A Greek woman had an ailing daughter who arrived at Jesus’ feet to beg for His miracles in her family. Jesus responded, ‘Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.’ His response seems to say that His mission did not involve her or her people. He had a plan, and it did not involve miracles for her as a Greek woman. She then responds in humility, ‘Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.’ This response gives Jesus insight into His mission and His interaction with her. He responds, ‘For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.’ Did the Greek woman change Jesus’ mind?

This short interaction included in Mark highlights many key concepts concerning God being the Most Moved Mover. Julie M. Smith’s scholarship and commentary on this passage is worthy of significant inclusion here. Julie M. Smith released a thorough analysis of Mark titled The Gospel according to Mark: BYU New Testament Commentary Series which I have been reading using the Deseret Bookshelf app. The book is 962 pages in commentary on 16 chapters or 30 pages of scripture in Mark’s book. This post highlights a part of her writing on Mark 7 that is persuasive to me. As she said on a Maxwell Institute podcast, commentaries are useful to make us think and not the last word.

Well, my sense is that Latter-day Saints don’t frequently read not-Latter-day Saint commentary, which, I think, is a loss for our community. There are so many others who have been studying the Bible from all different perspectives for centuries and have so much to contribute to the dialogue about it.

My sense is that sometimes when Latter-day Saints read Latter-day Saint commentary, they treat it as if it were the last word. I think that may be equally unfortunate, if only because, when we are talking about symbolic scripture, there is no last word.

I hope we find this commentary on the Greek woman thought-provoking.

Jesus and the Greek Woman (Mark 7:24-30)

In Julie’s commentary, she provides a new translation of Mark. She translates Mark 7:24-30;

From there, having risen up, he went away into the region of Tyre. And having entered into a house, he wanted no one to know, but he was not able to be hidden. But immediately, a woman, having heard about him and having a little daughter with an unclean spirit, having come, fell at his feet. But the woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by origin, and she was asking him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he was saying to her, “First let the children be filled. For it is not right to take the children’s loaf and throw it to the dogs.” And she answered and says to him, “Sir/Lord, but the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” And he said to her, “For this answer, go. The demon has gone out of your daughter.” And having gone away to her home, she found the child lying on the bed and the demon having gone out.

Commentary on the Greek Woman

I have included large chunks of Julie’s commentary below with my words italicized as commentary on her commentary. Additionally, I haved bolded parts of her commentary for emphasis. The bolded portions highlight the concepts where she articulates that Jesus changes his mind based on an argument from humble Greek Woman.

Julie provides some rationale on why we shouldn’t impose a fixed future omniscience on these verses.

It is sometimes suggested that Jesus always intended to exorcise the girl but first refuses in order to test the mother, but this is unlikely because:

1. Jesus does not similarly test anyone else who approaches him for a miracle, so it is difficult to explain why he would in this case.
2. The audience would conclude that sometimes a negative answer from Jesus (or another leader) is an invitation to press for a different answer.
3. If Jesus needed to test her faith, then he apparently was not aware of it without the test. Hence, he is not omniscient. One of the reasons for advocating the idea that he was testing her faith is to preserve Jesus’ omniscience (that is, he did not change his mind in this story), but this reading itself undermines his omniscience.

She then provides some other possible ways to view the story of the Greek woman’s petition.

How, then, might his refusal and subsequent agreement be understood? The following are (not mutually exclusive) possibilities:

1. Jesus begins by stating that the children should be fed first, so he is not claiming that the “dogs” (Gentiles) will not be fed but rather that the “children” (Jews) must be fed first. The woman’s statement is a recognition that the children have already been fed (symbolically, through the first feeding miracle); hence, it is now appropriate to begin feeding the dogs.
2. There was a very high level of animosity between Jews and Tyrians: “The Tyrian region was one that was badly hit by the Jewish/gentile tension that led up to and accompanied [the Jewish] war. Josephus reports that the Tyrians were among the Jews’ bitterest enemies and cites pogroms going back to the first century B.C.E. During the Jewish War, Tyrian Gentiles killed a considerable number of their Jewish neighbors and imprisoned the rest in chains, and a Tyrian army burned the Jewish fortress of Gischala. This poisonous atmosphere may well have infected the fledgling Christian church in Tyre, the majority of whose members were probably Gentiles. . . . [Mark] may feel that Christian communities in this region . . . need to be sharply reminded of God’s continuing favor for his ancient people.” In this light, Jesus’ initial statement about the priority of the Jews can be read as an appropriate corrective. It would reflect, in a limited sense, the dislike for the people of Tyre, and when Jesus agrees to accede to the woman’s request, he would be displaying an unexpected kindness toward them. The fact that he was willing to listen to and change his mind based on the woman’s words would have been an important moment for the audience since it models reconciliation between the warring factions. This would have been a powerful way for Mark to show Jesus demonstrating love for an enemy.
3. Jesus has a sense of his own mission as requiring a focus on the “children” (Jews), so he cannot envision a way to meet the woman’s request. As a mortal, he is limited in his experience and therefore needs to learn from ­others “line upon line.” The woman is able to show him how to accommodate her request while, at the same time, being true to his sense of mission. Jesus thus learns from the woman and, in the process, models how to learn from others in a humble and gracious manner. A situation like this would be the only way for him to model careful listening, reasoning, and the humility necessary to change one’s mind in the face of new information. (This may be analogous to his baptism: while not necessary for the remission of sin, it was performed as a model for his followers.) The fact that the other party in this dialogue is female and Gentile emphasizes Jesus’ respectful listening to all people and willingness to change based on their perspectives, opinions, and needs. Mark has already suggested that Jesus is not, as a mortal, omniscient or omnipotent; in the conflict between humility and omniscience, Mark chooses to downplay Jesus’ knowledge in favor of his humility. Not only does he model humility, but the story shows a dual humility: the woman is willing to humbly approach Jesus and to accept his categorization of her as a “dog,” which was probably interpreted by her as an ethnic slur, much as Jesus is willing to learn from her. Thus the story models mutual submission and humility.
4. The last time Jesus cast out demons from a Gentile, he was asked to leave the area (5:17). Perhaps this led to his conclusion that the time was not right to perform miracles for Gentiles, but the woman’s words—which display a sophisticated understanding of his ministry—illustrated that this was no longer the case. In the face of this new evidence, Jesus is able to extend his mission and exorcise the daughter.
5. Galilee was the bread basket for Tyre, which was wealthy from trade but could not sustain robust agriculture. This meant that “the Galileans went hungry in times of food shortage in order to supply the people of Tyre.” If the backdrop to this story is that Jesus’ people were literally going hungry because the “dogs” of Tyre had first access to their food, then the woman is the one in a position of (economic) power, now demanding more power (this time, spiritual) from Galilee, in the person of Jesus. Jesus’ refusal to accommodate an entitled woman who is asking for even more is then understandable. The woman’s answer suggests that both groups might eat at the same time and have enough, but with the Galileans/children having first right to the food and the Tyrians now being in second position. This role reversal required the audience to see the Tyrians and the Galileans in a new light: their spiritual reality is the opposite of their economic reality. The woman shows how the last will be first and the first will be last and makes clear that she is willing to undergo economic loss (that is, to have only secondary access to the bread as crumbs under the table) in exchange for access to Jesus’ power. She contrasts sharply with the Gentiles of Gerasa (5:1–20), who preferred Jesus’ departure over enduring the economic loss that accompanied his presence. Her similarity to Jairus is highlighted: not only does she approach Jesus on bended knee pleading for a daughter’s healing as he does, but she also is willing to withdraw claims to social prestige and power, as he does.
6. The backdrop of this story is the Greek philosophical school known as Cynicism: “the term Cynic itself is derived from the Greek kynicos, an adjectival form of the noun for dog; referring to the Cynics’ dog-like appearance and behavior . . . [including] scavenging for scraps of food. Where others used it as a term of derision, the Cynics embraced their doggish behavior as a positive choice of lifestyle.” They were also known for their “impudent, argumentative style:” a common Cynic technique was “a cutting remark following a question or brief statement.” And “it is only among Cynics that we find examples of women philosophizing in public.” Thus, there are several points of contact between Cynicism and Mark’s story, including the word “dog,” the apparent argument between the woman and Jesus, and particularly the fact that the dispute involves a woman. In the context of Cynic practice, Jesus’ statement is not a refusal but rather an engagement, and the woman is not a “dog” (in the derogatory sense) but rather a legitimate debate partner.
7. Jesus’ desire to be alone means that he is seeking further direction for his mission (compare 1:35–38). It is possible that he initially refuses the woman because he sees her request as an obstacle to his quest, but then her response reveals that she is actually providing the answer to his request for further direction: his mission is now to be extended to the Gentiles (as the next story—where he heals a gentile man—indicates, and as the next feeding miracle—which is very similar to the previous one save it is for a gentile audience—also indicates). There is a compelling mutuality in Jesus’ response to the woman’s request for exorcism and the woman’s response to Jesus’ (implicit) request for new guidance for his mission. Interestingly, in this reading, the divine insight Jesus sought about his mission came through an anonymous gentile woman.
8. If Jesus did not perform the exorcism but rather the woman’s saying made the demon flee, then it is possible that Jesus’ initial refusal to perform the exorcism never changes. If the woman’s saying is what causes the exorcism, it is not the case that Jesus changes his mind: he refuses to perform the exorcism, the woman’s saying causes the exorcism, and Jesus simply announces what has happened.
9. While controversial to many readers, it could be argued that the woman bests Jesus in a debate: “the clear outcome of the contest is that the woman wins the argument.” Mark has laid the groundwork for this reading by beginning the story with the note that she has already bested Jesus by ruining his plan for solitude. Mark then uses this incident to point to Jesus’ humility: he is comfortable being bested (by a gentile woman, nonetheless); he doesn’t attempt to hide behind any rationalizations. Modern readers may not be at ease with the woman’s aggressive approach to Jesus, but it is not unprece­dented: near the end of the book of Job, God praises Job’s willingness to speak honestly, in contrast with his friends: “Job’s God seems to make it clear that He would rather we challenge Him vigorously than affirm Him uncritically.” And while the idea of someone changing Jesus’ mind seems unusual, it actually aligns Jesus with the God of the HB, who is depicted as experiencing a change of heart (Gen. 18:20–33; Ex. 32:11–14; Num. 14:11–20; 27:1–17). It is not necessary to abandon the idea of Jesus’ perfection in order to adopt this reading, but it might be necessary to reframe what it means to be perfect: Jesus is shown as perfectly willing to learn, grow, and be ­humble. This kind of perfection may also be on display in the two-step healing in 8:22–26: Jesus’ perfection is not found in an initially perfect healing of the man but rather in his willingness to ask, listen, learn, and continue to serve the man until he can see properly.

