@Rival Thanks for asking this question on the 'controversial' interaction between Jesus and the Canaanite woman. It's an important passage that raises many questions.
Firstly, there
are obvious issues with the passage on a surface reading:
(1) Jesus apparently uses a religious/ethnic slur by comparing, metaphorically, the Canaanite women's people to pet dogs in the context of his parable, where the Israelites are God's favoured "children" and the pagan
goyim/Gentiles are akin to household pets. Calling someone a dog was a common insult in both Jewish and Graeco-Roman literature. In the Hebrew Bible, we find a number of instances such as
1 Samuel 17:43: "
the Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?”".
Typically,
kunarios (dogs) referred to wild street scavengers - hence the 'insult' - whereas here, by referring to the master or father of the house's
table, the parable implies a domestic setting.
Moreover, the diminutive is literally referring to a
little dog - that is a puppy, which is not so insulting as 'scavenger' dog. This does soften the blow, as it gives the word a certain affectionate quality.
However, it is still seemingly condescending given that there is a clear order of preference in Matthew, vis-à-vis the "feeding" and status. Both deserve to be fed but at different times and with different degrees of access to the "food", which
@KenS has already addressed and explained brilliantly (so I won't deal with this specific dimension of it) in terms of the two covenants and the response of faith.
The language here is surprising, given that only two chapters earlier, Jesus had healed the Gerasene demoniac - a person in a non-Jewish, pagan region in need of his exorcism. So he has, already, traversed ethnic boundaries without insult or refusal. This means that we either must read the current passage as an aberration from Jesus's earlier and later conduct in relation to Gentiles
or consider the language used in a different light.
Even though the passage is not referring to wild dogs but rather a domestic setting, it is still uncomfortable for the reader to think in analogous terms of non-Jews as being akin to household pets who must receive "food" (the spiritual nourishment of the gospel) only after Jews, the rightful children under the Mosaic covenant, are fed first.
(2) The word employed to compare the woman to a household pet,
kunaria, is feminine diminutive and could literally be rendered into English as, "
little b***hs (female dogs)". One scholar T.A. Burkhill frankly notes: "
to call a woman a 'little b***h' is no less abusive than to call her a 'b***h' without qualification". The notion that Jesus - so typically praised for his gender progressivism relative to his time - even parabolically, referred to a woman as being like a little puppy under her master's table, is striking and demands an explanation for its apparent inconsistency with every other incident involving him and a woman.
In exegeting and making sense of this scene, I would consider a few things:
We are given no indications of
emotion or
body language in the synoptic accounts of this passage. Thus, we have to 'infer' from the Koine Greek itself and the context of the dialogue, what emotions and facial expressions the two parties in the back-and-forth might have used: did Jesus smile as he initiated the parable in response to her request, thus making it a 'playful' overture rather than an insulting one? Was the woman in a state of fear or anxiety, or did she smile back knowingly? We have to infer all this in the absence of being specifically told, however on that score we can make a few deductions.
From the text, it is clear that we are dealing with a 'verbal wordplay' and this should colour our interpretative approach. It is evident that the woman understands it as being so, rather than a dismissal of her petition for aid, by 'giving as good as she got' and engaging in the fictive scenario Jesus presents. She condescends to his parable by adopting the role of the
kunaria 'little female puppy/household pet' in her reply and giving him a witty analogy of her own to match his - 'but even the little puppies eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table' i.e. recognizing that Jesus had invited her to see herself as one of these little pups coming to the table to be fed (i.e. receive his healing help).
The fact that we are dealing here with an invitation from Jesus for the woman to engage in word
play with him - as opposed to insulting her and demurring her request, as the disciples in Matthew demand of him (but Jesus refuses their request to drive her away) - is demonstrated by the fact that the woman responds in kind to Jesus. She shows no sign of feeling rebuffed.
As one scholar notes, if understood in this way, "
Jesus would be ironically quoting back to her an insult that her fellow Tyrians slung at the Galileans to whom Jesus ministered. The insult is turned upside down...By this clever manipulation of words Jesus is inviting, even goading, the Syrophoenician woman to enter into wordplay with him. She, a woman of great wit, met his challenge and countered with an equally playful and witty reply, "Yes Sir, it is as you say, yet...even the little dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs". She acknowledges what he said but as he had modelled it, she cleverly manipulated the words in order to get exactly what she wanted" (
Women in the Biblical World A Survey of Old and New Testament Perspectives, p.80-81).
What's more, the Canaanite woman
outsmarts Jesus with her witty response: "
In this confrontation, Jesus is persuaded to heal a non Jewish woman (a “Syrophonician” or a Canaanite woman) who out-duels him in word play"
(Oxford Encyclopaedia of Gender Studies, p.520). She is shown as the 'winner' of the witty banter and Jesus specifically notes that it is for her "saying" what she said that he is granting her request, thus putting the focus in the Markan account on her
logos witty wording/reason/intellect.
