Daily Writing

Sunday, 4 January 2026

But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” Matthew 15:26

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And answering, He said, ‘It is not good to take the children’s bread and cast to the puppies’” (CG).

In the previous verse, the Canaanite woman came to Jesus and worshiped Him and asked Him to help her. Following this, Matthew records, “And answering, He said, ‘It is not good to take the children’s bread and cast to the puppies.’”

A new word is seen, kunarion, a diminutive form of kuón, a dog. Thus, it refers to a puppy. The word is found only four times. All four are in the same account found in Matthew and Mark. According to the Law of Moses, a dog is an unclean animal in regard to dietary restrictions.

It does not logically follow that dogs are unclean and not to be associated with, apart from those dietary laws. If that were true, those of Israel could not ride on donkeys, horses, mules, or camels. Therefore, equating a dog to something inherently unclean is not something to be found in Jesus’ words.

Further, Jesus’ words about casting the bread of the children to the puppies are not devaluing the woman at all. It is simply a truth that Jesus, the Bread of Life, was sent to the house of Israel, not to the Gentiles.

And that brings up the obvious metaphor used in the Hebrew Scriptures of Caleb. His name means Dog. He is used typologically as a picture of the Gentiles every time he is mentioned. Likewise, in Judges 7:5, the dog is used again typologically referring to Gentiles –

“So he brought the people down to the water. And the Lord said to Gideon, ‘Everyone who laps from the water with his tongue, as a dog laps, you shall set apart by himself; likewise everyone who gets down on his knees to drink.’” Judges 7:5

In that seemingly cryptic passage, the focus is not on how the lapping is conducted but on which animal did the lapping, the dog. The dog, anticipating Gentiles in Scripture, is thus typologically equated in that story to the fact that Gentiles during the church age will lap up the water (the word, Christ, the Spirit, etc.), meaning by faith. They reflect those who will engage in the spiritual battle that Israel failed to accept at the coming of Christ.

Jesus’ words here do not speak in a derogatory manner. Rather, there is the matter of priority. God covenanted with Israel. Therefore, Jesus’ ministry was to be focused on the House of Israel. Only after they rejected Jesus would the Gentiles become the focus of God’s ongoing redemptive narrative.

Life application: It has been said that the actions of Jesus toward this Canaanite woman show a flippant, derogatory attitude toward Gentiles. The exact opposite is the case. Referring to a group of people by their nature is simply a way of making people understand a particular point about them. This is as common as threads in a weaving factory.

Throughout the Bible, the names of people groups are identified by the things they do, the places they live, or certain characteristics they possess. This is true in both testaments. Instead of finding offense in such things, we should try to discover why the name of a person or a people group identifies them in such a way.

By doing this, we will understand more about their nature and how God and other people groups perceive them. Further, when we understand these things, we can then understand how they and their names anticipate other things typologically. The entire Old Testament is filled with typology, anticipating other truths that are realized in Jesus Christ, His church, the future state of Israel, the dispensations of time, and so forth.

The only thing that is derogatory about the account of Jesus and this Canaanite woman is how people misuse it for various reasons. However, in understanding how God views the Gentiles, using the dog as a metaphor for them, and then in understanding the noble traits of the dog, we find that God is actually exalting the Gentiles, placing them in a preeminent position in Scripture.

While Israel failed to accept Jesus, the dogs of the world, the Gentile people, have been lapping up the spiritual truths of the word, faithfully following their Master, eagerly awaiting His return, and doggedly defending His house until He returns. Hooray for the dog! For a wonderful, short look at the dog, check out this song by Wendy J Francisco: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H17edn_RZoY&list=RDH17edn_RZoY&start_radio=1

Lord God, Your creation reflects You in such wonderful ways. You created the dog, which is faithful, loving, infinitely patient, and always forgiving when we return to it. Thank You for what we can learn about You when we consider our pet dogs.  Amen.

Saturday, 3 January 2026

Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” Matthew 15:25

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And having come, she worshipped Him, saying, ‘Lord, You rush-relieve me!’” (CG).

In the previous verse, Jesus said to His disciples that He was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. However, the woman who had been crying out after Jesus was unrelenting. Matthew next records, “And having come, she worshipped Him.”

