Healing and Worship

Matthew 15:21-31

From The Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, AMG Publishers, 2006.

[21] Jesus then crossed into the regions of Tyre and Sidon in Phoenicia. These two mostly heathen cities were only twenty-one miles apart. It was the Tyrenians who furnished the timber for Solomon’s Temple and other great buildings of Jerusalem. The cedars of Lebanon were floated some eighty-five miles from Tyre to Joppa and from there taken to Jerusalem. During Jesus’ ministry, He visited this populous and thriving city, and people came from there to hear Him (See Luke 6:17; 10:13, 14, et al.). Paul also spent seven days at Tyre (Acts 21:3, 4) on one occasion.

[22] A Canaanite woman then approached Jesus, “And, behold (idoú [2400], the imperative middle of eídō from eídon, the aorist of horáō [3708], to see and perceive with emphasis on perception), a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts and cried to Him, saying, Have mercy (eléēsón, the aorist imperative of eleéō [1653], to be merciful) on me, O Lord (kúrie, the vocative singular of kúrios [2962], master), You son of David; my daughter is being demonized badly” (a.t.).

Mark calls this woman a Syrophoenician (Mark 7:26) and records that Jesus had entered a house near the border away from the suspicious, watchful eyes of the public, though this was impossible (Mark 7:24).

The aorist imperative indicates that the woman’s request was for immediate help. Her daughter was “being demonized,” the passive voice highlighting a demon’s active oppression from which only the Lord could rescue. The woman’s attitude was entirely different from that of the Jews (Matt. 15:1–20). She had a need, and she believed Jesus had the power to cast out the demon, something He had done on other occasions (Matt. 4:24, 8:16, et al).

Note the faith of this “[stranger] from the covenants of promise” (Eph. 2:12). First, her request implied that she believed Jesus was merciful (eleēmōn [1655], compassionate), even beyond Jewish borders. Second, when she addressed Him as “Lord,” she implied His lordship over demonic realms. She certainly believed He was the anointed Son of God. The aorist tense of “have mercy” shows she believed Jesus could immediately do something to meet her daughter’s crisis. She also called Him “son of David,” acknowledging not just His deity but His fulfillment of prophecy that the Messiah would come from the seed of David.

[23] “But he answered her not (ouk, the absolute ‘not’) a word.” Jesus’ silence was intentional, but we are not given the reason. However, we can deduce that the Lord has His perfect time, “His hour” to save. We cannot rush Him, no matter how frantic (like the woman) we are.

The disciples took this silence as a cue that He did not want the woman around. “Send her away (apóluson, the aorist imperative of apolúō [630], to dismiss, release) because (hóti [3754]) she cries behind us” (a.t.). They assumed that the woman was becoming a nuisance to the Lord.

[24] “But he answered”—not the disciples but the woman, for two reasons. First, the disciples already knew that Jesus had come only for the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” because He had commanded such in Matthew 10:5. They knew she was a Gentile, and this was only consistent with what He had already commanded them. Second, the woman responded to Jesus’ answer, not the disciples, implying that Jesus was looking at her when He spoke.

This restriction to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” was obviously not absolute, and Jesus wanted to teach His disciples this lesson. True, He came initially to the house of Israel. But not everyone in Israel is a “lost sheep” as is evident from those verses that state that the Lord saves every one of His sheep. Of the hundred sheep that He has, the ninety and nine are safely in the fold, and He goes after the one remaining (Matt. 18:12, et al). Thus, they are not all lost sheep, only those “who believe not, because ye [i.e., ‘they’] are not of my sheep” (John 10:26).

And since “lost sheep” is a broader class than “the house of [physical] Israel,” it may extend to the Gentiles of His people as well, “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must (deí [1163], not moral—as if God “obeys”—but preordained necessity) bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd” (John 10:16).

Paul goes to great theological lengths in the book of Romans to prove that God intended to extend His kingdom to the Gentiles (Rom. 9—11) during a period of what he calls “a partial hardening” (Rom. 11:25) of Israel: “They are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). Logically, this statement can be interpreted two ways. Either an elect, spiritual Israel is totally within natural Israel (i.e., Israel according to the flesh), or the two classes intersect like rings. The latter case fits Paul’s subsequent argument for the incorporation of Gentiles among which he describes Israel as: “He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly” (Rom. 2:28). If the house of spiritual Israel extends beyond natural Israel, even Jesus’ original words do not exclude Gentiles.

[25] Ignorant of Jesus’ plan to offer salvation to the entire world but cognizant of an accepting, even inviting, tone in His voice, the woman repeated her plea: “Lord, help me!” “Then came she and worshipped (prosekúnēsen, MT, the aorist tense of proskunéō [4352] from prós [4314], toward; and kunéō [n.f.], to kiss, the aorist signifying a momentary act; or prosekúnei, [in TR, UBS, Nestle’s Text], the imperfect of the same verb, implying a continuing act) him.” In either case, the woman apparently fell on her face and kissed Jesus’ feet.

Notice the personal pronoun moi (me). This should not be understood as a self-centered request at the expense of her daughter. She clearly identified with her daughter; her daughter’s torment was her own. (Note the close connection: “Help me. . . . My daughter is demonized” (v. 22; a.t.).

