This coming Sunday is the 20th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Lectionary Cycle A. Between the 19th and 20th Sundays in Year A, Mt 15:1-21 are passed over. Jesus’ three acts of power in Mt 14 (feeding the 5,000; walking on water; and the healings at Gennesaret)  are followed by a controversy with the Pharisees and scribes.

In order to provide a context let us briefly describe the events which lead us to Jesus’ encounter with the Canaanite woman. These verses describe Jesus’ teaching on how the purity laws of Leviticus are to be understood. In a way it is an extension of the Sermon on the Mount. Borrowing Jesus’ oft repeated phrase, “You have heard it said… by the Pharisees, but I say to you…this is what is at the heart of our purity laws received from God.”

The specific issue for debate is the disciples’ failure to observe the rules of ritual purity/cleanliness as exactly as the Pharisees did (v. 2). The Pharisees had received and built up a body of tradition designed to ensure the observance of the written Law. Their intentions were good: if one does not break the traditions then one will never break the commandment/Law and then God will never again punish the people by Exile. The people will remain a covenant people; at least so went the thinking. The Pharisees also saw the special Levitical (priestly) rules as having value and helping attain holiness and so they also wished to extend to all Israelites the rules that originally applied only to members of priestly families on the grounds that Israel is a priestly people. That is the background in Mt 15:2 where they expected Jesus and his followers to observe the rules of priestly purity spelled out in Lev 22:1–16.

The first part of Jesus’ response (15:3–9) attacks the Pharisees’ idea of tradition. Jesus argues that sometimes their tradition leads to breaking the clear commands of the law (vv. 3–6). The commandment about honoring one’s parents is stated in the law both positively (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16) and negatively (Exod 21:17). But the Pharisees’ tradition, according to Jesus, allows a person to place property under sacred vow as a means of preventing the parents from having access to it. Thus a pious fiction provides the excuse for disregarding and getting around a sacred obligation encouraged by the law. The words of Isa 29:13 are used to brand such behavior as hypocrisy. The tradition that claims to protect the law actually violates it.

The second part of Jesus’ response (Mt 15:10–20) concentrates on the specific issue of ritual purity. The statement in v.11 to the effect that there is only moral uncleanness is very radical, since large parts of the Old Testament law concern ritual uncleanness contracted by touching and by eating certain foods: “It is not what enters one’s mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one.” Only a firm faith in Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of the law could allow Matthew and his community to accept such a revolutionary teaching.

The basic statements in verse 11 are joined with a very harsh judgment on the Pharisees (vv. 12–14) and an explanation for the disciples of Jesus (vv. 15–20). When informed about the Pharisees’ offense at his teaching, Jesus denies their spiritual roots (v. 13) and condemns them as blind guides leading others to destruction (v. 14). Peter’s request for an explanation of Jesus’ teaching in verse 15 assumes that “parable” means “mystery” or “riddle.” Jesus’ explanation in verses 17–20 merely expands and makes concrete the radical statement in verse 11: “…the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile. For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” (Mt 15:17-20)

Image credit: Jean Germain Drouais, Christ and the Canaanite Woman, 1784, Louvre Museum | Public Domain