What I Wouldn't Give...

When a Gospel woman exhibits assertiveness or aggressiveness, or when she appears to pose a challenge to Jesus, as long as Jesus remains at the center of the story as the “hero,” the events must be interpreted from his point of view. Add to this the tradition’s insistence that Jesus was “without sin,” and no matter the apparent problems the story might pose, Jesus’ perfection, sinlessness and unquestioned virtue must be defended. And all other characters are viewed through this lens. Take for example the story of the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30 and again in Matthew 15:21-28 as the Canaanite woman). This is the story in which a Gentile woman shouts at Jesus in the street to heal her daughter, “Have mercy on me, Lord.” He responds by saying that he “was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” She approaches again and falls at his feet pleading, “Lord, help me.” He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” What does one do with this story? My students know. When I ask them how this has been interpreted for them invariably one will answer, “He was testing her.” Indeed, I too have been given this explanation ad nauseum. How many times must she prove her faith in him? She has already begged twice. Does Jesus stand there in the midst of this suffering as she begs at his feet and intentionally insist that she beg again? If Jesus remains the hero of the story, if his actions must be defended at all costs, somehow this response seems to satisfy people because evidently it is Jesus’ right to manipulate people however he likes and it is justifiable. So in a traditional reading the woman must be humbled, tested and subdued. I suggest another reading of the story. Place the woman in the center of the story. View the events from her point of view and take seriously the tradition’s claim that Jesus was fully human and “increased in wisdom” (Luke 2:52). In the story, Jesus is quite clear about why he will not help her. She is not a Jew, not one of the “lost sheep of Israel.” He understands his mission to be exclusively to the Jews. But then, the woman challenges this prejudicial refusal to help her, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the masters’ table.” It is SHE who instructs Jesus; it is SHE who expands his view of his own ministry. It is SHE who is teacher in this encounter. The light bulb goes on. Jesus understands his ministry as an inclusive one. In the Markan account he tells the woman, “For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.”

 

This view of the story is very difficult for many people to swallow. Personally, I find that the traditional interpretation gets stuck in my throat. Ethically, a Jesus who is willing to change his mind when prejudice and exclusivity have been pointed out to him is preferable to a Jesus who would intentionally allow a woman’s torment to continue so that he may teach her or someone else a lesson or, to test her faith.

 

It is the case that in the Gospel stories the male disciples are no prize. They are portrayed as dense and slow in their understanding of the Jesus movement. They are impetuous, brash, disloyal and cowardly. And yet, despite their weakness and numerous flaws it is upon their rocks that Jesus “builds” his Church. He calls them into discipleship at the shore of the Sea of Galilee. He transfigures before them.

 

It is also the case that there is not one story in the Gospels of a man who is healed of sexual sin. What I wouldn’t give if only one Gospel story presented such an account. There isn’t a one. Can you imagine the power of such a story? Is this because men in the first century were not guilty of sexual sin? Or because Jesus never encountered a man who had committed adultery or who was sleeping around? Ha!  I doubt it.  It is because sexual sin, in an ancient patriarchal culture belonged to women. There is the account of the woman caught in adultery, the woman at the well  who has had five husbands and her present man is not her husband. The woman who anoints the feet of Jesus and who is simply identified as a sinner has been assumed in the tradition to have been guilty of sexual sin. Mary Magdalene, for whom there is no scriptural evidence of sexual sin, is accused of it anyway. Women, even in the first century are guilty of sexual sin whereas the boys were probably “just being boys.”

 

What I wouldn’t give for there to be a Gospel story that begins, “And Jesus came upon a man who was beating his wife and He said to him…”

 

What I wouldn’t give for a Gospel story that begins, “And they brought to Jesus a man who was accused of raping a woman…”

 

What I wouldn't give for a Gospel story that begins, "And in the Temple there was a priest who had violated a child and Jesus said to him..."

 

What I wouldn’t give for a Gospel story that ends with, “and the man was healed and went into the kitchen and served Him.”

 

What I wouldn’t give. I wonder how differently the 21st century would look if such stories had been included.

 

I want to make it clear that this critique of the Gospels is not leveled at Jesus of Nazareth himself. The earliest Gospel (Mark) was written around 70 CE. Jesus can hardly be held responsible for the way in which the stories about him were transmitted orally and then written. He is not responsible for the selection or omission of stories, nor how they would be chronicled. Indeed, in the Passion account of Matthew there is the story of the woman who anoints him. Just days before the crucifixion Jesus himself foretells his own death. In the Gospel of Matthew, just before the account of the betrayal of Judas and the Last Supper, he is at the house of Simon the leper in Bethany. A woman enters the house “with an alabaster jar of very costly perfume and she poured it on his head.” The disciples object. Jesus makes it very clear how he wants the event remembered, “Truly I tell you wherever this good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.” And yet, we don’t even know her name.