December 16, 2005

REFLECTIONS ON CHILDREN, DOGS AND BREAD

Mark 7:24-8:10

That is a strange story we read a few minutes ago, isn’t it? (Mark 7:24-30) At a first reading, Jesus’ answer to the woman seems completely out of character, and even offensive. What is going on in this passage? Before I answer that question, let me point out that we are also including two more incidents as part of this message this morning. The next one is found in Mark 7:31-37, in which Jesus heals a deaf and dumb man by placing his fingers in the man’s ears, and by touching the man’s tongue with his own saliva. Then the final one is the incident in which Jesus fed a crowd of 4000 people, using only 7 loaves of bread and a few fish.

The first question I want to deal with is: Is there a link or common theme that ties these three incidents together? There is, and it is a very important one. But it may not be immediately apparent to a casual reading. The common link is that all three of these incidents take place in Gentile territory and involve Gentile individuals or audiences.

Why is this significant? So far, Mark’s account has been almost exclusively about Jews and Jewish audiences and Jesus’ claims to be the Jewish Messiah. If you remember my introduction to the Gospel of Mark, you may recall that I stated that Mark was writing primarily for a Roman audience. If this was so, then Mark’s readers might be excused for getting a little impatient. What does all this talk about a Jewish teacher and Messiah and conflicts over Jewish laws and traditions have to do with me? The stories about the miracles are interesting, but what is the relevance to us as Gentiles? In this context, these three incidents are hugely significant, because they give hints of what is to come, hints of Jesus’ wider purpose and broader agenda.

The first story is the most revealing. To understand it fully, we need to place the incident in context. Mark introduces the story by telling us that Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. We are not exactly sure of what “that place” is; possibly Capernaum, but certainly Galilee. But he went to the vicinity of Tyre. That is in modern day Lebanon. The key is that it is a Gentile area. It is Jesus’ only recorded visit as an adult outside the traditional boundaries of Israel.

I think it is worth asking: Why did Jesus leave Galilee at this particular time? We can actually suggest several good reasons. One is that he is continuing to look for a place of retreat and rest with his disciples. They couldn’t seem to find it in Galilee. So he looks for it outside of Israel. We are told that he did not want anyone to know that he was in the region. I think that is one reason he went, but I don’t think it is the only or even the most important one. A number of events and clues indicate that he and his followers are increasingly at risk in Galilee. We know that word of his miracles has attracted the attention of Herod, who recently executed John the Baptist. We also know that Jesus is facing increasing hostility and rejection from the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem. The first half of Mark 7 records Jesus’ stinging condemnation of them over the matter of their traditions and view of ritual cleansing, and we know they are already seeking a way to kill him. Finally, if we include the record of John’s gospel, we know that following Jesus’ feeding of the 5000, Jesus gave his great Bread of Life discourse. The truths he proclaimed there were so powerful and controversial that many of his followers turned away from him. So it is a time of increasing rejection of Jesus and his ministry by the Jews. We need this context to understand what happens in this story.

Jesus arrives in Tyre, and in spite of his desire for a private visit, word of his presence leaks out. A woman comes to see him. We are told clearly that she is not a Jew. She is Greek in language or culture, and a Syro-Phoenician by birth. She had a daughter who was possessed by an evil spirit, and she comes and falls at Jesus’ feet and implores him to drive the demon out.

Now we come to the troubling part of the story. Jesus says to her: First let the children eat all they want, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs. Who are the children and who are the dogs in Jesus’ saying? To understand this a little more clearly, let’s look at Matthew’s account of the same event in Matthew 15:21-28. In this account, we see in verse 22 that she addressed him as “Lord, Son of David.” This is a clear Messianic allusion. What right did she, as a non-Jew, have to petition the Jewish Messiah? At this point the disciples get involved. This is clearly their reasoning. They want to send her away. Jesus articulates their thoughts in verse 24: I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. I believe the way Jesus answered the woman was done primarily for the disciples’ benefit.

