Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 9:9
And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
9. The Call of St Matthew. Mar 2:14; Luk 5:27-28
St Mark has “Levi, the son of Alphus,” St Luke “a publican named Levi.” The identification of Matthew with Levi can scarcely be seriously disputed. The circumstances of the call are precisely similar as narrated by the Synoptists; and it was too usual for a Jew to have more than one name for this difference to be a difficulty. Probably the name Matthew, “Gift of God,” was adopted by the Apostle when he became a follower of Jesus.
the receipt of custom ] Rather, the toll – or custom-house. For a longer notice of the call of St Matthew, see Introduction.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
He saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom – That is, at the place where custom, or tribute, was received; or, in other words, he was a publican or tax-gatherer. See the notes at Mat 5:47. This man was the writer of this gospel. The same account is found in Mar 2:14, and Luk 5:27-28. Both those evangelists call him Levi. That it was the same man is known by the circumstances in which he was called being the same in all the evangelists, and by their all concurring in the statement that the Saviour was present at a feast soon after he called him, and by the fact that Levi is not mentioned in the catalogue of the apostles. The Jews were in the habit of giving several names to the same person. Thus Peter was also called Simon and Cephas. It is worthy of remark that Luke has mentioned a circumstance favorable to Matthew, which Matthew himself has omitted. Luke says he left all. Had Matthew said this, it would have been a commendation of himself utterly unlike the evangelists. No men were ever further from praising themselves than they were.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Mat 9:9
He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the receipt of custom.
The following Christ
Whom are we to follow, and on what road, and to what place?
I. We are to follow Christ. Do not the soldiers follow their captain? Do not the redeemed follow their deliverer? Do not the disciples follow the teacher? We must follow Him further and further. Immediately, lest we never have the invitation given us again. He has something worthy to be obtained by such as follow Him. Will a man shut his ears to such a merciful invitation? If a rich man were to call a famished man to come into his house and be fed, would tie not instantly follow? The state of those who refuse is one of miserable bondage.
II. What is the way along which he calls us to follow? Christ has opened a new and living way, in every sense of the Word. Our old, corrupt nature dislikes a new was. Christ gives the power, hence no excuse. But is this new way unpleasant? It has good company and entertainment; at the end, the house of the Almighty Father.
III. To what place. (R. W. Evans, B. D.)
The calling of Matthew
I. Consider the event as illustrative of divine grace. God seeks whom He will to serve Him. The change rapid.
II. We are to forsake all inordinate love of riches. Discriminate between the possession of riches and inordinate love of them.
III. Subsequently to his conversion Matthew entertained his master, inviting guests from his former companions-a proof of the sincerity of his conversion. We should silently and sedulously seek others. What mariner, rescued from the fury of the waves, would refuse to extend a charitable hand to his companions who are plunging in the abyss he has escaped. (Pitman.)
The calling of St. Matthew
I. The call.
1. It was a call of sovereignty. There was no miracle; the attraction of personal authority.
2. It was a call of grace. What was there in St. Matthew to recommend him?
3. It was a call of love (1Jn 3:1).
II. The answer.
1. It was an answer of faith. He followed because he believed-had trust-in Christ.
2. It was an answer of decision.
3. It was an answer of self-sacrifice. (Canon Titcomb, M. A.)
A man called Matthew:
I. His call seemed accidental and unlikely.
II. His call was altogether unthought of and unsought.
1. He was in a degrading business.
2. He was in an ensnaring business.
3. He would not have dared to follow Jesus even if he had wished to do so.
III. His call was given by the Lord, with full knowledge of him. Jesus saw a man named Matthew.
1. He saw all the evil that had been in him.
2. He saw his adaptation for holy service.
3. He saw all that He meant to make of him.
IV. His call was graciously condescending.
V. His call was sublimely simple.
1. Few were the words.
2. Clear was the direction.
3. Personal was the address.
4. Royal was the command.
VI. His call was immediately effectual.
1. He followed at once.
2. He followed spiritually as well as literally.
3. He followed wholly.
4. He followed growingly.
5. He followed ever after.
VII. His call was a door of hope for others. (C. H. Spurgeon)
St. Matthews Day
I. We may learn also the necessity of our immediate and cheerful obedience to the commands of God. When our Saviour called him to arise and follow Him, He
(1) called him to give up a gainful profession for a life of hardship, toil, and danger.
(2) To expose himself to the mockery of his former companions.
(3) To the scoffs of the wise, and the
(4) persecution of men in power.
(5) To enter into a situation for which neither his former habits, nor, as he might plead, his general education suited him. Should we have wondered if, under such circumstances, St. Matthew had offered an excuse?
II. St. Matthew did not answer, not yet, lord, while so many persons are looking on; at night I will come to Thee. Not yet, Lord, while my fortune is beginning to thrive; another year and I will give up my business.
1. He arose immediately, and followed Him.
2. With joy, as having attained the highest honour which mortal man could obtain.
3. To prove that joy he makes a great feast: calls together his brother publicans.
4. In defiance of their ridicule or wonder.
III. Compare this conduct with your own. (Bishop Heber.)
St. Matthews Day
I. The call; in a word of command, Follow me: a word very well befitting the Captain of our salvation, when He was to list soldiers or officers in His militia. Some have not come at the call. Others, though they have come, have not followed Him as they should do.
II. There is something oh our part, when we are called, to be done by us. There must be concurrence and obedient compliance of our will. Else we may resist the word as well as the ,Spirit.
III. The obedience-He arose and followed Him. His rising up shows
(1) reverence and respect, as well as
(2) resolution.
(3) Henceforth he owns Christ as his master.
(4) He was wealthy, but now sees nothing before him but poverty and persecution. Yet he accepts the condition at first word.
IV. The constancy.
1. He followed his master to the end.
2. Till His departure.
3. Till his own death. (Adam Littleton, D. D.)
Receipt of custom
Some articles of produce are taxed as they are brought into the town. A booth of branches, or a more substantial hut, is erected at every entrance into the city or village, and there, both day and night, sits a man at the receipt of custom. He taxes all the produce, piercing with a long, sharp iron rod the large camel-bags of wheat or cotton, in order to discover concealed copper-wire, or other contraband. (Van Lennep.)
Custom of sitting at work
The people of this country sit at all kinds of work. The carpenter saws, planes, and hews with his hand-adze sitting upon the ground, or upon the plank he is planing. The washer-woman sits by the tub, and, in a word, no one stands where it is possible to sit. Shopkeepers always sit; and Levi sitting at the receipt of custom is the exact way to state the case. (W. M. Thomson, D. D.)
The commencement of a religious life easy for some men
How easy it is for some men to rise and follow Christ, as compared with others. They seem to fall into the way of faith: it is like bringing the sun to bear upon a bud that wants to open, and that is just waiting for light in order that it might unfold its deep and sacred beauty. It is so easy for some men to pray: they seem to be walking up a gentle green slope to meet God at the height of it. When other men try to pray it is like climbing up a rugged, steep rock, some of the stones loose, and if you put your foot upon them you will fall. It is so easy for some men to do the act of benevolence. (J. Parker, D. D.)
When Christ calls, He also draws
Come, says the sea to the river. Come, says the magnet to the steel. Come, says the spring to the sleeping life of the field and forest. And, like the obedience of the river to the sea, of the steel to the stone, of the earths charmed atoms to the springs effectual call, is the obedience of the soul to Christs wondrous spirit. (C. Stanford.)
He that said Let there be light, says now, Follow me. That power sweetly inclines which could forcibly command; the force is not more irresistible than the inclination. When the sun shines upon the icicles, can they choose but melt and fall? When it looks into a dungeon, can the place choose but be enlightened? Do we see the jet drawing up straws to it; the loadstone, iron? And do we marvel if the Omnipotent Saviour, by the influence of His grace, attract the heart of a publican? (Bishop Hall.)
St. Matthew
1. We must remember how in business may be found a service for Christ.
2. We may learn not to think too much of daily work, and set too great a price on it.
3. We shall seek to give of the fruits of our trading to Christ.
4. The true servant of Christ will be willing to give up, not only of the fruits of daily work, but daily work itself for Christ. (T. Gasquoine, B. A.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 9. Named Matthew] Generally supposed to be the same who wrote this history of our blessed Lord. Mathai signifies a gift in Syriac; probably so named by his parents as implying a gift from God.
The receipt of custom] The custom-house, – the place where the taxes levied by the Romans of the Jews, were collected.
Follow me.] That is, become my disciple.
And he arose, and followed him.] How blessed it is to be obedient to the first call of Christ-how much happiness and glory are lost by delays, though conversion at last may have taken place!
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark hath the same story, Mar 2:14, only he calleth him Levi, and tells us he was the son of Alphaeus. Luke also mentions it, Luk 5:27,28, and calls him Levi, adding that he was a publican, and saith that he left all, rose up, and followed him. This Matthew might have also the name of Levi; all interpreters agree he was the same man. All three evangelists say, that when Christ called him, he was sitting in the custom house
at the receipt of custom. This Matthew was one of the twelve apostles, Mat 10:3, and the penman of this Gospel. His father Alphaeus was honoured to have four of his sons apostles, James the less, and Thaddaeus, (called Lebbeus), Simon the Canaanite, and Matthew. He was a publican, an officer under the Romans to gather the public revenue; it was an odious name amongst the Jews, but Matthew, to magnify the grace of Christ in calling him, is not ashamed thus to describe himself, both here and Mat 10:3.
He saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. His word carried a secret power with it, which Matthew obeyed by leaving his employment and going after Christ.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9. And as Jesus passed forth fromthencethat is, from the scene of the paralytic’s cure inCapernaum, towards the shore of the Sea of Galilee, on which thattown lay. Mark, as usual, pictures the scene more in detail, thus (Mr2:13): “And He went forth again by the seaside; and all themultitude resorted unto Him, and He taught them”or, “keptteaching them.” “And as He passed by”
he saw a man, namedMatthewthe writer of this precious Gospel, who here, withsingular modesty and brevity, relates the story of his own calling.In Mark and Luke he is called Levi, which seems to have beenhis family name. In their lists of the twelve apostles, however, Markand Luke give him the name of Matthew, which seems to have been thename by which he was known as a disciple. While he himself sinks hisfamily name, he is careful not to sink his occupation, the obnoxiousassociations with which he would place over against the grace thatcalled him from it, and made him an apostle. (See on Mt10:3). Mark alone tells us (Mr2:14) that he was “the son of Alphus”the same,probably, with the father of James the Less. From this and otherconsiderations it is pretty certain that he must at least have heardof our Lord before this meeting. Unnecessary doubts, even from anearly period, have been raised about the identity of Levi andMatthew. No capable jury, with the evidence before them which we havein the Gospels, would hesitate in giving a unanimous verdict ofidentity.
sitting at the receipt ofcustomas a publican, which Luke (Lu5:27) calls him. It means the place of receipt, the toll house orbooth in which the collector sat. Being in this case by the seaside,it might be the ferry tax for the transit of persons and goods acrossthe lake, which he collected. (See on Mt5:46).
and he saith unto him, FollowmeWitching words these, from the lips of Him who neveremployed them without giving them resistless efficacy in the heartsof those they were spoken to.
And he“left all”(Lu 5:28), “arose andfollowed him.”
The Feast (Mt9:10-13).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And as Jesus passed forth from thence,…. That is, from Capernaum to the sea side; where, as Mark says, the multitude resorted, and he taught them;
he saw a man named Matthew; the writer of this Gospel. The other evangelists call him Levi, who was the son of Alphaeus: he went by two names; Mark and Luke call him by the name, which perhaps was the more honourable, or the least known, on purpose to conceal the former life of the apostle, which might expose him to the contempt of some; but he himself chooses to mention the name by which he was most known, as an apostle, and that the grace of God might appear the more illustrious in his calling and conversion. The Jews say h, that one of Christ’s disciples was called , Matthew, which, as Levi, is an Hebrew name; for though he was a publican, yet a Jew; for it was common with the Jews either to be employed by the Roman officers in collecting the toll or tribute, or to farm it of them.
Sitting at the receipt of custom, or “at the custom house”, or “toll booth”; which both the Syriac version, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel, call , or , the “publican’s house”. In the i Talmud mention is made of it, in the following parable, upon citing
Isa 61:8
“it is like, (say the doctors,) to a king of flesh and blood, who passing by , “the toll booth”, or “publican’s house”, says to his servants, give “toll to the publicans”: they reply to him, is not all the toll thine? he says to them, all that pass by the ways will learn of me, and will not avoid the toll; so says the holy blessed God, c.”
The publicans had houses, or booths built for them, at the foot of bridges, at the mouth of rivers, and by the sea shore, where they took toll of passengers that went to and fro: hence we read k of bridges being made to take toll at, and of publicans being at the water side l, and of m, “the tickets”, or “seals of the publicans” which, when a man had paid toll on one side of a river, were given him by the publican, to show to him that sat on the other side, that it might appear he had paid: in which were written two great letters, bigger than those in common use n. Thus Matthew was sitting in a toll booth, near the seashore, to receive the toll of passengers that came, or went in ships or boats.
And he saith unto him, follow me; notwithstanding the infamous employment he was in, as accounted by the Jews: this was no bar in the way of his call to be a disciple of Christ; and shows, that there was no merit and motive in him, which was the reason of this high honour bestowed upon him; but was entirely owing to the free, sovereign, and distinguishing grace of Christ, and which was powerful and efficacious: for without telling him what work he must do, or how he must live, and without his consulting with flesh and blood, at once, immediately
he arose, and followed him: such a power went along with the call, that he directly left his employment, how profitable soever it might be to him, and became a disciple of Christ.
h T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 43. 1. i T. Bab. Succa, fol. 30. 1. k T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 33. 2. l Jarchi in Jud. v. 10. m Misn. Sabbat, c. 8. sect. 2. T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 11. 2. T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 78. 2. & Bechorot, fol. 30. 2. & Avoda Zara, fol. 39. 1. n Jarchi, Maimonides, & Bartenora in Misn. Sabbat, c. 8. sect. 2. & Gloss. in T. Bab. Bechorot, fol. 30. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Matthew Called. |
| |
9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. 10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? 12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. 13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
In these verses we have an account of the grace and favour of Christ to poor publicans, particularly to Matthew. What he did to the bodies of people was to make way for a kind design upon their souls. Now observe here,
I. The call of Matthew, the penman of this gospel. Mark and Luke call him Levi; it was ordinary for the same person to have two names: perhaps Matthew was the name he was most known by as a publican, and, therefore, in his humility, he called himself by that name, rather than by the more honourable name of Levi. Some think Christ gave him the name of Matthew when he called him to be an apostle; as Simon, he surnamed Peter. Matthew signifies, the gift of God, Ministers are God’s gifts to the church; their ministry, and their ability for it, are God’s gifts to them. Now observe,
1. The posture that Christ’s call found Matthew in. He was sitting at the receipt of custom, for he was a publican, Luke v. 27. He was a custom-house officer at the port of Capernaum, or an exciseman, or collector of the land-tax. Now, (1.) He was in his calling, as the rest of them whom Christ called, ch. iv. 18. Note, As Satan chooses to come, with his temptations, to those that are idle, so Christ chooses to come, with his calls, to those that are employed. But, (2.) It was a calling of ill fame among serious people; because it was attended with so much corruption and temptation, and there were so few in that business that were honest men. Matthew himself owns what he was before his conversion, as does St. Paul (1 Tim. i. 13), that the grace of Christ in calling him might be the more magnified, and to show, that God has his remnant among all sorts of people. None can justify themselves in their unbelief, by their calling in the world; for there is no sinful calling, but some have been saved out of it, and no lawful calling, but some have been saved in it.
2. The preventing power of this call. We find not that Matthew looked after Christ, or had any inclination to follow him, though some of his kindred were already disciples of Christ, but Christ prevented him with the blessings of his goodness. He is found of those that seek him not. Christ spoke first; we have not chosen him, but he hath chosen us. He said, Follow me; and the same divine, almighty power accompanied this word to convert Matthew, which attended that word (v. 6), Arise and walk, to cure the man sick of the palsy. Note, A saving change is wrought in the soul by Christ as the Author, and his word as the means. His gospel is the power of God unto salvation, Rom. i. 16. The call was effectual, for he came at the call; he arose, and followed him immediately; neither denied, nor deferred his obedience. The power of divine grace soon answers and overcomes all objections. Neither his commission for his place, nor his gains by it, could detain him, when Christ called him. He conferred not with flesh and blood,Gal 1:15; Gal 1:16. He quitted his post, and his hopes of preferment in that way; and, though we find the disciples that were fishers occasionally fishing again afterwards, we never find Matthew at the receipt of custom again.
II. Christ’s converse with publicans and sinners upon this occasion; Christ called Matthew, to introduce himself into an acquaintance with the people of that profession. Jesus sat at meat in the house, v. 10. The other evangelists tell us, that Matthew made a great feast, which the poor fishermen, when they were called, were not able to do. But when he comes to speak of this himself, he neither tells us that it was his own house, nor that it was a feast, but only that he sat at meat in the house; preserving the remembrance of Christ’s favours to the publicans, rather than of the respect he had paid to Christ. Note, It well becomes us to speak sparingly of our own good deeds.
Now observe, 1. When Matthew invited Christ, he invited his disciples to come along with him. Note, They that welcome Christ, must welcome all that are his, for his sake, and let them have a room in their hearts. 2. He invited many publicans and sinners to meet him. This was the chief thing Matthew aimed at in this treat, that he might have an opportunity of bringing his old associates acquainted with Christ. He knew by experience what the grace of Christ could do, and would not despair concerning them. Note, They who are effectually brought to Christ themselves, cannot but be desirous that others also may be brought to him, and ambitious of contributing something towards it. True grace will not contentedly eat its morsels alone, but will invite others. When by the conversion of Matthew the fraternity was broken, presently his house was filled with publicans, and surely some of them will follow him, as he followed Christ. Thus did Andrew and Philip, Joh 1:41; Joh 1:45; Joh 4:29. See Judges xiv. 9.
III. The displeasure of the Pharisees at this, v. 11. They cavilled at it; why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? Here observe, 1. That Christ was quarrelled with. It was not the least of his sufferings, that he endured the contradiction of sinners against himself. None was more quarrelled with by men, than he that came to take up the great quarrel between God and man. Thus he denied himself the honour due to an incarnate Deity, which was to be justified in what he spake, and to have all he said readily subscribed to: for though he never spoke or did anything amiss, every thing he said and did was found fault with. Thus he taught us to expect and prepare for reproach, and to bear it patiently. 2. They that quarrelled with him were the Pharisees; a proud generation of men, conceited of themselves, and censorious of others; of the same temper with those in the prophet’s time, who said, Stand by thyself, come not near me; I am holier than thou: they were very strict in avoiding sinners, but not in avoiding sin; none greater zealots than they for the form of godliness, nor greater enemies to the power of it. They were for keeping up the traditions of the elders to a nicety, and so propagating the same spirit that they were themselves governed by. 3. They brought their cavil, not to Christ himself; they had not the courage to face him with it, but to his disciples. The disciples were in the same company, but the quarrel is with the Master: for they would not have done it, if he had not; and they thought it worse in him who was a prophet, than in them; his dignity, they thought, should set him at a greater distance from such company than others. Being offended at the Master, they quarrel with the disciples. Note, It concerns Christians to be able to vindicate and justify Christ, and his doctrines and laws, and to be ready always to give an answer to those that ask them a reason of the hope that is in them, 1 Pet. iii. 15. While he is an Advocate for us in heaven, let us be advocates for him on earth, and make his reproach our own. 4. The complaint was his eating with publicans and sinners: to be intimate with wicked people is against the law of God (Psa 119:115; Psa 1:1); and perhaps by accusing Christ of this to his disciples, they hoped to tempt them from him, to put them out of conceit with him, and so to bring them over to themselves to be their disciples, who kept better company; for they compassed sea and land to make proselytes. To be intimate with publicans was against the tradition of the elders, and, therefore, they looked upon it as a heinous thing. They were angry with Christ for this, (1.) Because they wished ill to him, and sought occasion to misrepresent him. Note, It is an easy and very common thing to put the worst constructions upon the best words and actions. (2.) Because they wished no good to publicans and sinners, but envied Christ’s favour to them, and were grieved to see them brought to repentance. Note, It may justly be suspected, that they have not the grace of God themselves, who grudge others a share in that grace, who are not pleased with it.
IV. The defence that Christ made for himself and his disciples, in justification of their converse with publicans and sinners. The disciples, it should seem, being yet weak, had to seek for an answer to the Pharisees’ cavil, and, therefore, bring it to Christ, and he heard it (v. 12), or perhaps overheard them whispering it to his disciples. Let him alone to vindicate himself and to plead his own cause, to answer for himself and for us too. Two things he urges in his defence,
1. The necessity and exigence of the case of the publicans, which called aloud for his help, and therefore justified him in conversing with them for their good. It was the extreme necessity of poor, lost sinners, that brought Christ from the pure regions above, to these impure ones; and the same was it, that brought him into this company which was thought impure. Now,
(1.) He proves the necessity of the case of the publicans: they that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. The publicans are sick, and they need one to help and heal them, which the Pharisees think they do not. Note,
[1.] Sin is the sickness of the soul; sinners are spiritually sick. Original corruptions are the diseases of the soul, actual transgressions are its wounds, or the eruptions of the disease. It is deforming, weakening, disquieting, wasting, killing, but, blessed be God, not incurable. [2.] Jesus Christ is the great Physician of souls. His curing of bodily diseases signified this, that he arose with healing under his wings. He is a skilful, faithful, compassionate Physician, and it is his office and business to heal the sick. Wise and good men should be as physicians to all about them; Christ was so. Hunc affectum versus omnes habet sapiens, quem versus gros suos medicus–A wise man cherishes towards all around him the feelings of a physician for his patient. Seneca De Const. [3.] Sin-sick souls have need of this Physician, for their disease is dangerous; nature will not help itself; no man can help us; such need have we of Christ, that we are undone, eternally undone, without him. Sensible sinners see their need, and apply themselves to him accordingly. [4.] There are multitudes who fancy themselves to be sound and whole, who think they have no need of Christ, but that they can shift for themselves well enough without him, as Laodicea, Rev. iii. 17. Thus the Pharisees desired not the knowledge of Christ’s word and ways, not because they had no need of him, but because they thought they had none. See Joh 9:40; Joh 9:41.
(2.) He proves, that their necessity did sufficiently justify his conduct, in conversing familiarly with them, and that he ought not to be blamed for it; for that necessity made it an act of charity, which ought always to be preferred before the formalities of a religious profession, in which beneficence and munificence are far better than magnificence, as much as substance is better than shows or shadows. Those duties, which are of moral and natural obligation, are to take place even of those divine laws which are positive and ritual, much more of those impositions of men, and traditions of the elders, which make God’s law stricter than he has made it. This he proves (v. 13) by a passage quoted out of Hos. vi. 6, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. That morose separation from the society of publicans, which the Pharisees enjoined, was less than sacrifice; but Christ’s conversing with them was more than an act of common mercy, and therefore to be preferred before it. If to do well ourselves is better than sacrifice, as Samuel shows (1Sa 15:22; 1Sa 15:23), much more to do good to others. Christ’s conversing with sinners is here called mercy: to promote the conversion of souls is the greatest act of mercy imaginable; it is saving a soul from death, Jam. v. 20. Observe how Christ quotes this, Go ye and learn what that meaneth. Note, It is not enough to be acquainted with the letter of scripture, but we must learn to understand the meaning of it. And they have best learned the meaning of the scriptures, that have learned how to apply them as a reproof to their own faults, and a rule for their own practice. This scripture which Christ quoted, served not only to vindicate him, but, [1.] To show wherein true religion consists; not in external observances: not in meats and drinks and shows of sanctity, not in little particular opinions and doubtful disputations, but in doing all the good we can to the bodies and souls of others; in righteousness and peace; in visiting the fatherless and widows. [2.] To condemn the Pharisaical hypocrisy of those who place religion in rituals, more than in morals, ch. xxiii. 23. They espouse those forms of godliness which may be made consistent with, and perhaps subservient to, their pride, covetousness, ambition, and malice, while they hate that power of it which is mortifying to those lusts.
2. He urges the nature and end of his own commission. He must keep to his orders, and prosecute that for which he was appointed to be the great Teacher; now, says he, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance, and therefore must converse with publicans.” Observe, (1.) What his errand was; it was to call to repentance. This was his first text (ch. iv. 17), and it was the tendency of all his sermons. Note, The gospel call is a call to repentance; a call to us to change our mind and to change our way. (2.) With whom his errand lay; not with the righteous, but with sinners. That is, [1.] If the children of men had not been sinners, there had been no occasion for Christ’s coming among them. He is the Saviour, not of man as man, but of man as fallen. Had the first Adam continued in his original righteousness, we had not needed a second Adam. [2.] Therefore his greatest business lies with the greatest sinners; the more dangerous the sick man’s case is, the more occasion there is for the physician’s help. Christ came into the world to save sinners, but especially the chief (1 Tim. i. 15); to call not those so much, who, though sinners, are comparatively righteous, but the worst of sinners. [3.] The more sensible any sinners are of their sinfulness, the more welcome will Christ and his gospel be to them; and every one chooses to go where his company is desired, not to those who would rather have his room. Christ came not with an expectation of succeeding among the righteous, those who conceit themselves so, and therefore will sooner be sick of their Saviour, than sick of their sins, but among the convinced humble sinners; to them Christ will come, for to them he will be welcome.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
At the place of toll ( ). The tax-office or custom-house of Capernaum placed here to collect taxes from the boats going across the lake outside of Herod’s territory or from people going from Damascus to the coast, a regular caravan route.
“Called Matthew” ( ) and in 10:3 Matthew the publican is named as one of the Twelve Apostles. Mark (Mr 2:14) and Luke (Lu 5:27) call this man Levi. He had two names as was common, Matthew Levi. The publicans () get their name in English from the Latin publicanus (a man who did public duty), not a very accurate designation. They were detested because they practised graft. Even Gabinius the proconsul of Syria was accused by Cicero of relieving Syrians and Jews of legitimate taxes for graft. He ordered some of the tax-officers removed. Already Jesus had spoken of the publican (5:46) in a way that shows the public disfavour in which they were held.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Receipt of custom [] . Rev., place of toll. Wyc., tollbooth, toll – booth, or toll – cabin, which is an excellent word, though obsolete. Sitting at, is, literally sitting on : the elevated platform or bench which was the principal feature of the toll – office, as in modern custom – bazaars, being put for the whole establishment. This customs – office was a Capernaum, the landing – place for the many ships which traversed the lake or coasted from town to town; and this not only for those who had business in Capernaum, but for those who would there strike the great road of eastern commerce from Damascus to the harbors of the West. Cicero, in his oration on the Consular Provinces, accuses Gabinius, the pro – consul of Syria, of relieving the Syrians and Jews of some of their legitimate taxes, and of ordering the small building to be taken down, which the publicans had erected at the approaches to bridges, or at the termination of roads, or in the harbors, for the convenience of their slaves and collectors.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
THE CALL OF MATTHEW
1) “And as Jesus passed forth from thence,” (kai paragon ho lesous ekeithen) “And Jesus passing along the way,” from where He had healed the palsied man, Mat 9:6-8; Mr 2:13.
2) “He saw a man named Matthew,” (eiden anthropon Mattaion legomenon) “Saw a man named Matthew,” whose name means, “Gift of God.” Mark and Luke call him by his Hebrew name, which was Levi, Mr 2:14; Luk 5:27. Mark also adds the name of his father, Alphaeus, Mr 2:14. Here Matthew relates his own calling, with brevity and modesty.
3) “Sitting at the receipt of custom:” (kathemenon epi to telonion) “Sitting at the custom house,” the place where Roman taxes were collected in Capernaum, in upper Galilee. Matthew was a Jew by birth, and a publican or tax collector by business employment, collecting customs for the Roman Government, Luk 5:27.
4) “And he saith unto him, Follow me.” (kai legei auto akolouthei moi) “And he said to him, Follow me.” To enforce his claims and collect dues for the Eternal King, Matthew was here called of the Lord. The call was simple and direct, like that of the first four, Mat 4:18-22.
5) “And he arose, and followed him.” (kai anastas akolouthesen auto) “And (Matthew) rising up followed him,” responded to or straightway obeyed the call of Jesus, to full time discipleship, that also led to his becoming an apostle, Mat 10:3. Luke adds “He left all,” arose and followed Jesus, Luk 5:28.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Mat 9:9
. Jesus saw a man sitting at the customhouse. The custom-house has usually been a place noted for plundering and for unjust exactions, and was at that time particularly infamous. In the choice of Matthew out of that place, not only to be admitted into the family of Christ, but even to be called to the office of Apostle, we have a striking instance of the grace of God. It was the intention of Christ to choose simple and ignorant persons to that rank, in order to cast down the wisdom of the world, (1Co 2:6.) But this publican, who followed an occupation little esteemed and involved in many abuses, was selected for additional reasons, that he might be an example of Christ’s undeserved goodness, and might show in his person that the calling of all of us depends, not on the merits of our own righteousness, but on his pure kindness. Matthew, therefore, was not only a witness and preacher, but was also a proof and illustration of the grace exhibited in Christ. he gives evidence of his gratitude in not being ashamed to hand down for perpetual remembrance the record of what he formerly was, and whence he was taken, that he might more fully illustrate in his person the grace of Christ. In the same manner Paul says:
This is a faithful saying, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief, (1Ti 1:15.)
As to Mark and Luke calling him Levi, it appears that this was his ordinary name: (517) but that his being a publican was the reason why he took a foreign name.
Follow me There is no reason to doubt that Christ explained in many words why he was called, and on what conditions. This is more fully ascertained from Luke, who says, that he left all, rose up, and followed Christ: for it would not have been necessary for him to leave all, if he had not been a private disciple of Christ, and called in expectation of the Apostleship. In the great readiness and eagerness of Matthew to obey, we see the Divine power of the word of Christ. Not that all in whose ears he utters his voice are equally affected in their hearts: but in this man Christ intended to give a remarkable example, that we might know that his calling was not from man. (518)
(517) “ Il est aise a voir que c’estoit son droit nom par lequel les gens du pays l’appeloyent;” — “it is easy to see that it was his right name, by which the people of the country called him.”
(518) “ Qu’il n’a pas este appele par un moyen procedant de l’homme;” — “that he was not called by a method proceeding from man.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES
Mat. 9:9. Receipt of custom.Place of toll (R. V.). See Introduction.
Mat. 9:10. Jesus.He (R. V.), probably Matthew. Sat at meat in the house.The modesty of our Evangelist signally appears here. Luke says (Luk. 5:29) that Levi made Him a great feast, or reception, while, Matthew merely says, He sat at meat, and Mark and Luke say that it was in Levis own house, while Matthew merely says, He sat at meat in the house. Whether this feast was made now, or not till afterwards, is a point of some importance in the order of events, and not agreed among harmonists. The probability is that it did not take place till a considerable time afterwards (Brown).
Mat. 9:11. When the Pharisees saw it.Rev. A. Carr thinks that though not guests, they came into the housea custom still prevalent in the East.
Mat. 9:12. They that be whole.A touch of irony.
Mat. 9:13. I will have mercy and not sacrifice.I.e. the one rather than the other. Quoted from Hos. 6:6. Sacrifice, the chief part of the ceremonial law, is here put for a religion of literal adherence to mere rules; while mercy expresses such compassion for the fallen as seeks to lift them up (Brown). To repentance.Omitted by leading MSS. and R.V.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 9:9-13
The treatment of sinners.The calling of Matthew the publican appears to have excited a great deal of attention. The mingled wealth and infamy of his avocation; the fact that he was actually engaged in it when called away from it by the Saviour; and the readiness and completeness with which he respondedrising up, and, as it were, leaving the violence which was then in his hands (Jon. 3:8)would all have this effect. All men of all sorts would hear of it with wonder. Nor is it surprising, that being the case, that it soon led, as described to us here:
1. To a great movement.
2. To a strong remonstrance.
3. To a most instructive reply.
I. A great movement.A great movement, on the one hand, in the way of desire. It is characteristic of the true disciple that he wishes other men like himself (Act. 26:29). Having learned the truthand that happy truthand that truth, moreover, which, amongst its first teachings, teaches both the duty and privilege of loving one anothersuch a man cannot help desiring that others should be as he is. And he will desire this first, also, as a matter of course, for those nearest to himself (Joh. 1:41). And he will desire this most, when, as in the present instance he has given up much for its sake. What can I do for my brother outcasts in regard to this matter? How can I show them that there is something better than all their idolised gains? How have I learned this myself? I will bring them, if I can, under the same influence which has taught it to me. They shall meet in my house with my Master Himself. The thought was as newbut as natural under the circumstancesas his conversion itself. In the way of effort. The thing desired was soon brought about. Soon after there was a new sighta very new sightin the city of Capernaum. In the tax-gatherers house there is a vast assemblage of such men as himself, or rather, we should say, of such men as he had previously been. Many publicans and sinners are sitting down in his company. They are sitting down as his guests. In order to bring them together he has made a great feast (Luk. 5:29); of which, however, it may be noted by the way, he does not tell us himself. To this feast he has invited also both the Saviour and His disciples. All that can be done, therefore, Matthew has done to bring about his desire. It is a very notable fact. The previous gain-lover is now a soul-lover instead. The man who was always for making money is now spending it freely. He who sat formerly in the receipt of custom is now at the feet of the Saviour; and is doing all he can to bring others under the sound of His voice. All Capernaum, we cannot doubt, would look on with surprise.
II. A strong remonstrance.Some would look on, we are reminded next, with much more than surprise. They would look on, we may almost say, with indignation and hate; with a degree of indignation that very soon found expression in words. The persons so speaking, would, very naturally, be amongst the Pharisees of the place. Their very name signified that they held themselves aloof from all others. It would shock them, therefore, especially to see an assembly where the very opposite idea was in force. They might almost be excused, indeed, if they looked upon it as a kind of reproach to themselves. The ground of their remonstrance would, therefore, be connected with this self-same idea. Are we not as Israelites, a people separated from the rest of the world? (Deu. 16:2, etc.). Are we not as Pharisees, a body of Israelites pledged to see that this separation be carried out to the full? But what is it we see here? We see this new Teacher, though a teacher of holiness, sanctioning confusion instead; sitting down at the same table at a common feast with men notorious for their sins. This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them (Luk. 15:2). That is the pointthat is the stingof their cry. A remonstrance, finally, which is all the more remarkable because of the persons to whom it is made. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, Why doth your Master do thus? Apparently there was a holy majesty about Him which prevented them from saying this to Himself. Apparently, on that very account, they felt the supposed scandal the more. That such a man should eat with such! This, to them, was the unendurable wrong.
III. A complete reply.This was given by going further into the nature of things. What seems so objectionable was not at all so when further examined. So far from this, the thing objected to was what ought to be done. Whether we consider the needs of men on the one hand, or what is pleasing to God on the other, it is what ought to be done. If mercy is to be shown it should be shown to those who need it the most (Mat. 9:12, end of 13). Also, that mercy is to be shown is abundantly manifested from what God Himself has said on the point. Of the two ways, in fact, of worshipping God this is the way He prefers. I will have mercy and not sacrifice. If you can give both, give mercy the first. If you cannot give both, give mercy alone. Nothing, therefore, is more pleasing to God than what is being done at this time. Also, it is just that which ought to be done by Myself. Here, as we saw, was the crowning grievance in this Pharisaic remonstrance. Herein, on the contrary, the Saviour shows them, was His crowning justification. He had come into the worldHe had been sent into the worldto carry out in practice the very spirit described in that text. Mercy, and not sacrifice, was to be in all things the rule of His life. Why should He be blamed, therefore, for acting upon it in calling sinners to Himself? Especially when it was remembered that in doing so He was calling them to repentance as well?
Here, therefore, in conclusion, we see the special glory of the mercy of Christ. It is mercy to the sinner, but not to his sins (cf. Psa. 130:4). It is mercy to the man who needs mercy the mostto the greatest, the most notorious, the most generally despised. But mercy to him, at the same time, with still more mercy in view, viz., that kind of mercy which shall help to make him the greatest of saints. See how conspicuously this change was effected in the person of Matthew himself! How much more he had learned of the mind of Christ than those Pharisees who despised him! How holy he had become both in his desires and efforts through coming to Christ! And how well he discerned (and acted on) both the kind of separation that is desirable, and where it should come in. Separation rather unto Christ than away from our fellows. Separation as a consequence, and not as a means! Separation in love, and not in contempt!
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Mat. 9:9. The call of St. Matthew.It may be that this was their first meeting, and that a magnetic attraction was exerted upon the publican by that countenance which owed its majesty not to external comeliness so much as to the dignity and goodness of soul reflected in its features. It is, however, much more likely that Jesus had become previously acquainted with Matthew in Capernaum, had secured his affection and permitted him to return for a while to his tax-collecting, as the sons of Jonas to their fishing, so that now there needed but the recognition and. repeated claim. That claim was peremptory. Not less prompt was the obedience rendered.
I. It was a good indication of energy that he rose up. The man who rouses himself to receive a message, who starts to his feet and reflects in the attitude of activity and readiness, like the children of Israel in their early observance of the Passover, is more likely to obey his conscientious conviction than he who remains seated and will scarcely shake off habitual lethargy sufficiently to give fair attention.
II. It was a noble thoroughness of surrender.He left all. And yet to leave all is often easier than to leave half, to evacuate an untenable position at once than to retreat by a few yards at a time and be beaten back blow by blow. Hesitation petrifies resolution now as it did in Lots wife.
III. Thus he followed, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt. He was to find the preciousness of a clear conscience and of investments made, not in material securities but in the gratitude and happiness of men whose welfare he advanced; he was to learn the value of his Lords teaching, to enjoy the golden smile of His friendship and the heavenly rewards of His service.C. E. B. Reed, M.A.
Mat. 9:10. Matthews feast.The scene now shifts. Hitherto Christ had been the inviter, Matthew the invited; the order is inverted and the Master becomes His disciples guest. Levi made Him a great feast, expressive of gratitude; for he could look even upon commands as mercies and on self-denying service as a privilege. Jesus came to the feast thus prepared for Him; and so it ever is. He calls us to Himself and then accepts our invitation, not disdaining to enter the poor chamber of our heart; for unlike the petty lords of earth who stand on ceremony as a stool to give them height, His native glory fears no eclipse but freely condescends to men of low estate. It is interesting to remark the character of Levis feast. There was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them. One can see that Matthew had already studied to good purpose his Lords character.
I. First of all he perceived that he could best serve Him, not by eating and drinking alone in His presence, but by inviting the outcasts of society and befriending them for the sake of Him who made their cause His own.
II. He invited to the feast his old associates.Many men would have forsworn the class from which they had been called and sought some new field of benevolence; whereas he does not disown his publican comrades, but selects them as earliest recipients of his bounty.
III. He recognised that the best thing he could do for them was to bring them into contact with Jesus.Instead of going among them and talking about his new Master, he wisely brought them face to face with Him whose teaching he could not match either for breadth or power.
IV. This intercourse between Christ and the publicans Matthew contrived to bring about by means of an entertainment.He knew well that most of them would never come to hear a formal discourse from the Lord, but that meat and drink would open their hearts to receive the scattered seeds of His teaching. Upon the same principle may be defended many acts of the modern church to which exception is often taken.Ibid.
Mat. 9:11-12. The words that came of Matthews promotion. (For children).Do you children know what is meant by promotion? It means going up. From a tax-gatherer for the Roman Emperor, Matthew became an Apostle, that is, a messenger of our Lord and Saviour. Was not that a promotion for Matthew? Yes, and he felt it to be so, and he was very glad, and to show his gladness he made a feast, and he invited Christ and His disciples, and a number of his old friends who were publicans as he had been. But some other people came to the feast besides the Saviour and the disciples, and the publicans and sinners. Some Pharisees were there, and they began to find fault and to say, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? And what I want to speak to you most about is the answer which Jesus made to the Pharisees, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
I. Jesus is a Physician for all, because all are sinful.Some years ago I used to visit a large hospital every week. In the first room I used to find men very thin, with very bad coughs, and hardly able to breathe. They were in consumption. The next room was the accident ward, where men were lying with broken legs, or walking about with bandages on their heads or arms. Then, in another room, there were men with fever, tossing from side to side, and finding no rest anywhere. And last of all there was a room strongly bolted, where men were put who were prisoners and were sick. This was a very sad case to be innot only to be sick but to be in prison. Now, did all these people need a doctor? Yes. Were they all equally sick? No; some were much worse than others, but they all wanted a doctor or they would not have been in a hospital. Now, my dear children, this world is like a hospitaleverybody in it needs to be cured of sin.
II. But Jesus does not cure everybodys sin.How is this? It is not because He is not able, nor yet because He is not willing, but because some people do not want to be cured. In a sad railway accident which happened some time ago a young lady was taken out of one of the carriages, and she said she was not hurt at all, she felt no pain. She stood up and tried to walk, and then fell back dead. She had received a very serious injury, and yet she did not feel it at the moment. So it was with these Pharisees. Now you will say, How do we come to feel that we need Jesus to heal us? It is by trying to do right by ourselves that we find out how weak we are.
1. Jesus is a physician who can see what is the matter with us as soon as He looks at us.
2. Jesus is always at home.
3. Jesus can attend to all who come to Him at the same moment.
4. Jesus never fails to cure. There is an old saying I am sure you will remember if I tell it to you. It is, The three best doctors that a man can have in this world are, Dr. Diet, Dr. Quiet, and Dr. Merryman. Now let the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour be these three doctors to you.W. Harris.
Mat. 9:11. Jesus with the sinners.
I. He sympathised with them as His brother-men.
II. He knew that they had in them the making of better men.S. Pendred.
Mat. 9:12. The souls malady and cure.The charge brought against Christ (Mat. 9:11) was groundless.
1. He did nothing but what was according to His commission (1Ti. 1:15).
2. He went with sinners, not to join in their sins, but to heal them of them. To accuse Christ was, as Austin saith, as if the physician should be accused because he goes among them that are sick of the plague.
I. The dying patients.
1. Sin is a soul-disease.Sin may be compared to sickness.
(1) For the manner of catching: (a) Often through carelessness. So Adam. (b) Sometimes through superfluity and intemperance. So our first parents.
(2) For the nature of it. (a) Sickness is of a spreading nature (Isa. 1:5-6). The understanding, memory, will, affections, conscience, are diseased. Conscience is either erroneous, dumb, or dead. (b) Sickness debilitates and weakens the body. So the soul (Rom. 5:6). (c) Sickness eclipses the beauty of the body. Sin has turned beauty into deformity. (d) Sickness takes away the taste. So the sinner has lost his taste for spiritual things. (e) Sickness takes away the comfort of life. So the sin-sick soul is void of all true comfort. (f) Sickness ushers in death (Jas. 1:15).
2. Sin is the worst disease.
(1) The body may be diseased and the conscience quiet. But see Isa. 57:21.
(2) The body may be diseased and the favour of God enjoyed. But soul-diseases are symptoms of Gods anger.
(3) Sickness, at worst, doth but separate from the society of friends; but this disease, if not cured, separates from the society of God and angels.
II. The healing Physician.
1. Christ is a soul-physician.
2. Why Christ is a physician.
(1) In regard of His call (Luk. 4:18).
(2) Because of our need. Not because we desired Him, but because we needed Him.
(3) Because of the sweetness of His nature. Like the Good Samaritan.
3. Christ is the only physician (Act. 4:12).
4. How Christ heals.
(1) By His word.
(2) By His wounds (Isa. 53:5).
(3) By His Spirit.
(4) By His rod. Why are not all healed? (a) Because all do not know that they are sick. (b) Because they love their sickness. (c) Because they do not look out after a physician. (d) Because they would be self-healers. (e) Because they do not take the physic which Christ prescribes them. (f) Because they have not confidence in their physician.
5. Christ is the best physician.
(1) The most skilful.
(2) He cures the better part, the soul.
(3) He causeth us to feel our disease.
(4) He shows more love to His patients than any other physician. (a) In that long journey He took from heaven to earth. (b) He comes to His patients without sending for (Isa. 65:1). (c) He Himself lets blood to cure His patients. (d) Our repulses and unkindnesses do not drive Him from us. (e) He Himself drank that bitter cup which we should have drunk.
(5) The most cheap physician (Isa. 55:1).
(6) Christ heals with more ease than any other.
(7) He is the most tender-hearted physician.
(8) He always prescribes the physic which is suitable, and withal blesseth it.
(9) He never fails of success.Thos. Watson.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Section 19
JESUS CALLS MATTHEW LEVI
(Parallels: Mar. 2:13-22; Luk. 5:27-39)
TEXT: 9:917
9.
And as Jesus passed by from thence, he saw a man, called Matthew, sitting at the place of toll: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
10.
And it came to pass, as he sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.
11.
And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners?
12.
But when he heard it, he said, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick.
13.
But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice: for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.
14.
Then come to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
15.
And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast,
16.
And no man putteth a piece of undressed cloth upon an old garment; for that which should fill it up taketh from the garment, and a worse rent is made.
17.
Neither do men put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS
a.
We all know how important it is to choose our friends with care. The more important the person, the more care he must exercise in the selection of his friends. On what possible basis, then, how can Jesus be justified for being intimate with the riff-raff of Jewish society? A man is known by the company he keeps. Yet, ironically, how does this very fact identify Jesus as the finest of men ever known?
b.
Why do you think Jesus chose to call such a man as Matthew to be an Apostle? Would not He have run too great a risk to call a publican?
c.
How is it possible for Hosea to declare that God did not really care for sacrifices, since it was mercy He wanted? After all, had not God originally ordered that the sacrifices be given? What could Hosea mean that reflects not only Gods original command but also the true purpose behind the law of sacrifice?
d.
Do you feel that Jesus hobnobbing with sinners justifies a man in seeking bad company? In what way would he be right in so doing?
e.
Can you give a possible reason why the Pharisees and legal experts were on the scene when Jesus went to the dinner party with Matthew? Had they been invited too?
f.
Paul says (Rom. 3:10-18; Rom. 3:23) that there are none who are righteous and that all are sinners. Who, then, are those whom Jesus describes as righteous? Are there some righteous persons on earth whom Jesus did not need to call to repentance?
g.
Do you think the disciples of John the Baptist were criticizing Jesus? On what basis?
h.
What effect would Jesus cryptic declaration have on the Apostles when He said, But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they will fast?
i.
Do you think that we too should fast? Why? Under what circumstances.
j.
Does it not seem to you that the call of Matthew to follow Jesus was a little abrupt? On what basis is it possible to comprehend Matthews instant, deliberate response?
k.
Why would Matthew invite Jesus to the dinner party in his own house?
1.
Why would Matthew have invited also all his old cronies, when he knew that, the pure Jesus of Nazareth would be there? What possible purpose could he have for making this social blunder? Or was it a blunder?
m.
If you decide that fasting is something a follower of Jesus can do today, do you feel that fasting is a ceremony to be observed regularly, or should the circumstances in which you find yourself determine your choice?
PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY
As Jesus was passing on away from the seashore where. He had taught the gathered crowd, He saw a man, a tax collector, named Matthew Levi, son of Alphaeus. Matthew was busy at the tax office, but Jesus invited him, Come, be my disciple.
Matthew left the whole business, stood up and went along with Jesus.
Later, Matthew made Him a large banquet in his home. While the Lord was at his house as dinner guest, there was a large number of Matthews old cronies, sinners and other people who came as guests. They all sat down with Jesus and His followers, for there was also a large group who came with Him.
Now when the Pharisees and their legal experts saw that Jesus sat there enjoying dinner with such notorious sinners, they murmured against Jesus disciples, How can you and your rabbi enjoy the fellowship of such scum?
When Jesus heard what they were saying, He argued: People who are well do not need a doctor, just sick folk do. You go study what this Bible text means (Hos. 6:6): It is not just your sacrifices that I wantI want you to learn to be merciful! And besides, why should I spend my time trying to get the righteous to turn from their sins? It is the SINNERS who need my help!
Now the disciples of John the Baptist as well as the Pharisees fasted regularly each week. So the disciples of John approached Jesus with the query: Why do we regularly go without food to spend time in prayer? The Pharisees and their disciples do it too. But your followers, what do they do? They wine and dine!
Then Jesus responded like this, You cannot make the wedding guests go without food or be sad during the wedding festivities, can you? No, with the bridegroom present, it would be out of place for that. The time will arrive when the groom will be taken away from them. Then it would be appropriate for them to refuse to eat.
He illustrated His point with this parable: Who would tear a piece from a new suit of clothes and sew it on a worn-out garment? If he does, he will tear the new material, and the new piece would not match the old anyway. In a similar way, no one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, because if he does, the new patch rips away from the old cloth and you have a bigger hole than before.
Neither should you store freshly pressed grape juice in old goatskin bottles. If you do, the pressure of the expanding new wine will burst the skins. The wine gets spilled and so is lost and you have destroyed the skin bottles too. No, new wine must be stored in new, flexible wineskins. That way, both are preserved.
No one who is accustomed to drinking vintage wines calls for this years wine. The old, he claims, is pleasant; it suits me.
SUMMARY
Leaving the seashore where He had been teaching the multitudes, Jesus passed by Matthew-Levis tax office and called him to intimate discipleship. Matthew, in turn, responded joyfully by giving a huge farewell dinner party for his former associates. Jesus friendly fellowship with this level of society aroused the criticism of the Jewish Puritans, the Pharisees, but Jesus defended His ministry among such sinners as absolutely essential.
The disciples of John the Baptist too were scandalized that Jesus and His followers paid little of any attention to the traditional fasting practices. Again Jesus defended His practice and views as being so new and different in nature from the old system that Johns disciples hoped to purify, that one would do violence to both systems to try to mix them. Jesus concluded by warning them about being prejudiced against the new ideas by thinking the old ways to be better.
NOTES
A. THE CALL OF MATTHEW
This account of the call of Matthew to close companionship with Jesus, following as it does upon the foregoing account of Jesus divine right on earth to forgive sins, is in its proper logical place. Jesus call of him who, in the minds of popular Judaism, was a most flagrant sinner, is a thrilling exercise of Jesus power to forgive sins and transform a man.
Mat. 9:9 And as Jesus passed by from thence . . . Between the astounding narration of Jesus proven ability to forgive sins on earth, demonstrated by His instantaneous cure of the paralytic lowered through the roof, and this record of Matthews call, Mark (Mar. 2:13) and Luke (Luk. 5:27 a) both report that Jesus left the crowded house in which that cure occurred. Perhaps it was precisely because of the pressing crowds that He went outdoors, in order to have more space. As He had done on other occasions, He led the people to the Capernaum wharf, where He could speak to them all with greater facility. Apparently, when Jesus had finished His discourse before these people, He dismissed them and walked directly toward the toll office of Matthew.
He saw a man, called Matthew, sitting at the place of toll. This could be the most beautiful sentence in the New Testament and the most incredible declaration in all of Jewish literature! Jesus, the mover of multitudes, could see the individual, Matthew. Levi was no mere number to the Lord, no warm body whose living personality could be ignored. How many times had thousands of other Jews passed by that same toll office without ever seeing this human being called Matthew sitting there? How often had their own awareness of his hated occupation caused them to shun him deliberately, turning their head the other way, pretending not to have seen him? But Jesus saw Matthew as he was and loved him. We too must learn to see people, not for the clothes they wear, the position they occupy, the relationships they represent to us. This latter only hides the individuality of that person. We must see the man or woman as human beings in need of God. We must see, as Jesus saw Matthew, the individual possibilities they have to grow into the image of God. Jesus was not afraid that the moral filth and contamination, of which the Pharisees were so afraid, would cause Him to lose His own purity. Nor should we withhold help for fear of contamination from those to whom Jesus felt irresistibly drawn. Jesus was not deceived by a contact with Matthew elsewhere, for He saw Matthew precisely as he was, engaged in his universally despised occupation.
Sitting at the place of toll. For detailed bibliographies on publicans place of toll, etc., see encyclopedic articles and special studies, especially Edersheim, Sketches, 51ff.; Life, I, 515517;. ISBE, 2920a, b, 2921a, Arndt-Gingrich, 820 on telns. The official position of the tax official in Jewish social life, regardless of the education, wealth or power of the individual who exercised that office, was despicable beyond belief for those unaware of the peculiar religio-political situation that existed in Palestine during this period. Religiously, the Jews owned no king but God and to Him alone should they bring proper tribute. (Though for convenience sake, they acted otherwise more often than not, as for example, Joh. 19:15; yet their religious ideal was this.) Politically, they were a small political unit of the Roman empire to which they owed tribute, custom, and duty. Although in a period previous to the Roman imperial era, the taxes were collected by wealthy men who purchased from the Greek kings the right to collect them (see, for example Josephus, Antiquities, XII, 4, 14), under the empire the direct taxes were not farmed out, but collected by regular imperial officers in the regular routine of official duty. The customs or tolls levied upon exports and imports, and upon goods passing through the country, were sold to the highest bidders, who were called publicans (ISBE, 2920b). Even though the publicans themselves were apparently not Roman officials, they possessed all the authority of Rome behind their exactions. As a Jew, the publican was viewed as a traitor to his nation and to God, because of his willingness to collaborate in this way with a pagan, foreign conqueror. Worse still, the Roman system encouraged greed and graft by selling the right to collect taxes at auction, from which the publican repaid himself for his work and risk involved by collecting all he could. The tax collectors naturally enriched themselves at the expense of their own nation. The indefinite rate of taxation plus the exaggerated and arbitrary value placed upon goods by the publicans rendered their position indescribably odious to all other Jews,
Scripture notices of the publicans reveal in passing in what light they were considered in Jesus time: they were typically selfish (Mat. 5:46-47). They were classed on a par with heathens. (Mat. 18:17), prostitutes (Mat. 21:31) and other notorious outcasts (Mat. 9:10; Mat. 11:19; Luk. 18:11). Even though Jesus Himself viewed them as people to be loved and saved, yet His use of popular language in regard to the publicans reveals profoundly in what light they were viewed by the majority of the people before whom Jesus used this language.
And He saith unto him, Follow me. Matthew knew that Jesus could have found plenty of other, respectable men who had no embarrassing past to live down. Jesus could have eased tensions between Himself and the orthodox by selecting His disciples more discreetly. By Pharisaic principles, Jesus should have prudently passed right on past Matthew, but He chose not to. These two words of invitation are Jesus deliberate demonstration of His determination to show what He could do with a man completely surrendered to Him, regardless of background or lack of previous religious virtue. Jesus intended to take this dull, rough, crude, sinful man and help him to be transformed into His own image. Jesus could see Matthew as he could become, so invited him to follow. Jesus could see in Matthew more than Matthew himself dared dream; because He was seeing the possibilities in personality. Jesus knew the man that Levi might become, quite as well as the man Levi already was. It was Jesus unshakeable faith in the better Matthew that became the power to make Matthew die to be that better man! He was literally calling this man to greatness. The tragic question that renders them the more guilty is how many times had Jesus offered the same invitation to the Pharisees?
And he arose and followed Him. This was the vital difference between Matthew and the Pharisees: he could properly evaluate this invitation. He responded differently from the Pharisees precisely because he was a different man. He had endured hate from his fellow Jews for years. He knew that he had sold out to the Romans for this well-paying job, but all he had earned in human relations, of which are made the real treasure of life, was the contempt and snubbing of his own people. He had felt the power of greed, cruelty, gouging and cheating in his own heart. Sick of soul, Matthew does not surprise us by responding this way. And yet, Matthews own will could have hindered all that followed this moment, for, as Morgan (Matthew, 92) points out, Jesus could offer the highest invitation of heaven, but He stood limited before the surprising reality that a man can say, No.
Matthew could gratefully appreciate how much it cost Jesus to involve Himself with such as Matthew. But this publican had never witnessed a man sacrifice his reputation like this before. This customs agent could never have dared hope for such personal recognition, much less could he hope to be called to personal companionship with Jesus and Apostleship! How long had he been a secret admirer of the Prophet from Nazareth?
One interesting problem is noted and adequately handled by Bruce (Training, 22), i.e. why and how Matthew should respond to Jesus invitation so promptly without any apparent or at least recorded psychological preparation. The Gospels give the impression of abruptness surrounding Matthews call, as if Matthew had not known Jesus quite well previously. Two factors combine to suggest very strongly that this acquaintance actually existed:
1.
The call of other Apostles is surrounded by the same sort of abruptness, whereas we know that several of them had been previously acquainted with Jesus. (See on Mat. 4:18-22) As Bruce (op cit.) notes, The truth is that, in regard to both calls, the evangelists concerned themselves only about the crisis, passing over in silence all preparatory stages, and not deeming it necessary to inform intelligent readers that, of course, neither the publican nor any other disciple blindly followed one of whom he knew nothing, merely because asked or commanded to follow.
2.
Considering Jesus close connection with the city of Capernaum, His mighty works done and repeated before a grateful and at first, responsive populace, and remembering that Matthew probably lived and worked in Capernaum, we conclude that Jesus and Matthew had been fellow-citizens of Capernaum and could well have known each other. It would have been more psychologically improbable to believe that Matthew had never heard of Him. (See on Mat. 11:23).
Had he had business relationships with the fishermen and ship-owners among the Apostles? Had he been watching the growing opposition to Jesus ministry? Or had he failed to notice the fact that Jesus seemed always to be surrounded by common sinners like himself? Could not this fact have encouraged Levi to leave his table on various occasions to slip in at the back of the crowds to hear Jesus personally? But when Jesus came right up to his table, placed before him this invitation to destiny, it took not even a moments deliberation to make that decision that forever sealed his future and gave to the world Jesus first publican-Apostle. As Edersheim paints him, His soul was in the speechless surprise of unexpected love and grace; but he rose up, left the custom-house and followed Him!
And he arose and followed, The significant omission of the word immediately allows us to surmise that Matthew first settled his accounts, closed out his books and turned over his responsibilities to others. His good rapport with publicans later indicates that he did not leave them embarrassed by his absence. While he may well have concluded his work to leave all to follow Jesus, why did he rise up to readily?
1.
Was it because he still retained influences of a godly upbringing? Is his deep knowledge and use of the Old Testament shown later in his Gospel, only the result of supernatural inspiration, or was it the result of a proper godly training, from which he in mid-life badly strayed in search of wealth?
2.
Or was he reflecting a deep, personal dissatisfaction with a life, which from its beginning had been empty, shallow, hopeless? Had he realized the depth of his desperate condition as a sinner, depicted so well by Barker (As Matthew Saw the Master, 41)? The broken intentions, the wasted dreams, the splintered personality, the poisoned mind, and the calloused heartit added up to a loathesome, hopeless case.
3.
Or was Matthew simply a better man than the average publican?
Whatever his preparation to be called by Jesus, Matthew responded, leaving a comfortable job and the security of a good income for a life of destiny, adventure, peace and joy. His talent was turned to serve in composing one of the most extensive records of Jesus teaching ministry that has ever come down to us.
B. THE CONCERN OF MATTHEW
Mat. 9:10 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat in the house . . . Modestly, Matthew omits details that would glorify himself, reserving himself only to the barest facts. However, Mark and Luke describe the arrangements Matthew prepared in his own house:
1.
Levi made a great feast (Luk. 5:29), such as one would expect a former publican, probably wealthy, to be able to give. Nothing is spared to make this moment a memorable occasion for all who hear of it.
2.
Levi made Him a great feast: Luke is affirming (Mat. 5:29) that Matthew arranged this banquet for Jesus Himself, in His honor.
3.
All Synoptic writers agree in the large number of guests, not only Jesus and many disciples that followed Him (Mar. 2:15), but also a large company of tax collectors and others (Luk. 5:29).
Notice the elaborate plans carried out by this one repentant publican. His conversion must have caused quite a sensation in Capernaum! After all, here is a wealthy but notorious publican suddenly called away from his occupation to leave everything to enter the companionship of the most truly holy Rabbi people in Capernaum had ever known, All who heard about it would wonder not only at the readiness of Levis response and the completeness of his change, but also the purpose behind Jesus unusual choice.
Apparently Matthew planned this feast with the specific purpose of introducing Jesus to all his former associates. He cared enough to invite all his old cronies to a feast where the issue of his own former life and present association could be faced head-on. Certainly Matthew invited his friends to the feast: who else COULD he invite? This is the reason the guest-list contained so many publicans names. But why, in re-telling his story, does Matthew use this particular expression: many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus? Is this a fixed phrase in popular Jewish speech, or is he writing with tongue in cheek, preparing the mind of the reader for the hypocritical question of the Pharisees which follows? Or, by saying, publicans and sinners, is he revealing the purpose of his own heart? The men he invited are sinners like himself, This former lover of gain has begun to act like his Lord; he has become a lover of souls, immediately doing all he can to bring his fellow sinners under the influence of Jesus voice.
It took great insight on Matthews part to have been able to plan in precisely this way, knowing surely that he could bring his friends to Jesus in this way that would be perfectly in harmony with Jesus character. C. E. B. Reed comments: (Preachers Homiletic Commentary, XXII, 224)
One can see that Matthew had already studied to good purpose his Lords character.
I.
First of all he perceived that he could best serve Him, not by eating and drinking alone in His presence, but by inviting the outcasts of society and befriending them for the sake of Him who made their cause His own.
II.
He invited to the feast his own associates. Many men would have forsworn the class from which they had been called and sought some new field of benevolence; whereas he does not disown his publican comrades, but selects them as earliest recipients of his bounty.
III.
He recognized that the best thing he could do for them was to bring them into contact with Jesus. Instead of going among them and talking about his new Master, he wisely brought them face to face with Him whose teaching he could not match for breadth or power.
IV.
This intercourse between Christ and the publicans Matthew contrived to bring about by means of an entertainment. He knew well that most of them would never come to hear a formal discourse from the Lord, but that meat and drink would open their hearts to receive the scattered seeds of His teaching . . .
Note that Matthews call to become Jesus personal disciple had not turned his head. He could still see his old friends. He was still interested in them, still loved them, though he had made a definite break with his old life among them. See how he reflects that new love from Him who loved Matthew as no other! Is not this repentance at its best?
C. THE CRITICISM OF MATTHEWS MASTER
Mat. 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it. What were THEY doing there? It is not too likely that they had come to the feast of publicans in order to take part! Storm clouds of opposition to Jesus ministry had already begun to form, because Jesus had already begun to succeed at the very business He had come to earth to do. These critics would never have bothered criticizing Him, were He not making real headway. His was a movement that was going somewhereit was alive. Nobody bothers to criticize something that is all but dead. Nor were they particularly interested in Matthew, one of the sinners with whom Jesus ate. What these eagle-eyed censors were after was Jesus. Matthew could have eaten with all the sinners in town and no one would have noticed. But when Jesus of Nazareth is willing to risk His reputation for Matthew by eating with him, these Pharisees attack.
It is not necessary to suppose that these Pharisees who see this spectacle of a Rabbi among publicans are theologians only, although Mark and Luke both affirm that there were theologians present. The fraternity of the Pharisees included people from all walks of life, (See Edersheim, Sketches, 226ff.) some of whom may have seen Jesus and His followers enter the publicans house. They may have then reported the incident to their scribes (Mar. 2:16; Luk. 5:30) who, reinforcing those first on the scene, now begin to complain.
They said unto His disciples. Notice the sheer cunning in this approach made to Jesus disciples, although the cunning might be motivated by moral cowardice, or that fear to face Jesus directly. These theological lawyers, instead of introducing some deep, debatable theological objection to Jesus, try to shake the disciples confidence in Him by showing how their Master violates acknowledged Jewish propriety. If they succeed in undermining Jesus influence by demonstrating that, while in theory He may mean well, yet in practice He fails at a critical point, then is His ministry ruined.
Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners? This question has perhaps less point for us westerners than it would for an oriental to whom a meal was a sacred matter. (Remember how Peter too violated this Jewish taboo by eating with Gentiles, Act. 11:2-3) To break bread together pledged each to solemn friendship and mutual help. Consequently, self-respecting people eat only with other respectable people with whom they wish to associate. Thus would these accusers inculpate Jesus through guilt by association, making the false assumption: You are known by the company you keep! Thus they would insinuate that Jesus was of like character, It was as if they were asking, What kind of God does He think He represents, keeping company with scum like that? He is unable to discern their character perhaps, in which case He disqualifies Himself to be a proper rabbi! Any way the statement is phrased, their complaint shows no obvious love for these lost ones. Their merciless self-righteousness had shut their heart and frozen their concern for those who need God so desperately.
As Edersheim teaches, (Life, 1, 507), this text highlights the fundamental distinction between Christianity and all other religions, especially Rabbinism, since all other religions must stand confessedly helpless regarding the positive forgiveness of sins and welcome for the sinner. They have nothing to say in contrast to the personal, merciful approach of God in Jesus Christ to the sinner, welcoming him back to repentance. This welcome produces repentance like no other stimulus in other religions could ever do. The burdened soul struggling toward God finds the answer of Jesus convincing and helpful like no other. Worse yet, the very title Pharisee, or separated one, underlined the very character of Rabbinism, even of Sadducees too in this respect, since the goal of the system was the exclusion of the unlearned, the unworthy, the sinners. So it was that this very feast of Matthew could only be looked upon by these Rabbis as a kind of reproach to the most fundamental principles they espoused. They were pledged to the maintenance of the separation of the wicked from the righteous, the Israelites from the Gentiles, the people of God from publicans and sinners. Here Jesus refused to maintain the arbitrary lines they had drawn. This was not mere supercilious pride they felt; it was deep-running religious indignation. Jesus goal, by striking contrast, was the INCLUSION of sinners, welcoming them to repent, assuring them of mercy and power to change their lives. The ideal of the rabbis was the welcoming of sinners after they had repented, with only the sterile stimulus to do so that is inherent in the repeated exhortations to repent and in the praise of repentance itself, with no definitive proof that the sins have actually been forgiven. This fact leaves the heart of the person trying to come back to God desperate and pessimistic. Instead of reinforcing the Pharisees separatism, Jesus is seeming to sanction confusion of the traditional lines along which righteousness and holiness had been defined. It is no wonder that the Pharisees should be excited!
But Christ could not help arousing opposition. He was teaching the truth of God about sinners and about God, that would lead men to know genuine reality, as opposed to the sham or partial realities of their limited knowledge and experience. However, for doing this and for claiming to be the Son of God, He was opposed. For receiving sinners and eating with them, He was blamed. (Luk. 15:1-2) Matthew himself was one of the chief reasons why the opposition so resented Jesus. It was but the age-old problem of the new idea presented in a context where people do not judge it on its own merits. They evaluate and its propounder only in terms of the way they are accustomed to interpreting it.
Ironically, for the very reason that they supposed themselves to be of superior righteousness and despised all others, these Pharisees thereby ceased to be righteous and manifested their own real sinfulness and need of mercy from God. The Pharisees were masters of refined sin too, and Jesus made strenuous efforts to win them to discipleship through repentance. Jesus gentle speech here is an illustration. Usually, however, rather than repent, they got mad and tried to kill Him.
D. THE CONCEPT OF THE MASTER
Mat. 9:12 But when He heard it, He said, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. This vital question, so important because it involved the fundamental direction and purpose of Jesus mission to earth, was asked of the disciples, but answered by Jesus. From Jesus answer we get His own view of the work He came to accomplish. Had the disciples tried to deal with the critics, perhaps we would have something of less weight, depending upon their apprehension of His goals. Perhaps they even tried, but the Evangelists are satisfied only to report Jesus definitive answer, which forever settles the issue.
But observe how Jesus answered the captious question leveled at Him. As Bales (Jesus the Ideal Teacher, 92, 93) puts it: Jesus appealed to a principle which they endorsed, and showed by an apt illustration which they could not dispute successfully that His conduct was endorsed by that principle . . . Jesus made another point wherein He indicated that they need to learn the meaning of certain teaching in the very scriptures which they accepted. The principle accepted by practically every Jew was that a teacher of the Law was, symbolically, a physician to the sick. (Cf. Edersheim, Life, I, 520), It would seem that Paul in Rom. 2:17-20 is listing appellatives by which the Pharisees, among whose number Paul used to count himself, loved to identify themselves!.
Thus Jesus is using here no innocuous or merely interesting figure of speech: He is refuting His opponents with a reply that cuts them two ways:
1. According to the Pharisees own view of themselves and of the publicans, Jesus, even had He been a member of the Pharisees own party, was precisely where He should be, thus His course was justified. Jesus is saying, I am a Physician to those whom we all describe as sick, the ignorant and sinful people of the land. As Physician, I must make contact with those whom I would help. Were I to ignore them or despise them, I would not be true to my mission as a doctor. The doctor that spends his time only with other doctors or with the well is not worth his salt as a healer of the sick. Instead of being contaminated by the disease or carrying their contagion to others, I am bringing salvation and healing. These publicans with whom I am now feasting are the very people to whom we should minister, hence I am right. where I should be, making my rounds.
2.
By the same principle, the Pharisees themselves and all who shared their views were unfaithful to the ideals they espoused! If you admit that you too are teachers of the soul and physicians to the unrighteous, why are you not mercifully ministering among these publicans too? But you shun and excommunicate these people as outcasts, never offering them the mercy of a forgiving God. Thus, by your obvious failure to live by your own ideals and principles, you confess that
you are unqualified for the high honors you receive or the high pretenses you make at being righteous! You doctors, ironically, are letting the sick die!
3.
Jesus rebuttal has a third undertone that, by the way His argument is stated, shatters the force of the Pharisees most fundamental presupposition. When He says: They that are whole, He has no intention whatever of subscribing to the Pharisees self-estimate of themselves as righteous, fit to stand proudly before Gods judgment. This expression, as well as the righteous in the following verse, are to be taken as ironic. As Lenski (Matthew, 366) asks:
Could they really be righteous when they knew no mercy for the sinners, were blind to the prophets word demanding that they have mercy, and railed at the merciful Physician who labored among those who, according to the Pharisees themselves, so sorely needed His help? . . . Thus, even their claim to be righteous, by which they attempted to justify their contempt for sinners (cf. Luk. 18:9-10), exposed not only the hollow falseness of their religion and the emptiness of their hearts, but also disqualified them from being the great teachers of the Law they pretended to be.
The Pharisees, in short, are here exposed as common sinners, whose best attempts at separation from sin had only left them miserable and in need of repentance. There are none in so dangerous a position as those who think they are not sick and thus refuse the healing mercies of the Physician! But lest we become too smug and pray, Thank God I am not a Pharisee, snubbing the weak and despising the sinful!, let us remember that Jesus ministered with patient mercy even to these sinners too.
Mat. 9:13 But go ye and learn what this meaneth . . . Edersheim (Life, I, 520) affirms that this command is a rabbinic formula so often used when superficial speciousness of knowledge is directed to further thought and information. If so, the Lord assumes His proper place as the Teacher of these rabbis, using a language they can understand. But this command is much more: Jesus, being the real Physician that He is, cannot send even these Pharisees away without providing them too a cure for their own soul sickness. But was the Lord requiring that these theologians spend further time in book study and not, rather, in learning the true meaning of sacrifice by actually showing mercy? Much of Gods will is not to be learned by pondering and intellectual perception, but rather by obedience.
I desire mercy and not sacrifice. The parallel phrase in this citation of Hos. 6:6 completes the couplet: And the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings. This is a highly compressed saying, stating in Hebraistic style of absolute negation what we would express in relative terms. Paraphrasing this verse in a manner that would interpret the verse in its proper relative sense, we might hear God saying to Israel something like this: When I commanded you to make sacrifices, it was not burnt offerings that I wanted; I wanted you thereby to learn mercy and the knowledge of God! (See Notes on Mat. 5:23, volume I) The mercy of God and the mercy demanded by God of His people mean more to Him than all the perfect fulfilment of any empty ritual. Hosea does not represent God as refusing the sacrifices in themselves, but simply those sacrifices which did not represent the heart of those wicked people who supposed that thereby they could cover their sins. The mercy that God requires is that intelligent love of ones neighbor which is based upon the knowledge of God and moves one to share Gods mercy with ones fellow sinners. (Cf. Mat. 18:1-35 for an even stronger polemic against that selfish mercilessness which compounds the guilt of those who sin thereby.) For similar declarations, study 1Sa. 15:22; Isa. 1:11-17; Mic. 6:6-8; Psa. 40:6-8; Psa. 50:8-23; Pro. 21:3; Mar. 12:28-34; Heb. 10:5-8; Heb. 13:16.
Jesus use of this highly revealing text, that indicated Gods real purpose behind all the positive commandments of the Mosaic system, is to show that God is far more concerned to show mercy to sinners, far more anxious that sinners show mercy than He is to have heartless, punctilious performance of meaningless forms. The superior claims of mercy rise higher than strict justice, or that righteousness based upon the letter of the law. (Cf. Jas. 2:13 and notes on Mat. 5:7 and Mat. 6:12) Instead of freezing out the publicans and sinners, the truly righteous would have made every effort to show Gods mercy by endeavoring, as patiently and loving as Jesus, to help them to understand the mind of God, repent of their sins and become the greatest of saints. Thus, for Jesus, merely to live a moral life that is devoid of practical expressions of merciful helpfulness to fellow sinners is not enough. Worse yet, it is plain deceiving, since it gives a false sense of accomplishment to the man who would shut his personal goodness off to himself. For Jesus, merely to live a religious life, made up of the outward functions and rites of religion without the spirit and content which the forms were intended to hold, is worse than useless. It blinds the man to that whole way of life which is Gods service, permitting him to see only a few convenient commandments while ignoring justice, mercy and faith. (Cf. Mat. 23:23) These Pharisees, though extremely religious, had followed their limited views to the logical extremes and had become harsh critics, proud, completely inhuman to the point of hating all lesser breeds. Thus Jesus exposes their character as, in Gods sight, being far more condemnable than those they condemned.
For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Jesus is not disclaiming concern for the truly righteous or even admitting that there really are people so righteous that they do not need what He has to offer. Note that neither Mark nor Matthew specify to what Jesus had come to call sinners, even though Luke adds the words to repentance. Jesus called men not only to repentance, but to Himself. It must be said, however, that a proper understanding of all that is involved in repentance is the secret of joy in the Kingdom of God. (See Notes on Mat. 3:15).
I came not to call the righteous. There are none who qualify for this title: we are all sinners! (Rom. 3:10-18; Rom. 3:23) Hence, we are to take Jesus words in an ironical sense: I came not to spend time with the self-righteous, whose self-satisfaction would keep them from appreciating the righteousness I offer. Only those who know how much they need me will accept my invitation. If Jesus purpose is only with sinners, with the unrighteous, to give them the true righteousness, then for all the world, I would not be righteous (in my own sight)! For, in that case, Jesus could not help me! The duty of the truly righteous man, according to the Lord, is to admit his own sinfulness, believe Jesus and share the good news of Gods mercy with his fellow sinners, regardless of the relative righteousness (or sinfulness) they may possess. Unfortunately, it never enters the head of most self-righteous individuals that UNBELIEF, a failure to accept Christ, is sin. (Joh. 3:36) The gospel of culture, civilization, morality and humanitarianism has not enough power in it to save one sinner. Only Jesus can save,the cultured, the civilized, the moral humanitarians as well as the other common sinners!
I came to call to repentance. (Cf. Luk. 5:32) This should be the true mission of any man of God, who serves a holy God and dwells among a rebellious people. It is also, at the same time, Jesus significant hint that His program would not stop short of anything but total religious revolution, bringing salvation, not to the privileged few, the righteous, the whole, the elite, but to the despised outcasts, to the socially disgraced, to sinners, in short, to the world. As Bruce explains, with deep insight, (Training, 28): It was one of the pregnant sayings by which Jesus made known to those who could understand, that His religion was an universal one, a religion for humanity, a gospel for mankind, because a gospel for sinners,
I came to call sinners. How far do WE share the vision and purpose of Jesus? Are there people whom we ignore or for whom we do not pray? Are there certain individuals or classes for whom we dare not soil our righteousness, because of the apparent gravity of their sin (in our sight)? Do we refuse to pray for or withhold every evangelistic effort to help the poor, the rich, the Indians, the Negroes, the whites, the city dwellers, the country folk or any other such group? To the extent that we are able to say, Yes, Lord, but they are too wicked and unworthy, to that extent we do not share His vision. To that extent we do not have a universal gospel that is capable of saving ALL sinners, and it may well be doubted that a gospel that is incapable of saving EVERY sinner, is also incapable of saving the sinners that preach it. The seriousness of peoples sin is never to be considered a barrier which we may use as a reason for not loving or helping anyone. Jesus came to overcome these barriers and save the sinner. To Him, the biggest sin in the world is that closed-hearted attitude of the self-righteous that never thinks of the desperate need of those whom we condemn, hence ignore. One might almost say, that, to Jesus, the greatest display of mercy is that shown to the person who needs mercy the most, the greatest sinner, the most despised.
I came to call, not the righteous, but sinners. The so-called righteous have separated themselves along lines of national pride, privileged monopolies on Gods grace and sectarian exclusivism But the sinners Jesus calls learn the truly desirable, proper separation. In contrast to the separation that the Pharisees demanded of others, Matthews holiness, learned from fellowship with Jesus, was separation unto Christ, not merely separation from his fellows. His desires and acts became really holy, or separate, unto God, because he had learned the mind of God revealed by Jesus, something not true of those self-righteous, and, ultimately, unholy Pharisees who had despised him and criticized Jesus because of His association with Matthew and Matthews kind. But it was this very discipleship, that made publicans and sinners truly righteous, actually holy, and not merely outwardly so. Jesus showed no mercy to the sinners sinto Jesus, Matthews sins were still sins. To call those whom He had come to save sinners, is a declaration of unvarying divine judgment. But to come to call just such people out of those. sins, offering them the opportunity to become the greatest of saints, is a declaration of divine mercy. This demonstrates the exceedingly practical nature of Jesus ministry as well as its divine origin, because He proves by the purpose and direction of His own ministry that God is more interested in showing mercy than in holding people to the letter of the law.
E. THE CONSCIENTIOUS
One might almost entitle this next section the Controversy were it not for the very spirit with which the question contained therein was brought to Jesus. It is precisely this notable difference in attitude seen in the disciples of John, in contrast to the Pharisees, that makes the difference in the way the section is considered. Admittedly, Johns disciples bring up a criticism of Jesus program, but more in the spirit of inquiry for information, than to discredit Jesus before His followers.
As Bruce (Training, 67ff.) rightly judges in a masterful discussion on this section, this very portion of the Gospel is fundamentally a lesson on Christian liberty, the first of three that reveal the genius of Jesus program in sharp contrast to every other religious system, Judaism in particular. These lessons arise out of His approved non-conformity to Judaism which He expressed by disregarding minute mechanical rules and by repeatedly placing much more emphasis upon the great principles of righteousness and morality. These three lessons, pointed out by Brace, will be studied in their separate texts:
1.
Fasting (here)
2.
Ceremonial purifications prescribed by tradition (chap. Mat. 15:1-20)
3.
Proper observance of the Sabbath (Mat. 12:1-15)
The significance of these seemingly dusty texts for the modern Christian is the fact that out of just these situations grew the religious revolution and spiritual freedom that characterize Christianity. That is, Jesus revelation was originally made in these historic situations, in contrast to the views held by the people of that period. Hence, an appreciation of these situations is absolutely necessary in order to grasp the fundamental difference between Jesus revelation and all legal religion (i.e. religion based upon perfect fulfilment of an infinite number of regulations, but having no assured guarantee of personal mercy for all failure). Otherwise, we moderns will rewrite the once-abolished traditions, ignore the totally new spirit Jesus intends to put into us and conclude by repeating all the same mistakes made by these ancient rabbis in relation to Gods Word given at that time, losing ourselves in minutiae and missing the grand moral principles of real righteousness.
From the point of view of Jesus disciples themselves, as they developed into Apostles under Jesus leadership, this non-conformity towards the established usages and customs of proper Jews, is, as Bruce notes further,
a solemn crisis in any mans life when he first departs in the most minute particulars from the religious opinions and practices of his age. The first steps in the process are generally the most difficult, the most perilous, and the most decisive. . . . It is well . . . for apprentices in religious freedom when they make their first essays in the company of an experienced friend, who can rescue them should they be in danger . . . Non-conformity invariably gives offence to many, and exposes the offending party to interrogation at least, and often to something more serious. Custom is a god to the multitude, and no one can withhold homage from the ideal with impunity.
This is a particularly valid reason for letting these texts guide our reflections as we meditate upon our own discipleship as Jesus perfects us in His image. Often this loyalty to Him will bring us into conflict with the established views, customs and usages of our age, even into conflict with the Established Church. Only as we have comprehended Jesus message well will we be able to respond to each situation in a manner that will please Him.
1. THE SITUATION
Mat. 9:14 Then come to Him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not? This critical question comes from an entirely different source than the usual carping complaints of the Pharisees, a source that, at first, surprises us: the disciples of John. This phrase suggests that those followers of John who had not left him to follow Jesus, as had many others, were maintaining their commitment to John, even though his ministry is entirely eclipsed by that of Jesus (see Joh. 3:26) and practically terminated by his imprisonment (Luk. 3:19-20). But why did they come? Several factors may help answer:
1.
All three Evangelists unite in including this section immediately after their reporting the feast of publicans, almost as if to display the two sections by contrast: feasting versus fasting.
2.
Marks observation (Mat. 2:18): Now Johns disciples and the Pharisees were fasting (san nsteantes), suggests that Matthews feast took place on one of the traditional fast days. (Cf. Luk. 18:12) This is the more noticeable since, though this periphrastic imperfect may stand for a simple imperfect, one may well ask whether Mark intended merely to record, as a matter of habit these fasted, and not rather to remember, at this particular time they were even then fasting. Either way, the fact is that, though there was little or nothing in common between the religion of John the Baptist and that of the Pharisees (see, for example, Mat. 3:7 ff; Mat. 21:28-32), yet, in contrast to the acknowledged practice of Jesus, both groups fasted. So whether it was the self-imposed empty stomach that gnawed at Johns disciples as they hungrily looked in on Jesus feasting disciples, or whether they merely heard of Jesus general reputation (cf. Mat. 11:19), their question still finds its cutting edge in their customary practice.
