We have in previous discussions agreed on the essentiality of the literal interpretation of scripture as the first port of call when interpreting it. Keeping this in mind we turn to the construction of certain sentences and use the literal model to understand and penetrate their meaning The construction of the sentences while old-fashioned, are, nonetheless intelligible:
1. “I farm not, but for the love of it.”
If you were to read only up to the comma it would be taken to mean the writer does not farm, however, acknowledging the next two words "but for" we then understand that the writer does not farm for any other reason than that reason which follows, and what follows is: "the love of it" (farming). And so we quite rightly understand the writer does not farm for any other reason than that he/she loves it. It is not for economic gain, neither is it for any other reason, this we might say, is self evident.
Now follow the development of these sentences, (it will become apparent later why we are paying such attention to them). Chiefly it is to lay a foundation for how we ordinarily understand a sentence- the better to see what we have done when we depart from the ordinary literary sense of a sentence, it will then be more manifest when we have manipulated the sense to suit our psychology and/or theology. Remember exegesis is the extraction of meaning- reading the meaning from the text, whereas Eisegesis is reading a meaning into a text.
2. “I farm not, but for the love of cows” Here the sense has changed from #1. only in respect of cows, the farmer farms for no other reason than the love of cows, not farming per se.
3. “I farm not, but for the love of Jersey cows” In this sentence the meaning is identical but for one qualification, it is a particular kind of cow- namely those of the Jersey breed. And so we have two particulars- the love is directed to a) cows, and b) Jersey cows, therefore the action (farming) is undertaken for no other reason but the love of cows, and not cows generally but Jersey cows in particular. The criteria have taken a greater specificity, narrowing the possibilities.
4. “I farm not, but for the love of big framed Jersey cows.” At this point the sentence remains the same except for an additional qualification, namely it is now for big-framed Jersey cows. Now there is an additional qualification, and so a more particular exclusivity.
Some Observations: Firstly the number one sentence is very general, for this reason although it doesn’t give as much information as the following ones; none of the other sentences actually contradict it.
None of the other sentences contradict each other but each one progressively gives more information, and is more specific.
Discuss:
(Matthew 15:24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Note the construction of words in bold, and the particularities, compare with the sentences in the study above and relate to context (Mth 15) with particular regard to the woman and the metaphor of the scavenging dog.
And behold a women of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son Of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answers her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth Lord; yet the dogs eat of the crumbs, which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. Mathew 15:22-28
The apparent stony silence, which met the Canaanite woman's cry to Jesus, was to test and manifest her faith. Faith indeed it was, since, she called him, “thou son of David”- a recognition of his status as the Messiah or Christ. At first he didn’t answer for perhaps two reasons. It was customary for Jewish men not to speak directly to women who were not known to them; and secondly and more significantly she was a woman of another country, which were despised by the Jews. His disciples confirmed their distaste and their prejudice against her by asking him to tell her to go away. Finally, as if provoked by their bigotry, he answered, saying “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”. I am not sent - meaning, “I am sent exclusively for the lost sheep of the house of Israel”
The exclusiveness of this statement is clearly twofold. Firstly, as if he said: I am not sent for sheep that know their place, (or appear to) but to those that do not know their position in the house of Israel. The statement here indicates that those who boast of their position as a descendant of Abraham but do not recognize the Messiah have in fact no place in Israel- that is, the true Israel. And secondly, the exclusivity of the statement refers to Israel. I am not sent- he says- to find Canaanite sheep, or Samaritan sheep or sheep of any other kingdom or nation but I am sent for Israelite sheep. It must, of necessity, follow therefore, that all, that are “found of him”, are, of the house of Israel, and no one else. Here we see clearly the inference of two Israels, on the one hand, “the Israel after the flesh”(1 Corinthians 10:18), which is easily recognizable and then the “Israel of God”(Galatians 6:16), which is acknowledged as the spiritual Israel, to which belong the lost sheep that Jesus was seeking.
If Jesus acknowledged this Canaanite woman as a lost sheep, then she is of the house of Israel, but being Canaanite she is not an Israelite in the ordinary sense of the word. There is therefore only one conclusion that can be true, and that is, she is of the “Israel of God”. Of course as Christians we are not strangers to this principle. It is commonly understood that people of faith are found universally, that is- in all groups of people regardless of race etc. This truth was a source of much difficulty for the Jews, and doubtless, still is to this very day. On the other hand, within the wider body of believers there is the true church. We accept all believers as His, on face value, but we are also aware, that at the end of the age the tares (which look like wheat) shall be separated from the wheat.
In Jesus’ day it was the common understanding that Israel were the chosen people, but the true Israel were his on the basis of faith alone just as it is true of the church today. Faith in Christ is the universal point, which divides, irrespective of race, colour, culture or any other external thing, that same faith is also the universal criteria, which unites the true children of God. Hear these words; and may they sink deep. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36 (See figure 1)
When Jesus confirmed he was sent only for lost sheep, this seems to have spurred the woman on, she came, perhaps being encouraged by that statement, “and worshipped him” A loyal subject indeed! “But he”, using the full potential and impact of this opportunity, both to strengthen the woman's faith, and to manifest to his disciples the spiritual implications of the situation, “answered and said, ‘It is not meet’ (right), ‘to take the children’s bread and to cast it to dogs.’
The children’s bread is a reference to the children of Israel who were given Manna in the wilderness, which is a type of the church and Christ. As it is written “For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” John 6:33. And again “I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out”. John 6:35-37
And so back to the Canaanite woman. He was in fact saying- I am sent of God for none but his true children, repeating what he had said previously but using different expressions. Only in this instance he is seemingly even more discouraging to the woman because of his reference to dogs. I believe it was William Barclay the eminent Scottish theologian who gave the background understanding of this derogatory term. In ancient times, scrounging, marauding dogs often plagued the villages and towns roaming the outskirts on a constant lookout for an opportunity to snatch an easy meal, and of course, were highly unpopular, just as wandering dogs are to this day. It was a common taunt of the Jewish people to refer to outsiders, i.e. gentiles and any other people outside of Israel, as dogs.
Well what was the effect of these words whose meaning and inferences would not have been lost on her? Completely undeterred, she adeptly side-stepped the provocative meaning of the dog, and acknowledged that, yes, He spoke the truth, but she was not a dog outside of the kingdom, and in all humility, she recognized she had no right to eat at the table, but her position none-the less, was that of grace and privilege-the same as it is for all of us in fact.
There is, in truth, only one that has the right to eat at the table- the master-Christ. Just as there was only one, who, without sin, had the right to cast the first stone at the woman taken in adultery. All others must come by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. “Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.” Mathew 15:22-28
No comments:
Post a Comment