Missiology: An

International Review http://mis.sagepub.com/

In Search of the Biblical Foundations of Prophetic Dialogue: Engaging a

Hermeneutics of Otherness
Laurie Brink
Missiology 2013 41: 9
DOI: 10.1177/0091829612464744

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://mis.sagepub.com/content/41/1/9

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society of Missiology

Additional services and information for Missiology: An International Review can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://mis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://mis.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://mis.sagepub.com/content/41/1/9.refs.html

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

464744
2013
MIS41110.1177/0091829612464744Missiology: An International ReviewBrink

Article

Missiology: An International Review

In Search of the Biblical

41(1) 9­–21
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
Foundations of Prophetic co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0091829612464744
Dialogue: Engaging a mis.sagepub.com

Hermeneutics of Otherness1

Laurie Brink
Catholic Theological Union

Abstract
In the search for the biblical foundations of prophetic dialogue, this article seeks to
answer the following questions: “Is dialogue a biblical value?” and “How is ‘prophetic
dialogue’ to be understood in the context of Scripture?” Since prophetic dialogue has
as one of its primary dialogical steps attending to one’s own context and the context
of the other, Segovia’s hermeneutical strategy of otherness and engagement provides
an important lens through which to read and evaluate biblical texts. An exegetical
investigation of Mark 7:26–30 and John 4 through the hermeneutics of otherness
reveals that we are always the other encountering the other, and as such, prophetic
dialogue is more a spirituality than a mission strategy.

Keywords
Prophetic dialogue, hermeneutics of otherness and engagement, Mark 7: 26–30
(Syro-Phoenician woman), John 4 (Samaritan woman at the well)

Introduction
Prophetic dialogue is more a spirituality for mission than a detailed strategy, argue its
proponents, Stephen Bevans and Roger Schroeder in their publication, Prophetic
Dialogue: Reflections on Christian Mission Today (2011). Mission as dialogue
requires that vulnerability, humility, and openness to the other frame the encounter.
And prophetic dialogue qualifies the conversation. “Christians must speak in the con-
text of dialogue, but we must speak, for we indeed have something to say: we are not

Corresponding author:
Laurie Brink, Catholic Theological Union Chicago, IL.
Email: lbrinkop@ctu.edu

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

10 Missiology: An International Review 41(1)

ashamed of the gospel, because ‘it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who
has faith’” (2011: 38). Bevans and Schroeder find scriptural support for their approach
to mission in the Acts of the Apostles and various letters of Paul. But can support for
prophetic dialogue as a mission strategy (and spirituality) be traced more broadly
within the Scriptures? How does dialogue appear in the Old Testament and where does
Jesus demonstrate an openness to the other? This article proposes that a hermeneutic
of otherness and engagement2 is required in order to discover the biblical foundations
of prophetic dialogue. And like prophetic dialogue itself, this hermeneutic is both a
strategy and a spirituality.
An often overlooked beatitude praises those who can truly see the Good News
before them. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus says to his disciples, “Blessed are the eyes that
see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you
see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it” (Luke 10:23
NRSV). Interpreting this beatitude in the context of prophetic dialogue suggests that it
is not enough to know what the biblical text says, it is also critical—particularly for
those of us charged with preaching it—that we recognize how we read the text. And
who it is that does that reading. In other words, hermeneutics, the theory and practice
of interpretation, is part and parcel of engaging the Scriptures.
This process starts with determining the lens through which one reads, often referred
to as one’s social location—the particular cultural, ethnic, religious, and personal history
that make up the context of the reader. These experiences form the lens through which
one sees the world and responds accordingly. For example, after I finished my disserta-
tion, a friend asked me how I came up with the topic of the role of Roman soldiers in the
spread of early Christianity. I explained that I had worked in Caesarea Maritima, an
archaeological site in Israel, an ancient city described in Acts of the Apostles as the home
of Cornelius the Centurion (Acts 10:1). My choice of topic emerged from my experience
in the place named in the text. My friend continued, “But wasn’t your dad in the mili-
tary?” It began to occur to me that my earliest memories are those of a Navy brat, one
raised in a military culture permeated by rules and issues of rank. My brother would
grow up and join the Air Force. And perhaps, some might see my entrance into a Catholic
religious order as continuing the family “business.” Unbeknownst to me, this personal
background played out in how I read biblical texts, how I understood the actions of
Cornelius the Centurion, and why I was attracted to the story in the first place.
Attending to the cultural world of the biblical text and the cultural world of the reader
is a particular reading strategy, which Fernando Segovia calls “intercultural criticism”
(1995: 59). Segovia’s method challenges the idea of a neutral reader, preferring the
“real” reader “who is always situated and engaged, socially and historically conditioned,
reading and interpreting from a variety of different and complex social locations” (1995:
59). Such a reader is never universal, but always contextualized. Segovia’s strategy also
attends to the critical study of texts, recognizing that all interpretations are constructions
created by contextualized readers. As Susan Smith notes, this way of reading “recog-
nizes the particular cultural, even strange, environment in which the biblical text came
to birth, while on the other hand, it recognizes and affirms that the reader’s own social
and cultural location impact on their interpretation of the text” (2004: 10).

