The story of the Canaanite woman is one of ways by which Matthew proclaims the gospel for his readers. Matthew proclaims the good news of Jesus, not by writing a theological essay, but by narrating the story of the words and deeds of Jesus. In this case, he does so by the story of a Canaanite woman seeking healing for her daughter. Matthew tells this story, not as bland historical information, but with an acute sense of the theological meaning of events he records. Matthew conveys this rich theological perspective by the carefully crafted way he tells the story. It is not that he often intrudes as editor directly telling his readers the meaning of the events. Rather he suggests that meaning to his readers by his choice of words, by repeated patterns of words, by the setting of the stories and so forth. In other words, Matthew uses narrative techniques both to tell his story and to show the underlying theological meaning of that story. Matthew’s theological perspective emerges from his beautiful and subtle literary style. Therefore Matthew’s gospel may be described as "theological narrative." Narrative may be the means to explore human psychology or ethical issues or many other matters. But for Matthew, narrative is the means by which he tells his readers the good news of God’s saving actions through Jesus. In this brief study we will consider an example of Matthew’s narrative technique by examining this story of the Canaanite woman with a demon-possessed daughter. The goal of our literary analysis is theological insight. In this way the preacher may be helped in his task of proclaiming the gospel from the Gospel of Matthew.
The story of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15 presents the modern reader with a number of interpretive difficulties. Besides the difference in ancestry assigned to the woman in Matthew and Mark, both versions confront the reader with awkwardness of Jesus’ ignoring of the woman. For the modern reader Jesus says hard words that he is sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and that it is not good to give the bread of the children to dogs. Yet in the end Jesus grants the woman her request and her daughter is healed. Through a literary analysis of this passage in its context within the overall thematic flow of Matthew’s gospel we hope to show, not only the resolution of these interpretive difficulties, but the profound meaning of the gospel as Matthew portrays it. Here is Matthew’s story as the New American Standard translates it.
Jesus went away from there, and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed." But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us." But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.
Let us begin by noting that although Mark identifies this woman as a Greek of Syrophoenician ancestry (7:26 -EllhniV, Surofoinikissa) , in Matthew’s narrative she is only described as a Canaanite (Cananaia). The NAS entitles this pericope in Matthew with a designation derived from Mark: "The Syrophonician Woman." Such a title illustrates the propensity to read the Gospels for the sake of harmonization rather than in terms of each Gospels distinctive thematic structure. It is entirely plausible that her mother was Canaanite and her father a Syrophoenician. But even if the Canaanite connection were a grand parent or a great grand parent, the apparent conflict in designations between Mark and Matthew is resolved. It is also possible that Mark’s designation of the woman as a Syrophonecian is intended as a regional and not an ethnic designation. However the harmonization problem is resolved, for Matthew’s readers the woman is simply a Canaanite. It is on that designation that Matthew builds his narrative. To bring in the question of Mark’s differing description of this woman’s ancestry only confuses the interpretation of the story in Matthew. Matthew and his readers only know of a Canaanite woman. Mark’s description of the same woman as of Syrophonician ancestry in literarily irrelevant to the interpretation of Matthew’s narrative.
In this episode the woman seeks the help of Jesus because her daughter is severely demonized. The affliction of the daughter represents the condition of her ancestry who worshiped, not the true God, but only demons. The Israelites mingled with and learned the customs of the Canaanites and the other nations around them. They sacrificed to their gods. Both Moses and the Psalmist describe this as worship offered to the demons (Deut. 32:17 - equsan daimnioiV kai ou qew; and Psalm 106:37 - kai equsan touV uiouV autwn kai taV qugateraV autwn toiV daimonioiV). It is, therefore, no surprise that a Canaanite is demonized. What else could be expected from such an accursed people? But the reader of Matthew is aware that such demon possession afflicts Israelites as well. Just as the spiritual state of Israel mirrored that of the Canaanites in the days of Moses, so it does also in the days of Jesus. In earlier days the Israelites sacrificed to demons as did the Canaanites. So in Jesus’ day the Israelites are demonized as is the Canaanite girl. In other words, the Israelites have become Canaanites, spiritually speaking.
When this Canaanite woman came out to Jesus, she remained at a distance, crying out, "have mercy on me." Her cry appeared to fall on deaf ears. Jesus made no response whatsoever to her entreaties. His disciples asked him to send her away but he did not send her away. Instead, Jesus said to the disciples, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Such words could have justified sending her away but Jesus did not send her away. He allowed the situation to continue and the tension to increase between her insistent request and his own studied silence.