3.
But why did Johns disciples, who framed the question, put it just that way? Why mention the Pharisees at all? Why should Mark also mention the practice of these latter, whereas they do not step into the foreground? Could it be that Johns followers were instigated by the Pharisees, since their last encounters with Jesus had left them silenced (Mat. 9:2-8) and rebuked (Mat. 9:9-12)? If so, they could gain much by enlisting the aid of these zealous disciples of the Baptist, since these represented a strong religious force in Judaism. In this case, this objection, lodged by Johns disciples would be all the more damaging, since a contradictory diversity in practice would be exposed, placing John and Jesus in clashing opposition. The result would be disastrous for both Jesus and Johns groups, but definitely advantageous to the cause of Established Religion which had continually withstood, both. Had the Pharisees not been behind the disciples of John, would it not have been more consonant with their discipleship to John to have asked, Our master, John, has taught us to fast, but your disciples feast!? In the absence of the guiding force of their master, were these Johns disciples developing a sectarian mentality of rivalry and jealousy? Were they desiring, by their inclusion of the reference to the Pharisees, to set Jesus disciples in the minority on a question that surely was already decided by the opposing schools of John and of the Pharisees?
Bruce suggests another motive as possibly motivating this criticism: surprise, The disciples of John were astounded that in respect of fasting they should approach nearer to a sect whose adherents were stigmatized by their own master as a generation of vipers, than to the followers of One for whom that master cherished and expressed the deepest veneration.
Why had they come? Perhaps they had been tormented by uncertainty caused by Johns imprisonment, not knowing whether to leave, to rot alone in Herods dungeon, him who had given them the first real glimmer of messianic hope and the first real taste of genuine righteousness, in order to follow Him to whom John pointed. Any hope that they may have nurtured of Johns deliverance from prison and vindication before Israel lay in Jesus hands and He was to be found down at Matthews house enjoying a feast with the despised scum of Jewish society! It was not the fact that Jesus received publicans and sinners that piqued them, since John himself had not rejected them. (See Luk. 3:10-14) What shattered their confidence in Him was His feasting at a time when, in their opinion, fasting and prayer would have seemed so much more appropriate. Could Jesus be the Christ if He sits down to eat and drink at a feast of publicans, while John is lying in the dungeon of Herod?
However strident the contrast might seem between Jesus practice and their views, yet Jesus was training His disciples to act on a principle of which Johns disciples neither understood the truth and validity nor the meaning. Further, until these latter asked Him, they would never grasp it. But they did come and they did ask.
2. JESUS REPLY
Note the difference in approach used by the Lord in dealing with Johns disciples and His method in dealing with the Pharisees (Matthew 15, 23, etc.) Toward these He is respectfully defensive, giving reasons for His position, whereas with the Pharisees, He denounces their marked preference for their own rules while despising Gods commandments. Here, however, He is definitely on the defensive, not wounding their conscience nor attacking their practice until He could teach them, They were probably more open to learn than were the Pharisees. If it could be proved that Johns disciples had not at all been motivated by the Pharisees, then their coming to Jesus reflects that attitude of anguished confidence shown later by their leader, John himself, in the hour of his great perplexity and soul anguish, when he too asked Jesus the torturing question of his heart. (Mat. 11:3)
Jesus gentleness with Johns disciples is further significant because in no way did the Lord put in doubt the validity of Johns message or practice. It is not necessary to decide whether this fasting practiced by Johns disciples were actually part of his program of repentance required of Israel. Tolerant of the present state of things, which, in Jesus view, would soon pass away, the Lord contents Himself with an appeal to His critics sense of propriety, in order to help them see that His program and that of John were not mutually exclusive or contradictory but represented different, progressive phases, the old and the new, of Gods continuing message to Israel. In fact, Jesus response is so very gentle that He does not actually state His conclusion directly, as though He would force them to see the truth. Rather, by means of three brilliant illustrations, He leads their minds to make His unstated conclusion.
Were we to formulate the actual conclusion to which Jesus was leading, we might state it something like this: Real religion is that harmonious outward expression that corresponds with what the heart really feels and is. False religion involves the attempt to act without reference to that correspondence, or else to cause others to do certain acts or acquire habits without any connection to the inward condition of their heart. Fasting does not reflect the present spiritual condition of my disciples, hence should not be forced upon them artificially by some mechanical rule. While the old Judaism out of which John would preserve the finest elements and the new Christianity I represent have their respective place, it would be a catastrophe to endeavor to mix the quite different dynamics of the two.
a. FIRST ILLUSTRATION: A WEDDING IS NO PLACE TO FAST
Mat. 9:15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? The sons of the bridechamber is a common Hebraism referring to those closely connected with the groom, i.e. the wedding guests. (cf. the use of the Hebraism elsewhere: Luk. 10:6; Luk. 16:8; Luk. 20:36; Act. 4:36; Mat. 23:15; Joh. 12:36 and Edersheims observation, Sketches, 152, 153) As used by Jesus here, the wedding guests are Jesus disciples. Jesus thus calls attention to a very definite and accepted exception to the rule of fasting: must wedding guests fast? (See Edersheim, Life, in loc., Sketches, 151156; cf. Mat. 22:2; Joh. 2:1-10; Joh. 3:29; Rev. 19:7-9) This question in Greek, beginning as it does with the negative m, shows that Jesus expected His hearers to answer, No, of course not. By universal custom the marriage week was to be marked by unmixed festivity, a period when fasting or mourning would be especially inappropriate.
This illustration would perhaps appeal to the disciples of John with particular force, since John himself had called Jesus the bridegroom, while referring to himself as the friend of the Bridegroom. (Joh. 3:29) Johns use of this figure actually proved the contrary of his disciples present position, since rather than fast and mourn over Jesus ministry, John rejoiced greatly, his joy was now full. However, whether these disciples now questioning Jesus ever heard that comment from John does not matter, since Jesus illustration stands independently as an approved exception to the fasting rules probably practiced.
But note that in making His answer Jesus changes from the word fasting, as asking by Johns disciples, to mourning. By this change Jesus shows that fasting must be the expression of an afflicted heart. Hence, the question of fasting cannot be solved by a mechanical rule. It must be governed by the state of mind. Fasting is perfectly in order when called for by some preoccupation or great, absorbing life crisis. When the heart is deeply troubled, who cares about food then? Even though the Law had been painfully specific in regard to sabbaths and the great feasts, which the Jews were not at liberty to reject or ignore, yet the Mosaic legislation has little, if anything, to say about fasting, and then only in connection with an afflicted soul (See on Mat. 6:16, volume I.) Thus, each person was left at liberty to decide for himself when he should fast. Fasting at a wedding would be especially forced, unnatural and real. Therefore, unless there is some significant reason to fast, to do so would be unreasonable, hypocritical.
It is interesting to note that this principle Jesus states justifies both His own disciples as well as Johns. The loss of their masters leadership through an imprisonment which would eventually end in his untimely death, was a momentous crisis for them, arising as it did. out of the wickedness of the age against which John had preached. So for Johns disciples there was a heart-felt need to fast.
But Bruce (Training, 73) points out the real danger to these men: after crystallizing a movement around Johns revolutionary message of repentance and preparation for the Messiah, these his disciples had not totally committed themselves to the Bridegroom whom John had already announced. Thus, their grief was willful, idle, causeless, when He had appeared who was to take away the sin of the world!
Further, some of Jesus closest disciples had originally been also disciples of John and had followed Johns message more closely by leaving him to follow Jesus. But then, finding themselves in Jesus company, they found themselves required also to change their manner of life in harmony with their new, altered circumstances. How could they fast and mourn, when in His presence was to be found peace and joy?
But the days will come. Plummer (Luke, 162) regards this as a complete phrase, followed by a mournfully significant silence in which Jesus seemed almost unwilling to speak His mind because of the impact His. words must necessarily have on His disciples. There is evidently power in these few words: they are the voice of the prophet. This early knowledge of Jesus violently being snatched away from His people and their consequent grief, demonstrated that His grasp of His own divine mission was not forced upon Him from without by chain of circumstances that brought about His death. It proves, on the contrary, that, even from the beginning of His ministry, He not only knew toward what goals He moved, but He set about to reach them with unwavering purpose. (Cf. Mat. 26:11; Luk. 17:22; Joh. 2:19; etc.) Jesus knew what fidelity to God would cost Him, yet He did not swerve from this knowledge. But His omniscience, as God, assures us that He holds the future secure in His hands.
When the Bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they will fast. The implication is clear that Jesus disciples personally are meant. How then did they receive these ominous words? Their own ideas of the Messianic Kingdom did not differ greatly from those of the disciples of John, even of all Israel. If they viewed Gods Kingdom as one continuous, external victory by which the Messiah asserted invincible Jewish power over the world, they were completely mistaken. If they assumed that Jesus presence among them were permanent, they needed correction. (Cf. Joh. 12:32-34; Joh. 7:33; Joh. 13:36; Joh. 16:16-22) Here is one of the first intimations of approaching tragedy. In the nature of the case, this becomes a warning to the Apostles to count the cost. At the same time this reality, that there would be gloom in Jesus absence, becomes a challenge to the Apostles: can you unite in your personal experience both the Christian joy and the Christian cross?
Then they will fast, of their own accord. No one will have to tell them to mourn or fast. Jesus does not say, Then you can make them fast, which would be the exact opposite of Jesus teaching earlier. Compelling Jesus disciples to fast when Jesus would have been taken away from them would be as totally unnecessary as it would be totally incongruous now in His presence. Upon revealing the approaching death and departure, Jesus concedes that fasting would under those circumstances be quite appropriate and voluntarily chosen. But in that case the value of fasting would consist not in its being forcibly imposed by others, but in its being spontaneously adopted because of the real sentiments of His disciples at that time under those altered circumstances.
b. SECOND ILLUSTRATION: NEW PATCHES DO NOT REPAIR OLD GARMENTS
Mat. 9:16 And no man putteth a piece of undress cloth upon an old garment; for that which would fill it up taketh from the garment, and a worse rent is made. It is worthy of note that Luke (Luk. 5:36) calls this illustration a parable, a fact that may not be pushed too far since no parable can be extended to mean more than the point the author himself intended to illustrate. Nevertheless, the two following illustrations have much in common, not to mention the two additional illustrations that Luke (Luk. 5:36; Luk. 5:39) includes. In all the illustrations, there is a particular emphasis laid upon the incongruity and impossibility of mixing something old with the new and vice versa. In all but the last there is definite loss or ruin involved in this confusion of old with new or the new with the old. The context of these parables helps to clarify their point since they were told to answer Johns disciples question that touched the radical difference between Jesus program and that of John. (Cf. the use of old versus the new, developed by the Apostles in describing the weakness and failure of the Law versus the transforming vigor of the Gospel of Christ: (Rom. 7:6; 2Co. 3:6; 1Co. 11:25; Heb. 7:22; Heb. 8:6-10; Heb. 9:15-20; Heb. 12:24 in which kains and nos are both used to describe Jesus new program.)
Contrary to McGarveys contention (Matthew-Mark, 84) that these parables have nothing to do with the proper relation of the gospel dispensation to the Jewish law, but rather deal only with propriety of fasting on a certain occasion, an argument erroneously based upon Lukes concluding illustration (Mat. 5:39), let it be urged that the whole point of Jesus argument is to show Johns disciples that His program and message, whereby His disciples are being trained, cannot be mixed with the old system with its forms and expressions of piety ,out of which fasting had come as a specific, representative practice.
The literal expression of Jesus illustration is based upon the absurdity of using a patch of new cloth that is not pre-shrunk to repair an old robe. At first washing, the new patch would only rip the tear still wider, as the shrinking patch pulls against the threads of the repaired robe. At this point Luke (Luk. 5:36) sets forth the antithesis of this illustration by bringing in another illustration using exactly the same figure with another emphasis. This should be called the third illustration:
No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new and the piece from the new will not match the old.
Taken together, these two similar but antithetic parables teach that the religion of Jesus is in no sense just Judaism patched up, modified or revised for a later age. It is something entirely new, separate and distinct. Nor can Jesus program be adjusted to fit the mentality of the old system without irreparable damage to what He is bringing into being. Old Judaism cannot bear mending by the superimposition of a totally new concept of mans relationship with God upon Judaisms forms. This would only destroy Judaism. But fasting came out of the old system under which Johns disciples had been trained, precisely as feasting came out of the natural environment in which Jesus disciples were being trained. And to deprive Jesus followers of this freedom from fasting while He was with them would confound the message they had been taught to believe. To force the Pharisees and others to stop fasting before they had grasped the spirit of what Jesus was bringing to men, would destroy the fabric of religious consciousness they had-developed under Judaism.
c. THIRD ILLUSTRATION: NEW WINE BURSTS OLD WINESKINS
Mat. 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old wineskins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved. Wine-skins are skin jugs made from a single goat-skin from which the flesh and bones are removed without cutting the body; only the head is removed leaving the neck of the animal to become the neck of the bottle. (For their use, see Gen. 21:14-15; Gen. 21:19; Job. 38:37; Psa. 119:83) When new, the flexibility of the skin permits considerable expansion due to the pressure of the carbon-dioxide present in the wine during fermentation. However, when the skins have become inflexible with age, they are not able to expand, not absorbing thus the internal pressure of the liquid that can burst a common glass bottle. This is why they explode, causing the loss of their contents. (Hear Elihus complaint, Job. 32:19)
The main point of Jesus illustration is that the physical results produced by expanding new wine do not mix with the inelasticity of old wine-skins. Here again, as in the former illustration, there is contrast between the old and the new. Lenski notes (Matthew, 370):
This illustration advances the thought. The old cannot be kept by adding a little of the new, nor by combining all of the new with it. In this respect there is a parallelism of thought. But again both illustrations speak of conserving: the first, the old robe; the second, the new wine . . . In this respect the illustrations are antithetic.
But there is also another current of thought in Jesus illustration, not specifically stated but immediately below the surface: conservation, not only of the new robe from which no patches are taken and the new wine in the new wineskins, but also of the old robe with old patches and old wine in old wineskins. Jesus is not arguing that the old system was not good or that the forms which expressed it were bad, like, for example, fasting. In fact, He actually admits that honest admirers of the ancient system of Judaism would have difficulty quickly changing over to the new system of Christ. (Luk. 5:39) He does not propose the burning of the old robe or the destruction of the old wineskins, since each served its purpose in its time. Jesus did not come to destroy the Law or the prophets but to fulfill them. (See Notes on Mat. 5:17-18, Volume I) But once the old robe or the old wineskins had served their purpose and could no longer be repaired or filled with the power and vigor of the new, they must be replaced.
Both are preserved. Jesus is interested primarily in preserving the vital spiritual force of the Gospel as well as the forms in which it would be expressed. He knows that it would be fatal to limit Christianity by trying to express it in the thought-forms and rituals of a legal system. Christianity must have modes of expression that are consonant with its nature. In the establishment of Christianity among men, the Apostles declared authoritatively what fundamental forms express Jesus new religion. To the extent that the Lord or His Apostles have described these new forms, or their content, it is heresy to seek other forms and accept other content.
But this raises the burning question about what we should do when the new robe, the new wine of Christianity, because of the sterilizing power of tradition, becomes in our day old wine, old cloth, old wineskins. We can but pray, Lord, make us into new wine again; transform our tired, worn-out robe into new cloth. Then, in agreement with our prayer, we will seek in the original message of Jesus and the Apostles that transforming power which will bring us back to what the Lord wanted originally. We should remember with Lenski (Matthew, 371) that the modern philosophies that reject the supernatural and the religious views that revere the traditions of the fathers, both of which reject Jesus today, are nothing but the ancient Pharisees and Sadducees with updated names. To follow them would be but to fall into the ancient but rejected errors of those who crucified the Lord. The so-called new categories of thought, new concepts of sin and righteousness, new visions of God, new morality are nothing but old errors, heresies and ignorance rewritten, revised and reissued. Our only hope for remaining new wine is by ever coming back to Jesus; only His message is ever new, however long ago, historically, He gave it.
Jesus says, The content of the new relationship with God that I propose cannot be confined within the mode of expression of Judaism. There is such power and vigor in the Gospel, that, by its very nature, it bursts the constrictions of Judaism, or of any other legal system with which it is put. This is why Christianity with its modes of expression is a completely different kind of thing than Judaism, even though it is founded upon the preparations made for it in the Law and Prophets.
There is a succinct warning, however, in Jesus admission that there would be plenty of admirers of the old wine, (Luk. 5:39) And no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says The old is good. He points out how natural it is for those, who have been accustomed to the old worn-out forms of Judaism, to be unwilling to abandon them for what they would consider to be untried and novel. Jesus faces the reality of the old conservatives, the reactionaries in Judaism whose lives were bound up in the formalism and thought patterns of the past. Barclay (Matthew, in loc.) sees the problem of the new idea here:
Jesus was perfectly conscious that He came to men with new ideas and a new conception of the truth, and He was well aware how difficult it is to get a new idea into mens minds at all . . . Our minds must be elastic enough to receive and contain new ideas, since the history of progress is the history of the overcoming of the prejudices of the shut mind.
Some might take exception to Jesus argument, saying, But it is universally conceded among those who know good wines, that the old wine is in fact the best, the most fully matured, the richest flavored. But Plummer (Luke, 164) answers:
The comparative merits of the old and the new wine are not touched by the parable, but the taste for them. One who is accustomed to old will not wish for new: it does not attract him by look or fragrance . . . The prejudiced person will not even try the new, or admit that it has any merits. He knows that the old is pleasant, and suits him; and that is enough; he is not going to change . . .
Compare the relative conversion of an outcast tax-collector, who had less prejudice for the old system, with the conversion of a Pharisee who had advanced in Judaism beyond many fellow countrymen and extremely zealous for the traditions of his fathers. (Gal. 1:13-17; Php. 3:5-6; 1Ti. 1:13; Act. 26:14).
One more note is in order regarding how Jesus dealt with His objectors. He practiced what He preached: mercy and not sacrifice. According to the letter of divine truth and justice, he could have cut down Johns disciples with a withering fire of irrefutable argument. By the sheer power of His voice He could have given them no ground. But in mercy the Lord here gives us a beautiful example by which we may grasp the truth that the Lords servant must not strive, but be kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth! (2Ti. 2:24-25) Our Master was that way. He knew how to concede a point, admitting the natural preference of some Jews for ancient Judaism. As Bruce writes (Training, 75)
This striking sentiment exhibits rare candour in stating the case of opponents, and not less rare modesty and tact in stating the case of friends . . . Too seldom for the churchs good have lovers of the old ways understood Christs wisdom, and lovers of new ways sympathized with His charity.
What Jesus required of the Pharisees (Mat. 9:13), He Himself practiced in this critical encounter with Johns disciples. He is not willing that any of these men should perish, but that they should all come to repentance by leaving the old forms of Judaism, stop trying to correct the faults of the old and just become new men in a new, totally different relation with God. This they could do in His discipleship to which, by His very gentleness in dealing with their problem, He leaves the door open. He proves in everyday practice what He will later affirm of Himself, His meekness (Mat. 11:29). This sheer gentleness with opponents, when such invincible power lay within His grasp, sets Jesus apart as the real Savior of men. (Cf. 2Co. 13:10) This attractive gentleness of Jesus, whereby He deals effectively with human problems, without destroying the confidence or glimmer of hope that Jesus could help, probably caused Johns disciples later to return to the Master, when their great light in Israel had been extinguished. (Joh. 5:35; Mat. 14:12). Here then is the might and wisdom of meekness.
FACT QUESTIONS
1.
What is a place of toll?
2.
Who were the publicans? Describe their occupation, public notoriety, religious and political character as viewed by their contemporaries.
3.
Describe Matthews response to Jesus invitation to be His disciple.
4.
Give evidence that renders psychologically sound the impression given in the text that Matthew responded immediately and decisively to Jesus unusual invitation.
5.
Tell all you know about Matthew Levi.
6.
What passage of Scripture did Jesus cite book, chapter and verse) in defense of His intimacy with such scum as the publicans, and sinners.
7.
What was the probable reason for Matthews giving this feast for Jesus as well as for his acquaintances?
8.
What were the complaints offered regarding Jesus feasting and what two separate groups made them? How did these complaints as well as the complainers differ from each other?
9.
Explain the three parabolic figures used by Jesus to answer the questions raised by those who objected to His feasting instead of fasting.
10.
What particular twist does Luke give to the last illustration, thus making it a fourth illustration? What does Jesus mean by this latter picture?
11.
What particular facts out of oriental life and culture does one need to know in order to grasp the meaning of Jesus last three illustrations about the present bridegroom, the torn cloth needing repair and the bursting wineskins?
12.
Explain the point of view behind the question posed by the disciples of John.
13.
Explain why it was so natural and right for Jesus to be found generally surrounded by sinners. Show how this fact just as deeply demonstrates His identity and true mission to earth as His stupendous miracles.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(9) As Jesus passed forth from thence.All three Gospels agree, as has been noticed, in the sequence of the two events. And the sequence was probably, in part at least, one of cause and effect. The sympathy and power shown in healing the paralytic impressed itself on the mind of one who, as a publican, felt that he too had sins that needed to be forgiven.
A man, named Matthew.St. Mark and St. Luke give the name as Levi, the former adds that he was the son of Alphus. The difference may be explained by assuming that in his case, as in that of Simon who is called (or named) Peter (Mat. 10:2), a new name was given that practically superseded the old. The meaning of Matthewwhich, like Theodore, Dorotheus, and the like, means the gift of God, or, more strictly, the gift of Jehovahmakes a change of this kind in itself probable. If he were the son of Alphus, he would be (assuming identity of person and of name) the brother of the James whose name appears with his own in the second group of four in the lists of the Twelve Apostles.
Sitting at the receipt of custom.Literally, at the custom-house, the douane of the lake. The customs levied there were probably of the nature of an octroi on the fish, fruit, and other produce that made up the exports and imports of Capernaum.
And he saith unto him, Follow me.St. Mark (Mar. 2:13) makes the call follow close upon an unrecorded discourse addressed to the whole multitude of Capernaum. In the nature of the case it was probable that there had been, as in the analogous call of the sons of Jona and Zebedee, a preparation of some kind. A brother had been converted, his own heart had been touched, he had felt (see Note on Mat. 4:13) the presence of the new Teacher as light in the shadow of death.
He arose, and followed him.St. Luke adds, he left all. There was not much to leavehis desk at the custom, his stipend or his percentage; but it was his all, and no man can leave more than that.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
31. CALL OF MATTHEW.
9. Matthew The call of Matthew, as a consultation of the Synopsis will show, occurred early in the history of our Lord, before the Sermon on the Mount. It is inserted in this group of miracles, we might almost suppose, because Matthew himself considered it a miracle of love and mercy to call and inspire him with so ready a faith and so prompt an obedience. Sitting at the receipt of custom In the office of the receiver of the duties on the trades of Lake Gennesaret. Sitting Dr. Thomson remarks: “The people of this country sit at all kinds of work. The carpenter saws, planes, and hews with his hand-adze, sitting on the ground or upon the plank he is planing. The washerwoman sits by the tub; and, in a word, no one stands where it is possible to sit. Shopkeepers always sit; and Levi sitting at the receipt of custom is the exact way to state the case.”
Mr. Morier, at Persepolis, observes: “Here is a station of rahdars, or toll-gatherers, appointed to levy a toll upon kafilers, or caravans of merchants; and who, in general, exercise their office with so much brutality and extortion that they are execrated by all travellers. The collections of the tolls are farmed, consequently extortion ensues; and as most of the rahdars receive no other emolument than what they can exact over and above the prescribed dues from the traveller, their insolence is accounted for, and a cause sufficiently powerful is given for their insolence on the one hand, and the detestation in which they are held on the other.” How unpopular the publicans were in the days of Matthew, is shown by the customary phrase, “publicans and sinners.”
He arose, and followed The promptness of Matthew is not emphasized or expatiated upon, but it appears in the striking rapidity of the narrative. The call of Matthew is the fourth instance of the matter of our Lord’s engaging a disciple which we have had to note in our comment. (See notes on Mat 8:19-22.) It differs in character from either of the other three.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Call of Mat 9:9 .
With this verse Matthew comes to the end of the subsection which began in Mat 8:18 with the reference to other disciples considering following Jesus. Perhaps there is a stress on the fact that while the others had been in doubt, there was no doubt about Matthew. He did unquestionably follow Jesus. Matthew was probably chronologically called before this, but it is placed here partly to seal the subsection that has gone before, and partly to introduce what follows (which takes place in his house. This gathering was probably some time after his call). There may also be the point that the preaching in Mat 4:17 resulted in the successful calling of four disciples, now the revelation made up to this point has resulted in the successful calling of a fifth. The number of genuine disciples who recognise the uniqueness of Jesus, and who submit to the Kingly Rule of Heaven, is gradually growing.
Mat 9:9
‘And as Jesus passed by from there, he saw a man, called Matthew, sitting at the place for the collection of tolls, and he says to him, “Follow me.” And he arose, and followed him.’
In the other synoptic Gospels Matthew is spoken of as Levi at the time of his calling, but as Matthew in the list of Apostles. It was not unusual for people to have two Hebrew names in those days, as many inscriptions make clear. Any speculation on the question of his name is thus just that. Pure speculation to which no answer will ever be found. It is quite likely that Jesus (or indeed he himself) changed his name when He called him, indicating by it that he was a new man. This would adequately explain the change from Levi to Matthew in the other Gospels, with Matthew being his discipleship name.
We can imagine the shock that many must have had when Jesus chose a public servant as a disciple. Such public servants were looked on as traitors and were ostracised. They collected taxes on behalf of either the Romans or Herod and took a cut for themselves, regularly using violent methods in order to achieve their targets. They would be accompanied by soldiers and were not above having people roughed up. While as a ‘customs official’ Matthew would not have indulged in the wildest excesses of the taxation industry most people would have frowned to see him amongst the Apostles.
That he collected tolls, probably at a border post, indicates a man used to keeping records. He would thus be a useful addition to the Apostolic band, and that especially because he would be meticulous in the keeping of records. He may well therefore have become the group’s recorder. As his position had presumably also ensured that he was fluent in at least Greek and Aramaic, with a smattering of other languages as well, this would well qualify him for keeping records of Jesus’ teaching and ensuring that it was later passed on to the churches.
His call was simple. Jesus said, ‘Follow Me.’ And he did. It was a royal command. But there is no reason to doubt that he had been an avid listener to Jesus’ message prior to this. We can almost certainly assume that Jesus had previously spoken with him, and had now picked him out as suitable to be an Apostle. The impression given is that like the four that we know of as called previously (Mat 4:18-22) he followed Jesus immediately. Presumably there were colleagues working with him who could take over his duties at the time. And we should consider the fact that if Jesus considered him to be suitable there can be no doubt about his ability to write a Gospel.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
A Description of Discipleship ( Mar 2:13-17 , Luk 5:27-32 ) Mat 9:9-17 is the second of three important narrative sections placed immediately after three witnesses of Jesus’ healing ministry that reflects the theme of the upcoming discourse (Mat 10:1 to Mat 11:1), which is the divine call to discipleship and Christian service in the Kingdom of Heaven. This second section gives a description of true discipleship in the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus calls Matthew, who forsakes all (Mat 9:9) and follows Him as they feast with sinners (Mat 9:10-13) and He ignores the traditional Jewish role of fasting (Mat 9:14-17). This story is placed within narrative material that places emphasis upon Jesus training His disciples (Mat 8:1 to Mat 9:38) in order to send them out (Mat 10:1-42). In its immediate context, Jesus has just demonstrated His authority over nature, over the demonic realm, and over sin and sickness. He now calls His disciples to forsake the traditions of men in order to walk in the same divine authority of His name, no longer being bound by the fear of men through their traditions.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. Jesus Calls Matthew Mat 9:9-13
2. Questions on Fasting Mat 9:14-17
Publicans – See also Luk 15:1-2 and Mar 2:15-17 for other passages that mention publicans.
