Matthew 15:21
Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
Jump to: AlfordBarnesBengelBensonBICalvinCambridgeChrysostomClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctExp GrkGaebeleinGSBGillGrayGuzikHaydockHastingsHomileticsICCJFBKellyKJTLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWMeyerParkerPNTPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBVWSWESTSK
(21) Into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.—St. Mark (Mark 7:31) says (in the best MSS.) our Lord passed, after the miracle, “through Sidon,” and so we have the one recorded exception to that self-imposed law of His ministry which kept Him within the limits of the land of Israel. To the disciples it might seem that He was simply withdrawing from conflict with the excited hostility of His Pharisee opponents. We may see a relation between the two acts not unlike that which afterwards connected the vision of Peter at Joppa with his entry into the house of Cornelius at Cæsarea. He was showing in act, as before in word (Matthew 11:21), that He regarded Tyre and Sidon as standing on the same level as Chorazin and Bethsaida. The dust of the heathen cities was not more defiling than that of Capernaum. The journey from Capernaum to Tyre was one which might be made in one long day of active walking.



Matthew 15:21 - Matthew 15:31

The King of Israel has passed beyond the bounds of Israel, driven by the hostility of those who should have been His subjects. The delegates of the priestly party from Jerusalem, who had come down to see into this dangerous enthusiasm which was beginning in Galilee, have made Christ’s withdrawal expedient, and He goes northward, if not actually into the territory of Tyre and Sidon, at any rate to the border land. The incident of the Syro-Phoenician woman becomes more striking if we suppose that it took place on Gentile ground. At all events, after it, we learn from Mark that He made a considerable circuit, first north and then east, and so came round to the eastern side of the sea of Galilee, where the last paragraph of this section finds Him. The key to its meaning lies in the contrast between the single cure of the woman’s demoniac daughter, obtained after so long imploring, and the spontaneous abundance of the cures wrought when Jesus again had Jewish sufferers to do with, even though it were on the half-Gentilised eastern shore of the lake. The contrast is an illustration of His parable of the crumbs that fell from the table and the plentiful feast that was spread upon it for the children.

The story of the Syro-Phoenician woman naturally falls into four parts, each marked by the recurrence of ‘He answered.’

I. There is the piteous cry, and the answer of silence.

Mark tells us that Jesus sought concealment in this journey; but distress has quick eyes, and this poor woman found Him. Canaanite as she is, and thus a descendant of the ancient race of Israel’s enemies, she has learned to call Him the Son of David, owning His kingship, which His born subjects disowned. She beseeches for that which He delights to give, identifying herself with her poor child’s suffering, and asking as for herself His mercy. As Chrysostom says: ‘It was a sight to stir pity to behold a woman calling aloud in such distress, and that woman a mother, and pleading for a daughter, and that daughter in such evil plight.’ In her humility she does not bring her child, nor ask Him to go to her. In her agony, she has nothing to say but to spread her grief before Him, as thinking that He, of whose pity she has heard, needs but to know in order to alleviate, and requires no motives urged to induce Him to help. In her faith, she thinks that His power can heal from afar. What more could He have desired? All the more startling, then, is His demeanour. All the conditions which He usually required, were present in her; but He, who was wont to meet these with swift and joyful over-answers, has no word to say to this poor, needy, persevering, humble, and faithful suppliant. The fountain seems frozen, from which such streams of blessing were wont to flow. His mercy seems clean gone, and His compassion to have failed. A Christ silent to a sufferer’s cry is a paradox which contradicts the whole gospel story, and which, we may be very sure, no evangelist would have painted, if he had not been painting from the life.

II. There is the disciples’ intercession answered by Christ’s statement of the limitations of His mission.

Their petition evidently meant, ‘Dismiss her by granting her request’; they knew in what fashion He was wont to ‘send away’ such suppliants. They seem, then, more pitiful than He is. But their thoughts are more for themselves than for her. That ‘us’ shows the cloven foot. They did not like the noise, and they feared it might defeat His purpose of secrecy; and so, by their phrase, ‘Send her away,’ they unconsciously betray that what they wanted was not granting the prayer, but getting rid of the petitioner. Perhaps, too, they mean, ‘Say something to her; either tell her that Thou wilt or that Thou wilt not; break Thy silence somehow.’ No doubt, it was intensely disagreeable to have a shrieking woman coming after them; and they were only doing as most of us would have done, and as so many of us do, when we give help without one touch of compassion, in order to stop some imploring mouth.

Their apparently compassionate but really selfish intercession was put aside by the answer, which explains the paradox of His silence. It puts emphasis on two things: His subordination to the divine will of the Father, and the restrictions imposed thereby on the scope of His beneficent working. He was obeying the divine will in confining His ministry to the Jewish people, as we know that He did. Clearly, that restriction was necessary. It was a case of concentration in order to diffusion. The fire must be gathered on the hearth, if it is afterward to warm the chamber. There must be geographical and national limits to His life; and the Messiah, who comes last in the long series of the kings and prophets, can only be authenticated as the world’s Messiah, by being first the fulfiller to the children of the promises made to the fathers. The same necessity, which required that revelation should be made through that nation, required that the climax and fulfiller of all revelation should limit His earthly ministry to it. This limitation must be regarded as applying only to His own personal ministry. It did not limit His sympathies, nor interfere with His consciousness of being the Saviour and King of the whole world. He had already spoken the parables which claimed it all for the area of the development of His kingdom, and in many other ways had given utterance to His consciousness of universal dominion, and His purpose of universal mercy. But He knew that there was an order of development in the kingdom, and that at its then stage the surest way to attain the ultimate universality was rigid limitation of it to the chosen people. This conviction locked His gracious lips against even this poor woman’s piteous cry. We may well believe that His sympathy outran His commission, and that it would have been hard for so much love to be silent in the presence of so much sorrow, if He had not felt the solemn pressure of that divine necessity which ruled all His life. He was bound by His instructions, and therefore He answered her not a word. Individual suffering is no reason for transcending the limits of God-appointed functions; and he is absolved from the charge of indifference who refrains from giving help, which he can only give by overleaping the bounds of his activity, which have been set by the Father.

III. We have, next, the persistent suppliant answered by a refusal which sounds harsh and hopeless.

Christ’s former words were probably not heard by the woman, who seems to have been behind the group. She saw that something was being said to Him, and may have gathered, from gestures or looks, that His reply was unfavourable. Perhaps there was a short pause in their walk, while they spoke, during which she came nearer. Now she falls at His feet, and with ‘beautiful shamelessness,’ as Chrysostom calls it, repeats her prayer, but this time with pathetic brevity, uttering but the one cry, ‘Lord, help me!’ The intenser the feeling, the fewer the words. Heart-prayers are short prayers. She does not now invoke Him as the Son of David, nor tell her sorrow over again, but flings herself in desperation on His pity, with the artless and unsupported cry, wrung from her agony, as she sees the hope of help fading away. Like Jacob, in his mysterious struggle, ‘she wept, and made supplication unto Him.’

As it would seem, her distress touched no chord of sympathy; and from the lips accustomed to drop oil and wine into every wound, came words like swords, cold, unfeeling, keen-edged, fitted and meant to lacerate. We shall not understand them, or Him, if we content ourselves with the explanation which jealousy for His honour as compassionate and tender has led many to adopt, that He meant all the long delay in granting her request, and the words which He spoke, only as tests of her faith. His refusal was a real refusal, founded on the divine decree, which He was bound to obey. His words to her, harsh as they unquestionably sound, are but another way of putting the limitation on which He had just insisted in His answer to the disciples. The ‘bread’ is the blessing which He, as the sent of God, brings; the ‘children’ are the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’; the ‘dogs’ are the Gentile world. The meaning of the whole is simply the necessary restriction of His personal activity to the chosen nation. It is not meant to wound nor to insult, though, no doubt, it is cast in a form which might have been offensive, and would have repelled a less determined or less sorrowful heart. The form may be partly explained by the intention of trying her earnestness, which, though it is not the sole, or even the principal, is a subordinate, reason of our Lord’s action. But it is also to be considered in the light of the woman’s quick-witted retort, which drew out of it an inference which we cannot suppose that Christ did not intend. He uses a diminutive for ‘dogs,’ which shows that He is not thinking of the fierce, unclean animals, masterless and starving, that still haunt Eastern cities, and deserve their bad character, but of domestic pets, who live with the household, and are near the table. In fact, the woman seized His intention much better than later critics who find ‘national scorn’ in the words; and the fair inference from them is just that which she drew, and which constituted the law of the preaching of the Gospel,-’To the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.’