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

Brink 11

To read as Segovia proposes requires the use of bifocals—lenses that enable one to
see that which is close (one’s own social location) and that which is at a distance (the
context of the other).3 Segovia’s interpretive strategy, which he calls a hermeneutics of
otherness and engagement, holds in creative tension the contextualized biblical text
and the contextualized reader, in order to evaluate the contextualized interpretive
results, reception, and aftereffects.

It opts for humanization and diversity—it resists both dehumanization, any divestiture of all
those identity factors that constitute and characterize the reader as reader, and rehumanization,
any attempt to force all readers into one and the same particular and contextualized
discussion. Finally, it seeks to acknowledge, respect, and engage the other—it opposes any
attempt, implicit or explicit, to overwhelm or override the other, to impose a definition upon
it, to turn the other into an “other” (Segovia, 1995: 72).

An important element emerging from the experience of a hermeneutics of otherness

and engagement is “a commitment to critical dialogue and exchange with the text as
other, subjecting our respective views of the world to critical exposure and analysis”
(Segovia, 1995: 71). Since prophetic dialogue has as one of its primary dialogical
steps attending to one’s own context and the context of the other,4 Segovia’s herme-
neutical strategy provides an important lens through which to read and evaluate bibli-
cal texts.
In the search for the biblical foundations of prophetic dialogue, this article seeks to
answer the following questions: “Is dialogue a biblical value?” and “How is ‘prophetic
dialogue’ to be understood in the context of Scripture?” before pursing an exegetical
investigation of Mark 7:24–30 and John 4—the stories of Jesus’ encounters with the
Syro-Phoenician woman and the Samaritan woman—through the hermeneutical lens
of otherness and engagement.

The biblical search for prophetic dialogue

Bevans and Schroeder in their book, Prophetic Dialogue: Reflections on Christian
Mission Today, present the various ways in which the term “dialogue” can be under-
stood. It can refer to a practice of good communication, an attitude of respect that
enlivens the evangelizing mission of the church, or the practice of openness, fair-
ness, and respect for other traditions. Bevans and Schroeder choose the second
option—a basic attitude or spirituality “that enables the minister or missionary to
perceive a particular context in a new way”—as their understanding of dialogue
(2011: 22).

Mission as dialogue is the ministry of presence, of respect. It is a witness, at base, to the God
who moves among us in dialogue, the Word become flesh, and to the communion in Godself
who calls us to communion with our universe and with one another … But authentic mission
also involves prophecy, and this in several senses. First, the basic motivation for mission
must be to share the astounding, challenging, self-convicting, amazing, good news about the
God of Jesus Christ and God’s vision for the world. (2011: 59–60)

