Rejection can be one of the most painful experiences any of us can have. Ralph Keyes in his book “Is There Life after High School?” writes that Mia Farrow has never forgotten the time every girl but Mia was asked to dance. Nor has Charles Schulz of “Peanuts” cartoon fame ever forgotten that the yearbook staff rejected his every cartoon. Movie actress Ali McGraw confesses she doesn’t forget the fact that she never had one date in all of high school. Henry Kissinger is best remembered by his classmates as the kid nobody wanted to eat lunch with at school. Rejection can be one of the most traumatic things that can happen to any of us. I know...I received at least a half-dozen rejection slips from publishers until I finally conned one into publishing a book for me some years back. And that may be one reason why I haven’t ventured into the publishing business since!! Rejection is painful. That is why we find it so out of character for Jesus to reject anyone. That’s what makes our Scripture lesson of the morning so difficult to understand.
I. THIS PASSAGE FROM MARK’S GOSPEL IS NOBODY’S FAVORITE. In fact I can only find a couple of other preachers who have had the courage to preach a sermon on it at all. And I wish that I had never chosen this passage in Mark to preach on! It is perhaps the most difficult saying of Jesus in the Gospels. Bill Ritter of Nardin Park Church in Farmington Hills, took a crack at it last fall. He did an excellent job. I give him an “A” for courage. Bill began his sermon on our text with some lines from a once-popular song by John Denver: So live and let live, Let this be our motto, And let the sleeping dogs lie. Here’s to the dogs of Toledo, Ohio; Ladies, we bid you goodbye. Bill says in his sermon: “It was not a very complimentary song, either about Toledo or its ladies. Having spent little time in Toledo, I cannot comment on the accuracy of John Denver’s observation. I trust that he meant it as satire. If not, I trust that he will never return to Toledo.” The song is offensive, to say nothing of terribly chauvinistic. Most of us would be offended by it. Bill says: “If a young man were asked to evaluate his blind-date of the previous evening, and were to respond by barking audibly, only the most immature would find him funny.” (From a sermon preached by William A. Ritter of Nardin Park UMC Oct. 18, 1987)
And yet...and yet...there is the record in the Gospels that Jesus once referred to a foreign woman as a “dog.” How out of character! For us, with few exceptions, dogs are lovable, affectionate, loyal companions. Most of us are shocked at the remark of W.C. Fields who said that “anyone who hates dogs and children can’t be all bad.” But dogs in Biblical Lands and Biblical times were not highly regarded, and, for Jesus’ contemporaries, they were unclean animals. They were regarded more or less as we regard rats: as vermin, to be eliminated whenever possible. Dogs do not have one favorable mention in the whole Bible! That’s another thing that makes our Scripture so difficult to understand.
II. SO LET’S LOOK AT THE SITUATION DESCRIBED IN THE GOSPELS. Mark relates that the incident took place on the borders (Matthew says regions) of Tyre and Sidon. Both towns were situated on the Syrian coast - Tyre being just level with the northern boundary of Galilee, and Sidon some thirty miles north of it. Tyre and Sidon were cities of Phoenicia, and Phoenicia was a part of ancient Syria. It stretched north from Mt. Carmel, right along the coastal plain. Josephus says that Phoenicia “encompassed Galilee.” The region is pagan and Gentile. Jesus has just become a refugee, an exile. He appears to have fled from Galilee because of growing opposition to Him and His movement. Mark says that he entered into a house and wished no one to know it...(lots of luck!) For wherever He went he attracted crowds.
Mark says that the event we are considering involved a Syrophoenician woman - that is, she was Syrophoenician by race but probably Greek-speaking. The woman came asking Jesus’ help for her daughter. The woman Us daughter was ill. The nature of the illness is not described. It is said that she was possessed by an unclean spirit - the ancient way of referring to illnesses which we might ascribe to germs or viruses. Even today we aren’t sure where all of them come from. There is an old adage which says “If they don’t know what it is, they a call it a virus; If they don’t know what it is and can’t get rid of it, they call it an allergy.” The woman comes into the house and throws herself at the feet of Jesus, begging Him to heal her daughter. He refuses...probably because he does not desire the immediate publicity and thronging which would follow an act of healing He had tried to heal in private, but all was in vain. He had sternly charged those whom he had healed not to talk about it, but they had disregarded His injunctions. (Sometimes I think that the best way to get the Good News of the Gospel out might be to absolutely forbid church members to talk about it. That might work...repeating Jesus’ command to go and tell all nations hasn’t worked so well. Maybe we ought to tell folks on Sunday morning to keep the whole thing secret. That might be the fastest way to get the message out...who knows?)
