Fourth Sunday after Pentecost
Proper 5
Lectionary 10
Matthew 9:9-13,18-26
Exegetical Notes
Proper 5 / Lectionary 10 A: Exegetical Notes on Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26
Frequently the Gospel Lessons assigned for Propers contain a multitude
of events. It is certainly true with this lesson.
I will look at each of the events in our text, with brief comments
about the verses skipped over (vv. 14-17):
* the call of Matthew (9:9)
* eating with tax collectors and sinners (9:10)
* questioning of disciples by Pharisees about Jesus' behavior (9:11)
* Jesus' answers to the Pharisees (9:12-13)
[* questioning of Jesus by disciples of John (9:14)]
[* Jesus' answers to John's disciples (9:15-17)]
* the resurrection of the ruler's daughter (9:18-19, 23-26)
* the healing of the woman (9:20-22)
INTRODUCTION -- THE LARGER CONTEXT
Matthew ch. 8-9 contains three sets of three miracles:
A. 8:1-17
1. healing a leper (8:1-4)
2. healing the centurion's servant (8:5-13)
3. healing Peter's mother-in-law & many others (8:14-17)
B. 8:23-9:8
1. calming the storm (8:23-27)
2. exorcising demons (8:28-34)
3. forgiving and healing the paralytic (9:1-8)
C. 9:18-34
1. raising a ruler's daughter from death & healing a woman (9:18-26)
2. healing two blind men (9:27-31)
3. exorcising a demon from a mute man (9:32-34)
Between A. & B. (8:18-22), two would-be followers approach Jesus;
but
they are discouraged by Jesus. This Q saying may have been inserted
here by Matthew because Jesus is going over to the other side (to the
Gentiles) and not all will be able to follow.
Between B. & C. (9:9-17),
(1) Jesus calls Matthew to follow and he does (9:9) -- in contrast to
those who wanted to follow earlier! Jesus eats with tax collectors and
sinners (9:10), which creates a conflict with the Pharisees (9:11) and
Jesus answers them (9:12-13). This section (and the following one)
with its conflict may have been inserted to continue the conflict
raised by the scribes with the forgiving and healing of the paralytic.
Here "forgiveness" is enacted by eating with "sinners".
(2) Jesus is questioned by John's disciples about fasting (9:14) -- an
ironic question to pose while Jesus is reclining at a feast. Jesus
gives two answers: Now is not the time to fast (9:15). Something new
is happening and it can't be sown on an old cloth or poured into old
wineskins (9:16-17).
After C there is a summary statement about Jesus' preaching and
healing and his compassion for the "sheep without a shepherd"
(9:35-36); which leads into the need for more laborers for the
plentiful harvest (9:37-38). NOTE: This summary is the first part of
our text for next week.
THE CALL OF MATTHEW (9:9)
The call of a tax collector, named Levi, is also found in Mark 2:14
and Luke 5:27-28. Melina and Rohrbaugh (_Social-Science Commentary on
the Synoptic Gospels_) write about tax (toll) collectors:
> Unlike the system of powerful, wealthy, tax-collecting
associations of the Republican period (509-31 B.C.), under Imperial
Rome native entrepreneurs (sometimes cities) contracted with the roman
administration to collect local taxes. Such individuals were required
to pay the tax allotment in advance and then organize collection in the
contracted district in hopes of turning a profit. Evidence indicates
that such ventures were risky, open to abuse, and often far from
profitable. That some became rich is evident from Luke 19:2, but many
clearly did not. The tax collectors familiar in the Synoptic tradition
were for the most part employees of the chief tax collector and were
often rootless persons unable to find other work. Evidence from the
late Imperial period suggests that cheating or extortion on their part
would be less likely to benefit them than the chief tax collector for
whom they worked.
> Taxes in the first century were both direct and indirect. Direct
taxes were levied on land, crops, and individuals. Indirect taxes
included tolls, duties, and market taxes of various kinds. Toll
collectors sitting in customhouses (Matt 9:9) collected levies on goods
entering, leaving, or being transported across a district as well as
those passing crossover points like bridges, gates, or landings.