[26] Still, Jesus tested the woman’s faith, “It is not (ouk) good (kalón, the accusative of kalós [2570]) to take (labeín, the aorist infinitive of lambánō [2983]; the aorist means “at this time,” not generally) the bread of the children (téknōn [5043]) and to cast (baleín, the aorist infinitive of bállō [906]) it to the little dogs (kunaríois [2952])” (a.t.).

The root Greek noun kúōn (n.f.) is a house or domestic dog, but the diminutive kunárion, used here in the plural, is a small dog or puppy that kisses its master’s hand—thus the connection with the verb kunéō. The verb proskunéō, therefore, has come to mean “to worship,” to be thankful in the way a dog expresses its humble gratitude the only way it knows how. Three New Testament synonyms for proskunéō include sébomai (to revere, with its associative noun sébas [n.f.], respect, and verb sebázomai [4573]), eusebéō ([2151], to show piety, worship), and latreúō ([3000], to serve).

The Greek term translated “dogs” here, therefore, does not include the negative connotation it can today (i.e., “gone to the dogs”). Moreover, the fact that the children’s bread is not appropriate for loving puppies does not mean the puppies do not have their own proper food, either. We have to be careful that we do not put a harsh tone in Jesus’ mouth from the word “dogs” itself.

[27] The woman persisted: “Truth (naí [3483], yes), Lord: yet (actually two words: kaí, also; and gár, for) the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”

In Greek there are two words which mean “yes.” Málista ([3122], the superlative adverb of mála (n.f.), very, mostly, especially). The other word, used here, is naí. What is the difference? Málista is an adverb of comparison that admits of degrees like good, better, and best, or possible, probable, and certain. Naí, on the other hand, is an adverb of affirmation that excludes degrees by definition. This is why the Lord said, “Let your yes (naí) be yes and your no (ou) no; for whatever is more than this is evil” (Matt. 5:37, a.t.).

The woman’s naí, therefore, was an absolute assent to the Lord’s teaching; she had no doubt that what He had said was true. From here, she could only risk inquiring whether this teaching, while nothing but the truth, was the whole truth. Note that she used neither the Greek adversative dé or allá, “but”, to contradict the Lord, but rather kaí gár, meaning “for also” (i.e., in addition). She now suggested a derivative truth, not a denial of the original. In addition to the fact that bread was not cast to dogs, the dogs still benefit from crumbs that “keep falling (piptóntōn, the present participle of píptō [4098], to fall) from their master’s table” (a.t.).

[28] At this response, Jesus commended the woman, “O woman, great is thy faith: be it (genēthētō, the aorist passive imperative of gínomai [1096], to become) unto thee even as thou wilt (théleis, the present tense of thélō [2309], to desire). Jesus’ “be it” was not the wishful thinking of a pastoral benediction but a decree, as in, “Let there be (genēthētō) light, and there became (egéneto) light” (Gen. 1:3, lxx). The devil himself could not retain the demon inside this young girl once Jesus had spoken. And so we read, “And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”

 [29] Jesus now left the region of Tyre and Sidon in Phoenicia and “came near unto the Sea of Galilee.” He was acquainted with a certain mountain there, perhaps the one where He had encountered the devil at the beginning of His ministry (Matt. 4:8). This too may have been the one on which He had taught the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:1; 8:1).

[30, 31] Here great multitudes, we are told, “cast down” (érripsan, the aorist tense of rhíptō [4496], to throw or let down) their sick before Jesus: the lame, blind, deaf, unable to speak, maimed, and others.

The verb rhíptō is more often associated with throwing away or scattering refuse rather than with letting down. Consequently, the scenario is not very pleasant, and it vividly contrasts with Jesus’ compassionate healing of the victims. These were not necessarily sick relatives but outcasts, rejects, beggars, those that society, represented by the multitude, had disowned. Throwing someone down on the ground is a sampling of the worst type of humiliation.

But as Paul concluded, maybe partly from this very scene, “Who will reject what God elects?” (Rom. 8:33, a.t.). The Lord Jesus restored these castaways completely and permanently as seen in the use of several present participles, “the dumb speaking (laloúntas, the present participle of laléō [2980], to speak, break the silence), the crippled healthy (hugieís, the accusative plural of hugiēs [5199], healthy ones), the lame walking (peripatoúntas, the present participle of peripatéō [4043], to walk), and the blind seeing (blépontas, the present participle of blépō [991], to see)” (a.t.).

The multitude did not stop with marveling, which alone stops short of salvation. The text says, “They marveled (thaumásai, the aorist infinitive of thaumázō [2296], to marvel)…and (kaí) they glorified (edóxasan, the aorist tense of doxázō (1392), to ascribe glory; from dokéō [1380], to think, to predicate) the God of Israel” (a.t.). Hopefully, the crowd also rethought its responsibilities to the helpless.

To glorify is to subjectively predicate all the attributes of God to God, that is, to recognize God as God, as He is objectively. This mental cognition causes the emotions to burst forth in marvel and awe. One cannot be emotionally detached while praising God. Because of the Trinitarian relationships, the Father and Son glorify One another: “If God [the Father] be glorified in Him [the Son], God shall also glorify Him [the Son] in Himself [probably the Son], and shall straightway glorify Him [the Son]” (John 13:32). At this point, the multitudes most likely gloried in God the Father through the Son who performed the works.

Dr. Spiros Zodhiates (1922-2009) served as president of AMG International in Chattanooga, Tennessee for over 40 years, was the founding editor of Pulpit Helps Magazine, and authored dozens of exegetical books.