It is a word already seen several times, proskuneó. The idea of worship here does not have to mean as to a deity. Rather, it is a type of reverence where she would have bowed down before Him, acknowledging His abilities and petitioning Him to favor her with them. That is seen in her words, “saying, ‘Lord.’”

The wording of the previous verse implies Jesus’ response about only being sent to the lost house of Israel was directed to the disciples. However, it appears she heard His words because she has stopped using the term Son of David from verse 21.

This is unlike the blind men in Matthew 20, who continued to call Him Son of David after the people rebuked them. As such, the woman, understanding that His ministry is only to Israel, drops the reference to David. She has no claim on His Jewish heritage.

Despite this, she still refers to Him as Lord, acknowledging His position and authority. With this understood, her words continue with, “You rush-relieve me!”

She introduces a word to Scripture, boétheó, to help, aid, or relieve. It is derived from boé, intense exclamation, and theō, to run. Therefore, it signifies “to run and meet an urgent distress-call (cry for help); to deliver help, quickly responding to an urgent need (intense distress)” HELPS Word Studies. Lacking any suitable single word to describe the intent, rush-relieve is a suitable substitute.

With her in Jesus’ presence, the tension of her needs, His set mission, and His human desire to assist her reaches its highest moment.

Life application: The humanity of Jesus went through all of the struggles that man is familiar with. The love of God for His creation, despite the sin that has infected it, means that God desires reconciliation with the people of the world.

However, a tension exists between God and man. This tension is the result of sin. God cannot arbitrarily overlook sin because He is just and righteous. Because of this, reconciliation without removal of sin is not possible. Thus, this tension between the different attributes of God exists.

These things are resolved through the human body of Jesus. For example, sin must be dealt with. Jesus received the penalty and punishment for our sin. Therefore, God can now fellowship with us through the work of Jesus.

This process of restoration leaves nothing undone. Everything necessary to restore man to God is complete through the work of Christ. The law is satisfied, sin is removed, and felicity is restored. However, despite everything being done, restoration is not automatic. God will not force His offer on anyone.

Rather, each person must come to Him voluntarily through His offering of restoration. This truth is clearly taught in Scripture. The Calvinistic notion that God selects those whom He chooses to save and then saves them apart from their free will choice is not found in Scripture.

Likewise, one can see how offensive the doctrine of law observance is to God. If He has done everything necessary to secure our salvation, and yet we attempt to add to that, we mar the grace that He has offered. It is a heretical doctrine that excludes salvation for those who hold to this aberrant view.

The tension between Jesus’ mission to Israel and His desire to assist this woman actually existed. God is teaching us through such things. In understanding them, we can then understand our own relationship with Him as well.

Pay attention to the carefully constructed stories found in Scripture. God is giving us information on how things work in the process of redemption. Consider the nature of God. In doing so, we can resolve the difficult questions that arise in the world that cause people to question His goodness.

God is good. But that is not the end of the story. Rather, it is the beginning. His goodness is revealed in His ongoing redemptive plan. Consider it and know that He is working out all things through Christ to bring those who will receive Him back to Himself.

Lord God, when we see suffering, death, and disaster, we wonder where Your hand is in such things. But as we learn about You and what You are doing through Christ Jesus, we find that You are intimately involved in bringing us back to Yourself. You not only care, but You are also doing something about it. How great it is to know Jesus and receive Your offer through Him. Amen.

Friday, 2 January 2026

But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15:24

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And answering, He said, ‘Not, I was sent, if not to the sheep, the ‘having been lost’ – House Israel” (CG).

In the previous verse, the disciples came to Jesus, urging Him to send the Canaanite woman away because of all her croaking after them. Matthew next records words concerning Jesus, “And answering, He said, ‘Not, I was sent, if not to the sheep, the ‘having been lost’ – House Israel.”

The KJV and several other versions did a terrible job, saying, “I am not sent…” The verb is aorist, not present. Rendering it this way leaves the reader thinking that this was His only reason for being sent. Rather, He was sent on a mission. When that mission is fulfilled, the aorist leaves the narrative open for the change that will come, something a present verb fails to convey.

Jesus was sent to those of Israel who were lost, meaning all of Israel. Nobody is saved until Christ saves them. The exclusivity of the thought rests in the words “House Israel.” Jesus was only sent to the people of Israel. This was proper because only Israel had been given the Mosaic Covenant.

No other people received it, and it applied to no other people. Jesus came to fulfill this law, bring Israel out from under it through His fulfillment of it, and introduce a New Covenant with them, which would also include the Gentile people of the world. Charles Ellicott rightly says –

“Those wandering sheep, without a shepherd, were the appointed objects of His care. Were He to go beyond that limit in a single case, it might be followed by a thousand, and then, becoming, as it were, before the time, the Apostle of the Gentiles, He would cease to draw to Himself the hearts of Israel as their Redeemer.”

There is an order in which God’s redemptive plans take place. For Jesus to include Gentiles, who were never under the law, would thoroughly disaffect Israel from considering His Messiahship. Even without tending to the Gentiles, the nation as a whole still rejected Him. As for the metaphor, it would be understood from several passages in the Old Testament, such as –

“My people have been lost sheep.
Their shepherds have led them astray;
They have turned them away on the mountains.
They have gone from mountain to hill;
They have forgotten their resting place.” Jeremiah 50:6

As noted in the previous verse, there is a tension that has arisen in the narrative. Jesus ignored the woman while the disciples specifically asked Him to tell her to leave. Instead of doing that, His response to them was that He was sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. All He had to do was tell her to go away, but He didn’t

One can see that Jesus, in fact, wanted to help her. However, His mission was not to minister to the Gentiles. Should He voluntarily help every Gentile that came His way, it would be a violation of His principal ministry. And so, the tension existed. “There is something I do not want to do, which is to send this person away. However, I have been charged with doing this thing for Israel, which does not include helping this Gentile. Therefore, I will ignore the issue and see how it plays out.”

The case of the centurion having his request fulfilled by Jesus was resolved by the very people He came to minister to –

“And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear to him, was sick and ready to die. ³ So when he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him, pleading with Him to come and heal his servant. ⁴ And when they came to Jesus, they begged Him earnestly, saying that the one for whom He should do this was deserving, ⁵ ‘for he loves our nation, and has built us a synagogue.’” Luke 7:2-5

There was no tension in the issue of tending to the centurion’s request. The people of Israel, in fact, the elders of the people, petitioned Him to heal the person. As they saw it advantageous to their cause, Jesus could respond favorably without it affecting His principal mission.

Life application: Jesus was, in fact, sent to redeem all people. That is seen from Israel’s own writings –

“Indeed He says,
‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’” Isaiah 49:6

In fact, because Israel wasn’t a people at the fall in Genesis 3, and the fall is when a Redeemer was promised, the truth that the Redeemer would save the whole world stands as an evident truth. However, because God selected Israel to carry the spiritual banner and preserve proper worship of the Lord until the coming of the Messiah, Jesus’ mission was first directed to the task of fulfilling the law associated with that covenant.

Only after it was fulfilled could a New Covenant, inclusive of all people, be enacted. As unfortunate as it is, the main recipients of that New Covenant are the very people it was given to. In rejecting Him, they remain under the Old Covenant, while only individual Jews, along with the rest of the world, are offered the New.

Lord God, we see Your love for the people of the world on full display in the pages of the Bible. Thank You for each story and instruction it provides. We are being shown Your very heart as the pages of Scripture unfold before us. Thank You, O God, Amen.

Thursday, 1 January 2026

But He answered her not a word.
And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” Matthew 15:23

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And He answered not a word. And having approached, His disciples, they entreated Him, saying, ‘You dismiss her! For she cries after us’” (CG).

In the previous verse, the woman of Canaan came to Jesus while He was in the region of Tyre and Sidon, begging Him to have mercy on her, seeking help for her demon-possessed daughter. Matthew continues the narrative, saying, “And He answered not a word.”

There are various thoughts on the cold shoulder, which is presented here. Some think that Jesus knew all along what would occur, and He was testing her, allowing the situation to unfold before doing what He knew He would do all along. Ellicott thinks that “the prevailing power of prayer working on the sympathy of Christ” is what eventually will motivate Him.

But at this point, He is candid about why He does not respond to her. That will be seen in the next verse. Jesus was on a mission. It was purposeful, targeted, and required His full attention. Hence, at this time, He did not answer her as she croaked out for her daughter. Matthew continues, saying, “And having approached, His disciples, they entreated Him.”

A new word is seen here, erótaó, to interrogate. HELPS Word Studies says, “make an earnest request, especially by someone on ‘special footing,’ i.e. in ‘preferred position.’” A good word to define this is entreat. The disciples are in such a preferred position, and they want to know why He is allowing this to continue.

One can see them, saying to Him (the verb is imperfect), “Why are you allowing her to annoy us. Why don’t you just tell her to leave!” It was an interrogation of sorts as to His motives for doing nothing, one way or another. In their ongoing words, Matthew notes they were “saying, ‘You dismiss her! For she croaks after us.’”

Stating the obvious doesn’t help anything here. Jesus knows she is there, and yet He is neither dismissing her nor assisting her. Therefore, their petition must be more for their own benefit than to convince Him. They are trying to figure out why He is not acting.

Life application: Put yourself in such a position. If you have been given instructions to do something, and yet an issue arises that does not fit within the parameters of your instructions, but you also don’t want to ignore the issue, what would you do?

It is probable that most people would not act. Not acting is not a violation of the mission unless it was made explicit from the outset. To cover every such condition would mean an infinitely long list. Hence, such things are normally not even addressed.

Think of any movie or play where such an event arises. A person has to do something. A secondary issue enters the scene that is not a part of the mission, but which has taken hold of the main actor. It introduces a tension into the narrative as both issues are dealt with. The main directive is followed while the secondary issue is allowed to play out, even though nothing is actively done about it by the main character.

This type of thing happens in real life all the time. An example might be a missionary who goes to a foreign land. His mission is to evangelize the people, making converts. He is not being paid for other things. While there, he meets a lady whom he is big time interested in. However, she is not a Christian, having not accepted the gospel.

What will he do? He cannot act toward her to develop a relationship because that would be contrary to the faith. However, he doesn’t want her to go away either. And so he does nothing. Regardless of the outcome (but for the sake of the love story, we’ll say she eventually accepts Jesus and they get married), the tension has developed.

This is as common as bullets in an ammo factory, and it is just why so many stories, plays, and movies are developed with this theme. It is a part of the human condition. In the end, when the rules are adhered to and yet the outcome is positive, we always get the best feeling when the story is over. Why? Because to do wrong, despite often being our default setting, is never the preferred option.

Therefore, to allow events to play out to a resolution (hopefully a happy one like our missionary example) is what stirs our human emotions the most. Think about this and consider it as this short story, relayed by Matthew, unfolds before us.

“Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. ¹⁵ For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. ¹⁶ Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” Hebrews 4:14-16

Lord God, thank You for the humanity of our Messiah, Jesus. In seeing how He responded to the world around us, we have the perfect example of how to conduct our own affairs. May we learn to hold fast to Your word at all times while allowing surrounding events to play out in a way that will be favorable to our hopes and desires. Amen.

Wednesday, 31 December 2025

And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” Matthew 15:22

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And you behold! A Canaanite woman from those same borders, having come, she croaked to Him, saying, ‘You compassionate me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter, she is demon-possessed badly’” (CG).

In the previous verse, Jesus left the land of the Gennesaret and departed to the allotments of Tyre and Sidon. With Him there, Matthew next records, “And you behold! A Canaanite woman.”

This is the only time that the word Chananaios, Canaanite, is seen in the New Testament. That is derived from Chanaan, Canaan, found twice in Acts. This was the early name of the land of Israel, having been named after Canaan, the grandson of Noah through Ham.

The meaning of the name Canaan (Hebrew kna’an) is debated. It is variously translated as Land of Purple, Low, Merchant, etc. The likely meaning is Low, Abased, Humble, Humiliated, something along these lines. This is based on the account of Genesis 9, where Canaan is first mentioned.

In Mark, it says of this same woman that she “was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth.” There is no contradiction in this. Syro-Phonecia is the area, and the term “Greek” is being applied as we might when we say of a person from Germany, “He is a European.” One is a wider explanation of a more precise designation. Albert Barnes provides the historical understanding –

“In ancient times, the whole land, including Tyre and Sidon, was in the possession of the Canaanites, and called Canaan. The Phoenicians were descended from the Canaanites. The country, including Tyre and Sidon, was called Phoenicia, or Syro-Phoenicia. That country was taken by the Greeks under Alexander the Great, and those cities, in the time of Christ, were Greek cities. This woman was therefore a Gentile, living under the Greek government, and probably speaking the Greek language. She was by birth a Syro-Phoenician, born in that country, and descended, therefore, from the ancient Canaanites. All these names might, with propriety, be given to her.”

Of this woman of Canaan, it next says, “from those same borders.” The meaning is based on the previous verse, that it is the “allotments – Tyre and Sidon.” Understanding this, Matthew continues, saying, “having come, she croaked to Him, saying, ‘You compassionate me, Lord, Son of David!’”

Nothing is said about how she knew of Jesus, but it is apparent that His fame had extended far and wide. In both Mark and Luke, by this time in the narrative, it was already acknowledged that people from Tyre and Sidon had come to see Jesus (Mark 3:8 and Luke 6:17). Thus, Jewish residents of that area had already gone to see Jesus, returned, and spoken of the things they saw.

Now, knowing He was in the area and understanding that He was the promised Messiah, indicated by the words “Son of David,” this Canaanite woman begs for compassion to be extended even to her, a Gentile.

But more, she is of the cursed line of Canaan. This is based on Noah’s cursing of Canaan for what Ham did to him in Genesis 9. The last thing a person of such lineage might expect from the Jewish Messiah would be compassion. And yet, she faithfully came forward in hopeful expectation that He might listen to her plea, which was, “My daughter, she is demon-possessed badly.”

This woman, having heard of Jesus’ capabilities, has placed the situation concerning her demon-possessed daughter in the hands of Jesus, hoping He will respond and cure her. Her faith is on prominent display, even if the level of it is not yet revealed.

Life application: In commentaries on this verse, both Cambridge and Vincent’s Word Studies say something similar –

“…out of the same coasts] Literally, those coasts. Jesus did not himself pass beyond the borders of Galilee, but this instance of mercy extended to a Gentile points to the wide diffusion of the Gospel beyond the Jewish race.” Cambridge

“Lit., as Rev., from those borders; i.e., she crossed from Phoenicia into Galilee.”

They cannot accept that Jesus traveled outside of Galilee. This, despite two different words having been used to describe His going there. The first was in verse 21, where Jesus is said to have traveled to the “allotments – Tyre and Sidon.” The second, in verse 22, says “from those same borders,” meaning she was born, raised, and lived in the same area where Jesus had traveled to.

These scholars got it stuck in their heads that Jesus never left the area of Galilee based on what it says when He charged His disciples not to go in the way of the Gentiles and by His words that will say that He was sent to minister only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Because of this, their faulty deduction is that “Jesus never left the Galilee.”

Both of those statements were addressed in the comments of verse 15:21. It explicitly says Jesus traveled to this area. But once we have a presupposition stuck in our head, cognitive dissonance takes over, and we will do anything to justify falling in line with what we want the text to say.

What do you believe about the timing of the rapture? Have you got that in your head because of what you were taught? If so, the chances are that you will argue that point regardless of what the Bible actually says. That is unwise. We must be willing to acknowledge that we could be wrong.

Be sure to keep all things in their proper context. This is of paramount importance. From there, be willing to accept that what you think is true might be wrong. After that, do your study and don’t violate the “context” issue if you find you might have been wrong. This is what most people do when faced with the reality that things aren’t matching up with what they thought.

Context is king. So keep everything in its proper context. From there, stick to it at all times. Your doctrine will improve as long as you stick to what is said, regardless of what you think you know.

Lord God, none of us wants to be proven wrong. And none of us wants to betray the teachings that we received from a beloved pastor or teacher by contradicting what they taught us. And so, we put up a defense against change. Help us not to do this. May we be willing to go where Your word teaches, regardless of whether we find we were wrong. Help us to have this attitude at all times. Amen.