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

12 Missiology: An International Review 41(1)

They add that mission is also prophetic in its critique of injustice in the world.
Finally, the church community itself can be a prophetic witness of what the reign of
God might look like.
Bevans and Schroeder turn to the great evangelizer, Paul of Tarsus, to find scrip-
tural support for prophetic dialogue. Those of us ministering in multiple contexts can
readily appreciate Paul’s efforts in 1 Cor 9:22b–23: “I have become all things to all
people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so
that I may share in its blessings” (1 Cor 9:16 NRSV). Paul is obliged to preach the
Gospel (Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 9:16), impelled by the love of Christ (2 Cor 5:14). The
Gospel requires both annunciation of good news and denunciation of injustice and
evil. But this proclamation is most effective when presented with compassion. Paul
announces that he and his fellow evangelists were as gentle as nurses among the
Thessalonians (1 Thess 2:5–8). “So deeply do we care for you that we are determined
to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you
have become very dear to us” (1 Thess 2:8 NRSV). Mission, according to Bevans and
Schroeder, “needs first of all to be imagined, thought about, and practiced as ‘gentle
among’ women and men—as dialogue” (2011: 21).

Is dialogue a biblical value?

Engaging the other in order to proclaim the Gospel was Paul’s primary task, so we are
not surprised to find texts that address mission. But more broadly, is dialogue a biblical
value in those books where proclamation and evangelization are not the theme? Bevans
and Schroeder say of mission as dialogue that “one enters into mission with a profound
openness to the place and to the people in which and among whom one works” (2011:
59). Are there biblical texts in which we find such openness to the other? The answer
appears to be mostly “no” and sometimes sort of “yes.”

The other viewed negatively.  The Old Testament has several stories in which the “other”
is the one to be shunned, avoided, or even annihilated. The Book of Deuteronomy
makes clear that dialogue with the others is not part of God’s plan:

When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy,
and he clears away many nations before you—the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the
Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more
numerous than you—and when the LORD your God gives them over to you and you defeat
them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no
mercy. (Deut 7:1 NRSV)

This vilifying of the other is a thread woven throughout the Pentateuch, historical and
prophetical books, and wisdom writings. We find Elijah cutting the throats of the 450
prophets of Baal at the Brook Kishon in 1 Kgs 18:40. Isaiah speaks of Israel as a light
to the Nations (42:6; 49:6; 60:3), but it is a beacon that draws the others to worship of
the true God. It is not meant as a light that illuminates the presence of the divine within
the Gentiles themselves.

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

Brink 13

Some New Testament texts continue this exclusive pattern in which dialogue is not
a concern. In Luke 9:51–55, the Samaritan towns will not receive Jesus and his disci-
ples, because they are heading for Jerusalem. “When his disciples James and John saw
it, they said, ‘Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and
consume them?’ But he turned and rebuked them” (Luke 9:51 NRSV). Their question
alludes to 2 Kgs 1:12 where Elijah calls fire down on his pursuers. Obviously that is
how the disciples presume one responds to the unwelcoming “other.”
Matthew’s revision of Mark’s story of the Syro-Phoenician woman makes clear that
the other is not even to be acknowledged:

Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy
on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” But he did not answer
her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps
shouting after us.” (Matt 15:21–23 NRSV)

The other presented positively.  But there are some stories in Scripture that suggest occa-
sionally Israel5 and its prophets did positively encounter and engage with the others in
their midst. We have only to remember Abram and his meeting with Melchizedek, the
King of Salem (Gen 14:18–20), or Solomon and King Hiram from whose kingdom Solo-
mon secured the cedars with which to build the Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 5). In the
New Testament, Matthew describes the heavenly banquet at which those from the east
and the west will join Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the feast (Matt 8:11). Mark’s story
of Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman is very different from Matthew’s
rewrite. Likewise John describes Jesus’ meeting with the woman of Samaria and engag-
ing her in conversation. Another wonderful example of dialogue is found in Acts 17:

Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, “Athenians, I see how extremely
religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the
objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown
god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.” (Acts 17:22–23
NRSV)

While we might tend to dismiss this as a rhetorical ploy on Paul’s part, it does demon-
strate how dialogue precedes proclamation.

