A Gentile Yet a “True Israelite

Mark 7 : 24 - 30

Rev. Billy Kristanto

The title for our sermon today is a Gentile yet a “true Israelite”. I will come to this topic later on, but when you compare this passage with the previous one then I believe you can notice a pretty stark contrast. I am referring to the contrast with the story about the Pharisees in the preceding passage. As you know, the previous passage dealt with the issue of the law: clean and unclean. Now we see that the story’s perspective has shifted towards the observation of the life of a certain Gentile.

Let us go back to the gospel of Mark again, the 24th verse. Here it is written: “And from there He arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon.” Now if we look at the original Greek language, there is a certain nuance in the verb used for “went” here – “ἀπῆλθεν” (apēlthen), which is stronger in comparison to another verb, which would also translate into “went”, “ἔρχεσθαι” (erchesthai). So “Apēlthen”, which is used here, is stronger. “Apēlthen” usually denotes decisive departure, because, again, the sense is stronger. Now, we might ask what could be the reason. When you read the previous passage, it is pretty clear that Jesus was opposed by the Pharisees as well as Herod Antipas.

I think we have to adopt a certain perspective in the reading of this – I don’t want to use the word “phenomenon”, but in short something that takes place. Aren’t we always taught that we should have perseverance in our ministry? But then why did Jesus, because of opposition from the Pharisees and Herod Antipas, move away to a different place? Is He not a good example of ‘Christian perseverance’? I think we have to differentiate between being discouraged – or maybe even cowardice, with a certain biblical sense of context sensitivity. Certainly, Jesus was not a coward. Nor was He so discouraged by the opposition that He chose an easier region in which to preach the gospel. That’s certainly not the right interpretation. But facing “unteachable” people, again and again and again and again, what right – what privilege did they have that they may always be served patiently? That is the great question. In the Bible there is also this concept of the context sensitivity of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is also God, Jesus is God, the Father is God. If you read in the Bible, the Holy Spirit can also withdraw Himself, because of the opposition. Does that mean that the Holy Spirit does not have perseverance? Or is it more about context sensitivity? We cannot take for granted that we have the opportunity to listen to God’s Word, that we receive so many blessings and spiritual nourishment from the Lord. But if we are unresponsive, then this treatment may stop from the side of God.

I will share with you one of the most difficult passages that we shared during our church retreat – not for the adult sessions but during the children sessions. It is when Jesus told the story whereby the people of Israel were given the opportunity to grow, to be fruitful, but they missed the opportunity; just like the story of the fig tree. It has been years, and God awaits the fruits. But they fail to bear fruits. Then there is one more chance, the last one year, and if there continue not to be any fruits, then the fig tree will be chopped down. So I think the message is pretty clear; it is certainly wrong if we are to interpret it as God giving up due to a lack of perseverance. So when Jesus went away – decisively, and went to a Gentile region, Tyre and Sidon, it is not about discouragement, but rather about divine context sensitivity.

The region that Jesus went to was an entirely pagan area, historically, and its infamous antagonism towards Israel is pretty well recorded. The region of Tyre, for instance, was known as the home of Jezebel, the wife of king Ahab during the time of Elijah. In the Bible itself, in the Old Testament, there is also a certain condemnation against Tyre as you can read in Ezekiel chapter 26 and Zechariah chapter 9. So the fact that Jesus went to this area, which represented arguably the most extreme expression of paganism during that time, shows again and again not only the depth but also the breadth of God’s love. So when He met the Syrophoenician woman, we can read about the expansion of Jesus’ scope of ministry. As you know, the eschatological hope of the Israelites during Jesus’ time was that they hoped that this Messiah would fight for them in overthrowing the Roman Empire. Needless to say that this Messiah is exclusively contained within the need – the political need of the people of Israel. But then we read in this story that Jesus went to Tyre and Sidon. You read here the universalisation of the concept of the Messiah. And this is entirely new and entirely unprecedented in the Judaistic teaching. It is a theological novelty. It’s important to have this universal mentality. If you are Asian you tend to think about Asians and if you are German you tend to think about Germans. If you are from other countries you tend to think about your fellow countrymen. This is pretty normal, of course. But I think we have to grow to understand the life of Jesus; the heart of our God.

