaching the text with a hermeneutic of suspicion. We know Jesus' kindness permeates all of Scripture, so surely there is something good going on here!
Oh! Oh! I love this!!! Also! Regarding women seemingly changing Jesus' mind: something I've been tracking in the Hebrew Bible is the theme of men listening to the voices of wise women. In his tradition, Jesus is acting like David listening to Abigail or Joab listening to the wise woman on the wall (2 Sam 20) etc. Obviously Jesus is better than David or Joab but acting as a Rabbi in his own tradition- he's listening to his wise allies and allowing them to guide him like the heroes of faith who went before him.
Oh! You’ve just sparked a thought! Could this be a reversal, of a sort, of Eden? Adam listened to the voice of the woman, which brings death. But here (and other moments you mentioned in the HB), listening to the voice of the woman brings life.
Absolutely!!
🤯🤯🤯
I came back to bring up Jezebel but I see someone beat me to it!
This is why reading in community is so important!
💯💯💯
Thanks for highlighting the wider context of this story. It seems key that Jesus went on to feed the Gentiles after.
Like Terrorwhelming commented, I see the woman's own faith and confident expectation in Jesus's response to be key. She knew what kind of Man she was dealing with. If you consider her confidant banter with Jesus in light of the disciples slow emergence from sexism, racism, ageism (eg. children), and militant Zionism during Jesus's ministry, then this feels more like Jesus schooling the disciples with a mutually trusting exchange of banter/satire between understanding parties.
Although you wrote this some time ago, it only just now came up to my feed. It is so well done! Thank you for your work as always.
Thank you. I love your careful, thoughtful approach to Scripture. Subscribed.
Nice work! In my reading, I would only change two prepositions:
[She] “came to faith in Jesus” is what you wrote.
I think, based on the text and what you’ve written further about the interactions and the additional context, that what you are describing is:
She came in faith to Jesus.
She already knew him for who he is (according to the text)… and she knew of this God (reference Ezekiel prophetic destruction of Tyre)… and she knew what Jesus was capable of, and she wanted in on it, even if she wasn’t a Jew.
When I have preached on this text and also from a conversation I had with my dad… it is ok, in all circumstances to just confess, “I don’t like this story.”
Then, it still lives, to offer you challenge, or revelation, but rumination and speculation are the futile ground the devil wants you treading. It is for us to trust that some words don’t belong to us just yet.
Thanks Catherine for the reflection on scripture texts. I’m going to bookmark this for its great questions!
Splendid essay! This kind of positive attitude towards difficult passages in the Bible is most welcome. Are you familiar with the practice of lectio divina? It's Latin for "divine reading."
https://www.contemplative.org/post/what-is-lectio-divina-a-guide-to-divine-reading
I think it's mostly associated with Catholicism (hence the Latin), but any Christian can use it. What you are doing here with this passage reminds me of lectio divina, especially when you imagine the scene with such detail.
I love what you wrote, especially the connections between the 2 feasts and the crumbs to abundance even with Gentiles. I was enjoying comparing this story with the widow of Zarephath (Phoenician). There Elijah goes during a famine and is provided for by an outsider, who is then blessed. In that context, Jesus’ statement could be almost ironic, and harkens back to a story when an outsider fed a man of God. Also the backdrops have similarities. In Kings there is a famine and Elijah is led to the woman. In this story John is killed and there is upheaval, leading to this moment. In both situations it is scarcity/fear leading out of the land, but it is revealed that God’s provision is so abundant that even being “outside” doesn’t exclude participation. Also, the very places that feel like interruption are actually the front edge of what God is doing.
I love this! I have never seen this pointed out before, that this conversation was a pivot point from ministry to Jews to ministry to Gentiles. Whether it was explicit or implicit, I have generally been taught that ministry to the Gentiles was a post-resurrection innovation--Peter and the sheet full of unclean animals and all that.
I love what Kenneth E Bailey said in all of his commentary on Jesus & women in "Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes," this episode especially. He asserts that this was a lesson for the disciples, where he took on their racism & misogyny and pressed it to its furthest extent, making them uncomfortable when confronted with their own prejudices, and turning the whole thing on its head with the contrast of the righteousness of this unclean foreign woman with the wickedness of the Pharisees.