“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24).
Introduction
Jesus’ initial response to a distraught Canaanite mother has stirred a fair amount of debate — almost as much as his follow-up response to her repeated pleas for her daughter’s healing: “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs” (15:26). Most scholars agree that Matthew wrote his gospel for a predominantly Jewish audience, framing Jesus' messianic identity and mission with both specific Old Testament prophesy and general fulfillment of the Law. But opinions diverge widely regarding Matthew's attitude and intent when referring to Gentiles, their treatment by Jesus during his earthly ministry, and the final commission “to all nations” [πάντα τὰ ἔθνη] (28:19). Jesus’ stated emphasis on “the lost sheep of Israel” and his apparent avoidance of direct outreach to Gentiles — not only in his own ministry, but also in his disciples’ teaching and healing mission (10:5–6) — seems conspicuous in the midst of a gospel narrative whose internal commentary suggests a significant place for Gentiles in the redemptive plans of God, from its opening genealogy to its numerous Old Testament quotations and references. What are we to make of the apparent contradiction?
Theories abound regarding “the cause for the transition from the Israel-centered, pre-Easter ministry of Jesus and his disciples to the universal mission post-Easter” in Matthew’s gospel[1]. Speculation ranges from Matthew defending against attacks by unbelieving Jews on the authenticity of the Christian community’s Judaic foundations, to encouraging his fellow Jewish believers with an “unqualified validation of the Gentile mission.”[2] But while faithful hermeneutics requires due attention to cultural context and authorial intent, an over-emphasis on the specific motivations of the human author can lead to over-narrowing his purposes in writing[3], overconfidence in speculative inferences, and (worst of all) forgetfulness of the divine Author’s canonical purposes (if God’s role in inspiration is even acknowledged).[4][*] The testimony of the apostles themselves regarding the Gentiles is one of absolute unanimity (Gal. 2:6–10; 2 Pet. 3:15–16): namely that those who are in Christ by grace through faith are equal heirs with Jewish believers (Acts 11:17–18; Eph. 2:11–22, 4:4–6), and that this was the immutable purpose of the Triune God from before the creation of the cosmos (2 Tim. 1:9). While granting that Matthew brings a unique perspective and nuance for his particular audience, as an apostle with the same Spirit-empowered memory and understanding as the others (John 14:26), he recalls the same Jesus with the same divine purpose and plan (Eph. 1:3–6). Matthew’s recording of Jesus’ teachings and interactions vis-à-vis the Gentiles must be considered in concert with the other New Testament writers, as well as with the Old Testament witness of God’s intentions toward the nations featured in Matthew’s text.
This article explores some of Jesus' various encounters with Gentiles in Matthew, his references to Gentiles in his teaching, and Matthew’s relevant commentaries and quotations. Particular attention will be paid to the Gentiles' relationship to the Law (or lack thereof) as a foil for Israel’s failure to comprehend or benefit from it under the Mosaic Covenant (Rom. 2:12–29). The principal question at hand is this: Are the Gentiles truly like “little dogs” in Jesus’ eyes, worthy only of the leftover crumbs from Israel’s table, or does Jesus — as a member of the Godhead with eternal purpose — envision and foreshadow the same unified new people of God throughout Matthew’s gospel as the apostles would affirm after his resurrection and ascension?
Genealogy and Infancy: Glimpses of God’s Ethnic Non-Exclusivity
In similar fashion to John’s gospel, the very opening words of Matthew link the identity of Jesus to the act of creation itself. “Book of the generations” [βίβλος γενέσεως] hearkens back both to the creation account (Gen. 2:4) and to the earliest generations of man (5:1) in which the Septuagint uses the identical phrase. While Luke’s gospel explicitly traces the genealogy of Christ backwards to Adam, Matthew seems to merely hint at the earliest generations in that opening phrase,[5] while emphasizing the central covenantal figures of Abraham, Israel, and David. The promise to Abraham, it would be remembered, was to bless “all the families of the earth” (12:3), while the promise to David was an eternal throne for his offspring (2 Sam. 7:16) as a shepherd to Israel (5:2). Nevertheless, the conspicuous inclusion of not only women (in contrast to common practice) but at least two Gentile women (Rahab of Jericho and Ruth of Moab) also draws attention to God’s ethnic non-exclusivity, even within the context of his covenant with Israel.[†]
Also notable in the identification of these women is the record of sin (not necessarily their own) that their names introduce into the line of the Christ. Allusions to prostitution, adultery, oath-breaking, and murder (incidents well known to Matthew’s Jewish readership) show a failure with regard to God's law on the part of both Jews and Gentiles in the family line of the Messiah,[6] most notably Judah’s sin against Tamar, David’s against Uriah, and the national sin that led to the deportation to Babylon.[7] Matthew’s genealogy of Christ shows God’s ongoing commitment to his promise to Abraham, inclusive of both Covenant-breakers and Covenant-outsiders.
The contrasting relationship of Jews and Gentiles to the law is equally striking in the story of the Magi. We are not told what led to these men’s recognition of the star as a sign of him “who has been born king of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2), but the most apparent link is found in the prophecy of Balaam (Num. 24:17). Possibly Matthew saw these astrologers as “Balaam’s successors,”[8] Gentiles whom God used to identify the Messiah, but at a minimum he identifies them as outsiders, without the full benefits of God’s Law. They enter Jerusalem in search of those who both have the Law and know it, and there the dichotomy is made clear. Although the chief priests and scribes know immediately “where the Christ was to be born” (Matt. 2:4), they do not go to him, but are “troubled” along with Herod and the rest of the Jerusalem's elites. Even in their recitation of prophecy, they declare the Messiah’s kingly role as Shepherd to Israel (2:6), but do not regard themselves as his sheep. The Gentiles from the east, however, seek him out and worship him. In these earliest Matthean glimpses of Gentile inclusion in the plans of God, as well as Israel’s failure to rightly apply the Law through faith, Jesus’ ancestry and the heralding of his arrival foreshadow his ministry of salvation to both those under the covenant and those outside of it.
True Keeping of the Law: the Haves and the Have-Nots
Matthew begins his account of Jesus’ early ministry upon his return to “Galilee of the Gentiles” (4:15). The region of Zebulun and Naphtali had been occupied and resettled by Assyria, and it probably never quite recovered either its ethnic homogeneity or its religious purity after it was reclaimed by Israel in 104 BC.[9] While Matthew does not directly state that Jesus’ purpose was to call Gentiles as well as Jews to repentance, his quotation of Isaiah 9 draws attention to the mixed composition of the crowds that would hear his message. They would come, Matthew notes, not only from Jerusalem and Judea (where he had previously ministered, though not recorded by Matthew), but from the Decapolis and the Transjordan, predominantly Gentile areas (4:25). While his teaching seems to presume a primarily Jewish listenership, he does not, as some scholars suggest, disparage Gentiles,[10] but rather points out the fundamental equivalence of Jew and Gentile in matters of faith — a message that would resonate with those Gentiles present to “overhear” it.