IV. We have the woman’s retort, which wrings hope out of apparent discouragement, answered by Christ’s joyful granting of her request.

Out of His very words she weaves a plea. ‘Yes, Lord; I am one of the dogs; then I am not an alien, but belong to the household.’ The Revised Version does justice to her words by reading ‘for even’ instead of ‘yet,’ She does not enter a caveat against the analogy, but accepts it wholly, and only asks Him to carry out His own metaphor. She takes the sword from His hand, or, as Luther says, ‘she catches Him in His own words.’ She does not ask a place at the table, nor anything taken from those who have a prior claim to a more abundant share in His mercies. A crumb is enough for her, which they will never miss. In other and colder words, she acquiesces in the divine appointment which limits His mission to Israel; but she recognises that all nations belong to God’s household, and that she and her countrymen have a real, though for the time inferior, position in it. She pleads that her gain will not be the children’s loss, nor the answer to her prayers an infraction of the spirit of His mission. Perhaps, too, there may be a reference to the fact of His being there on Gentile soil, in her words, ‘Which fall from the children’s table.’ She does not want the bread to be thrown from the table to her. She is not asking Him to transfer His ministry to Gentiles; but here He is. A crumb has fallen, in His brief visit. May she not eat of that? In this answer faith, humility, perseverance, swift perception of His meaning, and hallowed ingenuity and boldness, are equally admirable. By admitting that she was ‘a dog,’ and pleading her claim on that footing, she shows that she was ‘a child.’ And therefore, because she has shown herself one of the true household, in the fixedness of her faith, in the meekness of her humility, in the persistence of her prayers, Christ joyfully recognises that here is a case in which He may pass the line of ordinary limitation, and that, in doing so, He does not exceed His commission. Such faith is entitled to the fullest share of His gift. She takes her place beside the Gentile centurion as the two recipients of commendation from Him for the greatness of their faith. It had seemed as if He would give nothing; but He ends with giving all, putting the key of the storehouse into her hand, and bidding her take, not a crumb, but ‘as thou wilt.’ Her daughter is healed, by His power working at a distance; but that was not, we may be very sure, the last nor the best of the blessings which she took from that great treasure of which He made her mistress. Nor can we doubt that He rejoiced at the removal of the barrier which dammed back His help, as much as she did at the abundance of the stream which reached her at last.

V. The final verses of our lesson give us a striking contrast to this story.

Jesus is again on the shores of the lake, after a tour through the Tyrian and Sidonian territory, and then eastwards and southwards, to its eastern bank. There He, as on several former occasions, seeks seclusion and repose in the hills, which is broken in upon by the crowds. The old excitement and rush of people begin again. And large numbers of sick, ‘lame, blind, dumb, maimed and many others,’ are brought. They are cast ‘down at His feet’ in hot haste, with small ceremony, and, as would appear, with little petitioning for His healing power. But the same grace, for which the Canaanitish woman had needed to plead so hard, now seems to flow almost unasked. She had, as it were, wrung a drop out; now it gushes abundantly. She had not got her ‘crumb’ without much pleading; these get the bread almost without asking. It is this contrast of scant and full supplies which the evangelist would have us observe. And he points his meaning plainly enough by that expression, ‘they glorified the God of Israel,’ which seems to be Matthew’s own, and not his quotation of what the crowd said. This abundance of miracle witnesses to the pre-eminence of Israel over the Gentile nations, and to the special revelation of Himself which God made to them in His Son. The crowd may have found in it only fuel for narrow national pride and contempt; but it was the divine method for the founding of the kingdom none the less; and these two scenes, set thus side by side, teach the same truth, that the King of men is first the King of Israel.