This whole passage seems to be a reflection of other shocking words which Matthew says Jesus spoke: “Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn and attack you.” (Matthew 7:6) We have heard the phrase “casting our pearls before swine.” Many folks probably do not know that it comes from the Bible. It has a rather haughty, snobbish ring in our ears. It can be used humorously, as when a professor I heard of used to quell an unruly class that was beginning to indicate that the time had come for the lecture to end by raising his hand and saying, “One moment please; I have one more pearl to cast.” “Do not give dogs what is holy or cast your pearls before swine.”
One can imagine such sayings circulating in the early days of the Church when the Gospels were being written, and being quoted by some of the more restrictive folks in Jerusalem who argued against taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. Certainly these words were used as arguments against receiving Gentiles into full Christian fellowship. At a slightly later date these words were used as an argument against admitting unbelievers to the Lord’s Supper. In a writing called the “Didache” (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) a manual of Syrian Christianity dated around the year 100, it says: “Let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord. It was concerning this that the Lord said, ‘Do not give dogs what is holy.’” (Didache 9:5) Matthew, being the most Jewish Gospel, may reflect some of the prejudice against Gentiles of the early Church. A whole Church Council had to fight this battle. You read about it in Acts 15. And there was a battle between those two giants of the early Christian faith: Peter and Paul, over this matter of allowing Gentiles into the Church. Peter had once refused to sit down to table with Gentiles, and Paul, not realizing that Peter was the first pope, and therefore presumably infallible, bawled him out to his face. (See Galatians 2:11)
III. WHAT ON EARTH ARE WE TO MAKE OF THIS STRANGE PASSAGE IN MARK? Can we really imagine Jesus turning away anyone in need, rejecting anyone who honestly and sincerely asked Him for help?
The simplest way to deal with the passage is to say that Jesus never said it. If you go this route, you can find some Biblical scholars who agree with you. They will tell you that it was a common proverb of the day, originally spoken by someone else, which accidentally found its way into the Gospels. I don’t find that terribly convincing, but some do. I think that the very awkwardness of the phrase argues for its authenticity. One thing for sure. The event probably actually happened. Otherwise it would not have been included in the Gospels. One general rule-of-thumb followed by Biblical commentators is that the more unlikely the story, the more likely that it is genuine. Got that? The Gospel writers would never have included such difficult and uncharacteristic passages if there were not strong traditions behind them. Another possible explanation is to suggest that Jesus had a smile on His face when He said it. That is the explanation given by the great Scottish Biblical commentator, William Barclay. He notes that the word “dog” was sometimes a Jewish word of contempt for the Gentiles. But, Barclay says, Jesus “did not use the usual word; He used a diminutive word which described, not the wild dogs of the streets, but the little pet lap-dogs of the house. In Greek diminutives are characteristically affectionate.... In any event, Jesus did not shut the door. First, he said, the children must be fed; but only first; there is meat left over for the household pets. True, Israel had the first offer of the Gospel, but only first; there were others still to come. Now, the woman was a Greek, and the Greeks had a gift of repartee; and she saw at once that Jesus was speaking with a smile. She knew that the door was swinging on its hinges.” (William Barclay, DAILY STUDY BIBLE, Phila: Westminster Pres, 1956, P. 182) A number of scholars agree with Barclay that Jesus was not calling Gentiles “dogs” as many of His contemporaries did, but that here the Greek word for “dogs” really means “pets.” The Man who was so quick to compliment the Gentile centurion, who told parables about the Good Samaritan, and characteristically showed particular kindness to defenseless women and little children, must surely have used the phrase gently, perhaps humorously, as we might say to someone: “You sly fox,” “You old goat.” At any rate, the Gentile woman did not take offense at Jesus’ words. I would have. You would have. But she didn’t. Perhaps the overwhelming need of her daughter caused her to ignore what seemed to be a rebuke. It may well have been that she saw a twinkle in Jesus’ eye when he said the words, as though He were saying, “You know how Jews feel about you gentiles...and yet you persist in asking me to do you a favor? Remarkable!” Here was a powerful faith that would not take no for an answer. Even moreso, here was a pushy person. I’ve known some folks like that. They persist - they never give up. I had a senior minister once who was always having his favorite pet projects voted down by church official boards. “Don’t worry,” he would say, “they’ve heard about it. They’ll hear about it again.” Barclay says that symbolically this woman stands for the whole Gentile world. Her faith was tested and her faith was real, and she eagerly seized upon the bread of heaven which so many of those who were first invited - Jesus’ own people - had rejected, and thrown away.