This tension becomes all the more intense when we remember that God in Deuteronomy 7:2 had forbidden the Israelites to show mercy to the Canaanites. God’s command (as rendered by the Septuagint) was oude mh elehshte autouV (nor show them any mercy). This is the same verb (eleew) used by the woman in Matthew’s narrative. God forbade showing mercy to Canaanites but this Canaanite woman asked insistently for mercy. What would Jesus do? Jesus seemed to affirm that this command was still in force for he said that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This narrowly defined mission is not a new concept for the reader. The angel had told Joseph to name the infant "Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." Similarly, when Jesus sent out the twelve, he instructed them to go only "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." This is the identical with the phrase used by Jesus in our episode to describe the limitation of his ministry.
While this limitation sounds harsh in our ears, it would not have so sounded in the ears of the twelve. They were not in the least been surprised that Jesus said that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Indeed, he had sent them out with the same limitation. What is surprising was Jesus’ refusal to heed the counsel of his disciples and send the woman away. Yet Matthew has prepared his reader for this in the way he has set the scene. He began this episode by telling us that Jesus left where he was and withdrew into the regions of Tyre and Sidon. This was precisely what Jesus had forbidden his disciples to do. In 10:5 Jesus commanded the twelve, eiV odon eqnwn mh apelqhte (do not go into the way of the Gentiles). In this story Jesus departed Israel and withdrew into Gentile country taking the twelve with him. He himself went into the way of the Gentiles. He arranged the situation where he would be confronted with non-Israelites who would seek mercy from him. Jesus’ deliberate action of going into Gentile country leaves the reader with the expectation that Jesus will continue his ministry there. When he ignores the woman’s cries for mercy, the reader is confused and troubled. Jesus said he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel but he has left Israel and withdrawn into Gentile country. The verb is anacwrew which Matthew has used for the Magi’s return to their own country and for Joseph’s flight into Egypt and his return. It carries the sense of departing into another country or returning to one’s own country since it is composed of the prefix ana plus the root cwr which means country. The noun from the same root is cwra. A Canaanite woman pled for mercy and he answered her not a word. Yet he also refused the request of the twelve to send her away.
When Jesus said to the twelve that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the woman responded in a most remarkable way. Rather than taking offence, she came near to Jesus and offered some form of homage to him. The verb proskunew is variously translated as bow down (NAS), kneel (NIV, RSV, NRSV) or worship (KVJ, ASV, NKJV). In Matthew’s diction this is a loaded term perhaps best rendered in English by a phrase such as "do homage." The term can describe either the homage an inferior gives to a superior, or the homage men give to God. In Matthew’s use proskunew does not describe a merely outward gesture such as bowing or kneeling but an inward state of reverence and submission. (Matthew couples piptw with proskunew where piptw carries the notion of a physical gesture and proskune,w the notion of a psychological state of offering homage, reverence and submission to another. See 2:11, 4:9.) The reader has already encountered instances where people have offered homage to Jesus. The magi fell down and paid homage to Jesus. So did the leper, and the disciples in the boat after Jesus came to them walking on the sea.
The significance of all of these instances of proskunew is founded upon Jesus’ citation of Deuteronomy 6:13. In the final temptation in the wilderness Jesus replied to Satan saying Kurion ton qeon sou proskunhseiV kai autw monw latreuseiV. The Septuagint has fobeomai (fear) rather than proskunew (give homage). Jesus in Matthew’s account substitutes proskunew. Jesus refuses to do homage to Satan because God’s command is that we are to do homage to God and to serve him only.
However this woman did homage to Jesus saying "Lord, help me." Implicitly she acted toward him according to his true nature as Emmanuel though it is doubtful that she understood fully what that meant. She offered to Jesus the correct response. She called him Lord. She sought from him mercy. She paid homage to him. This is in marked contrast to the scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem who in the preceding pericope complained that Jesus’ disciples did not perform the proper ceremonial washing of hands before they ate. These Jerusalem leaders were rebuked by Jesus for substituting their traditions for the commands of God. But they did not hear Jesus’ rebuke with faith. Rather they took offense at his words. The words of Jesus scandalized them. But the words of Jesus did not scandalize this woman. She heard Jesus’ hard words and still paid him homage. Then Jesus said even harder words that it is not good to take the bread of the children and toss it to the dogs. Hearing these words, the woman responded by saying that even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the table. She will not be deterred in her quest for mercy from Jesus. No wonder Jesus acknowledged her great faith.
In Matthew’s gospel only this Canaanite woman and the Roman Centurion are said by Jesus to have great faith. The disciples are repeatedly rebuked by Jesus for have only a little faith. The scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests have no faith but instead are scandalized by Jesus. It is only outside of Israel that Jesus found great faith. It is a "dog," a Canaanite, who has great faith while the leaders of Israel take offense and plot how to rid themselves of this troublesome Jesus. They sought a reason to arrest him but she paid him homage. They plot his demise but she cried out for his mercy. Therefore Jesus said that it would be done to her as she desired. Matthew tells us that from that very hour her daughter was healed.