Mat 9:9-13 Jesus Calls Matthew In Mat 9:9-13 Jesus calls Matthew to forsake all and follow Him.
Mat 9:9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
Mat 9:10 Mat 9:10
Luk 5:29, “And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.”
Mat 9:10 “many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples” – Comments – The publicans were tax collectors, collectors of revenue and taxes in behalf of ancient Rome. The Roman Empire of this day taxed its provinces, of which Judea was one. Some Jews were hired by Rome to collect taxes. Because of the tax system, they had the opportunity to exact unfair taxes. Many corrupt publicans took advantage of this opportunity. So the Jews despised these Jewish publicans and considered them traitors and apostates to the nation of Israel.
Characteristics of publicans:
1. They were avoided: Mat 18:17, “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”
2. They were considered bad people: Luk 18:11, “The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.”
3. They loved one another: Mat 5:46, “For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?”
4. They salute one another: Mat 5:47, “And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?”
5. Some obtained wealth: Luk 19:1-2, “And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.”
6. They seemed to be rejected and looked down upon by society, being associated with sinners: Mar 2:15, “And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.”
7. They were baptized at John the Baptist’s baptism: Luk 3:12, “Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?”
8. They received Jesus: Mat 21:32, “For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.”
Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
Mat 9:11
Luk 7:29-30, “And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.”
Mat 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
Mat 9:12
Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Mat 9:13
1Ti 1:15, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief .”
Scripture References – Note similar verses:
Mat 18:11, “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”
Joh 3:16-17, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
Rom 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
Mat 9:13 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – This passage is a quote from Hos 6:6:
Hos 6:6, “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”
Comments – What God wanted was not sacrifices for the sake of performing a ritual. Instead, God wanted the people to offer these sacrifices as a way of expressing their love and devotion to Him. These offerings were opportunities to give God thanks and praise, and they were times to ask God forgiveness for their sins. It was a time that a person could give an offering in faith to God in order to receive greater blessings from Him, while providing the needs of the priests.
God desires mercy “more than” a particular sacrifice. God tells the children of Israel the same thing through Jeremiah:
Jer 7:22-23, “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.”
Frances J. Roberts writes, “Marvel not that I have said that ye must be born anew. Of the flesh, nothing that is spiritual can ever be produced. Spiritual life shall bring forth that which is spiritual; and likewise, carnal flesh shall bring forth only more carnality. This is why I said I loathed your sacrifices. It was not that I despised the ordinance in itself, but that I perceived that it was a product of the flesh an expression of self-righteousness and indifference to the claim of God upon thy heart. My ordinances are good and holy, but they are to be entered into with deep sincerity and with awareness of their true significance. To sacrifice in carelessness and ignorance is to damage thine own soul. Let thy spirit never become callous.” [418]
[418] Frances J. Roberts, Come Away My Beloved (Ojai, California: King’s Farspan, Inc., 1973), 15.
Comments – Note Mic 6:6-8:
Mic 6:6-8, “Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”
God desires us to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly before God, rather than to make a bunch of sacrifices with a wicked heart. Note Isa 29:13. The people were drawing near God with their mouths, but their hearts were far from Him. This is what the Pharisees were doing.
Isa 29:13, “Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:”
Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in Mat 9:13. He was showing to the publicans and sinners mercy and kindness. The Pharisees, who were concerned about the Law, were violating the Law. Jesus showed to the Pharisees their evil heart in this situation.
Hos 6:6, “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”
Mat 9:14-17 Questions On Fasting ( Mar 2:18-22 , Luk 5:33-39 ) Mat 9:14-17 gives us the story of John’s disciples coming to Jesus and asking Him about fasting. This story is placed with narrative material the places emphasis upon Jesus training His disciples (Mat 8:1 to Mat 9:38) in order to send them out (Mat 10:1-42).
Mat 9:14 Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
Mat 9:15 Mat 9:16 Mat 9:16
Mat 9:16 “unto an old garment” – Comments – The old garment represents the old, unrenewed man.
Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
Mat 9:17
Mat 9:17 “but they put new wine into new bottles” – Comments – New bottles were made of fresh animal skins; thus they were pliable and able to contain the gases that formed during the fermentation process. The new wine represents the Holy Spirit who will indwell the saints under the new covenant. These new winskins represent the man who has been born again.
Psa 31:12, “I am forgotten as a dead man out of mind: I am like a broken vessel.”
Rom 8:9, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
1Co 6:19, “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”
It also illustrates the coming of the Holy Spirit into the new man. The wine is figurative of the Holy Spirit that is given to believers. See Joh 14:16-17.
Luk 11:13, “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”
Joh 7:39, “(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)”
Joh 14:16-17, “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”
2Co 5:17, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”
Mat 9:17 Scripture Reference – Note a similar verse in Job 32:19, “Behold, my belly is as wine which hath no vent; it is ready to burst like new bottles.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Call of Matthew and His Feast.
v. 9. And as Jesus passed forth from thence, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the receipt of custom. And He saith unto him, Follow Me. And he arose and followed Him. After Christ had performed the healing of the palsied man, He left the house in order to go down to the seaside, Mar 2:13. On His way He passed the customhouse of Capernaum, which was in charge of Levi, the son of Alphaeus, who was after this called Matthew, and who proudly records the fact in his account of his call. This toll-house was a busy place, since the caravan road between Egypt and Damascus passed through the city. But at Christ’s characteristic invitation Matthew promptly complies. He may have known Jesus before, he could hardly have missed hearing of Him. The call was more than a mere invitation, it was a direct enrolling of the publican among those that stood nearest to the Lord.
Roman Government And Tax Collection In Palestine
Rome was the fourth world power to get possession of Palestine and to make the Jews vassals. The latter, while retaining the characteristics of their nationality and laying a greater emphasis than ever on the externals of their religion, had not been an independent nation for any great length of time since the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. Even the reign of the Maccabees proved to be only a last desperate attempt to return to the ancient power and glory. Disrupted by a civil war between the Asmonean Sadducees and the Pharisees, the nation was not in a position to present a united front against an enemy from without. The Roman general Pompey, who was just then conducting a campaign in Syria, gladly availed himself of the opportunity to interfere. The hatred of the opposing parties made a peaceful settlement of their differences impossible, and so Pompey finally took the city on the 23d of Sivan, a fast-day, in the year 63 B. C. Although he entered the Temple, and even visited the Holy of Holies, he did not interfere with the worship of the Jews, being content with having made them tributary to the power of Rome.
At the beginning of the Christian era the Idumean Herod was king of Judea, which included practically the entire country as it had been in the time of David. After his death, Archelaus became ruler of Idumea, Judea, and Samaria, under the title of ethnarch. In the year 6 A. D. , he was banished to Vienne, in the province of Gaul, and his dominions were annexed to the province of Syria. Thus it was that the southern part of Palestine was ruled by governors, among whom were Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus. These were under the supervision of the Roman legate for Syria, and they made Caesarea their capital, visiting Jerusalem only occasionally. Herod Antipas became tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. Philip received Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, Panias, and Iturea, and resided at Scythopolis, later at Caesarea Philippi. At his death his territories were included in the province of Syria, and in 37 given to Agrippa.
The Romans, in the case of Judea, followed the same policy which they had employed toward their other provinces and tributary countries. They made it a point not to interfere with the religion of a people nor to hinder any religious usages, so long as they did not conflict with the glory of Rome. But the laws of Rome had to be enforced, and Roman garrisons were stationed in the principal cities, that of Jerusalem occupying the tower of Antonia, adjacent to the Temple. The adjustment of religious differences was in the hands of the ecclesiastical authorities, but punishments of a civil and criminal nature were in the hands of the government, including the sentence of death pronounced upon the basis of a religious transgression. The presence of Roman soldiers was always deeply resented by the Jews, and especially by the Pharisees, as an unjustified encroachment upon ancient liberties.
The greatest difficulty, the chief point of contention, between the Jews and the Roman government lay in the question of taxes. The members of the Jewish Church, both in Palestine and in the Diaspora, Joh 7:35, felt the obligation of maintaining their elaborate form of worship as a heavy burden. The voluntary contributions, the oblations and offerings, did not afford sufficient revenue for the upkeep of the Temple and for the payment of the many priests and Levites, and so assessments had to be levied upon every member of the Church. The annual Temple-tax imposed upon all those that were numbered was, at the time of Jesus, half a shekel , or a double drachma , about 60 cents, Mat 17:24-27.
The collection of taxes for the Roman government was in the hands of the equestrian order. The members of this order, in turn, sold the privilege to prominent men in the provinces, who, after figuring a good profit, turned the matter over to the tax-gatherers proper, all of whom were just as anxious to turn a penny to their own account. The result was a system of robbery which left nothing to be desired for thoroughness. Unjust valuation, extortion, blackmail, was the order of the day, and the people had to suffer. The Talmud distinguishes two classes of publicans, the tax-gatherer in general and the custom-house official. The former collected the regular dues, which consisted of ground-, income-, and poll-tax. Here was opportunity for unjust exactions, since the ground-tax amounted to ten and even up to twenty, the income-tax to one per cent. But the cruelty of the system became especially apparent in the case of the custom-house official, for there was tax and duty upon all imports and exports, on all that was bought and sold, bridge-money, road-money, harbor-dues, town-dues, etc. A merchant’s journey was rendered anything but pleasant when he had to expect to unload all his pack-animals, open every bale and package, and have his private letters opened.
At the time of Jesus a decree of Caesar had changed the system of tax-gathering somewhat by having the taxes levied by publicans in Judea and paid directly to the government. But this change did little to ease the burden of the people, and only made the publicans more unpopular, as being the direct officials of the heathen power. And it mattered little whether the publican was “great,” like Zacchaeus, Luk 19:2, and employed substitutes, or “small,” and stood at the receipt of custom himself, Mat 9:9. The publicans, though for the most part members of the Jewish nation and Church, were disqualified from being judges and witnesses, and were quite generally treated as social outcasts, on a level with the open sinners.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 9:9. As Jesus passedthence, he saw a man, &c. St. Luke, in the parallel place, calls St. Matthew a publican, which was a very odious name among the Jews, as the employment was attended with so much corruption and temptation, that there were but few honest men supposed to be engaged in it. They were generally persons of so infamous and vile a character, that publicans and sinners are often joined together as synonymous terms. See on ch. Mat 5:46 Mat 9:11 Mat 11:19. The original word properly signifies the custom-house; some have rendered it tolbooth; which, say Beausobre and Lenfant, was a place near the lake and harbour; there were toll-booths on the great roads, as also on the lakes and rivers. The other Evangelists call St. Matthew by the more honourable name of Levi. Porphyry and Julian have blamed St. Matthew for following one of whom he had so little knowledge, thus rashly, as they are pleased to call it. But as it is evident that this publican lived in Capernaum, or near it, he must have often heard our Lord preach; for it was the town where he ordinarily resided; and probably he might have been witness to a number of Christ’s miracles: wherefore the opposers of our religion must forgive us if we affirm, that there was neither rashness nor imprudence in the readiness which Matthew shewed to follow Jesus. He might have been his disciple long before this, and only waited for permission to attend him. But farther; why may we not suppose that a divine and supernatural influence attended this call of our Lord? which, considering all its circumstances, may well be acknowledged as great a miracle as any ofthosewhichwehave before reviewed. Dr. Doddridge makes the following pleasing and pious remarks upon the event. “Let us view, with humble wonder and pleasure, this farther instance of the condescension and grace of the Redeemer, in the call of Matthew: his condescension, in calling to so near an attendance, and so intimate a friendship, a man who was a publican, infamous as that employment was; and his grace, which could immediately inspire this publican with so firm a resolution of quitting all the profits of that employment; that he might reduce himself to circumstances of life as precarious as those of his divine Master. Many, no doubt, censured him as a rash enthusiast and a lunatic, rather than as a sober convert; but he is even now reaping the abundant reward: his loss is gain, and his contempt glory.” See on ch. Mat 10:2, &c.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 9:9-10 . Comp. Mar 2:13 ff. (whom Matthew follows) and Luk 5:27 ff.
] not: as He went farther (as is commonly supposed), but (Mat 20:30 ; Mar 1:16 ; Mar 15:21 ; Joh 9:1 ; 1Co 7:31 ): as He went away from where (He had cured the paralytic), and was passing by ( 3Ma 6:16 ; Polyb. v. 18. 4), the place, that is, where Matthew was. Exactly as in Mar 2:14 , and in Mat 9:27 below.
. .] Named Matthew (Mat 2:23 , Mat 26:36 , Mat 27:33 ), anticipation of the apostolic name.
] the custom-house of the place (Poll. ix. 28). On Matthew himself and his identity with Levi (Mar 2:14 ; Luk 5:27 ), further confirmed in Constitt. Ap . viii. 22. 1, see introduction, 1. Considering the locality, it may be assumed that Matthew already knew something of Jesus, the extraordinary Rabbi and worker of miracles in that district, and that he does not now for the first time and all of a sudden make up his mind to join the company of His disciples ( ). What is here recorded is the moment of the decision (in answer to Strauss, B. Bauer). This in opposition to Paulus, who interprets thus: “Go with me into thy house!” See Strauss, II. p. 570, who, however, sweeps away everything in the shape of a historical substratum, save the fact that Jesus really had publicans among His disciples, and that probably Matthew had likewise been one of this class; “that these men had, of course, left the seat at the custom-house to follow Jesus, yet only in the figurative sense peculiar to such modes of expression, and not literally, as the legend depicts it.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
V
The miracle of the call of Matthew to the Apostolate; the feast of the Lord with the publicans; twofold stumblingblock of the Pharisees and disciples of John: or, Christs gracious working despite the contradiction of legal piety.
Mat 9:9-17 (Mar 2:13-22; Luk 5:27-39)
9And as Jesus passed forth [on] from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom [custom-house]: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. 10And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat [reclined at table] in the house, behold, many publicans4 and sinners came and sat down [reclined] with him and his disciples. 11And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples,Why eateth your master with publicans and sinners? 12But when Jesus5 heard that, he said unto them, They that be [are] whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. 13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.: for I am not come to call the righteous6, but sinners to repentance.7
14Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft [often], but thy disciples fast not? 15And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days8 will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.16No man putteth a piece [patch] of new [unwrought] cloth unto [on] an old garment;9 for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is madeworse. 17Neither do men put new wine into old [skin.] bottles: else the bottles break [the skins burst], and the wine runneth out, and the [skin.] bottles perish:10 but the, put new wine into new [skin.] bottles, and both are preserved [together].11
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Mat 9:9. On the identity between Matthew and Levi, comp. the Introduction; Mar 2:14; Luk 5:27. Probably Matthew had already, at a former period, entered into closer relationship with the Lord.
.The place where custom was levied, toll-house, custom-house, collectors office. His way led Him past the receipt of custom () .
Mat 9:10. As Jesus sat, better: lay, or reclined, at table in the houseaccording to Eastern custom. It was the practice to recline on divans, resting upon the left arm. The house, which is here designated with the article, was, no doubt, that of the publican. Meyer maintains that it was the house of Jesus,12 since we read in the former verse that Matthew followed Him, as if to follow the Lord meant to accompany Him across the street! Luke relates that the feast took place in the house of Levi (Matthew). We cannot see any difficulty, unless, like Fritzsche and Meyer, we were to take in its gross literality an expression which evidently means, that from that moment Matthew followed Christ as His disciple in the narrowest sense. De Wette correctly remarks that it is not likely that Christ ever gave dinner-parties.13
And sinners.Meyer: Worthless persons generally (!). We should rather say, in general, those whom the Pharisees had excommunicated from the synagogues.
Mat 9:12. The wholethe sick,i. e., according to Mat 9:13, the righteous and sinners. De Wette supposes that the former referred to persons who were really righteous in the Jewish and legal sense; while Meyer takes it ironically, as applying to their boasted righteousness. We would combine the two ideas. They imagined that they were righteous, regarding legal righteousness as sufficient before God. On the other hand, those who in the text are called sinners, were not merely such from the Jewish point of view, but felt themselves guilty when brought in contact with the righteousness of Christ. Most aptly, therefore, does Calvin designate this as an ironica concessio.
Mat 9:13. I will have mercy.I take pleasure, I desire. Hos 6:6, after the Septuagint. The opinion of de Wette, that the term , in Hosea, means piety, is ungrounded.And not sacrifice. The comparison may be relative; but when mercy and sacrifice are placed in opposition to each other, it becomes absolute, because the sacrifice then loses all its value, and becomes an act of hypocrisy. The expression, , go and learn, answers to the rabbinical formula, . Schttgen.
Mat 9:14. The disciples of John, etc.St. Luke represents the Pharisees as in this case also urging the objection, and Schleiermacher considers this the authentic version of the event. De Wette regards the narrative of Luke as a correction upon Matthew, and deems it improbable that the disciples of John should have come forward as here related. Meyer decides simply in favor of the account of Matthew. Luke may have represented the Pharisees as putting the question proposed by the disciples of John, because the latter shared many of the views of the Pharisees, and were in danger of going further in that direction, from their attachment to John and to his asceticism. These were the disciples of John who would not be guided by their masters direction to the Lamb of God.
Mat 9:15. The children of the bride-chamber, .On the day of marriage, the bridegroom went, adorned and anointed, to the house of the bride, attended by his companions (, Jdg 14:11), and led her, attended by her maidens, in festive procession, with music and dancing, at even, by torchlight, into the house of his father. The marriage feast, which was defrayed by the bridegroom, lasted seven days. (See the Bibl. Encyclops. sub Marriage.)
Mourn.The Lord here indicates that fasting must be the result of . The other Evangelists have . Fasting should be the expression of sorrow; not merely an outward exercise, but the expression of an inward state. De Wette. The primary object of our Lord, therefore, was to show the impropriety of those fasts which had no proper motive, and hence were untrue. The present was the festive season for the disciples; and it was theirs to show this by their outward gladness. The Roman Catholics infer from this verse, that, since the death of Christ, it is necessary to fast. Heubner. If this were to be consistently carried out, we should have to fast the whole year round.
Mat 9:16. No man putteth a patch of un-wrought [or unfulled] cloth.Two similes taken from common life to illustrate the principles of the Divine economy. In both cases, it is not so much the unsuitableness of adding the new to the old which is brought out, as the folly of bringing together what is not only new, but fresh, with that which is not only old, but antiquated. Hence, in the first example, we have not only a piece of new cloth, but of raw and unwrought material, which will shrink. Accordingly, the piece inserted to fill it up () will make the rent worse by the strain upon the old cloth. Similarly, the new wine which is still fermenting, expands, and will thus burst the old skin bottles. The antagonism between the old and the new arises, therefore, not merely from the imperfectness of the old, but also from that of the new, which, however, from its inherent nature, must develop and expand. An arrangement of this kind were, therefore, not merely unsuitable, but even destructive,making matters worse, instead of improving them. The result in both cases would be, that the old and the new would perish together. A careful examination shows that the two similes are intended to supplement each other. The first meets the case of the disciples of John, with whom the old was the principal consideration, and the new only secondary; i. e., they regarded Christianity merely as a reformation of the Old Covenant, as a piece of new cloth to fill up a rent in the old garment. The second simile applies more especially to the disciples of Jesus. Here, Christianity is the primary consideration (the new wine from the Vine of Israel), whilst the old forms of the theocracy were secondary. In both cases, the result is the same. But, besides its special lessons, the second simile is also intended to show how entirely false the view alluded to in the first simile was, that Christianity was only a piece of new cloth to mend the torn garment of the old theocracy.
Mat 9:17. Bottles, or lit.: skins, .In the East, water, milk, wine, oil, and similar commodities, were, and are still, preserved and transported in leathern bottles, which were commonly made of the hides of goats, rarely of camels, and asses. The exterior of the skin, after having been suitably prepared, was generally used as the interior of the bottle. See the quotations of Heubner (p. 128) from Lucian and Aulus Gellius.14
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. It is important to study the external and internal connection between the call of the publican to the apostolate, and the commencement of open hostility to the gracious forgiveness of sins by Jesus on the part of the Pharisees. When they who had a historical claim upon the Gospel rejected its provisions, they were offered to those who had a spiritual claim upon the glad tidings, by being prepared and ready to receive them. Christ, the Saviour of sinners, reviled by the Pharisees, turns to the publicans, and calls one of their number to the apostolic office. Thus, at a later period, the hostility of the scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem led to His entering a heathen country, when He passed into the territory of Tyre and Sidon, there to display His grace in the case of the Syrophenician woman, Matthew 15. In an analogous manner, also, the Lord interpreted the Old Testament narratives concerning Elijah and the heathen widow of Sarepta, and Elisha and Naaman the Syrian (Luk 4:25, etc.). The conduct of Paul was precisely similar. When the Jews in their unbelief rejected the Gospel, he turned to the Gentiles (Act 13:46; Act 18:6). Hence, while the conversion of the publican was a grand sign that the Lord now turned to the outcasts, the call of Matthew to the apostolate was a miracle of grace.
2. The quotation of Christ from the prophecies of Hosea, is generally adduced as expressing the contrast between the New Covenant and the degenerate form which the Old had assumed. Similarly, it may be applied to the contrast between Evangelical Protestant Christianity and the secularized medival Church. Nor are we, perhaps, mistaken in tracing a like difference between a devout and living piety and a fanatical orthodoxy, which too often contravenes the demands of the heart, and is radically opposed to Christian humanity.
3. Perhaps the circumstances in which John the Baptist was placed, may in part account for the gloomy disposition of his disciples. For some time past John had been in prison, and they looked to Jesus for help in this emergency; nor could they understand how, in the meantime, He could take part in festive entertainments.
4. It is significant, that even at that period the objections of the disciples of John were allied to those of the Pharisees. But there was this difference between them, that while the latter questioned the disciples, as if to turn them from their Master, the followers of John addressed themselves directly to the Master Himself. Even in their case, however, we miss that full which should characterize the Christian. They do not venture to blame Christ openly. The Pharisees had questioned the disciples, Why eateth your Master? etc.; while the disciples of John ask the Master, Why do Thy disciples fast not ? Fanaticism assumes only the appearance of , especially when, kindled by the sympathy of an excited majority, it is arrayed against a minority. Then those flaming declamations of self-satisfied eloquence burst forth, which the multitude regard as the voice of an archangel, while they are utterly opposed to that deep calm engendered by the Spirit of adoption, who inspires even a weak minority to speak with . Finally, this occurrence seems to form the turning-point in history at which the later disciples of John separated from their teacher. The difference, which was afterward fully established, continues even to this day.
5. The reply of the Lord to the disciples of John contains a canon perpetually binding, in respect of the relation between form and substance. The principles itself has never been sufficiently appreciated. Even Master Philip [Melanchthon] seemed always prone to put the new wine of Gospel truth into the old bottles. The same attempt was made at a later period by the Jansenists, and gave rise to the tragic history of the Port Royal. In our own days, also, some seem still to be of opinion that the unwrought cloth may be put upon the old garment, and the new wine be preserved in decaying bottles. The warning of Christ applies to all times, that the life of His Church is not to be surrendered by forcing it into antiquated forms. But it also implies that genuine Christian forms should be preserved, along with the truth which they convey.
6. The reply of Jesus to His disciples appears the more striking, when we remember the last testimony of the Baptist concerning Him. He that has the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegrooms voice (Joh 3:29). Jesus seems only to continue and to follow up the speech of their master when He replied to Johns disciples: Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn and fast, so long as the bridegroom is with them? Lastly, the Lord here points forward to His future sufferings and death as a period for inward fasting. This fasting, which is to succeed the sufferings and death of Christ, consists in a complete renunciation of the world.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Jesus goes to all classes, into all streets, and to all men.The greatness of Divine grace, which can make of a publican an Apostle. 1. According to Jewish traditionalism, the publican was an excommunicated person; but he is now called to assist in founding the communion of Christ. 2. He was an apostate from the people of God, but called to become one of the pillars of the Church of God. 3. An instrument of oppression, but becomes an instrument of glorious liberty. 4. A stumblingblock and a byeword, but becomes a burning and a shining light.Grace is not stopped by any customhouse, and pays no toll.High call of the Lord to the publican, and great faith of the publican in the Lord.Matthew the Apostle relates, to the glory of God, that he had formerly been a publican.The publican and the Apostle.The Divine call must determine us to relinquish an ambiguous occupation.Strange circumstance, that the Lord and His disciples should sit down at meat with publicans and sinners. 1. How can this be? Because the Lord does not conform to the publicans and sinners, but they to Him. He not only continues the Master, but becomes theirs. 2. What does it convey to our minds? Infinite compassion, manifesting itself in full self-surrender, despite difficulties and objections.Christ and His disciples are still at meat with publicans and sinners.When the Pharisees saw it, they said, Why? How this question has ever since been reiterated in the history of the Eucharist (Novatianism; refusal of the cup; Eucharistic Controversy).The reply of Jesus, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick: 1. A calm exposition: they that are whole are really whole, and they that are sick, really sick, in the legal sense. 2. A solemn warning: they that are whole are sick unto death, because they deem themselves whole; while a sense of their spiritual sickness renders the others capable of life. 3. A decisive judgment: salvation is for sinners who feet their need, not for the self-righteous.Eternal import of the saying, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. 1. Rather mercy than sacrifice, if the two be put in comparison; 2. only mercy and not sacrifice, if the two are put in antagonism; 3. mercy exclusively, to the rejection of sacrifice, if the one is set up in contradiction to the other.Mercy the most acceptable and holy sacrifice.Sacrifices, to the exclusion of mercy, not offerings, but robbery.Sad conflict between mercy and sacrifice, throughout the course of history.Lessons derived from the declaration of Jesus, I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance: 1. Character and prospects of the sinners who listen to the call of Jesus. 2. Character of the religion which ignores Christ and His pardon.Inquiry of the disciples of John, or characteristics of the legalist: 1. He would give laws to others as well as to himself; 2. he would give laws without heeding the requirements of the case; 3. he is ready to take the part of the worst legalism (we and the Pharisees), and to assail with his puny objections the holiest liberty (but Thy disciples fast not).Arrogance of legalism: 1. The disciples of the Baptist assume the place of being the masters of the Lord; 2. they venture to censure Him according to the traditions of their school; 3. they adduce the Pharisees as authorities against Christ Himself.The bridal and the mourning season of the disciples: 1. Wherein each consists; 2. the appropriate manifestation of each.It is one of the first principles of true Christianity, that every outward manifestation must proceed from an inward state.The Christian life a continuous marriage feast, which may be interrupted, but is not broken up, by the sufferings of this present world.Christ the Bridegroom of the Church: 1. As such He came at first; 2. as such He went away; 3. as such He will return.Sad mistakes in the kingdom of God, which can only entail harm: 1. To mend that which is antiquated by putting on it a piece of new cloth; 2. by forcing the new life into antiquated forms. Or, 1. To garnish legalism with the gospel; 2. to force the gospel into the forms of legalism.All attempts at patching unavailing.The law and the gospel cannot be mixed up: 1. Because the gospel is infinitely more strict than the law (the unwrought piece shrinks); 2. because it is infinitely more free than the law (the new wine bursts the mouldering bottles).Hierarchism might learn many a lesson from those who patch, and from those who cultivate the vine.The sentence of Christ upon ecclesiastical questions: 1. New cloth, a new garment; 2. new wine, new bottles.The true principles of genuine ecclesiastical conservatism.Above all, we must aim to preserve, 1. the life along with the forms; and then, 2. the forms with the life.Consequences of false conservatism in the Church: 1. These attempts at tailoring in spiritual matters are opposed even to common sense and everyday practice. 2. The old forms are destroyed by the new life, and the new life by the old forms. 3. The work of destruction is continued while they clamor against destruction, until the new and the old are finally separated.How the Lord prepares the wed ding garment and the new wine for the kingdom of God.The threefold mark of the new life: 1. It assumes a definite outward form; 2. it cannot continue in the false and antiquated forms; 3. it must create for itself corresponding forms.