The Sermon on the Mount contains Jesus’ longest exposition on the Law, in which he demonstrates the necessity of a righteousness beyond the mere rule-keeping of the Pharisees — the righteousness of a renewed heart (5:20). His emphasis on the Law's goodness (“I have not come to abolish [the Law or the Prophets] but to fulfill them”) points beyond the works it demands to the internal character of a people whose faith in God is revealed in their obedience. Indeed, the Law of Moses is one of the gifts which most clearly divides Jew from Gentile (Rom 9:4), so one might expect that an intensification of the Law’s demands as found in Jesus’ sermon (5:21–48) would only widen the divide between the two. But instead, this intensification serves to highlight Israel’s failure to comply with the Law in such a way that would, in God’s sight, distinguish them from their pagan neighbors. As it is, Jesus warns, their obedience is external at best.
Thus, when the Gentiles or nations [ἔθνος] are mentioned in Jesus' Sermon, they serve as objective examples of mere humanity lacking that living faith which is needed to rightly apply the law, not as villains or antagonists. Moreover, they are shown as holding common practice with those who claim favored status as children of Abraham and recipients of the Law, but who also fail to discern by faith what the Law actually requires (Rom. 9:30–32). The areas of comparison relate not to prohibitions which pagans violate, but those positive expressions of what later epistles describe as the New Man (Eph. 4:24). Jesus calls God’s people to be distinct from the nations by faith in three explicit ways: love, not merely of friends and family, but love of enemies (5:47); prayer rooted in faith in God’s fatherly love, not in one’s demonstration of ritualistic piety (6:7–8); and hope in God’s providence and his eternal kingdom that motivates active obedience in place of anxious self-reliance (6:31–33; cf. 1 Cor. 13:13). Mere Pharisaical rule-keeping and ritualism proceed from none of these hidden qualities of faith which are implicit in the Law, and leave the practitioner no better than a Gentile who knows nothing of God or his Law. It may be minor point in the grand sweep of the sermon, but it is certainly supportive of the central theme of true righteousness in contrast to mere externalism, and provides the first example of Gentile ignorance of the Law as a foil for Israel’s failure to understand and apply the heart of the Law. In fact, Jesus concludes his sermon by placing himself at the heart of the Law, the only true righteousness. By declaring “these words of mine” as the very ground upon which a person may stand in the judgement, Jesus declares himself the object of genuine faith (7:24–27) — a faith which, as it will soon be shown, is not exclusive to the Jews.
The Centurion and the Demoniacs: Harbingers of Gentile Hope
Almost as a postscript to the sermon, Matthew records an incident ostensibly to highlight the authority of Jesus’ teaching and healing power, but he simultaneously affirms the ethnic non-exclusivity of faith. Following the healing of a leper which first confirms the crowds’ assessment of Jesus’ authority, a centurion approaches Jesus on behalf of his ailing servant. Jesus expresses willingness to go immediately, without so much as a formal request from the centurion, but in an extraordinary display of discernment, this Gentile soldier recognizes Jesus’ ability to delegate the activities of his healing ministry to unseen spiritual or physical agents (8:8–9).[11] Jesus seems to account this as more than a mere acknowledgement of power, but a recognition of his identity as the Son of God, linking the faith displayed by the centurion to eternal salvation (8:10–11). Beyond even this, Jesus draws attention to the faith lacked by many who should have recognized him from the Law and the Prophets.[12]
This marks the first time in Matthew’s gospel that Jesus specifically confronts the unbelief of Israel, but it also states explicitly what has thus far only been hinted at: many Gentiles (“from east and west”) will enter the kingdom, and many Jews (“sons of the kingdom”) will not. The descriptors are significant. While outsiders are described as “[reclining] at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” indicating favored, noble status, those who should be heirs are “thrown into outer darkness” (8:11–12). Jesus will continue his ministry focus, calling Israel to repentance and faith, but this very early episode must not be read in isolation from all that follows, nor should his human astonishment be read in isolation from his divine purpose (Isa. 25:6–8).[13] Regardless of the immediate priorities of his earthly ministry, Jesus has laid a clear precedent for the Gentile mission which will be officially announced at his ascension, inaugurated at Pentecost, and confirmed at the pouring out of the Holy Spirit to the (uncircumcised) household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44–45). If Jesus seems subsequently reluctant to engage with Gentiles, we must lose sight of his immediate eagerness both to heal the centurion’s servant and to proclaim the hope of full inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom. But it may also be noted that these early remarks are still directed at his Jewish audience. The kingdom is first established through the recipients of the covenant, the Jews, as demonstrated by the presence of the Patriarchs at the feast.[14] His message about the Gentiles is not yet to the Gentiles,[15] but he is content to let the hope of the Gentiles spread by other means.
Further evidence of this willing engagement with Gentiles is found almost immediately afterward in his deliberate entrance into Gentile territory to heal the Gadarene demoniacs (8:28–34). Abandoning the crowds in Capernaum, Jesus sets sail for the Decapolis, a region of ten Greek settlement-cities, and specifically an area reserved for burial and the raising of pigs. Matthew seems to downplay the evangelistic nature of the event. Where Mark’s account (Mark 5:1–21) draws attention to the ongoing and enthusiastic witness of at least one of the healed men and the favorable response in the region after Jesus’ departure, Matthew omits all but the necessary details of the miracle itself and its immediate aftermath. Many commentators take note of this difference, attributing Matthew’s brevity to an intended emphasis, not on his compassion for Gentiles, but exclusively on the power of Jesus’ word (as a parallel to his calming of the storm in 8:26),[16]. Some scholars go beyond seeing Matthew as merely de-emphasizing Gentile inclusion, regarding his record of the herdsmen's negative response as evidence of an anti-Gentile polemic. But Matthew’s mere inclusion of the event could not fail to impress on his Jewish readers that Jesus’ overt display of power and compassion is to the benefit of Gentiles. And although it may not be Matthew’s intent that his readers anticipate any further consequences, Mark’s account demonstrates that Jesus’ incursions into the Gentile world had a preparatory effect. When the gospel of the risen Christ was brought into Gentile lands, his name and stories of his power would already be known.
The Command to Avoid: A Problematic Passage
Having established both Jesus’ willingness to engage personally with Gentiles, as well as his divine intention to include Gentiles in the kingdom from eternity past, we come to the first expression of the problem which opened this discussion: Jesus’ and his disciples’ exclusive mission to the Jews. “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 10:5–7). Many commentators consider this the most difficult contextual problem presented by Matthew:[17] if Jesus (and Matthew) intended to promote the message of Gentile access to the kingdom, why this seeming reversal? If Jesus himself went “among the Gentiles” and brought his disciples with him, why instruct them differently here?
The existence of a reversal is one which many commentators surprisingly overlook. The notion that Jesus would need to instruct the Twelve, all Jews, to avoid the dwellings of Gentiles and Samaritans would seem preposterous if not for an opposite precedent already set by Jesus’ own example. The very command suggests a postponing of the inevitable, an implicit “not yet.” Israel is given precedence according to their covenant status as a nation. The promise of Messiah, though extending to all humanity (Gen. 3:15, 12:3), is established in covenants with national Israel, so the offer of salvation through faith in Jesus is extended first to them.[18] Their acceptance or rejection of him, like the covenant, would be a national one.[19] Jesus’ treatment of Gentiles hints (loudly) at the broader offer of salvation to all people, but it will be accomplished through proclamation to and rejection by Israel. The ultimate totality of their rejection will culminate in the very act that God had ordained for the salvation of the entire world (Rom. 11:15)!
Jesus’ foreshadowing of this rejection and the future judgement in the episode with the centurion is later reinforced in his pronouncement of woes on “the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent” (Matt. 11:20). Not insignificantly, his condemnation contains comparisons to those pagan cites denounced by Old Testament prophets (Tyre and Sidon) or destroyed utterly by God (Sodom) (11:21–24). His claim, that if he had graced those Gentile cities with the “mighty works” performed in the cities of Israel “they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes,” draws attention to the primary difference between Jews and Gentiles: receiving God’s gracious word. As beneficiaries of the covenant, Israel received both the Law and the Messiah first, but they rejected both. These cities, like the religious leaders whom Jesus frequently denounced, were representative of the nation, and demonstrated that their privileged place under the covenant had not been received with humility as Moses had taught (Deut. 7:7–10), but with pride (Matt. 3:9).[‡]
Finally, it should be noted that in Jesus’ instructions to the Twelve, he anticipates their post-ascension ministry as well, when they will one day “be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles” (10:18).[20] Following Israel’s national rejection, the hearts of both Jews and Gentiles will be tested one by one, so that “everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (10:32–33). In directing his disciples for this limited campaign to the cities of Israel, he is preparing the very rejection by the nation that will bring hope to both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 11:30–32).
The Pivot: As Israel’s Eyes Darken, the Hope of the Gentiles Brightens
Before Jesus’ ministry shifts to one characterized by parables, in which his message is veiled in judgement of Israel’s corporate unbelief (13:13–15), Matthew inserts a revealing commentary. After a Sabbath healing leads to a murderous conspiracy by the Pharisees, Jesus withdraws to an unspecified location (12:12–16). Followed by great crowds, he heals everyone but warns them not to make him known. Wherever this is taking place, Jesus does not seek to draw any further attention. Yet Matthew declares that the work Jesus does in this unnamed place is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of the meek Servant:
Without any specific mention of a present ministry to Gentiles, Matthew claims that this discrete work of healing brings hope to those outside the covenant. While this is indeed good news, its appearance following the Pharisees’ plot to murder Jesus, and preceding their accusation that Jesus is in league with Beelzebul (12:24), casts an ominous shadow over the nation of Israel. Their own blasphemous rejection of Jesus has caused them to be cast aside.[21] Hope is proclaimed, but Israel as a nation, represented by those who should have been shepherds, is not mentioned. It should be noted that Jesus’ and his disciples’ mandated ministry among the Jews has not been lifted, as Jesus will affirm in his encounter with the Canaanite woman. It would appear, then, that the hope of the Gentiles is affirmed specifically in light of Jesus’ continued compassionate work in the face of Israel’s increasingly national rejection of its own Messiah.[22] The shepherds of Israel have failed to glorify God before the Gentiles, but they have not been overlooked by the true Shepherd. It should also be noted that Matthew’s readers would recognize the Servant of this quotation (Isa. 42:1–3) as the same who, “despised,” “rejected,” and “smitten,” would “sprinkle many nations” (52:15–53:3).
The judgement of the nation is once again tied to the repentance and faith of the Gentiles in a final denunciation of Israel’s leaders before the period of the parables. Recalling the repentance of Ninevah and the humility of the Queen of the South, Jesus declares that Gentiles will “rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it” (12:41–42). Once again recalling those outside the covenant, without the benefit of the Law, Jesus points to the failure of Israel’s leaders to apply the Scriptures they have received and the signs already given[23] to identify the one who is “greater that Jonah” so as to heed his warnings and repent, and “greater than Solomon” so as to receive his wisdom.[24]
The Canaanite Woman: The Triumph of Faith
So far we have seen Jesus’ divine eternal intentions toward the Gentiles as a consistent theme in Matthew's gospel, along with Jesus' repeated use of their example (as outsiders to the covenant) as a foil for Israel’s failure to apply the Law by faith. With all of the above as background, we return to the puzzle of Jesus’ seeming reluctance to engage with the Canaanite woman of Phoenicia (Matt. 15:21–28). Scholars have shown understandable discomfort with the exchange, not only because Jesus seems to demean the humanity of the woman and her daughter, but because he seems both to contradict previous practice of uninhibited healing and also to violate his own directive to “go nowhere among the Gentiles” (10:5).[25] Even if one were to assume, as textual critics generally do, that a scribe or scribal community had assembled and edited fragments of texts amid a peculiar milieu of pressures and prejudices, toward a specific set of theological and sociological goals, one would still expect an internal consistency to reveal those prejudices and goals. One would expect consistency all the more from a canonical perspective, in which no mere opinions are expressed but rather the eternal and cosmic purposes of God for mankind’s salvation. Therefore, the seeming inconsistency of Jesus’ character and message in the initial exchange should certainly arrest our attention. But the encounter must be viewed in light of its outcome, which is thoroughly consistent with the purpose and message of Christ in the book of Matthew and the Scriptures as a whole.
It should be noted first that when he “withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon” on the Mediterranean coast (15:21) Jesus entered Gentile territory. Mark’s gospel makes clear that this withdrawal was to be a respite (presumably from the Pharisees, but also from the continual press of the crowds) and not a preaching campaign, but his fame had spread even amongst the pagans such that he “could not be hidden” (Mark 7:24). His stated intentions for anonymity and rest are made clear in Matthew’s account by the reaction of the disciples, who have seen Jesus heal quickly and willingly countless times, and who also understand that doing so would draw multitudes. But Jesus’ initial silence only raises their profile, causing a scene in the street as the woman continues to cry out. The apostles plead with Jesus to “send her away” and put an end to the commotion, but rather than a swift healing or a firm rebuke, Jesus engages her with an argument.
The woman, though a Gentile and native of that region, shows a respect for Israel and a fear of God similar to the centurion, recognizing Jesus not merely as a famous healer, but “Lord, Son of David,” a designation for the Christ (Matt. 1:1; 22:42). The woman understands the exclusivity of the covenant with Israel, as her later response reveals, but she also understands the magnanimity of God whose blessings to the offspring of Abraham will overflow to all nations; thus she appeals to Jesus on the basis of his divine authority. Such expressions of personal faith in his identity are never ignored by Jesus, but his silence intensifies the situation and draws in the disciples (details not noted by Mark), who consistently see only immediate, not ultimate, goals. Jesus’ response brings attention to another immediate goal, namely preaching to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” but their conception of that mission will be challenged by this exchange.[26] Again, Jesus’ response to the woman must be considered in view of his divine foreknowledge that Israel’s rejection would be the means of salvation for both Gentiles and Jews, even though that time had not yet come. Jesus knows that his own statement is not ultimately exclusive, though it would be heard only in its immediate sense. Nevertheless, although a pagan with “no claim on the God of the covenant,” the woman persists in her pleas for help based on her faith in God’s gracious character and her absolute certainty of Jesus’ power and authority to heal.[27]
Jesus’ reply, so seemingly out of character for himself or any of the apostolic writers, should not be mistaken for unkindness, as though the gospel writer wished, as some critical scholars suggest, to convey Jewish superiority (or a penchant for rudeness) not elsewhere to be found in Jesus’ life or teaching.[28] Though Jesus is not above insult when it comes to the self-serving religious leaders (“blind guides,” “whitewashed tombs,” and “brood of vipers”) (Matt. 23:16, 27, 33), he is not given to insulting the poor and suffering. He appears rather to be using a household analogy to illustrate a reality that she would readily acknowledge: just as dogs may live alongside children in the house but do not receive the same special love and care that children do, the promises to Israel under the Old Covenant are first and foremost for Israel.[29][§] Outside of the covenant no blessings are promised. Thus, the woman’s final appeal is based not on eventual inclusion of the Gentiles through the rejection of Israel, but on the glimpses already seen of God’s ethnic non-exclusivity. Old Testament examples of Gentile faith like Ruth and Rahab, and the graciousness of Jesus toward the centurion, the Gadarene demoniacs, and (doubtless) many other Gentiles amongst the crowds in Galilee, the Decapolis and the Transjordan, have demonstrated the priority of faith over bloodline. So this Canaanite woman asks not for what is hers by right, but for grace. Jesus’ exclamation of delight justifies her actions: “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire!” It also justifies our reading of Matthew’s gospel in its treatment of the Gentiles: that those outside the covenant who apprehend by faith what Israel failed to apprehend through the gift of the Law (that Jesus is the promised Christ) foreshadow the faith by which both Jews and Gentiles will be saved, to God’s great glory and delight, after Israel’s rejection is complete (Rom. 11:25–36).
Conclusion: Not the End of the Story
The encounter with the woman of Phoenicia is by no means the end or even the climactic moment of Matthew’s gospel, but it does fall at a significant point of transition in Jesus’ earthly ministry. When he retreated with the Twelve to Tyre and Sidon, it marked the end of his public campaigns amongst dominant Jewish populations. Even in the heathen and ethnically-mixed lands in which he travelled, he ministered almost exclusively to the Twelve “as much as was consistent with His heart of compassion for those who discovered Him in His various places of retreat.”[30] His call was still to Israel, but their national rejection of him was already apparent, even if many individually still believed. When Jesus finally entered Jerusalem and presented himself as King, he forced Israel’s leaders to make their rejection of his authority official.[31]
After Jesus’ resurrection and his commission to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19), it was still not immediately clear to the apostles just how included the Gentiles were to be. While Peter made clear in his first sermon that Israel’s national guilt for Jesus’ death required individual repentance, and that the promise of forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit included “all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:36–39), the question of Gentile repentance and forgiveness had not yet been duly addressed. When he was called to Caesarea to meet Cornelius, Peter was shown in a vision from Christ that the division between clean and unclean — distinctives of the covenant law of Moses — had been laid aside: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him,” and “To [Jesus] all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:34–35, 43).
Matthew, writing years later, would naturally affirm this reality through his gospel account, even if it was not understood in the moment by the protagonists of his narrative (save Jesus himself). Demonstrations of faith by individual Gentiles are repeatedly shown to accomplish for them what the Law did not for the Jewish nation: apprehension of the true identity of Jesus, the Christ. While faith is, of course, not exclusive to Gentiles, their faith shines with particular radiance because they believe even without all the privileges given to God’s covenant people. Indeed, what the Canaanite woman received was far from “the crumbs.” When she recognized Jesus as the Son of David and trusted in his saving power, she received the choicest meat that the covenant children had been given, the hope of redemption. While “the gifts and the calling of God” to Israel “are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29), their hope, like that of the Gentiles, is in his mercy alone (11:32). If Matthew can be said to have a single purpose in mind in the writing of his gospel, it is the common purpose of all the New Testament evangelists: “to explain him.”[32] Matthew writes neither to praise nor disparage Gentiles, neither to promote the Gentile mission nor defend his community’s Jewish credentials, but to reveal Jesus Christ himself as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 3:16).
Jesus’ initial response to a distraught Canaanite mother has stirred a fair amount of debate — almost as much as his follow-up response to her repeated pleas for her daughter’s healing: “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs” (15:26). Most scholars agree that Matthew wrote his gospel for a predominantly Jewish audience, framing Jesus' messianic identity and mission with both specific Old Testament prophesy and general fulfillment of the Law. But opinions diverge widely regarding Matthew's attitude and intent when referring to Gentiles, their treatment by Jesus during his earthly ministry, and the final commission “to all nations” [πάντα τὰ ἔθνη] (28:19). Jesus’ stated emphasis on “the lost sheep of Israel” and his apparent avoidance of direct outreach to Gentiles — not only in his own ministry, but also in his disciples’ teaching and healing mission (10:5–6) — seems conspicuous in the midst of a gospel narrative whose internal commentary suggests a significant place for Gentiles in the redemptive plans of God, from its opening genealogy to its numerous Old Testament quotations and references. What are we to make of the apparent contradiction?
Theories abound regarding “the cause for the transition from the Israel-centered, pre-Easter ministry of Jesus and his disciples to the universal mission post-Easter” in Matthew’s gospel[1]. Speculation ranges from Matthew defending against attacks by unbelieving Jews on the authenticity of the Christian community’s Judaic foundations, to encouraging his fellow Jewish believers with an “unqualified validation of the Gentile mission.”[2] But while faithful hermeneutics requires due attention to cultural context and authorial intent, an over-emphasis on the specific motivations of the human author can lead to over-narrowing his purposes in writing[3], overconfidence in speculative inferences, and (worst of all) forgetfulness of the divine Author’s canonical purposes (if God’s role in inspiration is even acknowledged).[4][*] The testimony of the apostles themselves regarding the Gentiles is one of absolute unanimity (Gal. 2:6–10; 2 Pet. 3:15–16): namely that those who are in Christ by grace through faith are equal heirs with Jewish believers (Acts 11:17–18; Eph. 2:11–22, 4:4–6), and that this was the immutable purpose of the Triune God from before the creation of the cosmos (2 Tim. 1:9). While granting that Matthew brings a unique perspective and nuance for his particular audience, as an apostle with the same Spirit-empowered memory and understanding as the others (John 14:26), he recalls the same Jesus with the same divine purpose and plan (Eph. 1:3–6). Matthew’s recording of Jesus’ teachings and interactions vis-à-vis the Gentiles must be considered in concert with the other New Testament writers, as well as with the Old Testament witness of God’s intentions toward the nations featured in Matthew’s text.
This article explores some of Jesus' various encounters with Gentiles in Matthew, his references to Gentiles in his teaching, and Matthew’s relevant commentaries and quotations. Particular attention will be paid to the Gentiles' relationship to the Law (or lack thereof) as a foil for Israel’s failure to comprehend or benefit from it under the Mosaic Covenant (Rom. 2:12–29). The principal question at hand is this: Are the Gentiles truly like “little dogs” in Jesus’ eyes, worthy only of the leftover crumbs from Israel’s table, or does Jesus — as a member of the Godhead with eternal purpose — envision and foreshadow the same unified new people of God throughout Matthew’s gospel as the apostles would affirm after his resurrection and ascension?
Genealogy and Infancy: Glimpses of God’s Ethnic Non-Exclusivity
In similar fashion to John’s gospel, the very opening words of Matthew link the identity of Jesus to the act of creation itself. “Book of the generations” [βίβλος γενέσεως] hearkens back both to the creation account (Gen. 2:4) and to the earliest generations of man (5:1) in which the Septuagint uses the identical phrase. While Luke’s gospel explicitly traces the genealogy of Christ backwards to Adam, Matthew seems to merely hint at the earliest generations in that opening phrase,[5] while emphasizing the central covenantal figures of Abraham, Israel, and David. The promise to Abraham, it would be remembered, was to bless “all the families of the earth” (12:3), while the promise to David was an eternal throne for his offspring (2 Sam. 7:16) as a shepherd to Israel (5:2). Nevertheless, the conspicuous inclusion of not only women (in contrast to common practice) but at least two Gentile women (Rahab of Jericho and Ruth of Moab) also draws attention to God’s ethnic non-exclusivity, even within the context of his covenant with Israel.[†]
Also notable in the identification of these women is the record of sin (not necessarily their own) that their names introduce into the line of the Christ. Allusions to prostitution, adultery, oath-breaking, and murder (incidents well known to Matthew’s Jewish readership) show a failure with regard to God's law on the part of both Jews and Gentiles in the family line of the Messiah,[6] most notably Judah’s sin against Tamar, David’s against Uriah, and the national sin that led to the deportation to Babylon.[7] Matthew’s genealogy of Christ shows God’s ongoing commitment to his promise to Abraham, inclusive of both Covenant-breakers and Covenant-outsiders.
The contrasting relationship of Jews and Gentiles to the law is equally striking in the story of the Magi. We are not told what led to these men’s recognition of the star as a sign of him “who has been born king of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2), but the most apparent link is found in the prophecy of Balaam (Num. 24:17). Possibly Matthew saw these astrologers as “Balaam’s successors,”[8] Gentiles whom God used to identify the Messiah, but at a minimum he identifies them as outsiders, without the full benefits of God’s Law. They enter Jerusalem in search of those who both have the Law and know it, and there the dichotomy is made clear. Although the chief priests and scribes know immediately “where the Christ was to be born” (Matt. 2:4), they do not go to him, but are “troubled” along with Herod and the rest of the Jerusalem's elites. Even in their recitation of prophecy, they declare the Messiah’s kingly role as Shepherd to Israel (2:6), but do not regard themselves as his sheep. The Gentiles from the east, however, seek him out and worship him. In these earliest Matthean glimpses of Gentile inclusion in the plans of God, as well as Israel’s failure to rightly apply the Law through faith, Jesus’ ancestry and the heralding of his arrival foreshadow his ministry of salvation to both those under the covenant and those outside of it.
True Keeping of the Law: the Haves and the Have-Nots
Matthew begins his account of Jesus’ early ministry upon his return to “Galilee of the Gentiles” (4:15). The region of Zebulun and Naphtali had been occupied and resettled by Assyria, and it probably never quite recovered either its ethnic homogeneity or its religious purity after it was reclaimed by Israel in 104 BC.[9] While Matthew does not directly state that Jesus’ purpose was to call Gentiles as well as Jews to repentance, his quotation of Isaiah 9 draws attention to the mixed composition of the crowds that would hear his message. They would come, Matthew notes, not only from Jerusalem and Judea (where he had previously ministered, though not recorded by Matthew), but from the Decapolis and the Transjordan, predominantly Gentile areas (4:25). While his teaching seems to presume a primarily Jewish listenership, he does not, as some scholars suggest, disparage Gentiles,[10] but rather points out the fundamental equivalence of Jew and Gentile in matters of faith — a message that would resonate with those Gentiles present to “overhear” it.
The Sermon on the Mount contains Jesus’ longest exposition on the Law, in which he demonstrates the necessity of a righteousness beyond the mere rule-keeping of the Pharisees — the righteousness of a renewed heart (5:20). His emphasis on the Law's goodness (“I have not come to abolish [the Law or the Prophets] but to fulfill them”) points beyond the works it demands to the internal character of a people whose faith in God is revealed in their obedience. Indeed, the Law of Moses is one of the gifts which most clearly divides Jew from Gentile (Rom 9:4), so one might expect that an intensification of the Law’s demands as found in Jesus’ sermon (5:21–48) would only widen the divide between the two. But instead, this intensification serves to highlight Israel’s failure to comply with the Law in such a way that would, in God’s sight, distinguish them from their pagan neighbors. As it is, Jesus warns, their obedience is external at best.
Thus, when the Gentiles or nations [ἔθνος] are mentioned in Jesus' Sermon, they serve as objective examples of mere humanity lacking that living faith which is needed to rightly apply the law, not as villains or antagonists. Moreover, they are shown as holding common practice with those who claim favored status as children of Abraham and recipients of the Law, but who also fail to discern by faith what the Law actually requires (Rom. 9:30–32). The areas of comparison relate not to prohibitions which pagans violate, but those positive expressions of what later epistles describe as the New Man (Eph. 4:24). Jesus calls God’s people to be distinct from the nations by faith in three explicit ways: love, not merely of friends and family, but love of enemies (5:47); prayer rooted in faith in God’s fatherly love, not in one’s demonstration of ritualistic piety (6:7–8); and hope in God’s providence and his eternal kingdom that motivates active obedience in place of anxious self-reliance (6:31–33; cf. 1 Cor. 13:13). Mere Pharisaical rule-keeping and ritualism proceed from none of these hidden qualities of faith which are implicit in the Law, and leave the practitioner no better than a Gentile who knows nothing of God or his Law. It may be minor point in the grand sweep of the sermon, but it is certainly supportive of the central theme of true righteousness in contrast to mere externalism, and provides the first example of Gentile ignorance of the Law as a foil for Israel’s failure to understand and apply the heart of the Law. In fact, Jesus concludes his sermon by placing himself at the heart of the Law, the only true righteousness. By declaring “these words of mine” as the very ground upon which a person may stand in the judgement, Jesus declares himself the object of genuine faith (7:24–27) — a faith which, as it will soon be shown, is not exclusive to the Jews.
