Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Kai exelthōn ekeithen ho Iēsous anechōrēsen eis ta merē Tyrou kai Sidōnos
The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
The Faith of the Canaanite Woman
Matthew 15:21–28 — The Faith of the Canaanite Woman. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Kai exelthōn ekeithen ho Iēsous anechōrēsen eis ta merē Tyrou kai Sidōnos
And a Canaanite woman from that region came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is miserably possessed by a demon.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
kai idou Chananaia gynē apo tōn ekeinōn horiōn exelthousa ekrazen legousa Kyrie huios Dauid Eleēson me mou hē thygatēr kakōs daimonizetai
But Jesus did not answer a word. So His disciples came and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de Ho ouk apekrithē logon autē kai autou hoi mathētai proselthontes ērōtoun auton legontes Apolyson autēn hoti krazei opisthen hēmōn
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de Ho apokritheis eipen Ouk apestalēn ei mē eis ta ta apolōlota probata oikou Israēl
The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de Hē elthousa prosekynei autō Kyrie boēthei moi legousa
But Jesus replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de Ho apokritheis eipen estin Ouk kalon labein ton tōn teknōn arton kai balein tois kynariois
“Yes, Lord,” she said, “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Nai kyrie de Hē eipen gar kai ta kynaria esthiei apo tōn psichiōn tōn piptontōn apo autōn tōn kyriōn tēs trapezēs
“O woman,” Jesus answered, “your faith is great! Let it be done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
Ō gynai Tote ho Iēsous apokritheis eipen autē sou hē pistis megalē genēthētō soi hōs theleis kai autēs hē thygatēr iathē apo tēs ekeinēs hōras
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
One finite verb governs the verse: ἀνεχώρησεν (anechōrēsen, G402), whose lexical sense is to retire. Gill supplies the motive from the preceding dispute, that Jesus left “to avoid any snares the Scribes and Pharisees might be laying for him,” and Barnes adds Herod. Whether he actually crossed into Phoenicia is the one live factual dispute in this unit, and the brief's voices divide. Ellicott, leaning on Mark 7:31 “in the best MSS.,” calls the journey “the one recorded exception to that self-imposed law of His ministry.” Poole inclines the same way and reads the crossing as “a kind of a praeludium to the calling of the Gentiles.” Against them, Gill (“not that he went into these places themselves”), Geneva (“Coasts which were next to Tyre and Sidon”), Cambridge and Pulpit all keep him inside the border, Pulpit arguing from v. 22's ἐξελθοῦσα that she “came out away from those borders,” which would be odd if he were already inside them. ⚙ The Greek εἰς τὰ μέρη genuinely will not settle it; Pulpit's own concession is the honest resting place, that the lesson “was given equally well by the acceptance and commendation of the Gentile woman's faith, even though Christ himself was outside of pagan territory.”
Matthew alone calls her Χαναναία (G5478), and Ellicott and Cambridge both show why: by the later usage of the term she is a Phoenician, but by its Pentateuchal usage she belongs to the nations under the ban. Pulpit says it without softening: “the accursed race of Canaan.” Out of that ancestry comes the title Κύριε υἱὸς Δαυίδ, and Maclaren draws the contrast that governs the whole episode: she “has learned to call Him the Son of David, owning His kingship, which His born subjects disowned.” Her verb is imperfect, ἔκραζεν, a rasping and repeated scream (Strong's root: to croak as a raven), and Matthew answers it with the most difficult sentence in the pericope: οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῇ λόγον. Barnes reads the silence as a designed trial “that there might be exhibited to the apostles an example of the effect of persevering supplication”; Geneva generalizes it, that Christ “sometimes shuts his ears, as it were, to the prayers of his saints”; Cambridge adds the structural observation that “Christ first refuses by silence, then by express words.” Ellicott dissents from nearly everyone: he refuses to read the harshness as simulated and sees instead a real conflict inside our Lord's human will, silence being “the natural outcome of the equilibrium of these conflicting motives.” The disciples break it with Ἀπόλυσον αὐτήν, and the verb will carry either dismissal or discharge; Benson, Gill and Pulpit all conclude from Jesus' reply that they were asking him to grant the cure and be rid of her, which Ellicott judges “far harsher than their Master's silence.”