In the Jewish world view, the Jews were God’s children. They referred to everyone else, all the Gentiles, as dogs. So Jesus reflects that world view to the woman. “How can I help you? It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” Now there is a subtle nuance here. The word for dogs that the Jews usually used when referring to Gentiles was a much harsher and more derogatory term, used for the stray dogs that rummaged in the garbage heaps and alley ways of the villages. The word Jesus uses is the word for a small dog or puppy, a family pet; one that would actually be allowed under the family’s table. So Jesus takes traditional Jewish thinking, but with that subtle change in words, he robs his statement of its sting. I personally think he introduces a small element of humor into the situation. I suspect he had a twinkle in his eye when he said it.

Look at how the woman responds in Mark 7:28: “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Let’s complete the picture here. Children are notoriously messy eaters. But I suggest that there is more to the picture than that. In the eating custom of the day, bread was the staple of the diet. When served with other food, the bread also served as a spoon or dining utensil. The bread would be broken and used to pick up or sop up the sauce or vegetables or meat as it still is in many places in the world today. As it was used, it became soggy. If the children were picky eaters, they would lay this bread aside, maybe brush it from the table or even throw it to the pet dogs waiting under the table.

What the woman is really saying is simply this: “But the little dogs do get to eat what the children don’t want.” Now the question is, what was the bread the “children” of Israel were pushing from their table? Remember, Jesus has left Galilee because of the increasing rejection of his ministry by the Jews. He had proclaimed himself to be the “bread of life that came down from heaven” and he invited the people to eat. When he did that, many of his followers walked away.

Now this Gentile woman finds him in his place of retreat. She evidences a keener perception of what was happening than any of Jesus’ disciples. Jesus is delighted by her answer. “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.” In Matthew’s account he adds the words, “Woman, you have great faith.”

Jesus had come to offer the Kingdom of God to the Jews first. But it was always God’s plan to extend his kingdom beyond Israel’s borders. Even in the original promises to Abraham, God said, “All peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” Here in this passage in Mark, a glorious future for the Gentiles is hinted at as Abraham’s seed, the Messiah, reaches out to bless this Gentile woman and heal her daughter. And he did it in response to her faith, just as he had blessed Abraham because of his faith.

The next incident is another healing miracle. When we read this story, we are intrigued by Jesus’ method. Why did he touch the man’s ears? What role did his spitting and touching the man’s tongue with his saliva play in the healing. Why did Jesus sigh? As interesting as these questions are, we don’t have answers to them. I believe they are here simply as clear touches of the eye-witness nature of the account. But there are some significant ingredients in the account. The first is where it took place. We are told that Jesus is now in the region of the Decapolis. Remember, this is an area of ten cities on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee. What is more, this is a region populated largely by Gentiles.

The nature of this miracle is also significant, as it is a clear marker of Messianic prophecy. In Isaiah 35:5-6, Isaiah prophecies: Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer and the mute tongue shout for joy. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word translated “mute tongue” is an uncommon word. But significantly, the same Greek word is used here in Mark’s account to describe this man who could hardly talk. But this sign of Messiah’s healing power is being performed in Gentile territory, very probably on a Gentile man. The response of the crowd is significant in verse 37: People were overwhelmed with amazement, “He has done everything well,” they said. “He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.” Matthew significantly adds the words, “And they praised the God of Israel.” This largely Gentile crowd saw Jesus miracles, and they gave praise to the God of Israel. It is another hint to the larger purposes of God in sending the Messiah.

Thirdly, today, we are looking at the account of another feeding miracle. Mark introduces the story with the words, “During those days.”  The days in question are the time he spent ministering in the Decapolis. So he is still in Gentile territory. Not everyone realizes that there were two such miracles. This is not a variant account, but another incident. Some people question why Jesus performed such a miracle on two different occasions, and if he did, why the disciples were so obtuse and dense in not believing Jesus could do it a second time. I believe the answer to both objections lies in the Gentile context of the miracle. This is another and separate miracle for a very different audience. What’s more, his disciples did not expect, or necessarily even want him to perform such a miracle in this context precisely because the crowd was largely Gentile.