The Centurion and the Demoniacs: Harbingers of Gentile Hope
Almost as a postscript to the sermon, Matthew records an incident ostensibly to highlight the authority of Jesus’ teaching and healing power, but he simultaneously affirms the ethnic non-exclusivity of faith. Following the healing of a leper which first confirms the crowds’ assessment of Jesus’ authority, a centurion approaches Jesus on behalf of his ailing servant. Jesus expresses willingness to go immediately, without so much as a formal request from the centurion, but in an extraordinary display of discernment, this Gentile soldier recognizes Jesus’ ability to delegate the activities of his healing ministry to unseen spiritual or physical agents (8:8–9).[11] Jesus seems to account this as more than a mere acknowledgement of power, but a recognition of his identity as the Son of God, linking the faith displayed by the centurion to eternal salvation (8:10–11). Beyond even this, Jesus draws attention to the faith lacked by many who should have recognized him from the Law and the Prophets.[12]
This marks the first time in Matthew’s gospel that Jesus specifically confronts the unbelief of Israel, but it also states explicitly what has thus far only been hinted at: many Gentiles (“from east and west”) will enter the kingdom, and many Jews (“sons of the kingdom”) will not. The descriptors are significant. While outsiders are described as “[reclining] at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” indicating favored, noble status, those who should be heirs are “thrown into outer darkness” (8:11–12). Jesus will continue his ministry focus, calling Israel to repentance and faith, but this very early episode must not be read in isolation from all that follows, nor should his human astonishment be read in isolation from his divine purpose (Isa. 25:6–8).[13] Regardless of the immediate priorities of his earthly ministry, Jesus has laid a clear precedent for the Gentile mission which will be officially announced at his ascension, inaugurated at Pentecost, and confirmed at the pouring out of the Holy Spirit to the (uncircumcised) household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44–45). If Jesus seems subsequently reluctant to engage with Gentiles, we must lose sight of his immediate eagerness both to heal the centurion’s servant and to proclaim the hope of full inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom. But it may also be noted that these early remarks are still directed at his Jewish audience. The kingdom is first established through the recipients of the covenant, the Jews, as demonstrated by the presence of the Patriarchs at the feast.[14] His message about the Gentiles is not yet to the Gentiles,[15] but he is content to let the hope of the Gentiles spread by other means.
Further evidence of this willing engagement with Gentiles is found almost immediately afterward in his deliberate entrance into Gentile territory to heal the Gadarene demoniacs (8:28–34). Abandoning the crowds in Capernaum, Jesus sets sail for the Decapolis, a region of ten Greek settlement-cities, and specifically an area reserved for burial and the raising of pigs. Matthew seems to downplay the evangelistic nature of the event. Where Mark’s account (Mark 5:1–21) draws attention to the ongoing and enthusiastic witness of at least one of the healed men and the favorable response in the region after Jesus’ departure, Matthew omits all but the necessary details of the miracle itself and its immediate aftermath. Many commentators take note of this difference, attributing Matthew’s brevity to an intended emphasis, not on his compassion for Gentiles, but exclusively on the power of Jesus’ word (as a parallel to his calming of the storm in 8:26),[16]. Some scholars go beyond seeing Matthew as merely de-emphasizing Gentile inclusion, regarding his record of the herdsmen's negative response as evidence of an anti-Gentile polemic. But Matthew’s mere inclusion of the event could not fail to impress on his Jewish readers that Jesus’ overt display of power and compassion is to the benefit of Gentiles. And although it may not be Matthew’s intent that his readers anticipate any further consequences, Mark’s account demonstrates that Jesus’ incursions into the Gentile world had a preparatory effect. When the gospel of the risen Christ was brought into Gentile lands, his name and stories of his power would already be known.
The Command to Avoid: A Problematic Passage
Having established both Jesus’ willingness to engage personally with Gentiles, as well as his divine intention to include Gentiles in the kingdom from eternity past, we come to the first expression of the problem which opened this discussion: Jesus’ and his disciples’ exclusive mission to the Jews. “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 10:5–7). Many commentators consider this the most difficult contextual problem presented by Matthew:[17] if Jesus (and Matthew) intended to promote the message of Gentile access to the kingdom, why this seeming reversal? If Jesus himself went “among the Gentiles” and brought his disciples with him, why instruct them differently here?
The existence of a reversal is one which many commentators surprisingly overlook. The notion that Jesus would need to instruct the Twelve, all Jews, to avoid the dwellings of Gentiles and Samaritans would seem preposterous if not for an opposite precedent already set by Jesus’ own example. The very command suggests a postponing of the inevitable, an implicit “not yet.” Israel is given precedence according to their covenant status as a nation. The promise of Messiah, though extending to all humanity (Gen. 3:15, 12:3), is established in covenants with national Israel, so the offer of salvation through faith in Jesus is extended first to them.[18] Their acceptance or rejection of him, like the covenant, would be a national one.[19] Jesus’ treatment of Gentiles hints (loudly) at the broader offer of salvation to all people, but it will be accomplished through proclamation to and rejection by Israel. The ultimate totality of their rejection will culminate in the very act that God had ordained for the salvation of the entire world (Rom. 11:15)!
Jesus’ foreshadowing of this rejection and the future judgement in the episode with the centurion is later reinforced in his pronouncement of woes on “the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent” (Matt. 11:20). Not insignificantly, his condemnation contains comparisons to those pagan cites denounced by Old Testament prophets (Tyre and Sidon) or destroyed utterly by God (Sodom) (11:21–24). His claim, that if he had graced those Gentile cities with the “mighty works” performed in the cities of Israel “they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes,” draws attention to the primary difference between Jews and Gentiles: receiving God’s gracious word. As beneficiaries of the covenant, Israel received both the Law and the Messiah first, but they rejected both. These cities, like the religious leaders whom Jesus frequently denounced, were representative of the nation, and demonstrated that their privileged place under the covenant had not been received with humility as Moses had taught (Deut. 7:7–10), but with pride (Matt. 3:9).[‡]
Finally, it should be noted that in Jesus’ instructions to the Twelve, he anticipates their post-ascension ministry as well, when they will one day “be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles” (10:18).[20] Following Israel’s national rejection, the hearts of both Jews and Gentiles will be tested one by one, so that “everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (10:32–33). In directing his disciples for this limited campaign to the cities of Israel, he is preparing the very rejection by the nation that will bring hope to both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 11:30–32).
The Pivot: As Israel’s Eyes Darken, the Hope of the Gentiles Brightens
Before Jesus’ ministry shifts to one characterized by parables, in which his message is veiled in judgement of Israel’s corporate unbelief (13:13–15), Matthew inserts a revealing commentary. After a Sabbath healing leads to a murderous conspiracy by the Pharisees, Jesus withdraws to an unspecified location (12:12–16). Followed by great crowds, he heals everyone but warns them not to make him known. Wherever this is taking place, Jesus does not seek to draw any further attention. Yet Matthew declares that the work Jesus does in this unnamed place is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of the meek Servant:
“He will not quarrel or cry aloud,
nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets;
a bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not quench,
until he brings justice to victory;
and in his name the Gentiles will hope” (12:20–21).
Without any specific mention of a present ministry to Gentiles, Matthew claims that this discrete work of healing brings hope to those outside the covenant. While this is indeed good news, its appearance following the Pharisees’ plot to murder Jesus, and preceding their accusation that Jesus is in league with Beelzebul (12:24), casts an ominous shadow over the nation of Israel. Their own blasphemous rejection of Jesus has caused them to be cast aside.[21] Hope is proclaimed, but Israel as a nation, represented by those who should have been shepherds, is not mentioned. It should be noted that Jesus’ and his disciples’ mandated ministry among the Jews has not been lifted, as Jesus will affirm in his encounter with the Canaanite woman. It would appear, then, that the hope of the Gentiles is affirmed specifically in light of Jesus’ continued compassionate work in the face of Israel’s increasingly national rejection of its own Messiah.[22] The shepherds of Israel have failed to glorify God before the Gentiles, but they have not been overlooked by the true Shepherd. It should also be noted that Matthew’s readers would recognize the Servant of this quotation (Isa. 42:1–3) as the same who, “despised,” “rejected,” and “smitten,” would “sprinkle many nations” (52:15–53:3).