In this passage we see a number of Matthean themes developed. First this story gives us an example that anticipates the teaching of Jesus that first shall be last and the last shall be first (19:30, 20:16). Such foreshadowing in not uncommon in Matthew. No one is more last than a Canaanite, yet she has great faith and receives healing for her daughter. No one is more first (as least in their own estimation) than the Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees. But they are only scandalized. Second we see an anticipation of Jesus’ words in the parable of the tenants that the kingdom will be taken from Israel and given to a people who do its fruit. The saving rule of God comes to this Canaanite woman but only judgment awaits Jerusalem. Salvation has come to worst of the Gentiles, a Canaanite.
This point is conveyed by Matthew’s choice of the verb iaomai to describe the healing of the woman’s daughter. Normally, Matthew uses qerapeuw for Jesus’ acts of healing. He uses this verb 16 times. Only on three occasions does he use iaomai. The other narrative use is the story of the Centurion. The Centurion episode and the Canaanite woman episodes are very similar. Both are Gentiles who request healing for a child. Both are said to have great faith. And in both the verb used to describe the healing is iaomai. Between these two episodes is the parable sermon of chapter 13 where Jesus cites Isaiah 6:9-10 (from the Septuagint). He says, "Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive; for the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them." The verb translated "heal" is iva,omai. The healing spoken of by Isaiah is not merely outward healing of the body. It is rather a healing that is a metaphor for the salvation of God. Israel has closed eyes and dull hearts. They saw the works of Jesus and heard the words of Jesus but they did not understand and turn to the Lord. Great numbers of Israelites are healed (qerapeuw) but they are not really healed in the Isaianic sense (iaomai). In contrast this Canaanite woman saw with spiritual perception, and heard with true understanding and so came to Jesus with great faith. As a result the healing (iaomai) which was refused Israel came instead to the home of a Canaanite. The last have become first. The kingdom of God has come to a Canaanite, but Israel has refused her King crying out "Crucify him" and "Let his blood be upon us."
Rereading the passage in light of the above analysis, it now appears that Jesus’ initial ignoring of the woman and his latter hard words were intended to draw out the faith of this woman. This is implied by his refusal to send her away. It is also implied by the fact that Jesus has healed Gentiles before as in the stories of the Centurion and the Gadarene demoniacs. These stories together with the Canaanite woman prepare the reader for the transition from a ministry focused only on Israel (chapter 10) to a ministry focused on the whole world (chapter 28). This is a central thematic focus of Matthew’s narrative. Even more so that Luke or Mark, Matthew stresses the rejection of Israel and the inclusion of the Gentiles. So then this story prepares the reader for the judgment against Jerusalem (olivet discourse) and the replacement of Israel with a new people who will do the fruit of the kingdom (parable of the tenants).
Further, the story of the Canaanite woman illustrates the proper response the reader is to have to Jesus. Like the Canaanite woman, the issue for the reader is how he or she will respond to the words of Jesus. Will the reader be scandalized as the scribes and Pharisees were? Or will the reader come to Jesus insistently seeking mercy from him and doing homage to him? So then, this passage provides the preacher with a text by which to call his listeners to respond appropriately to Jesus. It also provides a definition by illustration of what true faith in Jesus means. We see in the Canaanite woman that such faith is utterly bereft of self-congratulation and self-confidence. The woman accepts even the status of being no better than a dog. Her whole hope is not in her attainments or ancestry but only in that Jesus should have mercy on her. She comes to Jesus, not with momentary faith but with a persistent and insistent faith. She will not be turned aside but even to the point of being annoying in her clamoring for the mercy of Jesus. Is your faith like that of the Canaanite woman? Do you above all else seek his mercy? Would be willing to be classed with the dogs if that is what it takes to find mercy?
Finally, in this story Jesus is offered to us as the only source of mercy, mercy so rich and free it reaches even Canaanites. The Canaanite woman is the despised of the despised, a mere dog compared to the children. She is the epitome of the rejected to whom no mercy ought to be shown. As such she represents the true condition of every person who being a sinner from birth is a spiritual Canaanite regardless of his human pedigree. Yet to such a Canaanite Jesus grants mercy and heals her daughter. So too the preacher can address his audience that not one of them is so despised and rejected that Jesus will not receive him if he comes with the same humble and persistent faith that this Canaanite woman had. This is the good news that those in the pews (and in the world) need to hear in our day.
Dr. Jack Kinneer