This story in Mark 7:24-30 (cf. Matt 15:22-28) stands in contrast to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. They have seen the miracles of Jesus and remain unconvinced, despite being the religious leaders of Israel. They are the ones that ought to have understood that Jesus was the Messiah. This is a surprise to the reader, that the good Jewish religious people (disciples and Pharisees) miss out on who Jesus is claiming to be, yet the Gentiles and demons seem to have no trouble in understanding he is Messiah, son of God, even God himself!
Why is Jesus staying in Tyre? He instructed his disciples who avoid Gentile cities, yet here he is in Tyre. It is possible that he is traveling alone, seeking a place where he can have some privacy from the crowds. I doubt he is staying with Gentiles, rather, Jesus has entered the home of a supporting Jew with the hope of privately teaching his disciples, perhaps hearing their reports from their own mission in Galilee.
A woman approaches Jesus boldly and requests that Jesus heal her daughter of an evil spirit. This crosses several cultural boundaries: man/woman, Jew/Gentile. For a Gentile woman to approach a Jewish teacher and healer is incredibly bold! We are told that the woman is Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia.
There are some rather harsh comments by Jesus that it is not right to take the bread from the children (the Jews) and give it to the dogs (Gentiles)! It is the usual practice of preachers to approach this passage by saying that Jesus isn’t really as harsh as he sounds. The word for dog, for example, is a diminutive – a puppy. Jesus is testing the woman’s faith, not telling her to get lost!
The fact is that the words are harsh and exclusivist. Jesus calls her a gentile dog. This is not a cute puppy begging table scraps, but rather a filthy scavenger. The diminutive is not used to make the dog a “cute” puppy, but rather a little rat-like dog that steals the scraps from the garbage. Jesus is also using a diminutive (“little dogs”) to refer to the woman’s child. Jesus essentially says that it is unethical to take food away from the true child and give it to the dogs.
Jesus does not deny that the dogs will get their food, but it is after the true children have eaten their fill that the dogs will receive their crumbs. This condition is deleted from the Matthew version of the story. Many take this to mean that Gentiles will experience salvation, but the gospel goes first to the Jews, then to the gentiles (not unlike Paul in Romans 1:16-17).
Does this story indicate that Jesus’ ministry is being broadened to include Gentiles at this point? The thrust of this series of stories (including the blind man and the feeding of the 4000, the near-context in Mark) is often described as an indication that the message of Jesus’ gospel was inclusive of the Gentiles, or at the very least was looking forward to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Kingdom of God. Many commentators will often link these stories with the later Gentile mission. There is some merit to this, since the Lord associates food laws with Gentile ministry in Acts 10 in Peter’s Vision in the rooftop. If Peter is the source behind Mark, then there is certainly cause to think that he is reflecting on his own involvement in some kind of Gentile ministry.
This may not be the case, however. As Samuel Sandmel notes, the references to Gentiles in Jesus ministry are not the norm, but exceptions. Gentiles are not replacing Israel, but rather some Gentiles may join Israel. That the Gentiles would come into the kingdom was an expected part of the Kingdom of God, so it not unusual that some Gentiles might come into the kingdom via Jesus’ ministry. If these stories are conversion stories, that is. It is entirely possible that the Gentiles that experience miracles in this section are no more converted to Jesus mission than the Jews in the previous sections. It is highly unlikely that they convert to Judaism at this point!. However, it is possible that there are “seeds planted” in the ministry outside of Galilee that will be a harvest later when Paul preaches a gospel apart form the law.
The point of Mark’s narrative is not that Jesus has “gone over to the Gentiles” after being rejected by the Pharisees. Tyre and Sidon have benefited from Jesus’ ministry already (see 3:8). Mark is writing about 40 years after these events, well into a period of Gentile ministry (quite possibly after Paul’s death!) There is no need to “comfort and encourage” gentiles, they are the dominate element in the Roman church by the time Mark writes.
These stories of Gentile ministry serve as an ironic contrast to the lack of faith in Israel, and as such stand along side the testimony of the demons as to the true identity of Jesus. He came to his own (Israel) but his own did not know him. Are there other indications that Mark is intentionally contrasting the unbelieving Jews with believing Gentiles?
Bibliography: Gene R. Smillie “‘Even The Dogs’: Gentiles In The Gospel Of Matthew,” JETS 45:1 (March 2002): 73-97.