Re-interpreting dialogue as “compassion” for the other.  Comparing positive and negative
examples of dialogue in the Bible shows that dialogue has not been a strong thread in
the scriptural tapestry—at least not an obvious one. However, by altering the defini-
tion of what constitutes dialogue and changing the angle of vision slightly, new insights
emerge. As noted earlier, “One enters into mission with a profound openness to the
place and to the people in which and among whom one works” (Bevans and Schroeder,
2011: 59). Such a stance presumes an abiding sense of compassion, which in the Latin
means sharing in one’s suffering. Compassion gets translated in the Greek New Testa-
ment as splagchnizomai, literally, to have one’s guts moved. Compassion is an emo-
tional response that connects one with the object of his or her compassion. If “dialogue”

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

14 Missiology: An International Review 41(1)

is broadened to include a compassionate response to the other, then numerous biblical

references can be found. For example, Leviticus urges Israel to treat the alien with
justice and compassion:

When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who
resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself,
for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (Lev 19:33 NRSV)

Deuteronomy argues, “You shall not abhor any of the Edomites, for they are your
kin. You shall not abhor any of the Egyptians, because you were an alien residing in
their land” (Deut 23:7 NRSV). Through God’s intervention, Elijah provides suste-
nance for the widow of Zarephath and her son during a famine and later restores the
son to life (1 Kgs 17:1–24). A wealthy Shunammite woman hosts Elisha. The prophet
will return her hospitality by interceding to God on her behalf: first that she may bear
a child and then that the child might be restored to life (2 Kgs 4:8–37). Elisha will cure
Naaman, an Aramean army commander, of his leprosy (2 Kgs 5).
Jesus has compassion (splagchnizomai) on the presumably Jewish crowds gathered
to hear him speak because they are like sheep without a shepherd (Mark 6:34//Matt
9:36), but he feels the same compassion for the Gentile crowds who have had nothing
to eat (Mark 8:2//Matt 15:23). Matthew and Luke record that Jesus healed the Gentile
Centurion’s servant (Matt 8:5–13// Luke 7:1–10). John records a similar story about a
royal official’s son (John 4:43–54).
Dialogue as defined as an openness to the other does not enjoy broad biblical sup-
port, but if the definition is expanded, then one can, indeed, find examples in the
Scriptures of compassionate response to the other.

What is meant by prophetic dialogue

If mission is and must be dialogical because God is dialogical both in God’s deepest nature
and in the way God acts in the world, mission is and must be prophetic because God’s inner
nature is also prophetic, and because God is prophetic in dealing with creation. (Bevans and
Schroeder, 2011: 41)

Bevans and Schroeder understand “prophetic” to include both “speaking forth” and
“speaking out” as in the tradition of the biblical prophets. Having discerned God’s
word, the prophet is compelled to announce faithfully that message. To “speak forth”
also entails a future reality. The prophet proclaims “a vision of what God has in store
for people in God’s plan of salvation” (2011: 42). But the prophet also “speaks out” a
word of challenge and critique when the community fails to live according to God’s
directives. The prophetic message is not limited to words. Some of the most effective
prophetic announcements are the visible actions of its messengers: Isaiah’s naming of
his sons (7:3; 8:3–4, 18), Jeremiah’s purchase of a land in enemy territory (32:7),
Jesus’ overturning the tables in the Temple (John 2:14–15). Bevans and Schroeder
understand mission as prophecy to include “speaking forth” both in word and by

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

Brink 15

witness, “speaking against” as a “contrast community” that is a living example of the

reign of God, and “speaking against” where truth speaks to power (2011: 43–48).
But just as “dialogue” required a re-interpretation before searching for biblical
examples, so, too the term “prophetic” must be defined. Before evaluating the texts,
we need to clarify a grammatical question. What is being modified in the phrase
“prophetic dialogue”? Is it dialogue that is prophetic? Or prophecy that is dialogical?
In order words, are we talking about dialogue on prophecy or dialogue that is itself
prophetic? How we view the function of the word “prophetic” affects our reading of
the biblical texts.
If prophetic dialogue is dialogue on the subject of prophecy, we could understand
this as a conversation about the faith claims of the dialogue partners. Such a conversa-
tion could lead to very interesting theological insights either about one’s own faith or
that of the other. Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) is an example of one who experienced
dialogue on prophetic faith claims. When Gandhi was asked what Jesus meant to him,
he responded,

To me, he was one of the greatest teachers humanity has ever had. To his believers, he was
God’s only begotten Son. Could the fact that I do or do not accept this belief make Jesus have
any more or less influence in my life? Is all the grandeur of his teaching and of his doctrine
to be forbidden to me? I cannot believe so … And because the life of Jesus has the significance
and the transcendency to which I have alluded, I believe that he belongs not solely to
Christianity, but to the entire world; to all races and people, it matters little under what flag,
name or doctrine they may work, profess a faith, or worship a God inherited from their
ancestors. (1941)