So again, you see here a movement from the encounter with the Pharisees – the so-called “experts of the law”, the scribes, the lawyers. And now He moves on to the Gentile region. Earlier I just talked to brother Tjokro about the distribution of flyers for our music worship service. I do not know if we should distribute around this area or if we should look for another area. Of course, I am not Jesus. It might be the fact that I am too discouraged. But let us pray to be context sensitive as well. Perhaps God wants us to distribute the flyers somewhere else. Just like the principle used by Jesus during His ministry. However we have to be careful that we do not easily justify our discouragement with the life of Jesus. Of course, that is not the point. Now let us continue the reading.

“And He entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet He could not be hidden.” At least we know that Jesus did not seek fame. When He was alone, we know that He used those moments to pray and have a special and deep relationship with the Father. But His superfluous life could not be contained. This is the important point – His superfluous life. [Note: I believe this was a mistranslation and that pastor Billy meant to say bountiful] That is why you read here, from verse 25, that “immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of Him and came and fell down at His feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged Him to cast the demon out of her daughter.” I think the heart of this story lies in verse 27, this interesting dialog between Jesus and this woman. “And He said to her, ‘Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Now there is a lot of debate around the word “dogs” here. How should we interpret the word “dogs”? Of course when you read in the Old Testament, the reputation of dogs is certainly pejorative. They eat garbage – corpses even, so they are like the epitome of uncleanness. But then if you interpret the “dogs” used here in the direction of uncleanness, that would betray the previous teaching. Was it not the case that Jesus was debating the idea of “clean” and “unclean” against the Pharisees by emphasising that the intention of the heart has more to do rather than the external ceremony. And now suddenly He seems to emphasise the uncleanness of the gentile person. Is that not rather contradictory? Some scholars then refer to the use of the diminutive form of the word “dogs” here in the original language. The “street dog” is usually called “κύων” (kyon) in Greek, but in this verse the diminutive form “κυνάριον” (kunárion) is used. “Kunárion” is used to describe a pet, or a small dog that could be kept as a pet. This is also a classical interpretation, another scholar argues back that that interpretation is not right – pushing the idea of “kunárion” or the “cuteness” of the dog does not fit Jesus’ profile. Etc etc. I think there is also a point, so it is pretty complicated. I think there is nothing cute in the struggle of this Synophoneician woman. But I am still persuaded by the interpretation that highlights the diminutive form, using the word “kunárion” instead of “kyon”, because there is a certain range of meaning in the word “kunárion” which can be translated as “the small dog kept in the house as a pet”. We know that during Jesus’ time not everybody was free. There were the slaves, and the free. The children, and the free. In Latin children is “Liberi” which basically means “free man” or “free person”. That is children. In contrast with servants or with slaves. So when Jesus said to her “let the children be fed first” certainly He had in mind the children of Israel. “It is not right to take the children’s bread” – the people of Israel, “and throw it to the dogs.” the Gentile person. But then when you read her answer, she said: “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” There is a slight change, or modification that is not reflected in the English language but is very much clear in the original language. When Jesus talked about children He refers to Israel as “τέκνον” (teknon), meaning the biological children. But the woman then refers to Israel as “παιδίον” (paidion) which has a more inclusive range of meaning implying not only biological children, but also servants in the household.

What is the meaning of all of this complicated exegesis? When the term “dog” used here is not “kyon” but “kunárion”, the range of meaning is about the household. Not about the “cuteness”, but about the dog as belonging to the household of a certain family. This is not a street dog but rather a pet that belongs to the household. It is very interesting when you read the answer of this woman. You can compare the story to the account of Matthew in which Jesus indeed praised the faith of this woman, whereas in Mark the story is much simpler. But I believe this is the center of the message here. Namely that on one hand she humbly accepts the differentiation between children and dogs. There is no struggle for equality here, like being pushed by the leftist agenda for instance. But she accepts humbly that the Gentile simply weren’t the priority. It has always been like that since the Old Testament. The light will shine, but will shine first in Israel and afterwards to the Gentile region. This is confirmed and in accordance with the history of salvation. Understanding this position is very important for Christian spirituality. Of course, I am not against equality. There is a point and a beauty in fighting for equality. But the point is that we don’t see the positions anymore and there is no more order, no more priority etc. etc. I can continue by applying this to the political problem here in Germany for instance which is going to be very sensitive. Which nationality should we care for first here in Germany? The Germans who live here, or maybe nationals from Latin America or perhaps other parts of Europe etc. that is a complicated political discussion. Or even in your own household; do you care more for your children or the children of your neighbour? This is a very simple question. And if you answer that “everybody is equal” well, good luck to your philosophy then. I do not think that that is the teaching and also not the teaching of the Bible. The priority is still there, and is humbly accepted by this woman. I think that is the beauty here. But then, now the great: “yet however”. She doesn’t stop there. “Okay, I belong to the ‘dogs’ region and Israel is the ‘children’.”

