...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 7)

Here also is an opportunity for Jesus to prove His previously made point, which was that if Tyre and Sidon were able to see the miracles that had been seen by the denizens of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, that they would respond in an appropriate manner.  However, given this opportunity, it is to be noted that Jesus says that He “was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”  Undeterred by Jesus’ seeming aversion to Gentile outreach, this woman that had made her initial messianic proclamation, and who had followed and continued to cry out after Jesus, bows down before Jesus and says simply, “Lord, help me!” (Matthew 15:25b)  Surely now one would expect Jesus to respond in the way to which His observers have grown accustomed.  He again disappoints expectations by saying “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (15:26).  Undaunted, the desperate woman offers her reply, saying “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table” (15:27). 

Putting aside the apparently problematic use of “dogs,” which has not yet been on offer from Jesus in His previous dealings with Gentiles, and so apparently is meant to play a rhetorical role in a conversation that has taken the appearance of a rabbinic debate (thereby, in point of fact, elevating this woman---is this encounter taking place at a meal, amplifying Jesus’ point and removing the possibility of insult from His comment?), rather than being used as a demeaning and blanket statement (considering the possibility that Jesus already has in mind what He is going to do for this woman and how He is ultimately going to respond to her), she has taken up the words of Jesus, accepted His statement without challenge, and then added “master” to the fact of her already referring to Him as “Lord” and “Son of David.”  Finally, this is productive of what would be expected from Jesus from the beginning, as He answers her with “Woman, your faith is great!  Let what you want be done for you” (15:28a).  The closing report is that “her daughter was healed from that hour” (15:28b). 

When stepping back from this for a moment and viewing the exchange as a whole, one can find tremendous similarities between the encounter between Jesus and the centurion in Capernaum, and between Jesus and the Canaanite woman in the region of Tyre and Sidon.  While viewing the similarities, one must also consider Jesus’ statement about Tyre and Sidon and their potential response to the miracles that He performed.  As indicated, Matthew neatly introduces this story into the narrative of Jesus that he is telling, and both ends---Jesus’ statement about Tyre and Sidon juxtaposed against the “woes” He pronounced and what takes place here in Tyre and Sidon with this woman---are heavily suggestive when it comes to considering the prescribed treatment of an erring member of the new covenant community as a Gentile or tax collector. 

In the previous story, the centurion comes to Jesus with a request.  The Canaanite woman does likewise.  Jesus responds positively to the centurion, but does not respond to the Canaanite woman (perhaps the Roman commander, as part of the Gentile, tax collecting, oppressive force, would be looked upon as a greater enemy by the majority of Jesus’ and Matthew’s audience, therefore Jesus offers greater compassion and praise to Him, whereas the Canaanite woman would merely be considered a nuisance?).  Upon Jesus’ response, the centurion, even though his request has been granted, says “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof.”  The audience then goes on to find out the reasoning behind these words, as well as the way that He perceives Jesus’ power and authority, as he says “For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me.  I say to this one, ‘Go,” and he goes, and to another “Come’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it” (8:9)  

Corinth's Communion (part 14)

Continuing in this stream of thought, Paul goes on to write “Or do you not know that anyone who is united with a prostitute is one body with her?  For it is said ‘The two will become one flesh.’” (1 Corinthians 6:16)  Paul then hammers home the communal aspect of his use of “body,” thus enabling us to read “But the one united with the Lord is one spirit with Him” (6:17).  To this is then added “Flee sexual immorality!” (6:18a)  Having made this statement, Paul goes on to quote what must have been a portion of what has been reported to him about this church, writing “Every sin a person commits is outside of the body” (6:18b). 

This seems to have unavoidable communal implications, as if Paul was being informed that practices in which some were engaging, which it could be argued did not rightly bear out the image of the Creator God as was intended for ambassadors of the kingdom of that God that had been established upon the earth, should not have a negative effect on the way that Paul views this church or the way that the church is viewed by the community in which it is present---especially if the practices would not necessarily have been considered scandalous to the observing community or if it might have been proposed that such practices were a means of outreach and inclusion of all and sundry in the mold of Jesus’ inclusion, at His tables, of those outside the boundaries of the covenant people. 

To this, Paul replies “but the immoral person sins against his own body” (6:18c).  The use of “immoral” is clearly linked with the previously referenced sexual immorality and the mention of prostitutes, while the use of “body,” taking into consideration the union and uniting aspects that Paul has already mentioned, should be taken as a reference to the church.  Therefore, Paul’s critique asks to be understood as a critique of practices that are allowed to take place within the church (and not necessarily personal practices of individuals in their “private lives”), with these practices causing the church as a body to fall short of its responsibility to bear the image of the Creator God, which it can only do as it imitates Jesus---seeing the Father in Him and in the deeds and practices of His ministry. 

Naturally, Paul is not buying their argument, so the dissertation closes with Paul writing “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?  For you were bought at a price.  Therefore glorify God with your body” (6:19-20).  With this, there are obvious and unmistakably individual and corporate applications and implications.  Clearly, if all of this is considered within the responsibility of the church and its members to be the representatives of a kingdom (a community), one is not to be separated from the other.  

Returning to the thirteenth verse then, it is most interesting to note that talk of prostitutes and sin and the body follows immediately after “Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both” (6:13a), which in turn follows Paul’s rejoinders of “but not everything is beneficial” and “but I will not be controlled by anything” (6:12b,d), which are his apparent responses to the statement that has come to him (again, presumably from this church) that “All things are lawful for me” (6:12a,c).  The juxtaposition of an elaboration on what is lawful, beneficial, controlling, and food, against a statement about sexual immorality and the body, cannot help but cause one to consider yet another common and accepted aspect of ancient meal practice upon which this study has yet to elaborate.  This situating of content concerning sexual morality (or immorality) in the context of food considerations and meal practice may be quite telling for an understanding of the issues at hand in the church at Corinth.