If prophetic dialogue is understood as dialogue that is itself prophetic, then the

actual act of dialogue witnesses to faith. In his encounters with Eastern religions,
Thomas Merton discovered points of convergence with Buddhist practice, leading him
to experience his own tradition more deeply. He writes in his Asian journal,

I believe that by openness to Buddhism, to Hinduism, and to these great Asian traditions, we
stand a wonderful chance of learning more about the potentiality of our own traditions,
because they have gone, from the natural point of view, so much deeper in this than we have.
The combination of the natural techniques and the graces and the other things that have been
manifested in Asia and the Christian liberty of the gospel should bring us all at last to that
full and independent liberty which is beyond mere cultural differences and mere externals—
and mere this and that. (1973: 343)

Both of these ways of defining how prophecy is related to dialogue—as the subject
of dialogue or as its object—have practical implications. Gandhi read the New
Testament and came to understand that Jesus’ teaching about the reign of God had
universal relevance. His own efforts at nonviolent protest found religious legitimation
in the cross of Jesus of Nazareth (Rynne, 2008: 24).
Like the bifocals of personal social location and attention to the other, how one
understands prophetic dialogue affects how one reads the biblical texts and whether

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

16 Missiology: An International Review 41(1)

scriptural support for this mission strategy can be found there. In this next section, two
specific biblical passages will be investigated to determine if either dialogue that is
prophetic and dialogue about the prophetic are evident.

Exegetical investigations
Mark 7:24–30 and John 4 are two stories in which Jesus engages in prophetic dialogue
with a woman. Or rather, Jesus and the woman participate in a prophetic dialogue. In
the Markan account, Jesus and the woman experience dialogue that is itself pro-
phetic—revelatory to each participant. In John’s Gospel, Jesus and the woman at the
well have a dialogue, the subject of which is—quite literally—prophecy.

The Syro-Phoenician woman and Jesus—an unwelcome guest

Mark 7:24–30 records a brief encounter that Jesus has while staying in the region of
Tyre (some manuscripts include Sidon). He enters a house, and despite wanting no one
to know of his presence, he cannot escape notice (v. 24). Hearing of Jesus, a woman,
whose little daughter is possessed of an unclean spirit, comes and falls at Jesus’ feet (v.
25). Mark identifies her as a Greek of Syro-Phoenician origin (v. 26). She begs him to
cast out the demon in her daughter, but Jesus responds,

“Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the
dogs.” But she answered him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”
Then he said to her, “For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.” So
she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone. (Mark 7:27–30
NRSV)

This story occurs in a section of Mark’s Gospel bracketed by two feeding narratives.
In chapter 6, Jesus multiplies the loaves and the fishes for the five thousand-plus
Jewish listeners. In chapter 8, Jesus will feed about four thousand Gentile listeners.
Though Mark 4–8 indicates the geographical expansion of Jesus’ mission, the Jesus
encountered in 7:24–30 appears none too interested in expanding his mission field.
The evangelist Matthew seems to have found the pericope unsettling, but his edits are
more concerned with changing the woman than altering how Jesus responds. A com-
parison of Matthew’s version with Mark’s original shows the extent of Matthew’s
revisions.
First, the setting is changed. Mark says that Jesus was in a house and didn’t want
anyone to know his location. Nonetheless, a local woman hears about him and enters
uninvited (Mark 7:24–25). Mark simply notes that she is a Greek-speaking woman of
this Gentile area whose daughter had an unclean spirit. For Matthew, the woman is
now a Canaanite (Israel’s traditional enemies; Matt 15:22). Matthew has the Canaanite
woman come out to meet Jesus, presumably on the road. The Syro-Phoenician mother
doesn’t address Jesus by any religious or ethnic title, but the Canaanite woman calls
Jesus “Son of David” (Matt 15:22). Mark’s Syro-Phoenician falls at Jesus’ feet as a