The refusal is not contempt but commission: ἀπεστάλην (G649) is a divine passive, and εἰ μὴ marks a boundary on the sending, not on the love. Poole guards the distinction carefully, that the words do not deny “that he was sent as a Redeemer to more, but not as a minister”; Gill makes the same division between priestly work for the elect of all nations and prophetic ministry to the circumcision, citing Romans 15:8, and Pulpit agrees that “his personal mission while he was on earth was confined to the Hebrew nation.” The flock is described with a perfect participle, ἀπολωλότα, sheep in a settled state of ruin, and Cambridge sends the reader to Ezekiel 34, Pulpit to Jeremiah 50:6. Then she worships (the imperfect προσεκύνει) and prays two words, Κύριε βοήθει μοι, and Gill marks the escalation: “now she worships him as God.” The answer is the household proverb about bread and κυναρίοις. On the force of that diminutive the brief's voices openly conflict: Ellicott hears house pets, Pulpit denies the Hebrews kept dogs as companions at all and hears only the countrymen's slur; Barnes insists the term is quoted, not endorsed, since Christ “cannot be understood as intending to justify or sanction the use of such terms”; Gill documents the slur at length from the Zohar and Talmud, and Poole grants the harshness while adding the hope, “but they shall have their time.” ⚙ We record the disagreement unresolved. What is certain is the grammar: he calls the act οὐ καλόν, not fitting, a judgment about order in a household, and she answers within that judgment rather than against it.
Her reply turns on a particle. Cambridge corrects the older English flatly: “‘Yet,’ of the E. V., is misleading. Translate ‘for even.’” With καὶ γὰρ her sentence becomes an inference from his own words, and Ellicott supplies the unspoken clause, “Yet grant what I ask, for the dogs under the table.” Her nouns answer his: his diminutive dogs get her diminutive crumbs (ψιχίων, G5589), and the present participle πιπτόντων keeps them falling continuously, so the children lose nothing. Cambridge fixes the owners as God rather than the Jewish people, and Gill hears her claiming a real relation: “their common Lord and Master had a propriety in them, and they in him.” Ellicott prints a Talmudic story of Jonathan son of Amram asking to be fed “as a dog is fed, who eats of the crumbs of the feast,” and Poole itemizes her three virtues, humility, modesty, fervency. The verdict is μεγάλη ... ἡ πίστις, predicate first. Poole notes that “Christ admired the faith of none but pagans,” comparing Matthew 8:10, and Ellicott files her under Romans 4:16 as “a child of the faith, though not of the flesh, of Abraham.” The cure is an aorist passive, ἰάθη, worked at a distance with no word spoken to the demon, and Pulpit refuses any suggestion that importunity wore Jesus down: “He acted all the time as God, who foreknew what he would do.”
⚙ This is the tool's own fallible reading, offered to be tested against the text. Matthew has just finished a dispute about what defiles (15:1-20), and he immediately sets beside it a woman from the one race Israel was commanded to devote to destruction, who calls Jesus by his throne-name and receives what Israel's teachers would not ask for. The refusals in this scene are not a mask over a kindness already decided; taken at their word they are true statements of order. He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and it would not be fitting to lift the loaf off the children's table. What the woman perceives, and what makes her faith great rather than merely stubborn, is that an order is not the same as an exclusion. She never denies the order; she locates herself inside its geometry, under the table of the same house, and asks for what that position yields. She asks for a crumb and receives the one thing in the story that is called great. There is a warning in this for anyone who reads the passage as a puzzle about divine reluctance: the silence, the statement of mission, and the proverb are all addressed to a woman who is not yet in the covenant, and she alone in the scene neither takes offence nor tries to correct the terms. The disciples want quiet, and get a doctrine of mission. She wants mercy, and gets it, in the only posture mercy can be received in. Where Ellicott sees the prayer of a suppliant moving the sympathy of Christ and so extending the limits of his work, and Barnes, Geneva, Gill and Pulpit see a trial designed from the first to display a faith already given, we decline to choose: Matthew reports the sequence and not the interior deliberation, and any reconstruction of that deliberation is inference. What the text does state is that she was never told she was wrong, and that her child was well within the hour. The pullquote below is our own sentence, not Scripture.
Great faith is not the claim of a seat at the table; it is the refusal to leave the room where the bread is.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
Mark 7:24-30 tells this story with the same rare diminutive κυνάριον (G2952), which the Verifier finds in only four verses of the New Testament, all of them in this scene and its parallel. The shared vocabulary is dense and the Verifier records it for Mark 7:27 and 7:28. The differences are the interesting part, and the commentators exploit them: Mark identifies her as “a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nation” where Matthew says Canaanite (Ellicott, Barnes, Poole, Gill, Cambridge all harmonize the two), Mark places the opening scene in a house that Jesus wished kept secret, and Mark adds a clause Matthew does not have. Cambridge calls it “a gleam of hope”: “Let the children first be filled.” Poole uses that clause to answer the objection “How came it then that the gospel was ever carried to the Gentiles?” ⚙ Readers should notice that the softening word is Mark's, not Matthew's; Matthew's version is harder, and a synthesis of the two should not be read back into this text as though it stood here.
Mark 7:24 · Mark 7:27 · Mark 7:28 · Mark 7:31
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes with Mark 7:27, G2952 κυνάριον (in 4 vv, rare), G2570 καλός (in 90 vv), G2983 λαμβάνω (in 243 vv); with Mark 7:28, G611 ἀποκρίνομαι (in 231 vv); with Mark 7:24, G1564 ἐκεῖθεν (in 27 vv), G5184 Τύρος (in 11 vv), G3725 ὅριον (in 11 vv); with Mark 7:31, G4605 Σιδών (in 9 vv), G5184 Τύρος. Both refs are Greek New Testament, so a verbal link is admissible; the rare lexeme κυνάριον carries it. This is a synoptic parallel, not a citation of one book by another.
Her two-word prayer in v. 25 uses βοήθει (G997, to aid or relieve), a verb the Verifier finds in only eight verses. Two of its other occurrences sit in the closest possible situation: the father of the demon-afflicted boy at Mark 9:22-24 cries the same verb twice, first “help us” and then, with the same verb of screaming that Matthew uses of this woman (κράζω, G2896), “help my unbelief.” ⚙ The pairing is instructive in both directions. The Israelite father asks with a confessed deficit of faith and is helped; the Canaanite mother asks with no covenant standing and is told her faith is great. Neither is helped on the strength of a qualification. The third occurrence the Verifier surfaces, Acts 21:28, is the mob in the temple shouting the same word for help against Paul over a supposed Gentile defilement of the holy place, which is a bleak coincidence of vocabulary rather than a thematic link, and we do not press it.
Mark 9:22 · Mark 9:24 · Acts 21:28
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexeme G997 βοηθέω (in 8 vv, rare) with Mark 9:22, Mark 9:24 and Acts 21:28, plus G2896 κράζω (in 54 vv) shared with Mark 9:24 and Acts 21:28 and G622 ἀπόλλυμι (in 84 vv) with Mark 9:22. All refs are Greek New Testament, so the verbal tier is admissible. Verbal only: no quotation is claimed in either direction.
The disciples complain that she is screaming ὄπισθεν ἡμῶν, behind us, using a preposition the Verifier finds in only seven verses. Two of them describe the hemorrhaging woman who “came up behind Him” to touch the fringe of his cloak (Matthew 9:20, Luke 8:44), and Matthew 9:20 shares with our verse the further words ἰδού and γυνή. ⚙ The resemblance is verbal and situational rather than a citation: two women, both ritually disqualified from approach, both taking the position at the back, both commended for faith and both healed at a distance from the normal channels of contact. Matthew's own summary in the earlier case, “your faith has healed you,” is the closest thing in his Gospel to the verdict pronounced here.
Matthew 9:20 · Luke 8:44
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexeme G3693 ὄπισθεν (in 7 vv, rare) with Matthew 9:20 and Luke 8:44, plus G1135 γυνή (in 195 vv) and G2400 ἰδού (in 226 vv) with Matthew 9:20 and G4334 προσέρχομαι (in 85 vv) with Luke 8:44. All refs are Greek New Testament. The link is a shared rare lexeme within one Gospel's own idiom, not a quotation.
Matthew has used this pair of names once before, in the woe of 11:21-22: Tyre and Sidon would have repented in sackcloth if they had seen what Chorazin and Bethsaida saw. Luke preserves the same saying (10:13-14), and both Mark 3:8 and Luke 6:17 record that people from the district of Tyre and Sidon had already come to hear Jesus and bring their afflicted. Ellicott makes the connection explicit for this verse: “He was showing in act, as before in word (Matthew 11:21), that He regarded Tyre and Sidon as standing on the same level as Chorazin and Bethsaida.” Cambridge and Pulpit both use Mark 3:8 and Luke 6:17 to explain how a Phoenician woman could already know the name Son of David, and Ellicott suggests she “may well have cherished for months the hope that one day the great Deliverer would come within her reach.” ⚙ The narrative payoff is that Matthew's hypothetical in chapter 11 becomes an actual case in chapter 15: a Tyre-and-Sidon woman does see, and does believe.
Matthew 11:21 · Matthew 11:22 · Luke 10:13 · Mark 3:8 · Luke 6:17
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G5184 Τύρος (in 11 vv) and G4605 Σιδών (in 9 vv) with Matthew 11:21-22, Luke 10:13-14, Mark 3:8 and Luke 6:17. The shared lexemes are real and relatively rare, but they are a recurring pair of place names rather than a quotation or a distinctive verbal formula, so we tier this thematic rather than verbal and under-claim deliberately.
Jesus' self-description in v. 24 is a perfect participle of ruin attached to a flock: sheep in a settled state of being lost. The commentators in this brief both name its Old Testament roots. Cambridge: “The thought of Israel as a flock of sheep lost on the mountains is beautifully drawn out, Ezekiel 34,” quoting “My flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them,” and urging the reader through the whole chapter. Pulpit points instead to Jeremiah 50:6 and notes that Jesus had already used the phrase when commissioning the Twelve (Matthew 10:6). Isaiah 53:6, “all we like sheep have gone astray,” supplies the confession the image assumes. ⚙ Read together, the prophetic background makes v. 24 less a boundary marker than a job description: he is sent where the shepherds failed, and Ezekiel 34 promises that the one who comes will be God's own shepherd over them.
Ezekiel 34:5 · Ezekiel 34:6 · Jeremiah 50:6 · Isaiah 53:6 · Matthew 10:6
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek Matthew to Hebrew Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah), so no shared Strong's number is possible and no verbal tier is available. The recorded basis is commentator attestation of a shared motif: Cambridge cites Ezekiel 34 explicitly on this verse and Pulpit cites Jeremiah 50:6 and Matthew 10:6. Matthew 10:6 is Matthew's own earlier wording of the same phrase; the Verifier did not return it as a candidate, so we claim no computed lexical basis for it.
The title she shouts is dynastic, and Cambridge states its force: it is “A title that proves the expectation that the Messiah should spring from the house of David. It is the particular Messianic prophecy which would be most likely to reach foreign countries.” The promise behind it is the oath to David of a son whose throne is established forever (2 Samuel 7:12-16) and the shoot from the stump of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1), whose reign in that same chapter reaches beyond Israel: the root of Jesse stands as a signal to the nations. ⚙ That last clause is why her use of the throne-title is not a category error. She asks a Jewish king for mercy because the Davidic promise itself was never bounded by Israel's borders, and Matthew, who opened his Gospel with “son of David” (1:1), lets a Canaanite be the one to say it plainly in chapter 15. Pulpit, more cautiously, judges that “At present she saw in Christ only a merciful Wonder-worker,” so the depth of her own understanding should not be overstated.
2 Samuel 7:12 · 2 Samuel 7:16 · Isaiah 11:1 · Isaiah 11:10 · Matthew 1:1
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek to Hebrew), so shared Strong's numbers cannot be computed and the verbal tier is excluded. The recorded basis is the titular formula itself plus Cambridge's explicit attestation on this verse that the title presupposes the Davidic dynastic promise. No formula quotation of 2 Samuel 7 or Isaiah 11 appears in the BSB text of this unit.
Matthew's archaic word Χαναναία places this woman among the nations Israel was told to devote to destruction and make no covenant with (Deuteronomy 7:1-2), immediately before the same chapter calls Israel a holy people chosen out of all peoples (Deuteronomy 7:6), which is the children's-bread principle in its original form. ⚙ Our own figural reading, offered as such: the Old Testament itself keeps opening cracks in that wall exactly where this story stands. Elijah in the famine is sent past every widow in Israel to a widow of Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and her son is restored to her (1 Kings 17:8-24); Rahab of Jericho is spared out of the ban by faith (Joshua 2, Joshua 6:25) and stands in Matthew's own genealogy. A Sidonian district, a mother, a child given back: the Canaanite woman of Matthew 15 takes her place in a pattern that the conquest narratives already contain. We mark this as our reading, not the brief's: no commentator in this unit's sources draws the Zarephath comparison, and the connection is figural rather than lexical.