A third explanation of this passage is that Jesus actually shared the prejudices of His time against Gentiles. I find this problematical, inasmuch as the previous passage shows Jesus rejecting the traditions of exclusivity of His people. I find this problematical, but I don’t consider it heretical. Jesus was human. In our zeal to protect our Lord’s divinity, we Christians have sometimes neglected His definite humanity. The Gospels clearly say that Jesus, as He grew, “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” (Luke 2:52) He was trained in the exclusiveness of His day. There is a saying to the effect that the office makes the person. Many a mediocre senator has become a great President; a mediocre minister has become a great bishop. There was a definite greatening of Abraham Lincoln under the stress of the Civil War. Dr. Hillyer H. Straton, a Baptist preacher, in his book on the miracles of Jesus, says: “it is biblical, and not heretical, to hold that the largeness of our Lord was influenced by such situations as this. See the progression: ‘I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel... O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.’ Of another Gentile, Jesus said: ‘I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.’ And finally we have his inclusive ‘Come unto me, ALL ye that labour.’ and ‘Go ye therefore, and teach all nations.’” (“Preaching the Miracles of Jesus” by Hillyer Hawthorne Straton, New York and Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950, P.100) I have no problem believing that Jesus’ own understanding of His Messianic mission grew with the maturation of His years, from the moment when He heard God’s affirmation at His baptism until His sending forth of the disciples into all the world. Much of the debate over the controversial new movie “The Last temptation of Christ,” it seems to me, centers on whether we really and truly believe that Jesus was human, “tempted in all points like as we” as the Letter to the Hebrews puts it.(I haven’t seen the movie, but intend to do so before passing judgment on it.) Christians from the very first have had a hard time understanding the complete humanity of our Lord. But Christianity says that He was both human and divine. It is entirely possible that this event on the border of a pagan land marked a turning point in Jesus’ own realization of His mission. Israel of old forgot that her mission was to be a light unto the Gentiles. And in Jesus, Israel, God’s people, was reduced to ONE. What was Jesus’ mission and purpose? To get the Good News to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, of course. But also, eventually, in the providence of God, into all the world....even to us. It is fascinating to think that perhaps if there had not been this difficult dialogue on the Phoenician border you and I would not be here this morning.
Well, which view is the “correct” one? As a a theology professor of mine used to say: “You pays your money and you takes your choice.” I WISH I COULD NOW GIVE YOU THE “TRUE VIEW.” I have read commentary after commentary, and none of them satisfies me fully. You’d be amazed at some of the theological raindances which Biblical commentators do around this awkward event in the life of our Lord. Perhaps we will have to suspend judgment until we know more. John Wesley gave us this rule for interpreting Scripture: First we compare Scripture with Scripture. Then we apply reason. If all else fails, put it on the back burner (my words, not his) until new light comes. I have to confess that there are some things in the Scriptures which do not admit of easy interpretation.
I think that Jesus mission to the Jews and His disciples’ subsequent mission to the Gentiles has something to do with it. Matthew may be onto something when He has Jesus say in connection with this passage: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) Later in Matthew 16 Jesus tells the infant Church that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” And the ancient rabbis called the pagan, Gentile cities “the gates of hell.” There is more than a hint in the Gospels that Jesus conceived of His mission and ministry to Jews, and that His disciples would carry the Good News forth to Gentiles. Later on, St. Paul will say that He is the prime apostle to the Gentiles. But Jesus got the whole thing started here, in “the region of Tyre and Sidon.”
In Elizabeth Yates’ book: HOWARD THURMAN: PORTRAIT OF A PRACTICAL DREAMER there is the story that when Thurman was in India in 1935, he spoke in many villages. Late one night a lad knocked on his door. His dress revealed that he was an “untouchable,” and he told this story in broken, faltering English. “I stood outside the building and listened to your lecture Sahib Doctor. Tell me, please, can you give some hope to a nobody” The boy fell to his knees and Thurman reached out compassionately to him. Thurman knew what it is to be classed as a “nobody.” As a black man, he had often endured rejection in a white man’s world. But he had committed his life to the ministry of a love that identifies with suffering humanity, of reaching out to “nobodies” of this world in the name of Jesus Christ.
Well, Jesus knew what it was to be a “nobody.” “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” the people asked. Some even accused Him of being illegitimate. He was despised and rejected Himself. And that is why I cannot accept any explanation of this strange story which has Him despising and rejecting another human being. Say that the story got garbled in translation, say that it never happened quite the way Mark reports it, say that Jesus said these words with a smile on His face, say anything you like, but don’t try to tell me that Jesus ever rejected anyone who sincerely sought for His help. That’s not the Christ I know. As the hymn says: “God never yet forsook at need/The soul that trusted Him indeed.” Not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Christ whom I love and serve opens wide His arms unto all the world, saying, “Come unto me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28) Whatever He says in our Scripture passage for the morning, ultimately, He said “ALL.” And that “all” includes us.