Placed immediately after a discussion of purity in both Matthew and Mark, Jesus’ encounter with this Gentile woman brings out the implications the Evangelists find in his view of purity: Gentiles will no longer be separated from Israel. Like an earlier Gentile in Matthew’s Gospel (8:10), this woman becomes an illustration of faith. Also like the centurion, this outsider’s faith compares favorably with that of some religious insiders among Jesus’ contemporaries (15:1-20).
Matthew reinforces this point by specifying exactly what Mark’s Hellenistic Syro-Phoenician woman (Mk 7:26) means. She is a descendant of the ancient Canaanites, the bitter biblical enemies of Israel whose paganism had often led Israel into idolatry. “Yes,” Matthew seems to reply; “God’s compassion extends to all Gentiles.” The narrative thus constitutes another of Matthew’s invitations to the Gentile mission
In our culture we might consider this woman rude, but ancient Mediterranean judges were sometimes so corrupt that among the poor only a persistent, desperate, otherwise powerless woman could obtain justice from them and in the Gospel tradition show courage by refusing to take no for an answer to a desperate need. When we recognize that we have nowhere else to turn, clinging to the only One who can answer us is an act of faith.
Jesus had left Jewish territory because the masses crowded him; but this stage of his mission was for Israel alone. Thus when his disciples ask him to send the woman away, he notes the limitation of his mission. Yet he did not send her away, which may have encouraged her to persevere. To her own insistent entreaty Jesus responds with almost equal firmness. Some Jewish teachers would have reached out to the woman, hoping to make her a proselyte, Jesus simply snubs her.
Jesus is not cursing the woman, but he is putting her off. It is possible that he is testing her, as teachers sometimes tested their disciples, but he is certainly reluctant to grant her request and is providing an obstacle for her faith. Perhaps he is requiring her to understand his true mission and identity, lest she treat him as one of the many wandering magicians to whom Gentiles sometimes appealed for exorcisms. Yet he is surely also summoning her to recognize Israel’s priority in the divine plan, a recognition that for her will include an admission of her dependent status. For one of her social status (an elite “Greek” citizen of Syro-Phoenician race) this was a dramatic reversal indeed; but by calling her a Canaanite, Matthew’s account mutes the class issue, properly focusing instead on the racial issue, which is more relevant to his own audience.
The woman recognizes that Jesus is no mere magician who performs feats for fame or money. By hailing Jesus as Son of David, she has already acknowledged him as the rightful king over a nation that had conquered her ancestors-more than many of his own people had done. Like John’s woman at the well, this Canaanite woman publicly acknowledged Jesus’ identity before the disciples who wished her to leave had done so. Now she refuses to dispute that Jesus’ mission is to Israel first and that her status is secondary to that of Israelites; nevertheless, she believes Jesus will have more than enough power left over from what Israel does not need or want. Jesus responds to such striking faith. Jesus has enough bread for Israel, but the following narrative reinforces that plenty of scraps remain over for others. Matthew reminds his community that all, both Jew and Gentile, can approach God only through faith in his Messiah.