Advertisement

Pastoral Psychology

, Volume 63, Issue 3, pp 249–263 | Cite as

What Do We Do With This Jesus? A Reading of Matthew 15:21–28 through the Lens of Psychoanalytic Theory

  • Melanie S. Baffes
Article
  • 312 Downloads

Abstract

This paper interprets the story of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15 using the lens of psychoanalytic theory—Winnicott’s concept of True Self and Stolorow/Atwood’s model of intersubjectivity—arguing that, for modern readers, the Canaanite woman and Jesus suggest new possibilities for being human. This full humanity results from both of them moving from False Self to True Self and from the mutuality that characterizes their interaction. This reader-response interpretation leads to new understandings of: (1) loving self—seeing ourselves as empowered, refusing compliance as a response to oppression; (2) loving other—overturning the self/other paradigm to regard all individuals in terms of their humanity; and (3) loving God—learning to be in mutual and authentic relationship with God.

Keywords

True self Intersubjectivity Transformation Self/other Empowered selfhood 

References

  1. Benjamin, J. (2006). Two-way streets: recognition of difference and the intersubjective third. differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 17(1), 116–146.Google Scholar
  2. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bollas, C. (1989). Forces of destiny: Psychoanalysis and human idiom. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  4. Borden, W. (1997). The place and play of theory in practice: a Winnicottian perspective. Journal of Analytic Social Work, 5(1), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carbine, R. P. (2006). Contextualizing the cross for the sake of subjectivity. In M. Trelstad (Ed.), Cross examinations: Readings on the meaning of the cross today (pp. 91–107). Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.Google Scholar
  6. Coelho, N. E., Jr., & Figueiredo, L. C. (2003). Patterns of intersubjectivity in the constitution of subjectivity: dimensions of otherness. Culture & Psychology, 9, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronick, K. (2002). Community, subjectivity, and intersubjectivity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(4), 529–546.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donald Winnicott. (2011). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Winnicott. Accessed 16 Dec 2011.
  9. Dube, M. W. (2000). Postcolonial feminist interpretation of the Bible. St Louis: Chalice Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ellens, J. H. (2012). Conclusion. In J. H. Ellens (Ed.), Psychological hermeneutics for biblical themes and texts (pp. 273–274). New York: T & T Clark International.Google Scholar
  11. Elliott, A. (2002). Psychoanalytic theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Guardiola-Sáenz, L. A. (1989). Borderless women and borderless texts: A cultural reading of Matthew 15:21–28. In P. A. Bird (Ed.), Semeia 78, reading the Bible as women: Perspectives from Africa, Asia, and Latin America (pp. 69–81). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.Google Scholar
  13. Guntrip, H. (1971). Psychoanalytic theory, therapy, and the self: A basic guide to the human personality in Freud, Erikson, Klein, Sullivan, Fairbairn, Hartmann, Jacobson, and Winnicott. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Kingsbury, J. D. (1976). The title ‘Son of David’ in Matthew’s gospel. Journal of Biblical Literature, 95(4), 591–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klein, J. (1987). Our need for others and its roots in infancy. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Kwok, P. (1995). Discovering the Bible in the non-biblical world. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.Google Scholar
  17. Levine, A. J. (2001). Matthew’s advice to a divided readership. In D. E. Aune (Ed.), The gospel of Matthew in current study (pp. 22–41). Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Malina, B. J. (2001). The new testament world: Insights from cultural anthropology (3rd ed.). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.Google Scholar
  19. Marková, I. (2003). Constitution of the self: intersubjectivity and dialogicality. Culture & Psychology, 9, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchell, S. A., & Black, M. J. (1995). Freud and beyond: A history of modern psychoanalytic thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Moghaddam, F. M. (2003). Interobjectivity and culture. Culture & Psychology, 9, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nelavala, S. (2008). Liberation beyond borders: Dalit feminist hermeneutics and four gospel women (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.Google Scholar
  23. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. O’Day, G. R. (2001). Surprised by faith: Jesus and the Canaanite woman. In A. J. Levine (Ed.), A feminist companion to Matthew (pp. 114–125). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Parker, S., & Davis, E. (2009). The false self in Christian contexts: a Winnicottian perspective. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 28(4), 315–325.Google Scholar
  26. Rashkow, I. N. (2012). Psychology and the Hebrew Bible, read through the lenses of Freud and Lacan. In J. H. Ellens (Ed.), Psychological hermeneutics for biblical themes and texts (pp. 235–256). New York: T & T Clark International.Google Scholar
  27. Ringe, S. H. (1985). A gentile woman’s story. In L. M. Russell (Ed.), Feminist interpretation of the Bible (pp. 65–72). Philadelphia: Westminster.Google Scholar
  28. Scott, J. M. C. (1996). Matthew 15.21–28: a test-case for Jesus’ manners. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 63(1), 21–44.Google Scholar
  29. Stolorow, R. D. (1988). Intersubjectivity: psychoanalytic knowing and reality. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 24(2), 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stolorow, R. D., & Atwood, G. E. (1992). Contexts of being: The intersubjective foundations of psychological life. Hillsdale: Analytic.Google Scholar
  31. Summers, F. (1994). Object relations theories and psychopathology: A comprehensive text. Hillsdale: Analytic.Google Scholar
  32. Tuber, S. (2008). Attachment, play, and authenticity: A Winnicott primer. New York: Jason Aronson.Google Scholar
  33. Wainwright, E. M. (2001). Not without my daughter: Gender and demon possession in Matthew 15:21–28. In A. J. Levine (Ed.), A feminist companion to Matthew (pp. 126–137). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wink, W. (2010). The Bible in human transformation: Toward a new paradigm for biblical study. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  35. Winnicott, D. W. (1968). Playing: its theoretical status in the clinical situation. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 49, 591.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Winnicott, D. W. (1971/1989). Playing and reality. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Winnicott, D. W. (1985). Ego distortion in terms of true and false self. The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development (pp. 140–152). New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Garrett-Evangelical Theological SeminaryEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations