First, you need to know a little about Tyre and Messianic expectations. Consider these words from the extra-biblical Psalms of Solomon:
Cleanse Jerusalem from the nations that trample it in destruction, to expel sinners from the inheritance in wisdom, in righteousness, to rub out the arrogance of the sinner like a potter’s vessel, to crush all their support with an iron rod; 27 to destroy lawless nations by the word of his mouth, for Gentiles to flee from his face at his threat, and to reprove sinners by the word of their heart. (Pss. Sol. 17:25-27)
This was an expectation of the Messiah. When he comes he is going to go into places like Tyre—the very embodiment of paganism—and destroy them. You expect a Messiah to go to such a wicked place, call them all dogs, and leave—maybe lighting a match on his way out.
But the Gospel of Mark is painting a different picture of the Messiah. He’s just spoke to the Pharisees about what defiles a person. It’s not what is on the outside but it’s the stuff of the inside. That kind of talk would lead a Messiah into Tyre to provide redemption instead of wrathful rebuke.
But then when Jesus gets into Tyre he sounds more like the Messiah of the Psalms of Solomon than the type of Messiah of the Gospel of Mark. What gives?
Now some will say that Jesus is testing this woman’s faith. Others will point out that Jesus uses a term that means “puppy” instead of scavenger dog. And those are fine points to make, because I think Jesus is speaking in parable here to the woman. And so far in the gospel of Mark she’s the only one who actually understands his parable. But the key word in this passage isn’t “dog” but “bread”.
That’s actually the question that this whole section is about. Who is the blessing of Messiah for? Who gets to enjoy his reign? If you ask the Pharisees it’s them—they are the children of Israel. To hell with the Gentiles, unless of course they become like the Pharisees. Messiah bread isn’t going to be lavished upon a place like Tyre.
And so Jesus uses this language—and yes, I think he uses the diminutive term here to invite her into the parable. You don’t take the kids food and feed it to the puppy dog. Who qualifies for Messiah’s bread?
In Matthew’s account those around Jesus are telling this woman to be silent. She’s an unqualified Gentile. A defiled person isn’t going to reap the benefits of the Messiah’s healing ministry. She’d do far better to go home and find some other remedy…maybe her paganism will help her. Defiled people don’t get Messiah bread.
But the woman, quite rightly, sees the whole in this entire way of thinking. Who puts a limit on Messiah’s bread? Why should we assume that the kids starve if the puppy gets some crumbs? She’s just asking for a crumb. Just a touch of his garment. Surely, there is enough Messiah to go around.
And that is the point of this entire passage. That’s why Mark and Matthew put it right here. Here is why I firmly believe that’s on the right track. Why in the world do the gospel writers include two miraculous feedings? We get it, Jesus can feed people without much resource. But notice where these feedings occur? One in Jewish country the other in Gentile territory. I don’t think that’s an accident. Nor do I think it’s accidental that chortazo (“be fed”) appears in the gospel of Mark only hear and in both of the miraculous feedings.
So, yeah, I think there is a bit of a test of faith for this Canaanite woman. There is wordplay going on here. But more than anything Jesus is teaching his disciples about what it really means that he is the Bread of Life. It means that He’s enough. And He doesn’t have to be stored away in fear that somehow he’s not sufficient to be given away freely to Jew and Gentile alike. Messiah takes the bread of redemption to Tyre.
Haven’t you learned the lesson of the loaves? Jesus is enough.
—
Photo source: here
I’d also be remiss not to give a hat tip to James Edwards’ excellent commentary on Mark.