I want to quote from a commentary as I think this is a beautiful sentence: “Her pluck and persistence are a testimony to her trust in the sufficiency and surplus of Jesus.” She is not disappointed or let alone discouraged or perhaps angered by this “discrimination”. But she believes that from God, she can be fed as well. The food is enough for everyone. In one sense, she humbly accepts her position. In the other, she also insists that she can eat with the children.

In a world full of competition, sometimes we feel like we don’t have enough room to live. Because of the competition, we feel like we need more room and have to expand ourselves. Hence this unending competition and carnal ambition. I think the beauty of this story is that this woman does not even try to compete with the Israelites. She knows precisely her position. And she doesn’t complain, “Why only Israel? We are also created in the image of God. I am also a human being created by God.” etc. etc. That is not her argument. What she said is rather, “Ok, I might be ‘dog’, but this ‘dog’ belongs to the household. And isn’t it that your food is always enough for everyone?” Such as in the stories of the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand. She doesn’t let her heart or her mind be disappointed by the fact that she was not prioritised, which in many cases is true in this struggle. But rather she refers to the surplus, the abundance of Jesus.

I think the application is pretty simple in our lives. Sometimes we are not given enough space, sometimes we are character assassinated by our competitions, etc. etc. which is very normal in the fallen world. But the Word of God is always enough because there is always surplus. We don’t compete for our career, we don’t compete for love in our family etc. etc. Perhaps the fact that we always compete, and that we like to compete, the underlying assumption is that there is not enough room to live which is why we enter this “either, or” paradigm. If I serve, then you don’t serve. If you serve I don’t serve. Etc. etc. Or if I work, you don’t work. If you work I don’t work. Etc. etc. The lack of faith in the surplus of Jesus. In the abundant life of Jesus. And I think that’s pretty miserable. That is precisely the thought of the Pharisees, I think. They enter into this kind of “either, or” paradigm. “If we let this Jesus grow in popularity, we are truly threatened. That is why we have to kill Him.” Isn’t it ironic that belief in the sufficiency and abundance of Jesus comes rather from a Gentile? She is assured that there is enough food. Even for “dogs”.

Lastly,I want to highlight the topic of this sermon, “A Gentile Person Yet a ‘True Israelite’”. I am inspired by this commentary as well – the commentary that I use, by the way, is from Pillar New Testament commentary if you want to dig further. This commenter compares this Gentile woman with the story of Jacob who struggles with God. Before Jacob met Esau, he was so afraid and struggled the night before, but the Bible says that he has overcome. This is the story of the true Israelite. You should not be content. Sometimes we are content with our spiritual condition, sometimes we are content with the work of God here in Europe. Of course, in one sense it is good to be grateful. Now if for instance this woman would be content after Jesus answered “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” and she replies “Ok in that case, I know my place.” and “Thank you. Goodbye. Have a good day.” But that’s not her answer. She pushed further. Now, if you read this, perhaps from our sensitive Asian perspective, “This is a woman and she says something like this to my God? How dare she? Why not the humble submission?” That is false humility. That is not Christianity. Christianity is to insist on greater blessing from God. That is true Christianity. Such as in the story of Moses. Moses was blessed by God but he asked for more: “Let me see Your glory.” And God answered his prayer. If I may use this phrase, “God let Himself be moved by his prayer.” This is why we call this Gentile woman a true Israelite. She is indeed an example of faith – faith that is never content. Yet not trying to correct her position. Again, she humbly accepted her position. But she has faith in the abundance and the life of God Himself. I hope that we have this kind of faith as well. Again, you might read the account of this story in the gospel of Matthew. But here you read in the gospel of Mark Jesus’ answer in verse 29, “‘For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.’ And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.” (A.H)