If you follow John’s account of the feeding of the 5000, after that incident, the crowd came and asked him to keep on feeding them. “Give us more bread,” they asked in so many words. Jesus refused to give them more physical bread, and instead offers himself as the living bread. Now, if Jesus has refused to feed a Jewish audience, why would his disciples expect him to do a miracle to feed a Gentile multitude? So once again they raise the objection that there is nowhere to buy bread for so many. Once again Jesus sends them to reconnoiter and find out how much bread is available. In this case, they find 7 loaves of bread and a few fish. Jesus has the crowd seated and once again he takes the loaves and the fish and gives thanks and breaks them and gives them to the disciples who give them to this Gentile crowd. And when they are finished and everyone is full, they gather seven baskets of scraps left over.

Are you seeing a pattern of symbolism here, related to bread? Jesus feeds a Jewish multitude with bread. But when he offers himself as the living bread, they refuse to eat. Then he goes to a Gentile region, and a Gentile woman says, by faith, “Give me the bread that the children don’t want.” Now Jesus symbolically performs an almost identical miracle of feeding a great multitude, only it is a Gentile crowd, as he offers the bread the children of Israel didn’t want to the Gentiles.

Jesus is here signaling to his followers, and to the Gentiles in these regions, that he has come down from heaven with wider purpose and a broader agenda. He has come for the people of Israel. And it is to them that he goes first, and it is to them that he offers himself first. But in light of their rejection, he is already signaling that he has a plan to offer himself and his salvation to the Gentiles and these accounts signal that many of them were ready to receive him. I believe that is what is going on under the surface and between the lines of these three accounts.

I believe these were incidents and teaching opportunities that Jesus’ disciples didn’t “get” until much later. But they did eventually catch on. Remember, Mark’s particular source was Peter. It was Peter who, some years later, would be sent by God to proclaim the Gospel to Cornelius, a Roman centurion. His conclusion on that occasion is found in Acts 10:34-35: Now I realize how true it is that God does not show favorites, but accepts men from every nation… And when he reports back to the other apostles, they conclude in Acts 11:18, So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life. Now, in Mark’s account, he shows us the foreshadowing of that wonderful truth in these events in Jesus’ own ministry among the Gentiles. I can almost hear Peter in relating these events to Mark, saying, “Now I understand what he was trying to teach us, even back then. God’s grace extends to everyone who will put their faith in Jesus.”

What are the implications for us today? Let me highlight several.

Let us rejoice that we have been included. As far as I know, all of us here today are Gentiles. We were not born as physical descendants of Israel. Yet we are preparing to celebrate the birth of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. Why is that? Because he included us. John says in John 1:11-12, He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. He is speaking specifically of the nation of Israel there. But he goes on: Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. Jesus, the “Bread of Life” has offered himself to all who will receive him, regardless of national, physical, or even spiritual heritage. These first hints in Mark’s Gospel of Jesus’ concern for the Gentiles are hugely significant for us.

Let us recognize that inclusion is by grace, through faith. Jesus marveled at the woman’s faith. And then, although she, as a Gentile, had no legal claim on him as the Son of David, the Jewish Messiah, he extended his grace to her. That is the only way that anyone can be included in the kingdom of God. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Let us embrace the reality that all who have been included are one. We can celebrate the fact that there are no dogs in the kingdom of God, but all are children. Did you see that in the verse I just read in John 1:12? To all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. Paul says it this way in Ephesians 2:19: Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household. Our God has made us one.

Let us accept the responsibility that comes with being included. Let us pick up Paul’s thought in Romans 10:12-15: For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile – the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?

These are all truths worth pondering as we prepare to celebrate the Christmas season.