Difficult Passages

A Pastoral Reference
All Entries
15 Gospels

The Canaanite / Syrophoenician Woman

Matt 15:21–28; Mark 7:24–30

The Difficulty

A Canaanite/Syrophoenician woman begs Jesus to heal her daughter. Jesus initially ignores her, then says, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and then, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” The word for “dogs” (kynaria) is a diminutive — “little dogs” or “puppies” — but it’s still an ethnic slur comparing Gentiles to dogs. The woman cleverly responds, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table,” and Jesus heals her daughter. Was Jesus being racist? Did he change his mind? Was he testing her faith? This passage is one of the most pastorally volatile in the Gospels.

Responses

Testing Her Faith

Tradition: Patristic / Evangelical Summary: Jesus already intended to help her; the apparent refusal was a test designed to draw out and display her extraordinary faith.

The dominant traditional reading (Chrysostom, Calvin, most evangelical commentators) argues that Jesus was never actually going to refuse her. The delay and the harsh language were pedagogical — designed to elicit and publicly demonstrate her faith for the benefit of the disciples and the crowd. Jesus’ final commendation — “O woman, great is your faith!” — is the point of the whole exchange. The “dogs” language, in this reading, is the disciples’ attitude that Jesus is surfacing and then overturning.

Strengths

  • Preserves Jesus’ moral perfection
  • The final commendation does suggest the whole exchange was leading somewhere
  • Consistent with Jesus’ pattern of testing (cf. the Centurion, the Samaritan woman)

Weaknesses

  • The “it was just a test” reading feels contrived
  • If Jesus already planned to help, why make her grovel?
  • The emotional cruelty of the exchange is hard to dismiss
  • The word “dogs” is an ethnic slur regardless of diminutive form

Further Reading

  • John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 52 — the patristic defense
  • R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT, 2007), on Matt 15:21–28
  • D.A. Carson, Matthew (EBC, 2010), on the passage

Jesus’ Mission Expands

Tradition: Liberation / Critical Summary: Jesus initially understood his mission as limited to Israel; this encounter was a turning point where he expanded his vision.

Some scholars (Gerd Theissen, Joel Marcus, and many liberation theologians) argue that Jesus’ initial refusal was genuine — he really did see his mission as limited to Israel at this stage. The woman’s persistence and theological wit changed his mind. This is not a deficiency in Jesus but a genuine growth moment: the incarnation means Jesus participated in the limitations of a particular time, place, and culture, and this encounter was a moment of Spirit-led expansion. It mirrors the early church’s own struggle (Acts 10–15) to extend the Gospel to Gentiles.

Strengths

  • Takes the harshness of Jesus’ words at face value
  • Provides a powerful narrative of the Gospel breaking ethnic boundaries
  • Consistent with Luke’s emphasis on the surprising expansion of grace
  • Pastorally honest

Weaknesses

  • Implies Jesus was wrong or limited in ways that challenge traditional Christology
  • Many Christians are uncomfortable with a Jesus who learns and changes
  • The “Jesus grew” reading has been used to diminish his divinity

Further Reading

  • Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context (Fortress, 1991), on the Syrophoenician woman
  • Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8 (Anchor Yale, 2000), on Mark 7:24–30
  • Sharon Ringe, “A Gentile Woman’s Story, Revisited: Rereading Mark 7:24–31a,” in A Feminist Companion to Mark (Sheffield, 2001)
  • Mitzi Smith, Womanist Sass and Talk Back: Social (In)Justice, Intersectionality, and Biblical Interpretation (Cascade, 2018)

Ironic / Subversive Rhetoric

Tradition: Jewish Studies / Academic Summary: Jesus is using the language of Jewish exclusivism ironically, putting it in his own mouth to expose and demolish it.

Amy-Jill Levine and other scholars note that Jesus is quoting the conventional attitude — “it’s not right to give the children’s bread to dogs” — not endorsing it. By putting the exclusivist position in his own mouth and then yielding to the woman’s response, he exposes the absurdity of ethnic barriers to God’s mercy. The woman becomes the teacher; the “insider” theology is overturned by an “outsider’s” faith. This is consistent with Jesus’ broader pattern of using irony and reversal (the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Pharisee and the Tax Collector).

Strengths

  • Explains the harsh language without making Jesus either cruel or ignorant
  • Consistent with Jesus’ rhetorical style elsewhere
  • The woman’s wit is honored, not just tolerated

Weaknesses

  • Irony is hard to detect in ancient texts without tone of voice
  • Not all scholars agree Jesus was being ironic — and if the disciples didn’t get it, how effective was it?
  • Can feel like a convenient escape from the text’s difficulty

Further Reading

  • Amy-Jill Levine, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (HarperOne, 2006)
  • Morna Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Hendrickson, 1991), on Mark 7:24–30
  • Elaine Wainwright, Shall We Look for Another? A Feminist Rereading of the Matthean Jesus (Orbis, 1998)