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

Brink 17

sign of respect and supplication, not religious piety. But Matthew alters Mark’s
prospiptō, to fall down at one’s feet. The Canaanite woman prosekunei (knelt) before
Jesus, an act of obeisance before the divine. The Syro-Phoenician woman makes no
display of religious faith and her actions are not noted as springing from faith. But
Jesus applauds the Canaanite, “O woman, great is your faith!” (Matt 15:28). In Mark’s
story, there is no indication of religious superiority. Jesus refers to the Jews as “the
children,” which the woman echoes: “Even the dogs under the table eat the children’s
scraps” (Mark 7:28). But in Matthew, Jesus announces, “I was sent only to the lost
sheep of the House of Israel … It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to
the dogs” (Matt 15:24–26). The Canaanite woman responds that even dogs eat the
crumbs from the master’s table (Matt 15:27). In Mark, the disciples do not intervene,
but in Matthew, the disciples beg Jesus to send her away because she is annoying (Matt
15:23).
Matthew has not so subtly changed the dialogical aspects of Mark’s story, so that
Jesus is revered and the Canaanite woman is demeaned. She is a dog of the Master,
that is, her religious tradition is subservient to that of Jesus.
A closer investigation of Mark’s story gives one a better idea of why Matthew felt
so moved to change it. Looking at the passage from the hermeneutical lens of the
other, who is the outsider in this story? The text says clearly that Jesus went off to the
distinct of Tyre (and Sidon). He is staying in a house, hoping to escape notice. Jesus
the Jew is the other in a land not his own. But the woman is also an “outsider.” She is
an uninvited guest in the house in which Jesus is staying. Might Jesus’ reference to
feeding the children suggest that the woman interrupted the meal? From the perspec-
tive of otherness, both Jesus and the woman stand on equal ground.
The actual dialogue that takes place makes no faith claims for either the Jews or the
Syro-Phoenicians. Jesus does not cast the demon out of the woman’s daughter because
she has faith in him, but because she has stirred his compassion. In this scene of pro-
phetic dialogue, neither other is converted, but both are changed. Jesus responds with
compassion beyond his prescribed mission limits. The woman violates the rules of
hospitality (breaking into the dinner party) and cultural propriety (falls at the feet of a
foreign man). Both Jesus and the woman are primarily concerned with their “own”—
Jesus is concerned about Israel and the woman about her daughter. And this doesn’t
change in the encounter. Jesus will remain focused on a mission to the Jews, but the
limits of his compassion are broadened. He will heal a Gentile deaf man on his way to
Galilee (7:31–37) and will feed four thousand (8:1–9) before returning to Jewish terri-
tory (8:10).
Mark’s version of the encounter between Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician woman
presents an example of dialogue that is itself prophetic—a dialogue in which the par-
ticipants come to new spiritual insights about themselves and their own beliefs. Jesus
encountered the other and listened to her. And what he heard motivated his compas-
sionate response to other Gentiles. His actions become the seed for the future Gentile
mission of the church. For her part, the woman encountered the other, listened to his
theological perspective, and used his own metaphor in order to make herself
understood.