Tradesmen, craftsmen, and even prostitutes paid taxes on all goods and
services. ...
> Though often part of the abuse that such a system brought, few tax
collectors would have been rich, and many were doubtless quite fair and
honest. In assessing the low moral opinion of tax collectors so
frequent in ancient texts we must therefore be careful to ask who is
making the judgments. Recent scholarship suggests that while late
second-century and third-century rabbinic moralists only attacked toll
collectors when they were dishonest, tradesmen almost always did.
Likewise the rich and educated universally held toll collectors in
contempt. Since the very poor, including day laborers, had little or
nothing on which such duties could be levied, we would not expect them
to be among those who despised tax collectors. [pp. 82-83]
However, Matthew includes tax collectors with "sinners" (9:10, 11;
11:19) and with prostitutes (21:32). They did not keep the best
company. They may not have been wealthy, but they certainly were not
seen as "righteous" -- perhaps because of their constant contact with
the Romans and possibly Roman money.
In all three synoptic accounts, Jesus says, "Follow me," and the tax
collector gets up and follows him. In Matthew, this call comes after
winds and sea obey Jesus; demons have to obey him; and a paralyzed man
walks at Jesus' command (whose sins have been forgiven). When Jesus
speaks, his words have great power and authority over forces of
nature, over demonic powers, over sin and disease, and now, over a tax
collector. Jesus speaks and it happens -- perhaps more easily with
"tax collectors and sinners" than with the righteous.
In 8:18-20 Jesus had *rejected* those who think that they can become
disciples on their own initiative. Here Jesus calls the *rejected*.
What about people who are not believers? Does this text suggest that
Jesus has not called them to follow? That Jesus' words are not all
that powerful -- at least with many human beings?
My answer is that we can only respond about ourselves who are
believers. We are believers because of Jesus. Jesus called us (even
before we were born) and his word accomplished his purpose. As such,
we might understand this process more as a doxology -- words of praise
over what God has done for us; than theology -- words trying to
understand God. We praise Jesus for having called us to follow, to
bring us into our saving relationship with God. What about those who
don't believe? My answer: "I don't know, but I give thanks and praise
for what God has done and is doing in my life."
EATING WITH TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS (9:10)
Who were the "sinners"? As in 21:32 quoted above, they could have been
prostitutes. It has been suggested that they might have been bankers,
who, contrary to Ex 22:25, charged interest on their loans to the
poor.
This adjective _hamartolos_ occurs in only in our text (9:10, 11, 13)
and in 11:19 where Jesus is accused of being a friend of tax
collectors and *sinners*.
The related noun _hamartia_ is used in the story of the paralytic
whose *sins* are forgiven by Jesus (9:2, 5, 6). It is used in 12:31
where Jesus declares that every *sin* will be forgiven, except
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is used in 26:28 as part of the
distribution at the Last Supper: "for this is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for many _for the forgiveness of
*sins*_." (The underlined words are found only in Matthew.) The other
two instances in Mt are 1:21 where Joseph is told to name the child
Jesus, "for he will save his people from their *sins*" and 3:6 where
those baptized by John are confessing their *sins*.
The related verb _hamartano_ occurs three times in Mt. In 18:15 &
21,
it refers to a member of the church ("brother") *sinning against*
another member and the need to forgive often. In the other occurrence
(27:4) Judas (one of the group) confesses, "I *have sinned* by
betraying innocent blood."
I present this extended study of the word group _hamart-_ to indicate
Matthew's emphasis on (1) sin within the community; and (2) the strong
emphasis on the forgiveness of sin by Jesus and by the community.
Eating together was a powerful symbol. After the "Gentile Pentecost"
at the house of Cornelius, when Peter returns to Jerusalem, he is
criticized by some Jews: "Why did you go to uncircumcised men and *eat
with them*?" (Acts 11:3). He isn't criticized for baptizing them, but
for eating with them. This issue is also addressed by Paul in
Galatians 2:12. When parents discipline their children by sending them
to bed without supper, I wonder if the hunger caused by missing one
meal is as harsh as being excluded from the family table fellowship.
A sermon theme I've used from this verse is the fact that the
disciples also had to eat with society's undesirables if they were
going to eat with Jesus. "Would you have come to the party?" I ask.