Matthew 15:21-28. Jesus departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon — Not to those cities which were to have no share in his mighty works, Matthew 11:21-22; but into that part of the land of Israel which bordered on their coast. And behold a woman of Canaan — Or, a Syrophœnician, as she is called, Mark 7:26; Canaan being also called Syrophœnicia, as lying between Syria, properly so called, and Phœnicia, by the sea-side. Came, and cried unto him — From afar; Have mercy on me, thou son of David — Consider my distressed case, and extend thy compassion to me, though a stranger. By addressing him as the son of David, she shows she had some knowledge of the promised Messiah, and that she believed Jesus to be that divine person. But he answered her not a word — He did not seem to regard her, intending that the greatness of her faith should be manifested: an end highly worthy of the wisdom of Jesus; because it not only justified his conduct in working a miracle for a heathen, but was a sharp rebuke to the Jews for their infidelity. Our Lord often tries the faith of his followers in a similar way. His disciples besought him, saying, Send her away — The disciples, being ignorant of our Lord’s design, were uneasy at the woman’s importunity, thinking, if she were permitted to follow them, that they would soon be discovered. Desiring, therefore, to get rid of her, they entreat their Master to dismiss her as he was wont to dismiss such petitioners, namely, with the grant of her request. But he answered, I am not sent — Not primarily; not yet; but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel — By the lost sheep of Israel we are to understand the whole nation of the Jews, who, being as sheep dispersed, and having no shepherd, are therefore called lost sheep. To them the Messiah was first promised; to them he came; and to them his personal ministry was to be almost wholly confined: and hence he is styled a minister of the circumcision, Romans 15:8. Thus at the first Jesus seemed both to refuse this woman’s request, and the intercession of the disciples in her behalf. She, however, far from being discouraged by the repulse, drew near and worshipped him — That is, fell on her knees before him; saying, Lord, help me — Her necessity and distress were great, and she was unwilling to take a denial. But he said — What was still more discouraging, and seemed to cut her off from all hope, and would, doubtless, have driven her to despair, if she had not had very strong faith indeed; It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs — “The Jews gloried greatly in the honourable title of God’s children, because of all nations they alone knew and worshipped the true God. They gave the name of dogs to the heathen for their idolatry and other pollutions, by which they had degraded themselves from the rank of reasonable creatures: this appellation, therefore, marked the impurity of the Gentiles, and their odiousness in the sight of God; at the same time conveying an idea of the contempt in which they were held by the holy nation. But though, in some respects, it was applicable, it must have been very offensive to the heathen. Nevertheless, this woman neither refused it, nor grudged the Jews the honourable title of children. She acknowledged the justness of what Christ said, and by a strong exercise of faith drew an argument from it, which the candour and benevolence of his disposition could not resist.” She said, Truth, Lord — It would not be fit to put the dogs and the children on a level; Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs, &c. — “Let me have such kindness as the dogs of any family enjoy: from the plenty of miraculous cures which thou bestowest on the Jews, drop the offal of this one to me who am a poor distressed heathen; for by it they will suffer no greater loss than do the children of a family by the crumbs which are cast to the dogs.” — Macknight. Then Jesus answered, O woman, great is thy faith — There were several other graces that shone bright in her; wisdom, humility, meekness, patience, perseverance in prayer, but these were the product of her faith, and therefore Christ particularly commends that: because of all graces faith honours Christ most, therefore of all graces Christ honours faith most. This woman’s faith was great indeed, considering that she had no promise to rely on, and had suffered so many repulses, joined with such seeming contempt, and yet still she retained a confidence in the mercy, kindness, and power of Jesus. Be it unto thee even as thou wilt — Thy request is granted in all its extent. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour — Thus the mother’s faith prevailed for the daughter’s cure, and the patient’s being at a distance was no hinderance to the efficacy of Christ’s word, He spake, and it was done. We learn two important lessons from the success which the suit of this Canaanitish woman met with: 1st, that God is no respecter of persons, but always accepts sincere faith and fervent prayer, proceeding from an humble, penitent heart. 2d, That it is our duty to continue in prayer with earnestness, although the answer thereof should be long deferred.

15:21-28 The dark corners of the country, the most remote, shall share Christ's influences; afterwards the ends of the earth shall see his salvation. The distress and trouble of her family brought a woman to Christ; and though it is need that drives us to Christ, yet we shall not therefore be driven from him. She did not limit Christ to any particular instance of mercy, but mercy, mercy, is what she begged for: she pleads not merit, but depends upon mercy. It is the duty of parents to pray for their children, and to be earnest in prayer for them, especially for their souls. Have you a son, a daughter, grievously vexed with a proud devil, an unclean devil, a malicious devil, led captive by him at his will? this is a case more deplorable than that of bodily possession, and you must bring them by faith and prayer to Christ, who alone is able to heal them. Many methods of Christ's providence, especially of his grace, in dealing with his people, which are dark and perplexing, may be explained by this story, which teaches that there may be love in Christ's heart while there are frowns in his face; and it encourages us, though he seems ready to slay us, yet to trust in him. Those whom Christ intends most to honour, he humbles to feel their own unworthiness. A proud, unhumbled heart would not have borne this; but she turned it into an argument to support her request. The state of this woman is an emblem of the state of a sinner, deeply conscious of the misery of his soul. The least of Christ is precious to a believer, even the very crumbs of the Bread of life. Of all graces, faith honours Christ most; therefore of all graces Christ honours faith most. He cured her daughter. He spake, and it was done. From hence let such as seek help from the Lord, and receive no gracious answer, learn to turn even their unworthiness and discouragements into pleas for mercy.This narrative is also found in Mark 7:24-30.

The coasts of Tyre and Sidon - These cities were on the seacoast or shore of the Mediterranean. See the notes at Matthew 11:21. Jesus went there for the purpose of concealment Mark 7:24, perhaps still to avoid Herod.

Mt 15:21-28. The Woman of Canaan and Her Daughter.

For the exposition, see on [1309]Mr 7:24-30.

Mark addeth, Mark 7:24, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it; but he could not be hid. Some here make a question, whether our Saviour did go into Phoenicia, (of which Tyre and Sidon were the principal cities), or only into the coasts of Palestine, next to it: those that think he did not go into Phoenicia, are guided by his prohibition of his disciples to go into the way of the Gentiles, Matthew 10:5, and the consideration that the time was not yet come for his manifestation to the Gentiles. I rather incline to think that he went into Tyre and Sidon; and that this was a kind of a praeludium to the calling of the Gentiles, and a prediction of what should be done more fully afterwards. It is manifest he did not go with a design to make himself public there, for Mark saith, he would have no man know it. But for privacy withdrew himself thither, and showed some of his miraculous operations there; and Matthew 15:22 saith the woman that came to him was a Canaanite. Mark saith she was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation. Nor is here any contradiction, for ever since the Grecian monarchy prevailed over so great a part of the world, the name of Greeks had obtained, so as they called all Greeks who were not Jews, Romans 1:14,16 10:12.

A Syrophenician, saith Mark, by nation; that is, one that was a native of that part of Phoenicia which is joined to Tyre and Sidon. Matthew calls her a Canaanite, or a woman of Canaan, by which though some would understand one of Cana, yet as the orthography will not agree, so Mark calling her a Greek, and a Syrophenician, inclines us rather to judge her of the stock of the old Canaanites.

Then Jesus went thence,.... From the land of Gennesaret, after he had silenced the Pharisees, as to the charge brought by them against his disciples; and when he had reproved them for their hypocrisy and wickedness, in making void the commands of God by their traditions; and had explained some difficult and parabolical sayings he had made use of to his disciples, he then left that country, and departed very privately: either to shun the multitude, for the sake of retirement; or to avoid any snares the Scribes and Pharisees might be laying for him, who must be greatly galled with his free discourse, and strong arguments:

and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon; two principal cities of Phoenicia: not that he went into these places themselves, but into some places that bordered upon them; for as he ordered his disciples not to go in the way of the Gentiles, so neither did he himself.

Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the {e} coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

(e) Coasts which were next to Tyre and Sidon, that is in that region where Palestine faces toward Venice, and the sea of Syria.

Matthew 15:21. Ἐκεῖθεν] See Matthew 14:34.

ἀνεχώρησεν] He withdrew, to avoid being entrapped and molested by the Pharisees. Comp. Matthew 12:15, Matthew 14:13.