Starke:Christ is not ashamed of the greatest sinners.Osiander:It is easier to convert open sinners than hypocrites. This is more difficult than to break through a mountain of iron.Christ the highest Physician.Difference in ecclesiastical usages is not incompatible with unity in the faith.Zeisius:Constraint and Christian liberty cannot well be combined.
Gerlach:Marginal note of Luther: There are two kinds of suffering,the one of our own choosing, such as the rules of the monks, just as the priests of Baal cut themselves (1Ki 18:28). The world, the Pharisees, and the followers of John regard such sufferings as a great matter, but God despises it. The other kind of suffering is sent us by the Lord; and willingly to bear this cross, is right and well-pleasing in the sight of God. Hence Christ says that His disciples fast not because the Bridegroom is with them: i. e., since God had not sent them sufferings, and Christ was still with them to protect them, they neither sought nor invented sorrow for themselves, for such were without value before God; but when He was taken from them, they both fasted and suffered.
Heubner:Compassion and love toward sinners is the sacrifice most acceptable to Godof far greater value than the most pompous worship.Christianity is opposed to all slavish discipline.The doctrine of Jesus cannot be combined with the old traditions of Pharisaism. This were only miserable patch-work.
Footnotes:
[4] Mat 9:10.[Publicans for is better than tagatherers which has been suggested by some as more intelligible. For, as Dr. Conant correctly remarks, a tagatherer is not necessarily a publican, though a publican is a targatherer. The term publican is as much established in Scriptual usage, as the terms Pharise, Sadducee, scribe, Baptist, etc. It suggests the oppressive system of taxation in the old Roman empire and the arbitrary exaction and fraud connected with it. The taxes were sold by the Roman government to the highest bidders, who gave security for the sum to be paid to the state, and were allowed to collect from the provinces as much as they could beyond it, for their own benefit and that of their numerous agents and subagents.P. S.]
[5] Mat 9:12. is omitted in Cod. B. [also in Cod. Sinait] and in some translations. According to Meyer it was inserted from the parallel passages.
[6] Mat 9:13.[Dr. Lange omits the article before righteous, according to the Greek. The art would seem to imply that there are really righteous persons; while there are such only in their own conceit Dr. Conant omits the art., and translates: righteous men.P. S.]
[7] Mat 9:13. is wanting in Cod. B., D., L., [Cod. Sinait], in several translations and fathers. Comp. Luk 5:32.
[8] Mat 9:15.[Days, , without the article. So also Lange: Es werden aber Tage Kommen. Cod. Sinait omits the words: , .P. S.]
[9] Mat 9:16.[Dr. Lange: Niemand flickt einen Lappen von ungewalktem Zeug auf ein altes Kleid, i.e., a patch of unfulled cloth on an old garment, which is more literal.]
[10] Mat 9:17.Lachmann, following B. and other Codd. [among which must be mentioned now the Cod. of Mt. Sinai] reads [instead of ].
[11] Mat 9:17.[Preserved together, ; Lange: miteinander erhalten.P. S.]
[12][Meyer means, of course, the house in which Jesus dwelt at the time. For from Mat 8:20; Luk 9:58, it is evident that Christ had no house of his own.P. S.]
[13][It is due to Meyer to remark that he treats this objection as gratuitous, since the Evangelist, he thinks, speaks only of an ordinary meal of Jesus with His disciples. But whence the many publicans and sinners, who took part in it?P. S.]
[14][Comp. also Dr. Robinson, Bibl. Researches, ii., p. 440, and Dr. Hackett, Illustrations of Scripture from Eastern Travel. pp. 4446. who tells us that he met these skin-bottles, or bags made of the skins of animals for holding water, wine, and other liqui is in the houses, and transporting them on journeys, at Cairo at almost every turn in the streets, and everywhere in Egypt and Syria. It was a water-skin (according to the Hebrew) which Abraham placed on the shoulder of Hagar, when he sent her forth into the desert (Gen 21:14).P. S.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
The call of Matthew is most interesting, and serves to mark the distinguishing grace of God. His name from Mattan, a gift, seems suited to one who received the free gift of the Lord. Here was no preparation, no enquiry after Christ; no waiting at ordinances, yea, not so much as a conscious sense in the heart of Matthew, of his want of salvation. He was sitting in his gainful office of a Publican, or tax-gatherer: an office odious to all the people of Israel, and when exercised by a descendant of Israel, yet more hateful. Such was Matthew; and so employed, when the Lord Jesus passed by, and called him from a tax gatherer, to be an Apostle and Evangelist. Oh what grace was here? How truly was that scripture fulfilled, I am found of them that sought me not. Isa 65:1 . What an astonishing instance of mercy was this. How very powerful must have been the call! How gracious on the part of Jesus! How surprising to the heart of Matthew? And observe the instant effects. No sooner doth Jesus call, but Matthew obeys. And as Jesus opened Matthew’s heart to receive him, Matthew opens his house to welcome Jesus. Neither is this all. For as this one Publican had found mercy from the Lord, Matthew invited other Publicans to come and find mercy also. There is enough in Christ for all. What a lovely view to behold the Great Redeemer, encircled at Matthew’s table, with Publicans and Sinners! The murmuring of the Pharisees is just as might be expected, and such as hath marked Pharisees in all ages. But what a lovely answer the Lord gave to the charge. The very character of Christ, as the Physician of the Soul, naturally led him to haunts of sickness, for the exercise of his profession. And by referring them to that memorable passage in the prophet Hos 6:6 . Jesus took the words as applicable to himself in confirmation of his office: Jehovah Rophe, I am the Lord that healeth thee. Exo 15:26 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 36
Prayer
Almighty God, we have heard of thine anger, but we have not felt it; surely thou hast shown unto us only thy love, and made thy goodness to touch us with its gentle hand. We have heard of thy fire, but it hath not scorched us; we have been warmed by thy summer sun. Thou hast been to us a God of love and tenderness, thine eyes have been full of the tears of pity, in thine heart has been the yearning of a great compassion. Truly thou hast now and again given us one night of weeping, but the tears endured but for the night; they vanished in the morning; then thou didst come to us with renewed tenderness, gentler than ever, as if thou wouldst make the night of trouble the beginning of a better and brighter time.
We will speak of the goodness of the Lord, and our memory concerning his mercy shall be vivid, and we will sing unto the Lord of mercy and of judgment, for thy ways concerning us have been ways of compassion, and thy righteousness has been attempered to our weakness. Wherein we have desired to be better, thou hast not scourged us with reproach; when tears of pity have risen to thine eyes, we have been encouraged to draw nearer to thee. Behold thou dost welcome us at the cross, on the cross we see the manifestation of thy tenderest heart-love, and there we meet thee, having broken thy law, having insulted thy Spirit, and there, by looking away from ourselves to the slain Lamb, the one sacrifice, the infinite atonement, we receive thy pardon, and into our hearts there comes the hush of an infinite peace.
We bless thee for all these revelations of thyself; they startle us, yet afterwards they give unto us the utterest comfort. For a moment they amaze and confound us, and gradually they settle down into the guests of our heart that enlighten and warm and cheer it. Evermore do thou grow upon the vision of our love, fill the whole horizon of our life, shut out every other figure, and destroy the light of every other attraction.
Abide with us, loving Father, loving Son: abide with us, thou Spirit of life and Spirit of fire. We mourn our sin; it is the tale we tell to every sunset, and it is the tragedy we renew with every sunrise. Our very breathing is sin, our every look is a blasphemy, our every thought is stained with evil or imprisoned within the compass of the mean earth. We are wanting in purity and in nobleness and spiritual freedom, we are the slaves of sin if the chain be broken in the morning it is riveted anew at night. God be merciful unto us sinners. Thou art still making us, thou art still making man, thou art still redeeming us whilst the cross stands the great redemption proceeds. Thou wilt have us in thy holy keeping; thou hast not brought us to this hour of life that thou mightest put a knife through our heart and cast us away as worthless ones: thou hast not extended the miracles of thy grace upon us that we might be trodden under foot and forgotten of the universe; thy purposes towards us are good; thy meaning is inspired by love; thou hast called us and sealed us and inspired us with holiest hope, and thou wilt not at the last let us drop from the height of the very heavens.
We commend one another always to thy gentle care. When we are weakest, then do thou love us most; when we are furthest away, then do thou hasten with quickened speed after us, lest we pass the final line and can no more be found. The Lord make our infirmity the ground of his kindness, then shall his mercy endure for ever. Pity us in our littleness, for we are still in the dust; regard our infirmities with tender compassion, for we are still far from home. Show us thy wonders in the wilderness and shape the stones of the desert into a temple. Give us holy desires after thyself, create in every heart a mighty prayer, let every soul go out after thee like a bird that would find the sun.
Remember all for whom we ought to pray our sick ones at home, the old man dying, the tender mother pining, the little child all but passing away from the earth it hardly knows, the prodigal, lost of men, beyond every eye but the piercing mercy of thy love, the soldier, the sailor, the traveller on the sea and on the land let thy mercy go out after all these and thy blessing be upon them according to their several necessities. Omit none from thy benediction.
Bless the land we love the most, and our rightful sovereign the Queen. Guide our legislators and direct our leaders; teach our judges judgment and give them the spirit of wisdom and of mercy. Prosper all honest commerce, help every honourable man to gain his bread in plentifulness with a clean heart and a spotless hand. The Lord look upon all our educational institutions; sanctify the efforts that are made there to enlarge, enlighten, and cultivate the human mind; hasten the time when every one who can sing shall sing thy praise with a loud and cordial voice, when all who are practised in high arts shall turn every beauty and every grandeur towards thy heavens as an offering of love.
The Lord hear us: we shall be gone to-morrow: we have already seen those who have gone before waving their farewells and telling us to come. Keep us back from evil thoughts, evil words, and evil deeds, establish us in a course of righteousness and nobleness, and bring us in thine own time the sooner the better, the longer, so must be thy will done and not ours to the green country, the verdant land, the sweet Paradise, the eternal summer. Amen.
Mat 9:9-13
9. And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew (Hebrew name Levi), sitting at the receipt of custom (at Capernaum), and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
10. And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat (called by Luke “a great feast”) in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
11. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
12. But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous (“an ironical admission”), but sinners to repentance.
Calling to Discipleship
“And as Jesus passed from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew.” This is a man’s account of himself. Matthew is the writer of these words. Surely he was most modest, for I know not how his self-description could have been shortened. He simply describes himself as “a man named Matthew,” and he says that Jesus saw him as such. There he understated the case. Imagination turns these sweet and modest words into great and noble enlargements of meaning. Jesus saw a man. Was he a registrar, numbering the people in ones and twos was he a mere statistician, putting down the human family in arithmetical figures? He saw a man he saw more than we mean by that term, he saw that term in all the fulness shall I say in all the tragedy? of its meaning. He saw the ideal man, he saw the possible man, he saw the undeveloped acorn, he saw the germ out of which might come whole Bashans and Lebanons of strong growths.
How easy to pass a man and how readily it comes to our tongue to call some persons nobodies. We are given to the black art of contempt, we take pride in it, we say, “This man is little, and that man is contemptible, and yonder man is nobody,” and we hurl our depreciatory adjectives at all and sundry whom we do not care for. Therein we show the little side of our nature. Every man is of some account, every man is somebody; it takes a Christ to warm us into our best consciousness, it takes a look from those eyes in which the summer shone to warm us into encouragement. Some are soon snubbed, they are easily put down a frown will send them away backward for a whole week: they can only live in approbation, in the sunshine of kind judgment. When Jesus Christ looks upon a man, he looks him into a nobler manhood. He wants to look at you why do you avert your face? Turn ye, let your faces meet, and you will never forget his look.
He was a man named Matthew: that name is the only foothold which the writer of this gospel claims for himself in human history. We cannot tell what we write when we write a man’s name; it is nothing to us but something to go by, a mere handle or convenience, a sound that is an identity, pointing to a particular individual. But the giving of that name took a whole day in the family long since: it was canvassed, it was made matter of reference, it was carefully balanced with other possible appellations, it was prayed over, it was something snatched from the grave that superior excellence might be remembered, that kind memories might be vivified through the generations to come. Yet how foolishly people name their children, and with what utter ignorance they send them forth with appellations the most misleading, and sometimes involving the most cruel irony or the most laughable burlesque!
It would be an interesting study to collect the Bible names and to go into the reasons why those names were given, and then to show the contrasts and discrepancies between the names and the characters of those who bore them. Our mother Eve said, “I have gotten a man from the Lord: call him Cain.” He was gotten from the Lord, but did he ever go back to the Lord? and it is difficult to think that the Lord ever had anything to do with some men. Who can tell? The times are sadly out of joint: there certainly be ironies in our individuality that would seem to exclude the hand of providence from our formation and direction. Yet the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. We are lost: he is in quest of us can we help him to find us?
“I will,” said the daughter of Pharaoh, “call him Moses, because I drew him out of the water.” So are our names given: they are monumental names or memorial names: they represent affection, interest, kindness. No child was ever purposely called by the name of a bad man. The wicked have no real friends: there be many eagles that pluck them, there are no angels that bless them. Did you call your child by his name because it was the name of a drunkard? Did you reason thus with yourself, saying, “My little girl shall bear the name of a woman who was notoriously bad and because she was notoriously bad “? Have I not heard you reasoning just contrariwise and saying, “We will call this child after his good old grandfather, we will call this little girl after her sweet mother, we will call this boy after the name of some illustrious character in history”? When did any man ever go up to the upas tree and pluck one of its deadly twigs and put it into his child’s hand to be known by through the handful of his days? O bad man, nobody likes you: they may smile upon you because they have not yet got the last shilling out of your pocket: they may give you guest room in the house because they cannot decently thrust you into the appropriate kennel but nobody loves you. The memory of the wicked shall rot, the candle of the wicked shall be put out. Only goodness would we immortalise. There is still left in this poor nature of ours that strange instinct to preserve the beautiful; we would crush the poisonous adder; who would willingly slay the singing bird, so blithe, so modest?
“Saul, who is also called Paul.” Thus men like to shuffle off the old name, because they have put away the old character. It is in our power, under the blessing and special call of God, to put away our old names. It is the prerogative of God to give each of us a new name, not the name that was sprinkled upon our brow in the baptismal drops, but a name written on the forehead by an invisible finger, and visible to none but the Giver. Have we received the new name? Do we carry the new white stone? Is our brow sanctified and ennobled by a writing not to be read by vulgar eyes, but to be seen by every angel flying in the midst of heaven? is a solemn question. Every man must give his own reply.
“And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom.” In other words he was going about his daily business. He was found, he was sought out, he represents a special class of the Christian elect, of the Christian believer and worker. He was following a despised occupation. There are despised occupations now, there are occupations which never can be forgiven, and that can be said in free England, and in republican France, and in democratic America. There are some trades we recoil from, and yet we are Christian professors and citizens of no mean city. But there are some occupations we would not mention if we could help it. A man who is a chimney-sweeper; who would like to be a relative of his?
There are some of you who do not like to see your brothers when they are in their working clothes. You can do with them on a Sunday, when they have got their best garments on, but to think of your walking with some fine person, and to see your brother come up with his fustian jacket on, what an outlook you take upon the universe, what an inquiry flames into your face as if you were most astronomically disposed! There are no mean occupations, but there are some very mean occupants! I do not say that this occupation or that is the best possible in the world. I am not called upon to give any opinion as to the conflicting merits of occupations and professions, but I want to see the man through all the circumstances, as Jesus Christ never failed to do. The Pharisees called Matthew a publican, a tax-gatherer, a sinner, an alien. So was called Zaccheus, but when the turn came of Jesus Christ to speak about Zaccheus, he said, “He is a son of Abraham,” and the little man stood up a king. It is so he talks about every one of us. When he sees the very least and meanest of us give a homeward look, he says, concerning such a looker towards the heavens, “He also is a son of Abraham.”
“And he saith unto him, Follow me.” Is that all? That is all. Is it not imperative? It is most absolute. When do kings say, “If you please “? Who ever goes to see the Queen by her special and humble desire? I have always noticed that when the Queen sends for any one, she commands them. Why, Jesus Christ seemed to have caught the trick of that high royalty. “Follow me,” said he. Abolishing every mood and tense fancied and projected by the fertile brains of grammarians, he shut up human speech into the imperative mood. I like to hear his commands: they were softly spoken, but they were commands at the root and core of them.
He commands you and me just as absolutely today. “Follow me, come unto me.” That is his gentle command, his imperial but compassionate edict. He never says, “Follow me, to do me any service that I cannot do without.” He uttered the word, “Follow,” with a tone which meant, “and you shall have all heaven for the following.” The very imperativeness of the tone hides a gracious intent. This is no scourging tone that would drive men before it, it is the tone of a complete assurance and a sublime and indestructible purpose, an assurance of his own sufficiency to meet the need, and his purpose to cover all human necessity with the infinite fulness of his unutterable grace. Will you come?
He did not go to Matthew and raise him from the seat; he did not employ any mechanical powers for the purpose of drawing Matthew: he launched his word. It is an old way of his, it began with, “Let there be light, and there was light,” as if light had been standing behind the chaotic mass, waiting for the word and could not move until that word was spoken. The Bible is full of commandments, but the commandments are not grievous, they are not the utterances of an arbitary will, but the subtle pleadings of a heart that lives for us, and that would seem to be unable to live without us.
“And he arose and followed him.” How easy it is for some men to rise and follow Christ, as compared with others. They seem to fall into the way of faith: it is like bringing the sun to bear upon a bud that wants to open, and that is just waiting for light in order that it might unfold its deep and sacred beauty. It is so easy for some men to pray: they seem to be walking up a gentle green slope to meet God at the height of it. When other men try to pray it is like climbing up a rugged steep rock, some of the stones loose, and if you put your foot upon them you will fall. It is so easy for some men to do the act of benevolence: there are some persons to whom I dare not state a case of necessity, because while I am stating it they are putting forth the hand to relieve it, and others need long pleading and much pressure and detail, the utterance of which becomes a sheer cruelty to the man who has to speak it, before they can advance the smallest testimony of their regard for human suffering.
It is so easy for some people to go to church: they like it, they wait for Sunday; when they open their eyes upon the Sabbatic light they say, “Thank God, this is the King’s day.”
“And it came to pass as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.” It was probably in Matthew’s house. Matthew was, by all historical accounts, not a poor man, but one who could show hospitality of the kind indicated in this passage. The publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus: that was an unconscious tribute. How is it that we are drawn to some people, how is it that we know certain persons whom we never saw before in our lives, what is that singular mystery of kith and kin which we all realize when we have spoken to certain persons five minutes? I have watched the eye of poverty and the eye of grief and want, and I have done so this very morning. A poor creature was waylaying a few travellers, and one after another passed, and her keen and hungry eye saw nothing in them to which she could appeal. Then one I saw pass, and she said, “Pardon me, sir do not be offended——” How did she know to whom to speak? Is there a masonry of hearts? Are there signs in the face, are there gleamings in the eye, is there something in the walk, are we revelations to one another? Did any poor soul ever stop you to tell a tale of grief? Yes. Thank God for that interruption: it meant a great deal, such woe, hunger, pain and want as stopped you have eyes that can read the heart.
The publicans and sinners got round him as cold people get round a fire. They need no welcome in words: they are cold and here is the fire. If you felt the cold you would draw near to the great fire of Christ’s love, and until you do feel it I can do nothing with you or for you but declare in ardent speech the excellence of One who would do you good if you would allow him.
“When the Pharisees saw it, they said, Why doth your Master eat with publicans and sinners?” This is a narrow criticism: it abounds in every time. All men have at least got thus far in the tormenting art of criticism they are able to find fault. He is indeed a remarkable imbecile who cannot find fault with somebody; he is indeed much neglected in his education who cannot find fault with any sermon he ever heard or with any person he ever saw. “Of all the cants that ever were canted in this canting world, though the cant of hypocrisy be the worst, the cant of criticism is the most tormenting.”
How did Jesus reply to this narrow criticism? When Jesus heard that, he said, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice I will have the reality and not the sham, I will have the thing meant and not mere words and tricks about it. God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” So Jesus Christ lived in great principles, and so he lived above public opinion: he never lived in defiance of it. It is a poor criticism of our Lord’s habit and manner amongst men to say that he defied public sentiment The true criticism would be that he lived above it, he dwelt in the sanctuary of great principles, he worshipped in the temple of universal benevolence. Any fanatic can defy public opinion, it requires the divinest of saints to enthrone himself above it and to move in his sublime course, impelled by divine inspirations and undegraded by human tempers or social flatteries.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
Ver. 9. A man named Matthew ] The other evangelist call him Levi; so shrouding his shame under a name less known. He plainly and ingenuously sets down his own more common name, and the nature of his offence, like as David doth penance in a white sheet, as it were, Psa 51:1 , which is an evident argument, both of the Scripture’s divinity, and of the evangelist’s gracious simplicity. If any should upbraid him with his old evil courses, he could readily have answered, as Austin did in like case, Quae tu reprehendis ego damnavi; or as Beza, Hic homo invidet mihi gratiam Christi.
Sitting at the receipt of custom ] These publicans rented the revenue of the sea and rivers of the Romans, as now the Jews do of the Turks, at a certain rate. And that they might pay their rent, and pick a living out of it, they were great gripers, and exacted extremely upon the Jews; who therefore hated them, and held them furthest off from heaven of any men. A faithful publican was so rare at Rome itself, that one Sabinus, for his honest managing of that office, in an honourable remembrance thereof, had certain images erected with this superscription, For the honest publican. a Of this sort of sinners was Matthew, whom Christ converted into an evangelist; as he did Paul the persecutor into an apostle; Justin the philosopher into a martyr; Cyprian the rhetorician, and, as some think, the magician, into a famous light of the Church. I was an obstinate Papist, saith Latimer, as any was in England; insomuch, that when I should be made bachelor of divinity, my whole oration went against Philip Melancthon, and his opinions, &c.
And he arose and followed him ] Julian the Apostate cavils at this passage; as if either this were false, or Matthew a fool to follow a stranger at the first call. But this atheist knew not the work of faith, nor the power of Christ’s voice when he calls effectually. If Maris the blind bishop of Bithynia had been by to have heard this dead dog thus barking, he would surely have shaped him such an answer as he did once. For when Julian said unto him, Behold, thou art blind; doth the Galilean thy God care for thee? He replied, O tu impie apostata, gratias ago Deo qui me caecum reddidit, ne vultum tuum videam, ita ad impietatem prolapsum, O thou wicked apostate, I give my God thanks that hath made me blind, that I might not see that wretched face of thine.
a . Suetonius, Vespasian, l. 8. c. 2. 2:265,267
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
9 17. ] THE CALLING OF MATTHEW: THE FEAST CONSEQUENT ON IT: ENQUIRY OF JOHN’S DISCIPLES RESPECTING FASTING: AND OUR LORD’S ANSWER. Mar 2:13-22 .Luk 5:27-39Luk 5:27-39 . Our Lord was going out to the sea to teach, Mar 2:13 . All three Evangelists connect this calling with the preceding miracle, and the subsequent entertainment. The real difficulty of the narrative is the question as to the identity of Matthew in the text, and Levi in Mark and Luke. I shall state the arguments on both sides. (1) There can be no question that the three narratives relate to the same event . They are identical almost verbatim; inserted between narratives indisputably relating the same occurrences. (2) The almost general consent of all ages has supposed the two persons the same .
On the other hand, (3) our Gospel makes not the slightest allusion to the name of Levi , either here, or in ch. Mat 10:3 , where we find among the Apostles, clearly identified with the subject of this narrative: whereas the other two Evangelists , having in this narrative spoken of Levi, in their enumerations of the Apostles (Mar 3:18 ; Luk 6:5 ), mention Matthew without any note of identification with the Levi called on this occasion . This is almost inexplicable, on the supposition of his having borne both names. (4) Early tradition separates the two persons . Clement of Alexandria, (Stromata, iv. 9 (73), p. 595 [106] ,) quoting from Heracleon the Gnostic, ( ,) mentions , , , , as eminent men who had not suffered martyrdom from a public confession of the faith. (5) Again, Origen, (against Celsus, book i. 62, vol. i. p. 376,) when Celsus has called the Apostles , after acknowledging adds, . , . It is not quite clear from this, whether the copies of Mark substituted Levi’s (?) name for Matthew’s, or for some other: but most probably the latter. But and are hardly more nearly allied than and , with whom Levi has sometimes been supposed identical. may then have been the reading for , Mar 3:18 , where we now find the reading in [107] lat- a b ff 2 i . (6) It certainly would hence appear, as if there were in ancient times an idea that the two names belonged to distinct persons. But in the very passages where it is mentioned, a confusion is evident, which prevents us from drawing any certain conclusion able to withstand the general testimony to the contrary, arising from the prima facie view of the Gospel narrative. (7) It is probable enough that St. Matthew, in his own Gospel, would mention only his apostolic name , seeing that St. Mark and St. Luke also give him this name, when they speak of him as an Apostle . (8) It is remarkable, as an indication that St. Matthew’s frequently unprecise manner of narration did not proceed from want of information, that in this case, when he of all men must have been best informed, his own account is the least precise of the three. (9) With regard to the narrative itself in the text, we may observe, that this solemn and peculiar call seems (see ch. Mat 4:19 ; Mat 4:22 ) hardly to belong to any but an Apostle; and that, as in the case of Peter, it here also implies a previous acquaintance and discipleship .
[106] By these symbols are designated the portions of two ancient MSS., discernible (as also are fragments of Ulphilas’ gothic version) under the later writing of a volume known as the Codex Carolinus in the Ducal Library at Wolfenbttel. P (GUELPHERBYTANUS A) contains fragments of each of the Gospels. Q (GUELPH. B) fragments of Luke and John. Both are probably of the sixth century . They were edited by F. A. Knittel in 1762; and, more thoroughly, by Tischendorf in 1860 [1869], Monumenta Sacra, vol. iii. [vi.]
