Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

"First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

"Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."

Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter."

She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone. Mark 7:24-30.

The response of Jesus to the Gentile woman may at first glance appear harsh and unjustifiable. His reference to the chosen race (children) as contrasted with the Gentiles (dogs) seems to imply that Jesus was unwilling or hesitant to extend His ministry to the Gentiles. Matthews account seems to modify it somewhat. In any case, the woman was rewarded for her perceptive response which insisted that the dogs share in the childrens food, even if it be crumbs. This story no doubt, had great significance for Marks Gentile readers because it showed that Jesus extended help to a Gentile woman who sought His assistance. But, lets get back to the difficulty many consider cruel and unkind on the part of Jesus.

I have researched this issue rather thoroughly and have found that the reasons Stein provided for not interpreting this text as brutal on Jesus part are valid and supported by numerous respectable scholars.

One of the strongest reasons Stein gives is related to Jesus use of the word dogs. He points out the difference between the Greek term kunaria meaning puppy or pet dog, which Jesus used, and kunes meaning wild dogs. In his thoughts, this passage is best explained as a match of wits in which Jesus seeks to lead the Syrophoenician woman to a more persistent and deeper faith.

Curtis Beach doubts that any part of the conversation can be attributed to Jesus. To him, the text seems to reflect a controversy that existed in the early Church. He contends that the text may have arisen in two stages. The first stage (verses 25-27) may be the original portion which arose in the Jewish section of the Church and composed to show Jesus preference to not have dealings with the Gentiles. The second stage (verses 28-30) Beach suggests, was added by Gentile Christians to show that Jesus was pleased by the Gentile womans attitude. He goes on to point out that Mark uses this composite to demonstrate Jesus power which exceeded those he had previously reported. Beach also understands verse 24 as Marks addition since it expresses Marks characteristic ideas surrounding Jesus fame and His desire to keep His secret.

Barclays exegesis mirrors Steins. He points to Jesus use of the diminutive word for dog, apparent tone of voice and like. He adds that symbolically, the Syrophoenician woman stands for the Gentile world which so eagerly seized on the bread of heaven which the Jews rejected and threw away.

The sources agree that Jesus words to the Syrophoenician woman was not harsh. Beach even goes so far as to reject the idea that Jesus spoke them at all. They raise some valid points that we all should explore in our personal Bible study. Understanding the different connotations associated with dog in Greek, which Stein elaborated on, reflects new light on the text as does the Greek word elegen which revealed the fact that a dialogue had been in progress prior to where Mark picks it up.

Knowledge of Greek or having available Greek translation resources at our disposal will offer all Bible students a definite exegetical advantage.