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

18 Missiology: An International Review 41(1)

The Samaritan woman and Jesus—finding another husband

The story of the Syro-Phoenician woman and her encounter with Jesus reminds me of
my own experiences with Palestinian Moslems. Whenever I’m in the Old City of
Jerusalem, I visit with Basel at his sandal shop behind the Holy Sepulchre. We have
tea, talk about his growing family, the business, politics, my students. I leave those
encounters with a wonderful sense of having experienced hospitality at a very deep
level. We meet each other and are better for the encounter.
The same appears to be true for the Samaritan woman and Jesus in John 4. By the
time the two encounter each other, Jesus has already performed his first sign in Cana
(changing the water to wine; 2:1–11), overturned the tables of the money-changers in
Jerusalem (2:13–22), and met with Nicodemus, the timid would-be disciple (3:1–21).
Nicodemus is a Pharisee and, despite having had a lengthy theological conversation
with Jesus, he remains in the dark, so to speak. The evangelist John anticipates that we
will expect the Samaritan to be as confounded as Nicodemus. Particularly since ancient
readers would presume Samaritans had an inferior theology to that of the Pharisee.
And this Samaritan is a woman after all!
John also anticipates that his authorial audience—those for whom he is writing—
will understand the biblical allusions in the story. Chief among them is the scene-type
“meeting at the well,” or “betrothal” (Alter, 2011: 61–74). Abraham’s servant finds a
wife for Isaac at the well (Gen 24:4–61). Jacob meets Rachel at the well (Gen 29:1–
20). Moses meets his wife at the well (Exod 2:15b—21). And here at the well, the
woman of Samaria will meet the man of Galilee. The theological aspirations of the
Samaritans will find fulfillment in the preaching and presence of Jesus.
The scene begins with Jesus leaving Judea and returning to Galilee. He takes the
route that travels through Samaria. Historical texts testify to the continual political and
theological strife between Jews and Samaritans (Josephus, J.W. 2.232; Ant. 13.275–76).
Jesus stops in a town called Sychar near the field which Jacob gave to Joseph (vv. 5–6).
He sits by the well and the narrator notes that it is noon. The disciples go off to buy food
(v. 8). A woman of Samaria comes to draw water (v. 7). How odd. Women come in the
morning and evening to draw water. Not at high noon. The otherness of the woman is
not just her gender, and her religious identity, but also her unusual behavior.
Jesus asks for a drink, initiating a conversation, to which the woman objects. “How
can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?” (John 4:9 NRSV). Jesus
answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me
a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water” (John
4:10 NRSV). The woman accepts this offer of living water, thinking that she will never
have to draw water again (v. 16). But Jesus tells the woman to call her husband (v. 16).
This is a scene-type for betrothal after all. When she answers that she doesn’t have one
(v. 17), Jesus responds that she has had five husbands, and the one whom she is cur-
rently with is not her husband (v. 17). Because the woman recognizes Jesus as a prophet
(v. 19), she engages him in a theological conversation. “Our ancestors worshiped on
this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem”
(John 4:20 NRSV). Jesus expands and corrects the woman’s understanding:

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

Brink 19

You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the
Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the
Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. (John 4:22–23
NRSV)

The woman listens to Jesus and confirms, “I know that Messiah is coming” (John 4:25
NRSV). She has found a place where her theological understanding and Jesus’ proclama-
tion meet. Jesus responds, “I am he, the one who is speaking to you” (John 4:26 NRSV).
The conversation begins with a mundane request, “give me a drink,” which leads to
a true prophetic dialogue. In this narrative, both Jesus and the woman enter the story
as the other. Jesus is a Jew in Samaritan territory. The woman may be home, but she is
also an outsider, the ultimate “other.” First, she is a woman. Second, she is a Samaritan.
Additionally, she is out of place (at the well at the wrong time) and unconventional
(how many husbands?). And yet, it is she, not Nicodemus, who engages in a theologi-
cal dialogue with Jesus, and comes to insight. “Come and see a man who told me
everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?” (John 4:29 NRSV).
The conversation between the Syro-Phoenician and Jesus is an example of dialogue
that is itself prophetic. But the encounter between the Samaritan woman and Jesus is
dialogue that leads to conversion. Literally in this case, it is a dialogue on prophecy.
Through the encounter, the woman—and later the villagers—come to believe that
Jesus fulfills their messianic hopes.

The other as guest, host and well-wisher

Engaging Mark 7:26–30 and John 4 through the hermeneutics of otherness reveals that
we are always the other encountering the other. Sometimes in the process we are the
unwelcome guest, as in the case of the Syro-Phoenician woman. We listen to the lan-
guage of the hosts and find a metaphor that allows us entry. We may intrude unknow-
ingly or unintentionally. Sometimes we are the hidden prophet, hoping to avoid notice,
until the rules of hospitality bid us to be present. If we are genuine in our efforts and
persistent in our call—whether as guest or host, we may experience grace—a deepen-
ing of our own beliefs, a respect for those of the other, and an experience of mutual
hospitality. This is a dialogue that is personally prophetic.
Sometimes we are going to the well—going about our daily work—when we have
an unexpected meeting that changes us. We are invited to remember all that we have
done with our lives and are redirected toward a new path. And sometimes we are
the ones waiting at the well, pondering the living water we so wish to share. A chance
encounter allows us to shower the other with the blessings of our faith. This is dialogue
about prophecy, the “speaking forth” about our faith.
When we read with bifocals we have the potential of seeing the world more vividly.
We recognize both our own perspective and are challenged to value the perspective of
the other. We participate in a hermeneutics of otherness and engagement, so that our
prophetic dialogue is both an opportunity for proclamation and an experience of the
Holy One already present.