[107] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ, so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history; but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
9. ] , not preceded by any other appellation, must not be pressed to any closer signification than that his name was Matthew. See ch. Mat 2:23 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 9:9-13 . The publican feast (Mar 2:13-17 ; Luk 5:27-32 ). The point of interest for the evangelist in this narrative is not the call of the publican disciple, but the feast which followed, a feast of publicans and “sinners” at which Jesus was present proclaiming by action what He formerly proclaimed by word: a sinful past no doom. The story, though not a miracle-history, finds a place here because it follows the last in Mark, in whose Gospel the incident of the palsied man forms the first of a group serving one aim to show the beginnings of the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders. The same remark applies to the next section.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 9:9 . : passing along from the scene of the last incident, Jesus arrives at the custom-house of Capernaum ( ). .: there He saw a man named Matthew . (On the identity of Matthew with Levi in Mark and Luke, vide Mark.) Capernaum being near the boundary and on the caravan road between Egypt and Damascus, Matthew would be a busy man, but, doubtless, Christ and he have met before. : Jesus acted on His own plans, but the recent encounter with the scribes would not be without influence on this new departure the call of a publican . It was a kind of defiance to the party who cherished hard thoughts not only about pardon but about those who needed pardon. An impolitic step the worldly-wise would say; sure to create prejudice. But those who are too anxious to conciliate the prejudices of the present do nothing for the future . : prompt compliance, probably with some astonishment at the invitation.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 9:9
9As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man called Matthew, sitting in the tax collector’s booth; and He said to him, ” Follow Me!” And he got up and followed Him.
Mat 9:9 “As Jesus went on from there” Mat 9:9-17 are expressed in more detail in the other Synoptic Gospel parallels, Mark 2 and Luke 5.
“He saw a man called Matthew” From Mar 2:14 and Luk 5:27 we learn that his other name was Levi. This does not imply that he was a priest or a Levite. Jews often had two names, one Jewish and one Greek, given to them usually at birth. This is the disciple to whom authorship of this Gospel is attributed. Jesus may have chosen him because of his gift of keeping meticulous records or as a way of showing His love to all people, even tax-collectors!
“sitting in the tax-collector’s booth” Capernaum was located by the Sea of Galilee between the jurisdictions of Philip the Tetrarch and Herod the Tetrarch. Therefore, the taxation would be between the areas of Syria and Judea. The office of tax collector was purchased from the Herodian or Roman authorities. It was often done with the implied suggestion that all of the extra revenue which was collected would be the wage of the one having the office. This was notoriously practiced in Jesus’ day and, therefore, the office had become a synonym for evil and exploitation. Tax-collectors were certainly not welcome at the local synagogue or in Jewish society.
“‘Follow Me!’And he got up and followed Him” This was probably not the first time Matthew had heard Jesus. Apparently he had been exposed to Jesus’ teachings on many occasions and this was the culmination of an official call (present active imperative) of a rabbi to a follower to come and be a full-time disciple (cf. Mat 4:19; Mat 4:21).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
forth = along.
Matthew. An Aramaic word. See App-94.
at = over. Greek. epi.
the receipt of custom = the custom-house.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
9-17.] THE CALLING OF MATTHEW: THE FEAST CONSEQUENT ON IT: ENQUIRY OF JOHNS DISCIPLES RESPECTING FASTING:-AND OUR LORDS ANSWER. Mar 2:13-22. Luk 5:27-39. Our Lord was going out to the sea to teach, Mar 2:13. All three Evangelists connect this calling with the preceding miracle, and the subsequent entertainment. The real difficulty of the narrative is the question as to the identity of Matthew in the text, and Levi in Mark and Luke. I shall state the arguments on both sides. (1) There can be no question that the three narratives relate to the same event. They are identical almost verbatim; inserted between narratives indisputably relating the same occurrences. (2) The almost general consent of all ages has supposed the two persons the same.
On the other hand, (3) our Gospel makes not the slightest allusion to the name of Levi, either here, or in ch. Mat 10:3, where we find among the Apostles, clearly identified with the subject of this narrative: whereas the other two Evangelists, having in this narrative spoken of Levi, in their enumerations of the Apostles (Mar 3:18; Luk 6:5), mention Matthew without any note of identification with the Levi called on this occasion. This is almost inexplicable, on the supposition of his having borne both names. (4) Early tradition separates the two persons. Clement of Alexandria, (Stromata, iv. 9 (73), p. 595 [106],) quoting from Heracleon the Gnostic, ( ,) mentions , , , , as eminent men who had not suffered martyrdom from a public confession of the faith. (5) Again, Origen, (against Celsus, book i. 62, vol. i. p. 376,) when Celsus has called the Apostles , after acknowledging adds, . , . It is not quite clear from this, whether the copies of Mark substituted Levis (?) name for Matthews, or for some other: but most probably the latter. But and are hardly more nearly allied than and , with whom Levi has sometimes been supposed identical. may then have been the reading for , Mar 3:18, where we now find the reading in [107] lat-a b ff2 i. (6) It certainly would hence appear, as if there were in ancient times an idea that the two names belonged to distinct persons. But in the very passages where it is mentioned, a confusion is evident, which prevents us from drawing any certain conclusion able to withstand the general testimony to the contrary, arising from the prima facie view of the Gospel narrative. (7) It is probable enough that St. Matthew, in his own Gospel, would mention only his apostolic name, seeing that St. Mark and St. Luke also give him this name, when they speak of him as an Apostle. (8) It is remarkable, as an indication that St. Matthews frequently unprecise manner of narration did not proceed from want of information,-that in this case, when he of all men must have been best informed, his own account is the least precise of the three. (9) With regard to the narrative itself in the text, we may observe, that this solemn and peculiar call seems (see ch. Mat 4:19; Mat 4:22) hardly to belong to any but an Apostle; and that, as in the case of Peter, it here also implies a previous acquaintance and discipleship.
[106] By these symbols are designated the portions of two ancient MSS., discernible (as also are fragments of Ulphilas gothic version) under the later writing of a volume known as the Codex Carolinus in the Ducal Library at Wolfenbttel. P (GUELPHERBYTANUS A) contains fragments of each of the Gospels. Q (GUELPH. B) fragments of Luke and John. Both are probably of the sixth century. They were edited by F. A. Knittel in 1762; and, more thoroughly, by Tischendorf in 1860 [1869], Monumenta Sacra, vol. iii. [vi.]
[107] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ,-so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history;-but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 9:9. , Matthew) A Hebrew by nation, and yet a publican. In St Mark and St Luke, he is called Levi.[402] It is possible that Matthew did not like the name which he had borne as a publican.-, sitting) actually employed in the business of his calling. And yet Matthew followed. A great miracle and example of the power of Jesus. A noble instance of obedience[403] [productive of eternal joy.-V. g.]
[402] J. D. Michaelis, Einleitung T. ii. p. m. 932, etc., conjectures that Levi was the chief of the publicans, and Matthew his subordinate assistant. But it is not likely that either Matthew, consistently with his modesty, would have omitted to record the obedience of Levi to the Lords call-Levi being, by the hypothesis, Matthews principal and also host at the large entertainment given on the occasion-or that Mark and Luke should have omitted the call of Matthew, who was more distinguished than Levi on account of his apostleship. It is no objection, that Matthew is not mentioned by the men of Nazareth. Mat 13:55. among the four sons, i.e. sisters sons of Mary: for not even Levi (who in Mar 2:14 is explicitly made the son of Alpheus) is reckoned among those four. What suppose we say that Levi, or Matthew, was the son of Alpheus though not by Mary, but by a different wife, and so connected with the Saviour by no tie of blood. At all events, the very etymological root of the names seems to establish the identity of the persons. For (Levi) is from adhered, attached to, and or (Matthew) is from the Arab word , he formed a tie of connection or propinquity. Moreover: in the same way as Saul, from that period of time in which, after being solemnly set apart to the work of preaching, he gained over Sergius Paulus as the first-fruits of his mission, and so became superior to Barnabas, was distinguished by the name of Paul, even by Luke himself (Act 13:2; Act 13:9): so also Levi (Luk 5:27), from the moment in which by solemn election he was enrolled among the Apostles, obtained the name of Matthew even in Luke (c. Luk 6:15). These considerations will enable the reader to decide the question.-E. B.
[403] This may be supposed to have been the series of the events: Matthew a short while before went to Jesus as a publican, and even then, at that early time, beyond all that he could have conceived, was called to the apostolic office, Mat 5:1, Luk 6:15 (comp. Num 11:26): whereby is evinced the extraordinary clemency of the Saviour towards this publican, thus selected out from the rest of his fellows. He was present, as an apostle freshly-appointed, at the Sermon on the Mount: where there is no doubt but that the words, Do not even the publicans the same? recorded by Matthew himself. ch. Mat 5:46. made the deepest impression on his mind. He did not, however, on that very day commence following the Lord daily, but had still some occupation in levying taxes, therein without doubt being observant of that righteousness which is commanded in Luk 3:13. There was, on the part of the Jews, a great abhorrence of publicans, even though they were themselves Jews; and it is to this abhorrence that the Saviour adapted His language. Mat 18:17. However, the publicans were not altogether excluded from the temple, whether they had the same degree of access to it open to them as the Pharisees had, or an access more remote: Luk 18:13. John admitted the publicans to baptism, on condition that, in the discharge of their office, they would allow themselves to be stirred up to the duty of justice: nay more, not even did the Saviour command them altogether to leave their employment, but to make to themselves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness. Luk 15:1; Luk 16:1; Luk 16:9. Neither Christ nor His fore-runner were bound by the Jewish traditions, which excluded publicans from church-communion. And besides, it is probable that the Jews, from malice against Christ, subsequently established more severe enactments as to publicans. Accordingly Matthew, being called to the apostleship, and not as yet at that time ordered to leave the receipt of customs, may have discharged this duty up to the time that he was called to follow Jesus. But if Matthew did the same as Zaccheus, before his conversion, he was in duty bound to make amends to those whom he had defrauded on the same principle as Zaccheus, or even to compare and make up ail accounts whatever with the other publicans. Jesus, therefore, when he saw him sitting at the receipt of custom, saith. Follow Me. And he arose and followed Him. Independently of the general crowd of hearers and disciples, coming to Him and going away from time to time, Jesus admitted certain followers to daily intimacy (Luk 9:59; Luk 18:22; Act 1:21), and twelve apostles, i.e. extraordinary messengers of the kingdom of heaven. Peter and Andrew, James also, with John, were made followers before that they were made apostles: Matthew was called to the apostolic dignity sooner than he was admitted to the intimacy of daily following the Lord, although not even this could have been put off for long, and in matter of fact was not delayed for more than a few days. At all events, he was not present in the journey to the country of the Gergesenes, who perhaps knew him well as a publican; but he may have been a spectator of the other acts of the Lord at Capernaum previous and subsequent to that journey. Even though he were ever so much behind the other apostles in following Christ: yet he followed soon enough for attaining the object proposed, as an apostle, Act 1:21.-Harm. 281, etc.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Mat 9:9
Jesus Calls Matthew To Follow Him
Mat 9:9
9 And as Jesus passed by from thence, he saw a man, called Matthew.-The call of Matthew is recorded by Mark (Mar 2:14-17) and by Luke (Luk 5:27-32). It is impressive to note how Matthew records so briefly his own call. As Jesus went along “he saw a man”; this man was Matthew he was busy “at the place of toll.” Luke calls him Levi; his father’s name was Alphaeus “Matthew” in Hebrew means “the gift of God.” This name may have been given at this time as Simon’s name was changed to Cephas, Peter. He was a Jew, a publican, that is, a tax collector, or a collector of customs from the commerce that passed through the city on the great road from the east to Egypt. Publicans, especially Jewish publicans, were hated, despised, disreputable men; for the opportunity to grow rich by fraud and extortion was so great that publicans failed to resist the temptation, and this gave a bad name to the whole class. Matthew was “sitting at” the place of toll; literally he was sitting on the elevated platform or bench which was the principal feature of the toll office. “Place of toll” was a tollbooth, or toll cabin; this custom office was at Capernaum, the landing place for the many ships which traversed the lake or coasted from town to town. Jesus simply said to him as he passed by, “Follow me”; this was a call to become his disciple; Matthew immediately arose and followed Jesus. Probably Matthew knew of Jesus before this and that this meant that he should be his constant attendant. Jesus saw in Matthew that which would make of him a faithful disciple.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
the Friend of Sinners
Mat 9:9-17
The name Levi indicates that Matthew sprang from a priestly line. He had lost all self-respect to become the abhorred instrument of the Roman government, collecting dues on the merchandise that crossed the lake. But our Lord sees veins of gold and precious gems in most unlikely places, and He detected the apostle and evangelist in this despised publican.
Wherever a man is found by Christ, He sets Himself to find others, and the Lord is willing to co-operate in any effort to bring others to know Him. He will sit with perfect grace among publicans and sinners, lifting them to His own pure and holy level. He is always to be found where there are sin-sick souls; and where hearts are famished for love and joy, He is with them as their bridegroom.
But the joy of Christ will make for itself its own impression. The ancient forms will not suffice. The old skin-bottle will not contain the ferment of the new wine. How wonderfully Christ could extract lessons from familiar objects!
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
The Grace of the Kingdom
Mat 9:9. And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
Thus our evangelist speaks of himself as “a man, named Matthew” He says that the Lord “saw “him. What a seeing is meant here! Header, may the Lord see you, whatever your name may be! Was Matthew at all like the man sick of the palsy? Does he mention his conversion here to suggest a parallel? His old name had been Levi: was Matthew his new name, or was it that which he had taken when he had degraded himself into a publican? At any rate, it is a beautiful name, meaning “given “: he was a gift of Jehovah.
To us he has been a true Theodore, or God’s gift, by being the penman of this gospel. He was an official of a kingdom, and therefore all the more fit to write this “gospel of the kingdom.” He was at this time busy taking, but he was called to a work which is essentially giving. He was sitting in one place “at the receipt of custom “; but he was now to go about with his Lord doing good. Two words sufficed for his conversion and obedience: “Follow me.” They are very full and pregnant words. Like the palsied man, he did precisely what he was told to do: “He arose, and followed him.” Matthew describes his own conduct from personal knowledge, but he does not use a superfluous word. He acted with great decision and promptness. No doubt he saw his accounts settled; or, it maybe, he had just sent them in, and he could leave at once without causing confusion in the custom-house. At any rate, he did there and then follow Jesus as a sheep follows its shepherd.
Lord, let my obedience towards thee be as the echo to the voice.
Mat 9:10-12. And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
In Matthew’s house the Saviour “sat at meat?” The new convert most naturally called in his old friends, that they might have the advantage of our Lord’s teaching: they would come to a supper more readily than to a sermon, and so he gave them a feast, and thus attracted them to the place where Jesus was. We may use all lawful means to bring others under the sound of the Word. A lot of the riff-raff came. “Sinners “by occupation, as well as sinners by character, ventured in to the publican’s house, and dared to sit “with him and his disciples” as if they had been members of his society. Probably they had been Matthew’s boon companions, and now he wished them to become his brothers in Christ.
Our Lord willingly accepted Matthew’s hospitality; for he desired to do good to those who most needed to be uplifted. He allowed persons of ill-fame to “sit down with him and his disciples.” Here was a fine opportunity for the sneering Pharisees. They insinuated that the Lord Jesus could be but a sorry person, since he drew such a rabble around him, and even allowed them to be his table-companions. They were very careful of their company when any saw them; for they thought that their superior holiness would be debased by allowing sinners to sit with them; and now they have a handy stone to throw at Jesus while he eats with publicans and sinners.
The Pharisees were cowardly enough to speak their cavil to his disciples rather than to the Master; but the Leader put himself in the front, and soon baffled the adversaries. His reasoning was overwhelming, and his justification ample. Where should a physician be but among the sick? Who should come to a doctor’s house but those who are diseased? Thus our Lord was more than justified in being the centre to which the morally sick should gather for their spiritual healing.
Lord, grant that if ever I am found in the company of sinners, it may be with the design of healing them, and may I never become myself infected with their disease!
Mat 9:13. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Our Lord, having gloriously defended himself from the insinuations of the proud Pharisees, now carries the war into the enemies’ territory. He says to them, “Go ye and learn”; and this alone would be distasteful to men who thought they knew everything already. They were to learn the meaning of a Scripture in Hos 6:6; and this would teach them that to have mercy upon sinners is a work more pleasing to God than the presenting of expensive sacrifices, or the performing of religious exercises. They would learn that he had rather do mercy himself, and have them do mercy to others, than accept of their most punctilious observances.
The Lord Jesus also gave them a clear word as to his object in coming among men. He came not to be served by the good, but to save the evil. He had come to call to repentance those who needed repentance, and not those just ones who required no amendment, if such there were. This was a very just satire upon the Pharisees’ self-opinionated notions; but, at the same time, it was, and is, and for ever will be, a grand consolation for those who own their guilt. Our Saviour King has come to save real sinners. He deals not with our merits, but with our demerits. There would be no need to save us if we were not lost: the Son of God does no unnecessary work; but to those who need repentance he has come to bring it.
Lord, I am one who needs thy call; for surely if anyone hath need to repent, I am that one. Call me with thine effectual call. “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned.”
Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom
named: Mat 21:31, Mat 21:32, Mar 2:14-17, Luk 5:27, Luk 5:28, Levi, Luk 15:1, Luk 15:2, Luk 19:2-10
Follow: Mat 4:18-22, 1Ki 19:19-21, Gal 1:16
Reciprocal: 1Ki 19:20 – he left Ezr 4:13 – toll Pro 29:13 – the deceitful man Son 2:10 – Rise Amo 7:15 – took Mat 4:19 – Follow Mat 8:22 – follow Mat 10:3 – Matthew Mat 19:21 – come Mat 19:27 – we have forsaken Mat 20:4 – Go Mar 2:13 – by Mar 3:18 – Matthew Luk 6:15 – Matthew Luk 9:59 – Follow me Luk 18:28 – General Joh 1:43 – and findeth Act 1:13 – Matthew Act 10:24 – and had 1Co 1:27 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
STEADY OBEDIENCE
And as Jesus passed forth from thence, He saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He saith unto him, Follow Me. And he arose, and followed Him.
Mat 9:9
What is remarkable about Matthew is, not that he rose from his business and followed Christ, but that he was prepared for the call.
I. The commanding personality of Our Lord.Matthew felt the touch of His authority; Christs looks of love searched the deeps of his soul. The whole scene is an admirable example of the way in which our Lord worked for mens salvation. Human reformers have commonly begun by remodelling institutions and getting laws altered, on the principle that good institutions will make men good. He began at the other end, and went straight to mens souls. He was a personal ministry. And this method He bequeathed to His Church, that it should exercise a personal ministry.
II. The testimony of experience.God has led us to Himself by means of personal influence and example, as Christ called Matthew by a personal, individual call. As we look back over our spiritual history we recall the tender influence of our parents; the well-remembered face of some kind and loving teacher; the controlling examples of dear and trusted friends, and we recognise that God was working for and upon us through all these, that they were vessels of His choice for bringing home His truth to our hearts.
III. Follow Me.We in our time and way are saying the words to those among whom we live day by day. If we do not say them openly, we say them by silent example and unconscious influence; we are drawing others after us one way or another, into closer likeness to the life of Christ or further from it.
Archdeacon Mackarness.
Illustration
We read in classic story how the lyre of Orpheus enchanted with its music not only the wild beasts but the very trees and rocks, so that they moved from their places to follow him: so Christ, our heavenly Orpheus, with the music of His gracious speech, draws after Him those less susceptible to benign influences than beasts and trees and stones, even poor hardened, senseless, sinful souls. Let Him but strike His golden harp, and whisper in thy heart, Come, follow Me, and thou, like another Matthew, shalt be won.
(SECOND OUTLINE)
CONVERSION AND CONFESSION
Matthew is introduced to us very shortly in the passage quoted as our text.
I. The call.The call came at Capernaum, that busy seaport on the shore of the sea of Galilee. Here was a man who loved money. Make it he must, for it was only the pressure of supreme determination which could make a son of Abraham take up the ostracised position of one who farmed the taxes of the Roman people. Jesus knew him well, and the all-seeing eye of Christ had read something of the mans character; had seen that there was an uneasy conscience behind the stern words he spoke to the widow and the orphan.
II. His conversion.He rose up, left all to follow Christ. The obedience was immediate. The man passed through no period of probation ere he was received as one of Christs disciples. Jesus Christ took him as he was. Men have yet to learn Jesus Christ does not ask for any period of probation ere He receives them. There had been a preparation for this call. Matthew must have heard the Sermon on the Mount. When Jesus Christ spoke to him that day, Matthew knew that there before him was a heart that was warm enough to woo him from his gold. Two elements in Christs methods of winning men are: He creates a dissatisfaction with things that are merely temporal, and offers a satisfaction which can meet the deep longings of the human soul.
III. His confession.He invited to his house the other tax-gatherers of the town, and others with them. We note, in reading the account by Matthew himself, that he modestly omits to mention that he was the host on the occasion, or that the feast was a great one, as described by St. Luke. Why did he invite the tax-gatherers of Capernaum to meet our Lord Jesus Christ? First of all (a) for his own sake. There was to be a new life henceforth, and if a man is to follow Jesus Christ, he needs, with boldness and decision, make it known that he has taken this step. Matthew did it also (b) for his companions sake. He wanted his companions to know that the Heart of Jesus could receive such as they were. He desired to witness for Christ to his own set.
IV. Consequences of his obedience.What were the consequences of Matthews obedience to the call of Christ? First of all the Gospel to Matthew, and then the Gospel from Matthew to the people. Though in many respects life is easier than it was, there is still the deep longing of the human soul which can only be met by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Has it come to you?
Rev. W. H. Stone.
Illustration
Not many years ago one of the leaders, or at any rate one of the most welcome of men in London society, holding a high position, heard the call of Jesus Christ, and determined henceforth to follow Him. To do what He would have him do was to be the mainspring of life, and he invited to his table the leaders of the various sets in society in which he had mixed, and after dinner they were somewhat surprised to see him rise to his feet to make a brief speech to them. He desired to tell them what he had found since he had known Jesus Christ as his own personal Saviour. He desired to make them henceforth understand why his manner of life was to be different from what it had been. From that moment that man never turned back; he went on and on to a life of great usefulness and a glorious end.
(THIRD OUTLINE)
LEAVING ALL
In his own Gospel Matthew records the incident briefly, but St. Mark and St. Luke deal with it more at length.
I. When lie was called.As Jesus passed forth from thence i.e. from the house where the palsy was cured. Our Lord must often have seen him before; perhaps he was already a secret disciple. St. Mark calls him Levi, and that was his earlier name. Matthew, which means the gift of God, was assumed after he had received Gods best gift, the loving call to Christs service.
II. Where he was called.At the receipt of custom. Capernaum, a busy place by lake-side. Every boat of fish laded and every passenger who crossed lake had to pay a toll. Matthew was here at one of the toll-booths doing the work of the collector.
III. The words of the call.Simple words, but it was not a mere request. It was a command; and it was a command, not merely to become a disciple, but like the call to Peter, Andrew, James, and John, a command to leave business, home, and friends, to become one of Christs own fellow-workers.
IV. Obedience to the call.It was a willing, ready obedience. St. Luke says he left allhis books, his place, his chance of worldly ease and gain, his past life, everythingand followed Christ. He joined the little band whose daily privilege it was to be near Jesus Christ.
V. The call to us.The obedience must be ready and willing, and we must be prepared to leave all. Are we?
W. Taylor.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Eating with Sinners
Mat 9:9-17
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
For our opening word we have chosen the first verse of the study “He saw a man, * * sitting at the receipt of custom: and He saith unto him, Follow Me. And he arose, and followed Him.”
There is something in this that is so simple and so direct that it appeals to us. It has every mark of the genuine.
1. There were no furbelows about it. There was no display, as though Matthew was a real hero, and needed a big commendation for his act in leaving the seat of custom on so short a notice. There was no blaring of trumpets, as though Christ had made a successful inroad into the upper classes, and had landed a follower from among the tax collectors.
There were no big headlines in the morning papers over the great success attending the ministry of the Lord. It is all stated so quietly, so unostentatiously-“Follow Me. * * He left all, rose up, and followed.”
Thus it should be: No man deserves to be heralded and applauded and praised because he turned his back on a few paltry dollars, which perish in a day, in order to follow the Son of God on a march toward a Land filled with flowers, with riches untold, and with a fellowship of martyrs and prophets and seers; and of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost.
With such a glorious future ahead of him, and such an honor thrust upon him, there is no place to appropriately ascribe honor and glory because a man had such a wisdom that he saw the blessings which were ahead.
2. There was a call to leave the temporal for the spiritual. We are glad our verse says Matthew was “sitting at the receipt of custom.” We are glad the verse describes the Master calling him away from sitting there. The Master always calls us to leave all. He rightly does this. Sometimes He permits us to remain in our position of employment, but He always demands that every position shall be subject to His orders. If we are to go with Him in a new path, we must leave the old, unless He deigns to travel with us in the path where we were traveling. In any event, there must be a following with Christ, and everything which hinders such a following must be set aside.
3. There was a call to follow. We wish that you could each one weigh the meaning of these wonderful words, “Follow Me.” Sometimes we do not know what they entail. They do, however, always include a journeying with Christ. They always mean, “Whithersoever Thou goest, I will go; whithersoever Thou dwellest, I will dwell; Thy people shall be my people.”
If we are to follow Christ we are to follow Him into the Garden, unto the hill that is lone and gray; we are to follow Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. We are to cast our lot with Him in a sacred and hallowed union, so that everything which befalls His lot befalls ours. There must be a union unto death, as well as unto life.
4. There will be a following hereafter.
They followed Him once in sacrifice and in suffering; now they follow Him as the risen, exalted Lord. If we follow on earth in fidelity as virgins, we, with them, will have a wonderful sphere of following Him in the Heavenlies.
If we follow Him on earth, even unto the death, if need be, we can follow Him in His Millennial Kingdom, and reign with Him in His glory.
I. JESUS SITTING AT MEAT WITH PUBLICANS AND SINNERS (Mat 9:10)
Our verse says: “And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples.”
1. Is there a place where we may fellowship with the ungodly? We are all aware that there is none. It is written, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”
The word “fellowship” is too strong a word to apply to Mat 9:10. Christ did sit at meat in a certain house, and many publicans and sinners sat down with Him. We have done this same thing time and again.
However, so far as we know, we have never had fellowship with those with whom we ate; that is, we have never been yoked together with them. We have never done what we are told not to do in Psa 1:1. We have never walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful. If we have, our Lord never has. He was “separate from sinners.”
We have made it our aim to obey the words of Pro 4:14-15, “Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.”
As we slip into the house and behold the Master eating with publicans and sinners, we still contend that, in no sense did Christ break His own separation from sinners.
2. There is a place where a man may contact sinners. Every call of the Bible is a call to us to go out into the byways and hedges, to bring them in. Every call of the Bible is a call to go into all the world and to preach the Gospel to every creature. God is always saying: “If by all means we may save some.” Separation does not and never did mean isolation, in the sense of treating the unsaved as untouchables.
Our call is a call to contact with the man of low estate, with the sinner. Our place is to go to him, in his sin, to put our arms around him, give him a hand, to lift him up, to save him.
If Jesus Christ had refused to eat with the publicans and sinners He would, of necessity, have refused to die upon the Cross as the Saviour of sinners. His doing the one made it impossible to refuse to do the other.
II. THE PHARISAICAL CRITICS (Mat 9:11)
1. On the lookout for faults. The Pharisees never approached Christ with an open mind. Many of them came to see Him. but they came, if by any means, they might discover in Him that which was evil They came in order to destroy Him.
A few, now and then, had their spirit of opposition broken down when they beheld His purity and power; and when they heard His messages of love and mercy. The vast majority, however, remained as critics to the end.