I'm afraid that there are people in our congregations who wouldn't
come if "those" people are going to be there.
CONFLICT WITH PHARISEES (9:11)
Besides eating with the riff-raff with Jesus, the disciples are asked
to defend Jesus' (and their) behavior. Here is a perfect example of
triangling in system theory. The Pharisees, who have a complaint
against Jesus, don't approach him. Rather they tell someone else (the
disciples), who, presumably will tell Jesus. Jesus will respond to the
disciples who bring the message back to the Pharisees, etc. Would
triangles like this happen in any of our congregations <g>. Jesus
destroys the triangle by answering the Pharisees directly.
The fact that the disciples are questioned about Jesus (and their
behavior) may indicate that Matthew's church was being (or should be)
asked similar questions about their table-fellowship. Note also the
corporate aspect of 9:8, where the crowds glorify God who had given
such authority to *human beings* (plural!). Presumably it is the
authority to forgive sins (9:6) that has been given to the church,
which is acted out in the inclusive table-fellowship of the community.
JESUS' ANSWERS (9:12-13)
Jesus did not come to be a judge, but a physician. I imagine that it
could be very easy for physicians to be very judgmental. I've stated
that my doctor and I agree: I should be exercising more.
There are all kinds of things we can do to make ourselves healthier
and prevent diseases. Good physicians will tell their patients: stop
smoking, lose weight, eat healthier foods, practice safer sex, etc.
Physicians give all kinds of wonderful rules so that our lives might
be better. However, when somebody has lung cancer or emphysema, high
blood pressure or cholesterol, or STDs; their primary job is to try
and save the patient from the destruction of the disease. They may
shake their heads and think "How stupid," but their calling with the
sick is not to judge, but to heal/save.
Nowhere in our text does Jesus ask the tax collectors or sinners to
repent of their sins! Neither did he ask that of the paralytic in the
preceding text before he forgave and healed him. He simply saw "their
faith." There is no indication that the other tax collectors gave up
their profession or that they followed Jesus. Did Jesus continue to
eat with this or similar groups? He is accused of being "a glutton and
a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners" (11:19b). This
leads me to wonder what kind of parties did they have!
The quote in v. 13 (repeated in Mt 12:7) is from Hosea 6:6 LXX. The
Hebrew uses chesed where LXX has "mercy". _Chesed_ means "loving
kindness," "steadfast love," "showing kindness". I wonder what might
happen if our stewardship campaigns stressed the "donation" of love or
mercy rather than monetary sacrifices? (Actions of mercy for another
may involve the giving of money.)
The term for "call" (_kaleo_) also carries the sense of "invite". It
is used in both senses in 22:3, 4, 8 & 9. That parable suggests that
the "righteous" are invited, but they are too occupied with their own
concerns to bother answering the invitation to the wedding banquet.
NOTE: in this parable it is presumed that the king had invited those
who were invited, but it is the task of the slaves to call the
invitees to the banquet (who refuse to come) and then invite everyone
they find -- both good and bad -- to the banquet -- another
table-fellowship image.
Who are the sinners (or shunned people) that Jesus has invited to the
banquet? What is our role in calling them to respond to that
invitation?
[QUESTIONING OF JESUS BY DISCIPLES OF JOHN (9:14)]
The next two sections are omitted in the reading. Scribes had
questioned Jesus in 9:3. Pharisees in 9:11, and now disciples of John
the Baptist (9:14). Robert Smith (_Matthew_) comments: "The Pharisees
ask why Jesus feasts with sinners; John's disciples ask why Jesus
feasts at all" [p. 140].
[JESUS' ANSWERS TO JOHN'S DISCIPLES (9:15-17)]
Answer 1: fasting is connected with mourning and it is not the time to
mourn. Jesus is present. The Messiah has come, not as a vengeful
judge, but as a bridegroom coming to marriage feast. Is it time to
fast and mourn now? Are we living in a time when the bridegroom has
been taken away? I would suggest not, based on Matthew's final word
from Jesus, "I am with you always." The bridegroom was taken away on
the cross, but returned with the resurrection.
I've often wondered what our regular Sunday worship services would be
like if we spent as much time (and money?) preparing for them as we do
for weddings.
Answers 2 & 3: cloth image & wine image -- Clearly in these
images
there is a contrast between something old and something new -- and
they are incompatible with each other. What is the "new"? Patte (_The
Gospel According to Matthew_) answers: "In view of the preceding
verses, it is Jesus' ministry as manifestations of God's _mercy_. (cf.
9:13, a summary of all of Jesus' interrelations with sick and
sinners). This radical newness does not fit with the old. Indeed, it
has a power such that it tears apart of breaks the old" [p. 131].
A truth Luther discovered, and continues in our congregations today is
that it is often easier to start something brand new than to try and
reform the old. Can a group who considers their faith to one of
judging others who are not as "righteous" as they be transformed into
a community who are committed to showing mercy to all people?
Can a group of church members who have been meeting together for 40
years be open to new members? Usually a new group has to be formed
that will include all the new people, where they can establish
relationships with each other, rather than trying to "catch up" on the
many years that the oldsters have known each other.
THE RESURRECTION OF THE RULER'S DAUGHTER & HEALING THE WOMAN
(9:18-22)
This is a much abbreviated telling of the miracle than in Mark
5:21-43. The father here is called simply "a ruler" or "leader". (NRSV
adds "of the synagogue".) The daughter has already died. His request
is not for healing, but for a resurrection. The fact that she has
already died creates a different significance of the interruption of
the bleeding woman than in Mark.
One suggestion is the contrast of approaching Jesus, the male leader
comes openly to Jesus. The bleeding and thus unclean woman sneaks up
from behind. Since an unclean (male) leper had approached Jesus openly
in 8:2, the difference may be the male/female contrast.
The male/female contrast may also be indicated by the word _tharsei_
-- "take heart". Matthew uses this word three times. Once it comes
from Mk's account (Mt 14:27 // Mk 6:50); but the other instances, Mt
adds it to Mk's accounts:
9:2 -- "*Take heart*, _son_, your sins are forgiven you."
9:22 - "*Take heart*, _daughter_, your faith has saved/healed you."
Does this word and the nearly parallel sentence structure indicate an
intentional connection between these two miracles?
Another possibility is with the term "daughter". As the leader felt
about the death of his daughter (9:18); so Jesus feels about the sick
women, whom he calls "daughter" (9:22). He does not see her as a
socially unclean outcast (which is how the law defined her), but a
"daughter" who needs healing.
In both healing stories, extraordinary power is manifested by Jesus --
raising the dead and a healing by touching only the hem of his cloak.
Although, in Matthew, the healing of the woman takes place after Jesus
declares, "Your faith has made you well."
There is also the contrast of "faith". It is clear that the bleeding
woman has it and it is connected to her healing; but what about the
dead girl? Perhaps her resurrection comes about because of the faith
of others, like the forgiving/healing of the paralytic (9:2)? While
the girl's father may have faith in approaching Jesus, the people
around the dead girl model unbelief when they laugh at Jesus for
suggesting the girl might only be sleeping.
The _pist-_ ("faith") word group first appears in Mt in ch. 8-9.
* The centurion has such a faith as not found in Israel and his
servant is healed (8:10, 13)
*The friends of the paralytic have faith that can be seen by Jesus and
he is forgiven/healed (9:2)
* The bleeding woman's faith heals/saves her (9:22)
* Two blind men believe Jesus can heal them and are healed (9:28, 29)
The next reference to "faith" is 15:28.
Can the faith of one person affect God's treatment of another person?
That seems to be the case in the first two "faith" stories listed
above. How important is the faith of the church community for each
other and for those not in that community? Do we believe for the
infant who is baptized? (I've stated that we practice "believer
baptism," but that the believers are the community, not necessary the
baptizee.) Do we believe for young children when they are communed? Do
we believe for the comatose member in the hospital?
However, in contrast to these examples of faith, repeatedly the
disciples are described as having little faith (8:26; 14:31; 16:9;
17:20). Perhaps if we want to see examples of great faith, we had
better look beyond of present day disciples to the "unclean" or
outcast or homeless or welfare people of our day. Perhaps like the
thinking of the scribes (9:3), Pharisees (9:11), and disciples of John
(9:14); the "faith" of many modern day disciples may cause them to
question and criticize rather than to believe and participate in the
new merciful thing that Jesus is doing with sinners and outcasts.
Matthew connects this event to Jesus' feast with tax collectors and
sinners and the following discussion by the genitive absolute in v.
18: "While he was speaking these things to them." What might be some
connections?
One, it is not the time to mourn (9:15) so Jesus sends away the
professional funeral mourners (9:24) with a statement that seems
absurd and causes them to laugh. The "new" (9:16-17) thing that Jesus
is doing causes questions (9:3, 11, 14) or (ridiculing) laughter
(9:24) by those stuck in the old way of thinking. It is neither the
time to mourn, nor to laugh. (Although the word implies "make fun of"
or "ridicule" rather than laughing for joy or laughing because
something is funny.)
Two, the "uncleanness" of the sinners, the corpse, and the bleeding
woman and Jesus' willingness to defile himself by "touching" those who
are unclean.
I've struggle with ways of presenting "uncleanness" to people today.
In a sermon I defined it as "things that cause us to say 'ugh'." I
also warn you ahead of time about the pun last paragraph.
> Sometimes when we see something disgusting we say, "Ugh!" Parents
may add, "Don't touch it!" You're walking in the woods or hiking on a
mountain and see some droppings on the ground, you go, "Ugh!" and try
not to step in it. Unless you're a biologist who has to study such
animal by-products, you aren't about to touch such things. There are
some icky things in the world that we try to avoid.
> For reasons we don't fully understand, the ancient Hebrews felt
the same about a few things. Certain animals, foods, diseases, body
fluids, and dead things made the people say, "Ugh! Don't touch them!"
Such things were "unclean" or "impure". If you touched them you became
unclean. If you had one of the diseases, you became unclean. Anything
or anyone that you touched became unclean. Being unclean was the
opposite of being holy. Being unclean meant that you couldn't come to
the holy temple to worship the holy God. Anything unclean was unfit or
unworthy to be in the presence of the holy God. If you were unclean,
you had to go through a rite of purification or cleansing in order to
be welcome back into society and into the presence of God.
> The use of the word "unclean" can be misleading. It doesn't mean
"dirty" like a two-year-old playing in the mud. Being unclean refers to
the relationship between people or things and God. In some ways it may
be like someone telling another, "Don't touch me!" There is something
about the relationship that is estranged. Unclean things and people
were estranged from God and each other. They weren't supposed to touch
each other.
> In some ways their view of unclean things is like our saying, "One
bad apple spoils the whole bunch." Contact with one of these unclean
things made you an unclean person. There is some truth to this. If you
hang around someone with a contagious disease, you are likely to end up
with the same sickness. If you hang around with the wrong group of
people, their bad influence may "spoil" you. There are some good
reasons to stay away from certain people and things.
> Jesus mixes everything up. Jesus doesn't become unclean by contact
with the unclean people. They don't bring him down to their level.
Jesus' holiness transforms their uncleanness. The flow of blood is
stopped. The woman is healed. The corpse comes back to life. The young
girl gets out of bed. God participates in a feast with tax collectors
and sinners. With people in situations that others said, "Ugh" to,
Jesus has no ughs!! He has a hug -- or at least a healing touch. Jesus'
holiness transforms the people's uncleanness. Jesus raises them up to
his level. Jesus makes them worthy to be in the presence of God. Jesus,
as the one good, holy apple, can make all the bad apples become good.
> Sometimes our lives may seem full of ughs. We may think that we
are terrible, rotten, ugh-ly people. Jesus doesn't think so. To him,
there are no ughs. Whomever he touches becomes clean and holy and
beautiful.
Could it be that the new thing that won't fit into the old wineskins
that Jesus ushers in is the fact that now, the clean one (Jesus)
purifies that which is unclean? Up until this time, it was always the
reverse, the unclean defiled the clean.
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Ave., Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com
__._,_.___
from pericopeonline@yahoogroups.com