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

20 Missiology: An International Review 41(1)

Engaging a hermeneutics of otherness

The hermeneutics of otherness and engagement, like prophetic dialogue, is a strategy
and a spirituality. It invites the reader to attend to her or his social location and to be
open to encountering the other without imposing definitions, limitations, or expecta-
tions. It also allows the text to be seen as other, possessing its own “social location.”
Attending to the otherness of both reader and text is not solely an academic enterprise.

The voice of our otherness becomes a voice of and for liberation: not afraid to expose,
critique, and provide an alternative vision and narrative; grounded in mixture as something
not to be eschewed and marginalized but valued and engaged; and committed to the
fundamental principles of freedom and justice. (Segovia, 1995: 67)

The hermeneutics of otherness and engagement provides a fitting contextualized

lens through which to read the Scriptures, since it has as its “fundamental purpose …
to read the biblical text as an other—not to be overwhelmed or overridden, but
acknowledged, respected, and engaged in its very otherness” (Segovia, 1995: 58).
Through this lens, numerous biblical texts reveal that dialogue with the other appears
as compassionate response, and prophecy is both the subject and the object of such
dialogue, providing a solid biblical foundation to support prophetic dialogue as a mis-
sion strategy and a mission spirituality.

Notes
1. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the American
Society of Missiology, June 16, 2012 in Techny, IL. I am particularly grateful for Sr.
Patricia Mulcahey’s editorial assistance and keen insight.
2. This hermeneutic was first proposed by Fernando F. Segovia as part of his intercultural
criticism of biblical texts (Segovia, 1995).
3. Segovia used quotation marks around the term when the definition of the “other” was being
imposed by the outside. In situations of respect and engagement, the term appeared without
quotation marks (1995: 58 n. 2). Since prophetic dialogue is fundamentally concerned with
the encounter between dialogue partners who are both others, this article refrains from
using direct quotations around the term.
4. Bevans and Schroeder note well, “We do not do mission in a vacuum, and so we need to be
sensitive to the environment in which we minister, to listen, hear and see, be open to differ-
ence and vulnerable to awkwardness in strange situations, willing to learn” (2011: 28).
5. With the exception of the mention of Caesarea Maritima in Israel, reference to “Israel”
in this article refers to “biblical Israel”—either as noted in the Old Testament or the New
Testament, and not to the modern geo-political state. My thanks to a participant at the ASM
conference who reminded me that an unqualified use of the term might be perceived as an
endorsement of the current state of affairs.

References
Alter R (2011) The Art of Biblical Narrative. Rev. edn. New York: Basic.
Bevans SB and Schroeder RP (2011) Prophetic Dialogue: Reflections on Christian Mission
Today. Maryknoll: Orbis.

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013

Brink 21

Gandhi M (1941) What Jesus Means to Me. The Modern Review (October): n.p. Available at:
www.sacred-living.org/gandhi-what-jesus-means-to-me (accessed June 28, 2012).
Merton T (1973) The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton. Ed. Naomi Burton, Patrick Hart and
James McLaughlin. New York: New Directions.
Rynne TJ (2008) Gandhi and Jesus: The Saving Power of Nonviolence. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Segovia FF (1995) Towards a Hermeneutics of Diaspora: A Hermeneutics of Otherness and
Engagement. In Segovia FF and Tolbert MA (eds) Readings from This Place. Volume 1:
Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States. Minneapolis: Fortress, pp.
57–74.
Smith S (2004) The Interface between the Biblical Text, Missiology, Postcolonialism and
Diasporism. Paper presented at the IAMS Assembly, Malaysia.

Author biography
Laurie Brink, O.P., is Associate Professor of New Testament Studies at Catholic Theological
Union, Chicago. Prior to her academic studies, she served as a missionary in Jamaica, West
Indies.

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on January 17, 2013