I find Greg Boyd’s “theatrically prophetic indictment of xenophobic Israel” take on Jesus' interaction with the Syrophoenician/Canaanite woman so very winsome that I sometimes act it out myself, by myself—yes, I’m weird—and in acting it out both the interpretation and Jesus become to me even more winsome and smart, not to mention believable.
What prompts me to make note of it is a desire to avoid having to call the writer of Hebrews, Paul, the writer of 1 John, and the writer of 1 Peter all mistaken about the same rather basic christological claim of Jesus’ sinlessness. If scripture were otherwise silent on the matter of Jesus’ sinlessness, I’d be comfortable with a Jesus who had some moral learning to do. As it is, calling Jesus xenophobic, even if we partially excuse it by saying He was a product of His time and place, even if we’re able to nevertheless draw powerful inspiration toward acknowledging our own errors and pressing on toward boundless love, gives away more biblical authoritativeness than is necessary. It also runs counter to the xenophilic and philogynous witness of the rest of the gospels, including episodes that apparently took place before this one, especially Jesus spending private, soul-healing time with the Samaritan woman at the well.
I don’t think I defend the Bible’s authoritativeness because of some doctrine of scripture. I defend it because I hate to see a people saw off the moral and theological branch they’re sitting on.