And this is significant:
"The Gentile woman either intrudes on the privacy of Jesus (in Mark) or enters the public domain of men and disturbs them by shouting loudly (in Matthew). Her willingness to transgress social boundaries means that her behavior is not in accordance with the ancient Greco-Roman ideal of emphasized femininity...
Not only the woman ignores the social rules, but Jesus does also by readily entering into a debate with her...Moreover, Jesus acknowledges that the woman’s words persuaded him to change his mind, which led to a changed strategy on Jesus’ part. In Mark, Jesus is willing to change his mind and be influenced by other people, even by a Gentile woman. Jesus does not seem to interpret the woman’s response as a threat to his masculinity.
The woman understands Jesus’ metaphorical teaching better than the disciples and answers with a parable of her own. The woman seems to employ a common ancient proverbial saying.42 It is important to note that the woman does not say “yes” to Jesus.43 Instead, she says, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs” (Mark 7:28). In Mark, the woman does not accept Jesus’ saying...Thus in Mark, the woman’s answer challenges Jesus’ authority and therefore also his masculinity.
Although the woman talks about household dogs, they are still not truly members of the household like children are. The difference of status between children and dogs remains, and the woman does not challenge the privileged position of children. Dogs remain under the table...The woman also treats Jesus as a superior by calling him κύριος (Sir/Master). In this way, on one hand the woman preserves Jesus’ honor. Nevertheless, since the woman disagrees with Jesus, I agree with Jim Perkinson’s assertion that “she does (covertly) shame him—into honoring her appeal.”46
The Syrophoenician woman is an exceptional figure because she is the only person in the Synoptic Gospels to best Jesus in a dispute. Jesus acknowledges this: “Because of this word (Διὰ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον), you may go” (Mark 7:29). It is because of her “word” in Mark (λόγος), not because of her faith, that Jesus cures her daughter.
What is even more remarkable is that in Mark’s Gospel, after the meeting with the Syrophoenician woman, Jesus changes his strategy. The woman leads Jesus to expand his mission. In the following episodes, Jesus travels through Gentile lands where he heals and feeds four thousand people (Mark 7:31–8:9).48 Jesus’ mission is now also directed toward the Gentiles. This is the only instance where Jesus is taught by someone—and moreover, that someone is a woman. It seems that the Syrophoenician woman is not a traditional silent and submissive woman."
(
Susanna Asikainen, Jesus and Other Men: Ideal Masculinities in the Synoptic Gospels [p.114-115])
As the scholar above explains, Jesus uses his wordplay with the Canaanite woman as a teaching opportunity for his disciples. It is because of her that he 're-orients' his entire strategy as a wandering preacher, thereafter entering Gentile lands and preaching the gospel more systematically in non-Jewish regions as well as Israelite ones.
And this only happens because Jesus engages in a battle of wits - as he does throughout the gospels, outmanoeuvring opponents - yet in this one, exceptional circumstance, the Son of God is actually outwitted in wordplay, and by a pagan, Canaanite woman (whom his disciples in Matthew had demanded him to dismiss/drive away) no less.
To quote another scholar:
"The Syrophoenician woman resists with sass and talkback, "she answered and said to him, "Master, even the household table dogs eat from the crumbs of the children (paidia)" (Mark 7:28)...Her sass is heteroglossia. The woman resists with the only thing she has, her reason (logos)...She engages in subversion and improvisation...In response to the woman's sass, Jesus acknowledges the power of her word (logos) and her reasoning...
The story of the Syrophoenician woman provides an antithesis to the silent, submissive woman who dares not sass or talk back to male authority figures, regardless."
It's notable that the woman adopts a submissive 'role', by way of her participation in Jesus's playful analogy to puppy-dogs/household pets under the master's table (hence her addressing him in return as "Sir/Master"), yet in so doing subverts and challenges him at the same time through her ingenuous wit, which outwits Jesus's initial remark. And Jesus let's her have the final
word (logos) in the game/play.
In this way Jesus, rather than turning away this "shouting" or 'noisy' woman as his disciples requested, draws out the ingenious wit and intellectual fortitude within her and then praises the woman before his disciples as a model of either 'logos' (
reason) in Mark or faith (
pistis) in Matthew, and an exemplar of the fact that Gentiles too are deserving of receiving his healing benefaction and the message of the gospel. Accordingly, Jesus in Mark changes his entire strategy in his ministry after this encounter with her, by immediately engaging in preaching tours in Gentile areas in addition to the "House of Israel".