Deuteronomy 7:1 · Deuteronomy 7:2 · Deuteronomy 7:6 · 1 Kings 17:9 · Joshua 6:25
basis: Figural, cross-Testament, and therefore not verbal: no shared Strong's lexeme is computable between Greek Matthew and Hebrew Deuteronomy, Kings or Joshua. The ground is the Canaanite identity named in v. 22 (Ellicott, Pulpit and Cambridge all trace it to the pre-Israelite nations) set against the ban and election texts of Deuteronomy 7. The Zarephath and Rahab comparisons are novel to this synthesis, not drawn by any commentator in this brief, and are flagged as our own.
Both Ellicott and Gill explain the saying of v. 26 by appealing to rabbinic material. Ellicott prints a Talmudic story of Jonathan son of Amram, refused a share of famine corn until he asked to be fed “as a dog is fed, who eats of the crumbs of the feast,” calling it “so singularly parallel to this that it is worth reproducing.” Gill cites the Zohar and several Talmudic tractates for the Jewish habit of calling Gentiles dogs, including a parable of a king who gives the bones to the dogs while the children eat, ending with a gloss on “thou preparest a table before me.” The secure scriptural data are smaller: Psalm 59:6 for the prowling city dogs Ellicott contrasts with the diminutive, and Philippians 3:2 where, as Cambridge notes, Paul turns the slur against Judaizing teachers. ⚙ We flag the rabbinic parallels rather than rely on them. The Zohar is a late medieval text, the Talmudic passages are centuries later than Matthew, and the folio references in Gill cannot be checked from this brief. The proverbial background is plausible and is asserted by two independent commentators; its date and provenance are not established here.
Psalm 59:6 · Philippians 3:2
basis: The scriptural refs are secure and are cited by name in this unit's own commentary (Psalm 59:6 by Ellicott on v. 26, Philippians 3:2 by Cambridge on v. 26); both are cross-Testament or thematic and no verbal tier is claimed. The thread is flagged because the substance of the parallel rests on rabbinic sources of disputed date and provenance, the Talmud story in Ellicott and the Zohar and tractate citations in Gill, which cannot be verified from the material supplied.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
⚙ The controlling image of the refusal is a household loaf: τὸν τῶν τέκνων ἄρτον, the children's bread. Poole identifies it as “the publication of the gospel, and the miracles by which the truth of the doctrine of it was confirmed,” and Gill as “the external ministry of the word, and the miracles of Christ wrought among them.” Pulpit reads it as “the graces and favours bestowed by God in Christ.” All three treat the loaf as something Jesus dispenses. Matthew's own arrangement presses further: a loaf-multiplication for Israel stands immediately before this scene (14:13-21) and another on the far shore immediately after it (15:32-39), and Maclaren already reads the unit against that frame, calling the contrast “an illustration of His parable of the crumbs that fell from the table and the plentiful feast that was spread upon it for the children.” Henry takes the last step, and the Greek diminutive licenses it: “The least of Christ is precious to a believer, even the very crumbs of the Bread of life.” In John 6:35 the bread is not what he gives but what he is, and at the table of Matthew 26:26 the loaf he breaks and hands over is his own body, given, as Paul says in Romans 15:8-9, first to confirm the promises to the fathers and then that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. The order of v. 26 is kept and then exhausted: the children are filled first, and then the loaf turns out to be large enough that there is no such thing as a crumb of it.
John 6:35 · Matthew 26:26 · Romans 15:8 · Romans 15:9
⚙ The sentence that seems to shut the door is the unit's clearest statement of who Jesus is. ἀπεστάλην is passive: he is the Sent One, and what he was sent to is a flock in a perfected state of ruin (ἀπολωλότα, G622, whose first lexical sense is to destroy fully). Pulpit hears the office in the phrase, “a tenderness in this expression natural from the mouth of the good Shepherd,” and Cambridge sends the reader to Ezekiel 34, where God indicts the shepherds who fed themselves, promises to seek the scattered flock himself, and then names one shepherd, his servant David, to feed them. In John 10:11 the Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep, and in John 10:16 he says there are other sheep, not of this fold, that he must bring also, so that there will be one flock and one Shepherd. Gill's dogmatic distinction in this unit points the same way, that the limit was on the prophetic ministry and not on the redemption. So v. 24 is not the Shepherd refusing a sheep outside the fold; it is the Shepherd naming the fold he was sent to first, in the hearing of one of the others he had already said he must bring.
