I’m surprised that in the history of the interpretation of Matthew no one I can identify has picked up on the tension between the accounts of Jesus healing the centurion’s servant (Matt 8) and the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (Matt 15). I take it that both of these passages are part of the New Israel motif in Matthew and are included to explain the surprising success of the Pauline mission. Apparently, the author pastes them into the narrative somewhat indiscriminately because they leave Jesus looking a bit two-faced and perhaps even make him out to be a liar.

For the centurion, Jesus is practically a cheerleader: he immediately starts out to get the job done, and when the centurion tells Jesus there’s no need to make the trip with his “just say the word,” Jesus blubbers over his faith. Of course, with the Syrophoenician woman, it’s like pulling teeth to even get Jesus to respond. And when he finally does, Jesus isn’t just rude, calling her a dog, he apparently lies by saying, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Really? What about the centurion? Then it was no problem! Sure, Jesus finally gets with the program and commends her faith too, but not before all the drama had to play out. It’s a remarkable story because, as far as I can tell, it’s the only time in the gospels that Jesus gets bested in an argument. Anyway, I’m surprised that, from what I can tell, systematic theologians haven’t fallen all over themselves trying to reconcile these accounts. They pretty much leave it alone. Was there no textual monkey business going on either? Anyway, taken at face value, Jesus not only treated the woman shamefully (because, unlike the centurion, she wasn’t a mucky muck?), he lied to her.