The judgement of the nation is once again tied to the repentance and faith of the Gentiles in a final denunciation of Israel’s leaders before the period of the parables. Recalling the repentance of Ninevah and the humility of the Queen of the South, Jesus declares that Gentiles will “rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it” (12:41–42). Once again recalling those outside the covenant, without the benefit of the Law, Jesus points to the failure of Israel’s leaders to apply the Scriptures they have received and the signs already given[23] to identify the one who is “greater that Jonah” so as to heed his warnings and repent, and “greater than Solomon” so as to receive his wisdom.[24]
The Canaanite Woman: The Triumph of Faith
So far we have seen Jesus’ divine eternal intentions toward the Gentiles as a consistent theme in Matthew's gospel, along with Jesus' repeated use of their example (as outsiders to the covenant) as a foil for Israel’s failure to apply the Law by faith. With all of the above as background, we return to the puzzle of Jesus’ seeming reluctance to engage with the Canaanite woman of Phoenicia (Matt. 15:21–28). Scholars have shown understandable discomfort with the exchange, not only because Jesus seems to demean the humanity of the woman and her daughter, but because he seems both to contradict previous practice of uninhibited healing and also to violate his own directive to “go nowhere among the Gentiles” (10:5).[25] Even if one were to assume, as textual critics generally do, that a scribe or scribal community had assembled and edited fragments of texts amid a peculiar milieu of pressures and prejudices, toward a specific set of theological and sociological goals, one would still expect an internal consistency to reveal those prejudices and goals. One would expect consistency all the more from a canonical perspective, in which no mere opinions are expressed but rather the eternal and cosmic purposes of God for mankind’s salvation. Therefore, the seeming inconsistency of Jesus’ character and message in the initial exchange should certainly arrest our attention. But the encounter must be viewed in light of its outcome, which is thoroughly consistent with the purpose and message of Christ in the book of Matthew and the Scriptures as a whole.
It should be noted first that when he “withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon” on the Mediterranean coast (15:21) Jesus entered Gentile territory. Mark’s gospel makes clear that this withdrawal was to be a respite (presumably from the Pharisees, but also from the continual press of the crowds) and not a preaching campaign, but his fame had spread even amongst the pagans such that he “could not be hidden” (Mark 7:24). His stated intentions for anonymity and rest are made clear in Matthew’s account by the reaction of the disciples, who have seen Jesus heal quickly and willingly countless times, and who also understand that doing so would draw multitudes. But Jesus’ initial silence only raises their profile, causing a scene in the street as the woman continues to cry out. The apostles plead with Jesus to “send her away” and put an end to the commotion, but rather than a swift healing or a firm rebuke, Jesus engages her with an argument.
The woman, though a Gentile and native of that region, shows a respect for Israel and a fear of God similar to the centurion, recognizing Jesus not merely as a famous healer, but “Lord, Son of David,” a designation for the Christ (Matt. 1:1; 22:42). The woman understands the exclusivity of the covenant with Israel, as her later response reveals, but she also understands the magnanimity of God whose blessings to the offspring of Abraham will overflow to all nations; thus she appeals to Jesus on the basis of his divine authority. Such expressions of personal faith in his identity are never ignored by Jesus, but his silence intensifies the situation and draws in the disciples (details not noted by Mark), who consistently see only immediate, not ultimate, goals. Jesus’ response brings attention to another immediate goal, namely preaching to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” but their conception of that mission will be challenged by this exchange.[26] Again, Jesus’ response to the woman must be considered in view of his divine foreknowledge that Israel’s rejection would be the means of salvation for both Gentiles and Jews, even though that time had not yet come. Jesus knows that his own statement is not ultimately exclusive, though it would be heard only in its immediate sense. Nevertheless, although a pagan with “no claim on the God of the covenant,” the woman persists in her pleas for help based on her faith in God’s gracious character and her absolute certainty of Jesus’ power and authority to heal.[27]
Jesus’ reply, so seemingly out of character for himself or any of the apostolic writers, should not be mistaken for unkindness, as though the gospel writer wished, as some critical scholars suggest, to convey Jewish superiority (or a penchant for rudeness) not elsewhere to be found in Jesus’ life or teaching.[28] Though Jesus is not above insult when it comes to the self-serving religious leaders (“blind guides,” “whitewashed tombs,” and “brood of vipers”) (Matt. 23:16, 27, 33), he is not given to insulting the poor and suffering. He appears rather to be using a household analogy to illustrate a reality that she would readily acknowledge: just as dogs may live alongside children in the house but do not receive the same special love and care that children do, the promises to Israel under the Old Covenant are first and foremost for Israel.[29][§] Outside of the covenant no blessings are promised. Thus, the woman’s final appeal is based not on eventual inclusion of the Gentiles through the rejection of Israel, but on the glimpses already seen of God’s ethnic non-exclusivity. Old Testament examples of Gentile faith like Ruth and Rahab, and the graciousness of Jesus toward the centurion, the Gadarene demoniacs, and (doubtless) many other Gentiles amongst the crowds in Galilee, the Decapolis and the Transjordan, have demonstrated the priority of faith over bloodline. So this Canaanite woman asks not for what is hers by right, but for grace. Jesus’ exclamation of delight justifies her actions: “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire!” It also justifies our reading of Matthew’s gospel in its treatment of the Gentiles: that those outside the covenant who apprehend by faith what Israel failed to apprehend through the gift of the Law (that Jesus is the promised Christ) foreshadow the faith by which both Jews and Gentiles will be saved, to God’s great glory and delight, after Israel’s rejection is complete (Rom. 11:25–36).
Conclusion: Not the End of the Story
The encounter with the woman of Phoenicia is by no means the end or even the climactic moment of Matthew’s gospel, but it does fall at a significant point of transition in Jesus’ earthly ministry. When he retreated with the Twelve to Tyre and Sidon, it marked the end of his public campaigns amongst dominant Jewish populations. Even in the heathen and ethnically-mixed lands in which he travelled, he ministered almost exclusively to the Twelve “as much as was consistent with His heart of compassion for those who discovered Him in His various places of retreat.”[30] His call was still to Israel, but their national rejection of him was already apparent, even if many individually still believed. When Jesus finally entered Jerusalem and presented himself as King, he forced Israel’s leaders to make their rejection of his authority official.[31]
After Jesus’ resurrection and his commission to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19), it was still not immediately clear to the apostles just how included the Gentiles were to be. While Peter made clear in his first sermon that Israel’s national guilt for Jesus’ death required individual repentance, and that the promise of forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit included “all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:36–39), the question of Gentile repentance and forgiveness had not yet been duly addressed. When he was called to Caesarea to meet Cornelius, Peter was shown in a vision from Christ that the division between clean and unclean — distinctives of the covenant law of Moses — had been laid aside: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him,” and “To [Jesus] all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:34–35, 43).