εἰς τὰ μέρη] not: towards the districts, versus (Syr. Grotius, Bengel, Fritzsche, Olshausen), for the only meaning of εἰς that naturally and readily suggests itself is: into the districts (Matthew 2:22), of Tyre and Sidon. This, however, is not to be understood as implying that Jesus had crossed the borders of Palestine and entered Gentile territory, which is precluded by the words of Matthew 15:22 : ἀπὸ τ. ὁρίων ἐκ. ἐξελθοῦσα, but as meaning, that he went: into the (Galilean) districts which border upon the precincts of Tyre and Sidon. Comp. note on Mark 7:24, according to which evangelist Jesus does not pass through Sidon till afterwards, when proceeding farther on His way (Mark 7:31). This in answer to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, de Wette, Arnoldi, Bleek, Schenkel, whose expedient of supposing that Jesus betook Himself to this Gentile valley, not for the purpose of teaching, but to make Himself acquainted with the feelings of the people who lived there (Schenkel), may be pronounced to be as arbitrary as the supposition that He only wanted (Calvin) to give praeludia quaedam of the conversion of the Gentiles.

Matthew 15:21-28. Woman of Canaan (Mark 7:24-30). This excursion to the north is the result of a passionate longing to escape at once from the fever of popularity and from the odium theologicum of Pharisees, and to be alone for a while with the Twelve, with nature, and with God. One could wish that fuller details had been given as to its duration, extent, etc. From Mk. we infer that it had a wide sweep, lasted for a considerable time, and was not confined to Jewish territory. Vide notes there.

21. the coasts] The neighbourhood, district, not the sea-shore, as might be thought.

21–28. The Daughter of a Canaanite Woman is cured

Mark 7:24-30This narrative of faith without external observance or knowledge of the Law affords a suggestive contrast to the preceding discourse.

Matthew 15:21. Τὰ μέρη, parts) i.e. not towards the whole region.

Verses 21-28. - Healing of the daughter of the Canaanitish woman. (Mark 7:24-30.) Verse 21. - Went thence. Jesus left the place, probably Capernaum, where the above discourse had been held, and where it was no longer safe for him to remain. He had grievously offended the dominant party by his outspoken words concerning purity and defilement; therefore, to escape any premature violence, he departed to a more secure quarter. Into the coasts (ta\ me/rh, "the parts") of Tyre and Sidon. The word "coasts" here, ver. 22, and elsewhere, does not mean "seacoasts," but "borders." The Authorized Version conveys a wrong impression by its use of the word. These two cities lay on the coast of Galilee, and had never been really conquered by the Israelites, though allotted to the tribe of Asher. There was no very exact limitation of territory between Phoenician (of which they were the capitals) and Jewish land, but there was a great moral distinction. The Phoenicians were sunk in the grossest idolatry; the worship of Baal and Ashtaroth reigned among them with all its depravity and pollution. Whether our Lord actually entered this district, or only approached its confines, is a matter of dispute. The language in the two extant accounts is ambiguous, and might be taken to imply either proceeding. But we cannot suppose that Christ betook himself to the close neighbourhood of those evil towns. His injunction to the apostles, when he sent them on their missionary tour, to abstain from going into any way of the Gentiles or entering any Samaritan city (Matthew 10:5), and his own declaration which shortly follows, that he was sent to the house of Israel, alike preclude the idea that he ever passed beyond the boundaries of the Holy Land. The woman, too, who appealed to him is said to have "come out away from those borders" - an expression which could hardly have been used if Christ had at this time been within them. And that he did no mighty work in these Phoenician cities may be gathered from his denunciation of Chorazin and Bethsaida for not showing the appreciation of his power and mercy which these centres of heathendom would have exhibited had they been equally favoured (see Matthew 11:21; Luke 10:13). If, as Chrysostom suggests, Jesus, by going to these partly Gentile districts, wished to give a practical commentary on the abrogation of the distinction between clean and unclean (breaking down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile), this lesson was given equally well by the acceptance and commendation of the Gentile woman's faith, even though Christ himself was outside of pagan territory. Matthew 15:21Coasts (μέρη)

Lit., and better, as Rev., parts.

Matthew 15:21 Interlinear
Matthew 15:21 Parallel Texts

Matthew 15:21 NIV
Matthew 15:21 NLT
Matthew 15:21 ESV
Matthew 15:21 NASB
Matthew 15:21 KJV

Matthew 15:21 Bible Apps
Matthew 15:21 Parallel
Matthew 15:21 Biblia Paralela
Matthew 15:21 Chinese Bible
Matthew 15:21 French Bible
Matthew 15:21 German Bible

Bible Hub

Matthew 15:20
Top of Page
Top of Page