Regardless, one thing stands out: the woman’s response to Jesus’ initial refusal is not regarded as inappropriate or out of bounds; he does not rebuke her for it. Jesus attributes the exorcism not to his own power or to the woman’s faith, but to her saying. Her word—which reshaped Jesus’ saying so that it could accommodate her request—caused an exorcism. The woman is powerful: evil flees at her word. It is even possible to read Jesus’ words to indicate that he did not perform the exorcism: the woman did through the power of her own word. (This is the only case in Mark where Jesus does not speak a command to cause a miracle or does not see the person who is healed.) The ability to cast out demons is one that disciples are given—but will have trouble using. As is often the case in Mark, an otherwise-unknown woman is shown to be a more mature disciple than the male disciples whom Jesus has chosen. This woman is able to exercise this power on the basis of her insight into Jesus’ mission.

The Greek woman can be viewed as a type of Christ because she is willing to be humble and to put herself in a position where she suffers in order to effect the healing of another person. Just as the Greek woman turns the dog metaphor into something positive, Jesus will turn his suffering into something salvific.

Once again, there is an interesting mix of high and low Christology as, in the very same story, Jesus is bested in an argument by a gentile woman but performs (or, at the very least, is aware of) an exorcism that happens at a distance.

As is clear in this story (and even clearer when it is compared with the story of the bleeding woman), Jesus expects and desires women to act in ways that were unthinkably aggressive in their cultural context, particularly when advocating for themselves and their children. One function of this story is to show that Jesus supports women who are strong advocates for their children’s needs and are not submissive, even when their actions constitute a gross breach of social convention. Further, this story teaches that women are capable not only of holding their own in conversation but also of changing the minds of religious leaders.

Conclusion

I appreciate Julie’s commentary and willingness to let the scripture stand on its own to provoke our thinking and understanding.¹ Also, I value her desire to provide multiple views on how these verses could be understood. At Most Moved Mover, I appreciate her willingness to highlight Christ’s desire to be in an authentic relationship with any that wishes to be in a genuine relationship with Him. That authentic relationship allows both parties to bend and mold in the counsel.

• voices
• commentary
• omniscience