Mark 7:24-30:
24 And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. 25 But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 28 But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” 29 And he said to her, “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.” 30 And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.
This remarkable story of another abortive attempt to ‘retreat’ from the scene of action and conflict (cf. 6:31–34) leaves many readers uncomfortable, since it suggests that Jesus was genuinely reluctant to help the woman, and was only persuaded to do so by her persistence and debating skill, as a grudging concession rather than as a matter of principle. In Matthew’s version, with its more marked tone of reluctance and even rejection, and its apparently even more ‘racist’ language, the problem becomes more acute.
Misunderstandings of the pericope spring largely from the failure to read it as a whole. It is a dialogue within which the individual sayings function only as parts of the whole, and are not intended to carry the weight of independent exegesis on their own. The whole encounter builds up to the totally positive conclusion of vv. 29–30, while the preceding dialogue serves to underline the radical nature of this new stage in Jesus’ ministry into which he has allowed himself to be ‘persuaded’ by the woman’s realism and wit. He appears like the wise teacher who allows, and indeed incites, his pupil to mount a victorious argument against the foil of his own reluctance.
Few of those who approached Jesus had so much against them, from an orthodox Jewish point of view. She was, first of all, a woman, and therefore one with whom a respectable Jewish teacher should not associate. She was a Gentile, as the double designation Ἑλληνίς, Συροφοινίκισσα emphasises. And her daughter’s condition might be expected to inspire fear and/or disgust, while the ‘uncleanness’ of the demon suggests ritual impurity
Biblical references to dogs (except in the story of Tobit) are always hostile. To refer to a human being as a ‘dog’ is deliberately offensive or dismissive (cf. 2 Sa. 16:9; Ps. 22:16; Phil. 3:2); Jews typically referred to Gentiles as dogs.
She does not dispute the lower place which Jesus’ saying assumes for the Gentiles, and even accepts without protest the offensive epithet ‘dog’, but insists that the dogs, too, must have their day. Putting it more theologically, the mission of the Messiah of Israel, while it must of course begin with Israel, cannot be confined there. The Gentiles may have to wait, but they are not excluded from the benefits which the Messiah brings. On this basis, she is bold enough to pursue her request; even the crumbs will be enough.
Apparently Jesus did not go there for public ministry. He went into a house “and did not want anyone to know it.” This suggests that he went there to get out of the public eye, perhaps to rest and to prepare himself spiritually for what he knew lay ahead of him. But his hope of a time of quiet retirement was thwarted.
Against this the Christian church must see itself as committed to breaking down barriers which prolong human need or prevent the needy from being helped. One does not necessarily agree with another person’s theology, nationhood, life style, nor outlook by meeting their need. One simply shows the love of God to another human being. The world needs to see Christians following their Master more clearly at this point.