Matthew, writing years later, would naturally affirm this reality through his gospel account, even if it was not understood in the moment by the protagonists of his narrative (save Jesus himself). Demonstrations of faith by individual Gentiles are repeatedly shown to accomplish for them what the Law did not for the Jewish nation: apprehension of the true identity of Jesus, the Christ. While faith is, of course, not exclusive to Gentiles, their faith shines with particular radiance because they believe even without all the privileges given to God’s covenant people. Indeed, what the Canaanite woman received was far from “the crumbs.” When she recognized Jesus as the Son of David and trusted in his saving power, she received the choicest meat that the covenant children had been given, the hope of redemption. While “the gifts and the calling of God” to Israel “are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29), their hope, like that of the Gentiles, is in his mercy alone (11:32). If Matthew can be said to have a single purpose in mind in the writing of his gospel, it is the common purpose of all the New Testament evangelists: “to explain him.”[32] Matthew writes neither to praise nor disparage Gentiles, neither to promote the Gentile mission nor defend his community’s Jewish credentials, but to reveal Jesus Christ himself as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 3:16).
Notes
[*] Gulotta’s analysis is representative of this problem, resorting to far-flung speculation about textual source material and the peculiar prejudices of a supposed “Matthean community,” disregarding the unanimous testimony of New Testament writers about the revealed mystery of Gentile inclusion.
[†] It is unclear whether Matthew intended his readers to consider Tamar and Bathsheba as Gentiles as well. The biblical record is not conclusive on this point, though Judah’s marriage to a Canaanite woman and the proximity of pagan religious practices makes Tamar's Canaanite status a distinct possibility, and Bathsheba’s marriage to Uriah the Hittite also suggests the possibility of Gentile status. Nevertheless, definite conclusions on these points are neither possible nor necessary to make the point of Gentile inclusion in Jesus’ genealogy.
[‡] Jesus qualifies his national condemnation with individual hope for the humble: “…you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will” (11:25–26)!
[§] Much debate has swirled around the identification of “dogs” in this context as household pets, rather than the street curs that Jews spoke of in derogatory reference to Gentiles, on the basis of the diminutive Greek form κυνάριον. The argument is not conclusive. The woman’s response, however, strongly implies that she understood his statement as an illustration and not an ethnic slur.
References
[1] Matthias Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew, vol. English edition, Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2014), ii, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=nlebk&AN=886449&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
[2] Donald Senior, “Between Two Worlds: Gentiles and Jewish Christians in Matthew’s Gospel.,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 1 (January 1999): 7.
[3] D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005), 157.
[4] Daniel N. Gullotta, “Among Dogs and Disciples: An Examination of the Story of the Canaanite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28) and the Question of the Gentile Mission within the Matthean Community.,” Neotestamentica 48, no. 2 (July 2014): 325–40.
[5] Grant R. Osborne, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Clinton E. Arnold, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2008), 61–62.
[6] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman and David E. Garland, Rev. ed, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2006), 91–92.
[7] Reggie M. Kidd, “Matthew,” in A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament: The Gospel Realized, ed. Michael J. Kruger (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 48–49.
[8] Osborne, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 1:87.
[9] Dan Doriani, “Matthew,” in Matthew-Luke, ed. Iain M. Duguid, James M. Hamilton, and Jay Sklar (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2021), 80.
[10] Senior, “Between Two Worlds: Gentiles and Jewish Christians in Matthew’s Gospel.,” 9.
[11] Doriani, “Matthew,” 134.
[12] Carson, “Matthew,” 239–240.
[13] Doriani, “Matthew,” 134–135.
[14] Michael J. Vlach, He Will Reign Forever: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God (Silvertton, OR: Lampion Press, LLC, 2017), 316.
[15] Vlach, 276.
[16] Osborne, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 1:317–318.
[17] Walter C. Kaiser, The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2008), 314.
[18] Kaiser, 314.
[19] Robert Duncan Culver, The Earthly Career of Jesus, the Christ: A Life in Chronological, Geographical and Social Context (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2002), 181–182.
[20] Carson, “Matthew,” 404.
[21] Vlach, He Will Reign Forever, 323.
[22] Osborne, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 1:467.
[23] Carson, “Matthew,” 343.
[24] Doriani, “Matthew,” 201.
[25] Gullotta, “Among Dogs and Disciples: An Examination of the Story of the Canaanite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28) and the Question of the Gentile Mission within the Matthean Community.,” 330.
[26] Doriani, “Matthew,” 244.
[27] Carson, “Matthew,” 403.
[28] Gullotta, “Among Dogs and Disciples: An Examination of the Story of the Canaanite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28) and the Question of the Gentile Mission within the Matthean Community.,” 335.
[29] Osborne, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 1:599.
[30] Culver, The Earthly Career of Jesus, the Christ, 138.
[31] Culver, 186.
[32] Carson, “Matthew,” 403.
[1] Matthias Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew, vol. English edition, Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2014), ii, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=nlebk&AN=886449&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
[2] Donald Senior, “Between Two Worlds: Gentiles and Jewish Christians in Matthew’s Gospel.,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 1 (January 1999): 7.
[3] D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005), 157.
[4] Daniel N. Gullotta, “Among Dogs and Disciples: An Examination of the Story of the Canaanite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28) and the Question of the Gentile Mission within the Matthean Community.,” Neotestamentica 48, no. 2 (July 2014): 325–40.
[5] Grant R. Osborne, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Clinton E. Arnold, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2008), 61–62.
[6] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman and David E. Garland, Rev. ed, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2006), 91–92.
[7] Reggie M. Kidd, “Matthew,” in A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament: The Gospel Realized, ed. Michael J. Kruger (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 48–49.
[8] Osborne, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 1:87.
[9] Dan Doriani, “Matthew,” in Matthew-Luke, ed. Iain M. Duguid, James M. Hamilton, and Jay Sklar (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2021), 80.
[10] Senior, “Between Two Worlds: Gentiles and Jewish Christians in Matthew’s Gospel.,” 9.
[11] Doriani, “Matthew,” 134.
[12] Carson, “Matthew,” 239–240.
[13] Doriani, “Matthew,” 134–135.
[14] Michael J. Vlach, He Will Reign Forever: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God (Silvertton, OR: Lampion Press, LLC, 2017), 316.
[15] Vlach, 276.
[16] Osborne, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 1:317–318.
[17] Walter C. Kaiser, The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2008), 314.
[18] Kaiser, 314.
[19] Robert Duncan Culver, The Earthly Career of Jesus, the Christ: A Life in Chronological, Geographical and Social Context (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2002), 181–182.
[20] Carson, “Matthew,” 404.
[21] Vlach, He Will Reign Forever, 323.
[22] Osborne, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 1:467.
[23] Carson, “Matthew,” 343.
[24] Doriani, “Matthew,” 201.
[25] Gullotta, “Among Dogs and Disciples: An Examination of the Story of the Canaanite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28) and the Question of the Gentile Mission within the Matthean Community.,” 330.
[26] Doriani, “Matthew,” 244.
[27] Carson, “Matthew,” 403.
[28] Gullotta, “Among Dogs and Disciples: An Examination of the Story of the Canaanite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28) and the Question of the Gentile Mission within the Matthean Community.,” 335.
[29] Osborne, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 1:599.
[30] Culver, The Earthly Career of Jesus, the Christ, 138.
[31] Culver, 186.
[32] Carson, “Matthew,” 403.