Ezekiel 34:11 · Ezekiel 34:23 · John 10:11 · John 10:16 · Matthew 10:6
⚙ This scene is the clearest place in Matthew where the dividing wall is still standing and is nevertheless crossed by mercy. Pulpit records the ancient reading and its author: “If, as Chrysostom suggests, Jesus, by going to these partly Gentile districts, wished to give a practical commentary on the abrogation of the distinction between clean and unclean (breaking down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile), this lesson was given equally well by the acceptance and commendation of the Gentile woman's faith.” Ellicott finds the same shape in the apostolic history: “We may see a relation between the two acts not unlike that which afterwards connected the vision of Peter at Joppa with his entry into the house of Cornelius at Cæsarea.” Poole calls the episode “a kind of a praeludium to the calling of the Gentiles,” and Henry, reading it devotionally, says “afterwards the ends of the earth shall see his salvation.” Ephesians 2:13-14 names what happened at the cross to the barrier this woman argued her way under, and Acts 10:34-35 is Peter saying out loud what Cambridge says her healing “points to,” the wide diffusion of the gospel beyond the Jewish race. ⚙ Our own addition, offered as fallible: her argument in v. 27 does not dismantle the wall, it finds the floor beneath it, and that is exactly the shape of Gentile inclusion in Paul, grafted into a tree they did not grow.
Ephesians 2:13 · Ephesians 2:14 · Acts 10:34 · Acts 10:35 · Romans 11:17
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
Text. BSB (CC0) with the Berean interlinear and Strong's numbers as supplied. Two mechanical features of that interlinear should be known before trusting the word indices as a Greek word order. First, the display sequence follows the English rendering, not the Greek clause order: at 15:22 the vocative address is listed before the imperative (Κύριε υἱὸς Δαυίδ, then Ἐλέησόν με), at 15:23 the postpositive δὲ heads the verse, at 15:27 Ναί κύριε precedes εἶπεν, and at 15:28 Ὦ γύναι is listed before Τότε. Our literal renderings follow the given token order and should not be read as a reconstruction of the Greek word order. Second, 15:24 lists the article τὰ twice (indices 9 and 10), which we take to be an artifact of the interlinear alignment rather than a doubled article in the text; we have not asserted anything from it.
Sources. Eleven commentators are named in the brief; ten are quoted here. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown is not quoted because its entries for all eight verses contain no exposition at all, only the verse text and a cross-reference (“For the exposition, see on Mr 7:24-30”), so there is nothing in this unit to cite by anchor. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary treats 15:21-28 as a single block and the identical paragraph is reprinted under every verse; we quote it once and say so. Maclaren's exposition and Benson's note both cover the whole pericope but are filed in the brief under 15:21, which is where their excerpts sit. Maclaren's entry is capped in the brief (roughly ten thousand further characters were not supplied), so his exposition of vv. 24-28 was not available to us and we have not characterized it.
What is uncertain. Three genuine disputes are left open rather than resolved. (1) Whether Jesus entered Phoenician territory: Ellicott and Poole say yes, Gill, Geneva, Cambridge and Pulpit say he stayed at the border; the Greek εἰς τὰ μέρη does not decide it, and the appeal to Mark 7:31 depends on a manuscript judgment we cannot check here. (2) Whether the diminutive κυνάριον softens the saying: Ellicott says it names household pets, Pulpit denies that Hebrews kept dogs as companions at all. (3) Whether the harshness was a designed trial of a faith already known (Barnes, Geneva, Gill, Benson, Cambridge, Pulpit) or a real conflict in our Lord's human will resolved by her prayer (Ellicott, explicitly against “nearly all ancient and most modern interpreters”). Matthew reports speech and sequence, not interior deliberation, so both readings are inference beyond the text. Further, the rabbinic parallels adduced for the bread-and-dogs proverb (Ellicott's Talmud story, Gill's Zohar and tractate citations) are late and unverifiable from this brief, and the corresponding thread is tiered flagged for that reason. The Zarephath and Rahab comparisons in the Canaan thread are our own figural additions and are marked as novel. No formula quotation of the Old Testament appears in the BSB text of this unit, so every Old Testament contact here is tiered thematic or typological and never verbal.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)