It is almost impossible to help anybody who carries with him a critical spirit.
2. A seeming discovery. The Pharisees knew the laws of separation. They were prepared to carry them to every extreme. They could pull their raiment about them and pass by on the other side with a display of ultra-religious ceremony. They could clasp their hands and ceremoniously lift their eyes heavenward as they prayed within themselves, and said, “I thank Thee, that I am not * * as this publican.”
Knowing, therefore, their call to separation from sinners, and practicing it to a religious fanaticism, they were ready, when they saw Christ eating with publicans and sinners, to say, “Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?”
In our ministry, when at our invitation a reeling drunkard came up the aisle and fell prostrate at the altar, we have known certain pharisaical saints to complain bitterly. They felt that a poor intoxicated derelict of humanity had spoiled the whole service by seeking the Saviour.
To be sure the man was gloriously saved, and afterward became a vital factor for his Lord. To them, however, his salvation seemed to carry but little weight.
Thus it was that the Pharisees said: “Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?” For their part, they disdained Him, They said, “Your Master,” and not “ours.”
III. TEACHING THE LESSON OF MERCY (Mat 9:12-13)
1. Christ explained His attitude toward publicans and sinners. Here is His explanation, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.” With one sweep, the Lord shook off the criticisms of the nagging Pharisees. With one word He overcame every critic of today, who would place upon Him the charge of being a comrade and a partner with the wicked.
Christ explained that He sat with the publicans and sinners the same way as a physician sits down by the bed of the sick. A doctor does not enter the home of the diseased to be a partaker of the disease. He enters to save the sick from whatever ailment may have befallen him.
He may prescribe for a leper, but he is never reckoned as having the leprosy; nor as being classed among the lepers. His work is that of healing and helping-of uplifting. Jesus Christ, therefore, said, in effect, I sit with publicans and sinners, because I am a Saviour of publicans and sinners.
2. Christ reproved the Pharisees for their lack of mercy. He said: “But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.” Some of us are perfectly satisfied to go through the act of baptism and a remembrance of the Lord’s Supper, but we are not willing to show mercy to the publican and the sinner. We are ready to quote, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”; but we are not willing to apply those words by entering into the home of the publican, and in sitting down with him and pointing him to the way of life.
We parade our piety by holding tenaciously to a doctrinal statement concerning the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, but we display an utter ignorance of the deeper meaning of that sacrifice when we refuse to have mercy. A doctrine that is not practiced, is not, to us, practical.
We must not only believe, but we must enter into the meaning of our faith. We must go back of the Cross in which we glory and reach down and lift the sinner up to our Saviour. We must go out and bring the one burdened with his sin to the foot of that Cross where sins are made to roll away.
3. The climax of it all. Christ said: “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Over His position, as He sat at meat with publicans and sinners, He wrote the word “CALL.” He did not write the word “Fellowship,” or “Comradeship.”
It was when Jesus Christ ate with publicans and sinners that He (see Luk 15:1-32) gave the parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son. He was there in order to seek and to save that which was lost.
IV. FASTING SHOULD NOT BE CEREMONIAL (Mat 9:14-15)
1. A question on fasting. This time the question was asked by the disciples of John. They asked in all sincerity, because they failed to understand the deeper meaning of fasting. Here was their question, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but Thy disciples fast not?”
(1) The question shows that John’s disciples were aligned to rabbinical laws. Mark the words, “We and the Pharisees.” Two classes only were displayed, “We and the Pharisees” were one class; “Thy disciples,” was the other class.
It is not to be wondered at that John the Baptist’s disciples were more or less under Old Testament legalities. John had come under the Law, and had heralded the coming of Christ. He had warned concerning certain fallacies in Jewish ceremonials, which were held without any new life in their wake; however, his disciples still followed after Judaism.
(2) The question of John’s disciples made necessary an explanation as to why Christ was not enforcing certain rabbinical laws and customs. This same thing may often come, in effect, to many believers today. Some churches carry out a routine and formal worship which other churches omit. Some churches demand books of prayer, and other rituals, of which others know nothing. The question, Why? may come to them.
2. The answer to the question. The Lord Jesus said: “Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them?” Christ taught that, in effect, fasting, as a mere formality and ritual, was not acceptable to God. When people fast there must be a reason for fasting. There must be circumstances which make fasting practical.
Let us remember that in everything God looketh on the heart.
Was it a time for the children of the bridechamber to mourn, during the festive time that the bridegroom was with them? It would be incongruous-out of order. Should we start up a period of weeping and wailing in the midst of happy and joyous festivities? Then we would be doing something by way of form, which is not an expression of the pulsings of our heart.
3. Christ’s vision of the future.” The bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.” The Lord spoke of His death, of the tragic effect that it would have upon His disciples. He saw them as sheep without a shepherd; He anticipated the two disciples walking to Emmaus, weeping and sad as they walked; He saw Peter with his heart “crushed, as he beheld his dying Lord; He saw the women weeping about the tomb. He saw it all, and He said, “The days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.”
In other words, the days would come when there would be a genuine fasting, a fasting that was not ceremonial and formal; but a fasting that was real and genuine, and prompted by circumstances which give meaning to the fast.
V. A MESSAGE CONCERNING REALITIES (Mat 9:16)
We have the message of a piece of new cloth in an old garment. Christ said, “No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.”
1. The old garment stands for the Judaistic Rabbinical laws which were passing away. The old garment stands for those things which the Scribes and the Pharisees commanded the populace to observe and do. They were burdens which were too heavy and too grievous to be borne. They were rituals which the Pharisees bound and laid on men’s shoulders. They included such things as the making broad of phylacteries and the enlargement of the borders of garments. They included regulations concerning swearing by the Temple, and the giving of gifts, the paying of tithes of mint and anise and cummin. All of these things Christ called “straining at gnats.” They were things which included, the building of the tombs of the Prophets, and the garnishing of the sepulchers of the righteous.
Jesus Christ called all the things above “an old garment that was rent and torn.” They were not the commandments of God but they were the commandments of God made void by the commandments of men.
2. The new garment stands for that which Christ was about to bring in-the Church-the Gospel as Paul preached it. This was a brand new order, unknown to the Prophets of old. It was a new cloth that could not be tied on to the old garment.
Do you remember how the Apostle Paul said: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free (that is, the new garment) and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (that is, the old garment). When the new garment came in, the old passed away.
VI. ARK CHRISTIANS FREE FROM THE LAW (Mat 9:17 with Gal 5:1)
The new wine put into old bottles is much the same as the new cloth put into the old garment. However, we believe that our former statements are not sufficient. There are other vital truths which need to be impressed.
1. There was no place for union between the Church and Judaism. When Christ brought in the Church, He did not bring it in as a reformed and restated Judaistic continuance.
Every statement of Scripture is contrary to this contention. Let me note a few of these for your consideration:
(1) “The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.” The teaching here is plain. The branches are Judaism; they were broken off; The “I” is Christianity that is grafted in. To be sure, it was grafted into the old Jewish root, but it is a separate system of branches.
We are studying in Rom 11:1-36. Here is another statement in the same chapter, “If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?” Israel was cast away, the Church was brought in to be God’s reconciling instrument. However, Israel shall, after the Rapture of the Church, be received back again, and at that time, Israel will function as one who is brought back from death. While the Church is operating, Israel is sidetracked. When the Church is taken away, at the Coming of the Lord, Israel will be brought back again, “for God is able to graff them in again.”
(2) “I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” Unto Paul God revealed the Gospel for this age. That Gospel was distinct from Judaism. When Peter came to Antioch he separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. In other words, Peter feared to take his stand against Judaistic entanglements, but the rather dissembled with them.
It was against this that Paul wrote, “I withstood him to the face,” saying to Peter, “Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” After this Paul added, “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.”
2. Is, then, the Christian free from the Law? He is free from the Law, written in ordinances, so far as salvation is concerned. The handwriting that was against us, which was contrary to us, He took away, nailing it to His Cross. The Law brought condemnation, because it condemned us for our sins. Christ took this condemnation away, being made a curse for us.
The laws of sacrifices and ritual are wholly removed from the Church. We are dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world. “Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances?”
The Christian, walking in love, will find that he fulfills the Law written on two tables of stone. However, salvation is never by the Law.
AN ILLUSTRATION
Thank God for saving and superabounding grace.
A short time ago, in one of our churches in Seoul we had a most remarkable conversion. Many times we had invited a certain woman to the services and to the Lord Jesus Christ, but always she had refused our invitations. We felt the Lord was speaking to her, but she resisted the pleadings of His Spirit. She was an ardent idol worshiper and recently, as she was preparing rice cakes to offer to the idols, one of God’s messengers again invited her to the meetings. This time she accepted, leaving her rice cakes just as they were, not even stopping to finish them. How the Spirit dealt with her that night, until she could no longer resist His workings! With tears, she repented of her sins and cried out to God for forgiveness. She arose from her knees with such shouts of victory and so happy in the Lord that all the Christians present in that meeting started shouting and praising the Lord with her. In the midst of this rejoicing she thought of her rice cakes and ran home to finish them, which took only a short time. White she was there she tore the idols from the shelf and the heathen pictures from the wall and burned them. She praised the Lord that these dead gods, with eyes that see not, ears that hear not, and a heart void of compassion, had been exchanged for the True and Living God, and that her burden was gone and peace had come to her heart. She returned to the church with her rice cakes and she and the Christians enjoyed them together-she no longer needed them to offer to the idols. As they ate, they continued their rejoicing for the healing of both soul and body.-Mrs. Pak, Yu-cha, Korea.
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
9:9
Receipt of custom is from one Greek word that means “tax office.” The man who had charge of the taxes was called a publican, and that subject will be explained in detail in the next verse. Matthew was connected with that work when Jesus came along, and he was called to follow which he did. He was baptized by John since Jesus “came unto his own” who were the ones whom John baptized and prepared for him. It was in keeping with his instruction from John, therefore, for him to quit his secular employment and follow at the call of him for whom he had been made ready.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
[He saw a man sitting at the receipt of custom, called Matthew.] Five disciples of Christ are mentioned by the Talmudists, among whom Matthew seems to be named: “The Rabbins deliver, There were five disciples of Jesus, Mathai, Nakai, Nezer, and Boni, and Thodah.” These, they relate, were led out and killed. See the place. Perhaps five are only mentioned by them, because five of the disciples were chiefly employed among the Jews in Judea: namely, Matthew who wrote his Gospel there, Peter, James, John, and Judas.
Matthew seems to have sat in the custom-house of Capernaum near the sea, to gather some certain toll or rate of those that sailed over. See Mark, Mar 2:13-14.
“He that produceth paper [on the Sabbath] in which a publican’s note is writ, and he that produceth a publican’s note, is guilty.” The Gloss is, “When any pays tribute to the lord of the river, or when he excuses him his tribute, he certifies the publican by a note [or some bill of free commerce], that he hath remitted him his duty: and it was customary in it to write two letters greater than ours.” See also the Gemara there.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 9:9. From thence. According to all three accounts, immediately after the miracle just mentioned.
Matthew, the Apostle and Evangelist A publican named Levi (Luk 5:27); Levi the son of Alpheus (Mar 2:14). Undoubtedly the same person; the accounts agree closely. The formal call seems peculiar to the Apostles, and Mark and Luke mention Matthew, not Levi, among the Twelve. The former was probably the apostolic name, the latter the ordinary one. Matthew himself mentions the former only. Although the son of Alpheus, he was not the brother of James, the son of Alpheus. See Mat 10:3; Mat 12:46.
Sitting at the place of toll, or the toll-booth. Like the four fishermen, at his regular employment, and probably previously acquainted with Jesus.
Follow me, in the specific sense, as in chap. Mat 4:19. Matthew obeyed in this sense, he left all, rose up, and followed him (Luk 5:28); certainly not simply; walked after Jesus into His place of residence.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Section 3. (Mat 9:9-26.)
Opening the presence of God to men.
That which follows here is in extension of such thoughts as these, and fully assures us that we are to find this spiritual meaning in what has been before us. For now the Lord openly declares His grace and justifies it, telling men too that it cannot be used to patch up the legal system, nor will the spirit of it be confined within the Mosaic ordinances. Come for the need of men He the Representative (as He has proved Himself) of God on earth, freely receives sinners, and makes faith welcome to draw upon Him at all times. Thus the presence of God is opened to men. They may refuse, but they are not refused. While, though at present only to be told in parables for the wise, the truth of Israel’s – and indeed man’s – condition is that he is dead, and needing life, and Christ’s mission needs must be, therefore, to raise the dead. This completes His manifestation; therefore; while the mystery in which it ends shows how little faith there is anywhere to receive it, and prepares us for the full rejection of Him by the mass, which is soon to appear.
1. The call of the tax-gatherer* follows immediately the cure of the paralytic; and this in the order of time, as the words show. The challenge of His authority and the grace He is showing, only makes the assertion of it more imperative, as it would have made it weakness to give way. All was in question now; and now, therefore, He will make as plain as possible what is in His heart. “Tax-gatherers and sinners” are with them in natural association; and that association He never disclaims. But who are not sinners? If He refuse men on that ground He must refuse all; Matthew the tax-gatherer, called into the circle of His immediate Mowers, is to be the witness to all men of His grace for all.
{*”Publican,” borrowed from the the Latin, is not the proper rendering. This was the name of those who paid into the “public” treasury the fixed sum for which they farmed the taxes of special provinces. Under these, who generally lived at Rome, were overseers of districts, and under these again the actual collectors, who being in close relationship to the people, themselves in general grossly extortionate, and a sign of subjection to the hated Roman government, were of all men, it would seem, most bitterly hated by the people; and especially, as Edersheim observes, the custom-house official, such as Matthew was. His being a Jew, as many were, would naturally be the climax of his wickedness in the eyes of the people.}
The feast at which we find Him directly afterwards, took place in fact after His return from Gadara, as we see in Mark and Luke. The account of the healing of the paralytic and of Matthew’s call are historically parenthetical. The special purpose is maintained all through.
We learn from Luke that Matthew made Him this feast. He knew well what would be that to Him, and showed it by the company he gathered. These persons had, at least, the consciousness of what they were, and grace could not offend them. At the very entrance upon fellowship with God we find it in learning to be with Him as to what we are, and the light of the first day of new creation breaks upon a barren; restless and shoreless sea. The weariness and distress and remorse of sin are witnesses for God which cannot be bribed, though they may not be listened to; while self-righteousness is lulled to sleep by its own monotone, and dreams of peace where there is no peace.
Yet the light troubles these sleepers and angers them; and so we find in the questioning of the Pharisees now. They could not be indifferent to what might seem so little to concern them as where One in whom, at any rate, they did not believe, could find His company. They might have remembered, but chose rather to forget, that the Baptist also, than whom there could be no sterner preacher of righteousness, had found response to his message in just such a class (Mat 21:32). But the Lord answers, (what indeed they had not ventured to address to Him), that He was a physician; did not, of course, come after them, who were well enough, but to the sick ones; and that they had never learnt, what they needed much to know, that God had said in the Scriptures which they acknowledged, that He would have mercy, rather than sacrifice. It was little mercy indeed that rabbinism showed to these tax-gatherers, as, indeed, “sick” enough, as a class, they were, and needing the physician. But here was One who was the perfect expression of divine mercy, not merely receiving, but actively going out after the objects of it; One who came not to call the righteous but sinners. If so, the chief of sinners would have chief title. But divine love, and the wondrous power of it, are strange to the heart of the legalist at any time; and then Christ must be strange.
2. It is not only the Pharisee who has question as to the Lord’s ways. The disciples of John find Him at variance with their master. But there is a notable difference between them: the disciples of John come straight to the Lord with their question, instead of assailing His followers with it: they do not find fault, but inquire. Moreover they may ask, why His disciples fast not: they could not put such a question as to the Lord Himself. Still what they needed was to know better the glory of Him whom they were addressing, as they needed also to realize the essentially secondary character of what had all its value from its being an expression simply of the spirit of the man who used it. To make it an iron or universal rule would be to degrade it really, – to make it a form from which the life has departed.
Christ had come to His own: and what would be the spirit of those who realized this? The Bridegroom had come to the bride, and should the children of the bride-chamber – the invited guests – clothe themselves with the array of mourners? That would be impossible to one who knew Him aright; there would be time enough for fasting, when the Bridegroom would be ken from them; this, of course, implying His rejection: in those days fasting would be perfectly in place.
But the Lord goes beyond this to speak of the change of dispensation that was now at hand, and for which they must be prepared: a change which would be still more complete and radical; not a mere patch upon an old garment. The garment of legal righteousness was in fact wearing out, and man being exhibited as the prophet had declared him, “all his righteousnesses but as filthy rags (Isa 64:6). What good in patching up what was so utterly gone? Between the new evangelical righteousness and the old legal one there can be only the strife of contradictory principles. There can be no fusion here: with all such attempts the rent is only made worse.
Nor only this: the spirit of the gospel, the free, expansive power of Christianity, cannot be put into the old skins of ceremonial Judaism. Here both the wine will be lost, and the skins will perish. And this has been proved experimentally: the thing has happened; ritualism of every kind is just such an experiment, with the result that we have neither Judaism nor Christianity left. The living organism can only clothe itself with the tissues woven by the life itself.
3. This is already parable, and a parabolic story follows it. We have a picture of things which could not as yet be spoken out: two incidents connected together, which, different as they are, throw light upon one another, and are found, in dispensational and moral application; to continue and complete the lessons which the Lord has been enforcing. The perfect fitness of the whole here, internally, and to the place in which it stands, vouches for the reality of the meaning which we attribute to it.
The truth has been coming more and more into recognition; that Israel, whom the Lord came to heal, is in fact but a corpse, like the ruler’s daughter. We have not the name of this ruler in Matthew; but in the two other Gospels which narrate the miracle, we find that his name was Jairus or Jair (Jdg 10:3, see notes), the “enlightener,”* a name quite suited to those “fathers” of that generation of Israel which had, alas, become a nation of the dead, fathers through whom the enlightening Word has come down to us.
{*This is one of the reasons assigned for a mythical interpretation of the history by Strauss and others, the symbolic meaning of the name; but they might for the same reason make all Scripture mythical; while all that shows inspiration shuts out myth.}
If such then be Israel’s condition; we see why the principle of law must be given up, as just now declared. Law is not for the dead, but for the living: for the dead it is useless. But “if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily, righteousness should have been by the law” (Gal 3:21). These are the two things – life and righteousness – which we find in the Lord’s words just now, and in the narrative here, connected together.
If the principle of law, then; be given up, and grace be shown by the mere goodness of God, the apostle’s question becomes an unanswerable one: “Is He the God of the Jews only? is He not also of the Gentiles?” (Rom 3:29-30,) – will such goodness confine itself within the limits of a feeble and scattered people, or much rather go out to meet the universal need?
So it is, then; that while the Lord is on His way to fulfil a special declared purpose, faith in the woman with the issue claims Him, and finds answer to its claim. Again we have not in Matthew the same detail as in either Mark or Luke, and for the same reason as was noticed before, that it is with the signs which manifest Him that Matthew is occupied. Her disease, an issue of blood, is given, which was not merely a slow sapping of the life away, but, according to the law, defiling also by contact (Lev 15:25-27): so that here again (as with the leper) there is uncleanness, the typical reminder of the effect of sin.
But in this case it is not the Lord who touches, it is faith that touches, not Him, but rather His garment. It is the activity of faith that is here seen; of course, and that lays hold, not of Himself personally, but of His robe – His character as displayed in His life down here. None the less certainly is virtue found in Him; and He pauses on His way to ratify her title to the healing and impute it to her faith. In principle it is the grace to the Gentiles during the present delay of Israel’s blessing.
But He reaches the house at last, and finds the mourners busy, who mock at the quiet words which speak of the power of resurrection in His hands. But the unbelieving crowd being put forth, the maid arises: and so, in spite of her desperate condition and the unbelief that mocks at Him, will Israel, when He appears and at His word to her, arise. It is a figure we have often in the prophets, of the revival of the nation in the last days. (Isa 26:19; Eze 37:1-28; Dan 12:2; Hos 6:2.)
Under this dispensational application we may without difficulty discover an individual one, in which the intertwining of the two miracles, if not presenting so clear a meaning, is yet significant. In Jairus, daughter we have man’s state in its full reality discovered. The Lord is here the Life-giver: the dead hears the voice of the Son of God and lives. This is the divine side of salvation; and here man is passive and recipient merely. But there is another side, and the woman with the issue seems clearly to represent this. Her faith applies to the Saviour for its need, and the issue of blood is staunched. These are the two sides of a common history, to adjust which fully may transcend our power: and yet each has its place. It is Mark, however, especially, who brings out this individual view, as Matthew the dispensational; but the double application, with the place in which we find these in the different Gospels, confirms the whole.
The signs which manifest the King are here complete. We see how truly He is no merely human King, but One “marked out Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead” (Rom 1:4, Gk.) And such the fore-ordained King of Israel was to be. He is now, therefore, ready to be proclaimed as this over the land; and accordingly we find provision made for this proclamation now by the commission given to the twelve apostles.
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
Observe here, The number of our Lord’s apostles not being filled up, what a strange election and choice he makes; Matthew, a grinding publican is the man.
Learn, Such is the freeness of God’s grace, that it chooses, and such is the efficacy of it, that it overpowers and brings in, the worst of sinners unto God; Matthew, a publican; Zaccheus, an extortioner; Manasseh, a murderer; Paul, a persecuter; all these are brought home to God by the power of converting grave.
Observe, 2. Matthew’s ready compliance with God’s call, He arose, and followed Christ. When the inward call of the Spirit accompanies the outward call of the word, the soul readily complies, and presently yields obedience to the voice of God.
Christ oftentimes speaks by his word to our ears, and we hear not, we stir not: but when he speaks by his Spirit to our hearts, Satan shall not hold us down, the world shall not keep us back, but we shall arise, and follow our Lord and Master. Bp. Hall
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 9:9. And as Jesus passed from thence That is, from the house in which the paralytic had been cured, he saw a man named Matthew Modestly so called by himself: the other evangelists call him by his more honourable name, Levi; setting at the receipt of custom In the very height of his business. The expression , here rendered the receipt of custom, seems properly to mean the place where custom was received. Some late translators render it, the custom-house; but have we any reason, says Campbell: to say it was a house? The Syriac name is no evidence that it was; for, like the Hebrew, they use the word beth [house] with great latitude of signification. Most probably it was a temporary stall which could easily be erected in any place where occasion required. The word office, (signifying a place where any particular business is transacted, whether within doors or without,) seems an unexceptionable name for the place. And he saith unto him, Follow me A word which was immediately attended with a secret power, so that he arose and followed him He immediately obeyed the call, consigning, doubtless, his books and cash to some more careful hand. Porphyry and Julian, two noted ancient enemies of Christianity, have blamed Matthew for thus rashly, as they are pleased to call it, following one of whom he had so little knowledge. But as it is evident that this publican lived in Capernaum, or near it, he must have often heard our Lord preach, (for it was the town where he ordinarily resided,) and may probably have been witness to a number of his miracles. Wherefore, the opposers of our religion must forgive us, if we affirm that there was neither rashness nor imprudence in the readiness which Matthew showed to follow Jesus when called. He may have been his disciple long before this, and only waited for permission to attend him. Macknight.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
XXXVI.
THE CALL OF MATTHEW.
(At or near Capernaum.)
aMATT. IX. 9; bMARK II. 13, 14; cLUKE V. 27, 28.
c27 And after these thingsa [after the healing of the paralytic] he went forth, aagain by the seaside [i. e., he left Capernaum, and sought the shore of the sea, which formed a convenient auditorium for him, and which was hence a favorite scene for his teaching]; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them. 14 And as he aJesus passed by from thence, he saw cand beheld aa man, ca publican, named {ccalled} Matthew, cLevi, bthe son of Alphaeus [It will be observed that Matthew, in his account of his call, does not make himself prominent. All [189] the evangelists keep themselves in the background. Because Mark and Luke give us the name Levi, it has been thought by some that they describe the call of a different person from the one mentioned by Matthew–an opinion which seems to have started with Origen. But the difference in name is not an important divergence, for many in that day had two names; as, for example, Lebbus, who was called Thaddus; Silas, who was called Sylvanus; John, who was called Mark; etc. Moreover, it was then common to change the name; as is shown by the cases of Simon, who became Peter; Joseph, who became Barnabas; Saul, who became Paul, etc. Therefore, as we have previously suggested ( Mat 10:3). It is not likely, however, that Matthew and James were brothers, for Alphus was a very common Jewish name, and brothers are usually mentioned in pairs in the apostolic lists, and these two are not so mentioned. Pool takes the extreme view here, contending that James, Matthew, Thaddus, and Simon Zelotes were four brethren], sitting at the place of toll [Wherever it is at all practicable, Orientals sit at their work. The place of toil was usually a booth or a small hut. Whether Matthew’s booth was by the lake, to collect duties on goods and people ferried across; or whether it was by the roadside on the great highway leading from Damascus to Acco, to collect taxes on all produce brought into Capernaum, is not material. The revenues which Rome derived from conquered nations consisted of tolls, tithes, harbor duties, taxes for use of public pasture lands, and duties for the use of mines and salt works], and he saith {csaid} unto him, Follow me. 28 And he forsook all, And he arose {crose up} and followed [190] him. [Such obedience was not, of course, performed in ignorance; it indicates that Matthew was already a disciple, as were the four fisherman when they also received a like call. Matthew was now called to become a personal attendant of Jesus, preparatory to being chosen an apostle. Nor are we to conclude from the abruptness of his movements that he went off without settling accounts with the head of his office. Though it may be more dramatic to thus picture him as departing at once, yet the settlement of accounts was indispensable to his good name in the future, and in no way diminishes the reality and beauty of his sacrifice–a beauty which Matthew himself forbears to mention, as became him ( Pro 27:2). But Matthew certainly neither delayed nor sought counsel ( Gal 1:15, Gal 1:16). By thus calling a publican, Jesus reproved the religious narrowness of his times.] [191]
[FFG 189-191]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Mat 9:9-13. The Call of Matthew. Jesus Eats with Tax-collectors (Mar 2:13-17*, Luk 5:27-32).We need not doubt the identification of Matthew (= gift of Yahweh) and Levi; Peter had a double Jewish name, Simon and Kephas. Lk. notes how this disciple forsook all; he could not return to his old calling, as a fisherman could. The meal was apparently in Jesus house (cf. Mat 9:13, It is not my mission to invite the righteous); Capernaum was now his own city (Mat 9:1). As a Physician, the Lord was bound to come into close contact with those who were sick, regardless of the contagious pollution which the Pharisees shunned. Mat 9:13 a (Hos 6:6) is quoted again in Mat 12:7; it hardly seems in place here (though sacrifice stands for ritual correctness generally), for Jesus had based His action on the ground of simple duty rather than mercy. The righteous and the sinners correspond to the whole and the sick. Lk.s addition, to repentance, is an attempt to explain why the righteous were not called.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 9
Receipt of custom; the office or place where he received the customs or taxes.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:9 {2} And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the {d} receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
(2) Christ calls the humble sinners unto him, but he condemns the proud hypocrites.
(d) At the table where the tax was received.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
4. Jesus’ authority over His critics 9:9-17
Matthew returned to the subject of Jesus’ authority over people (cf. Mat 8:18-22). In Mat 8:18-22 Jesus directed those who came to Him voluntarily as disciples. Here He explained the basis for His conduct to those who criticized Him. This is another section that contains discipleship lessons.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The question of company 9:9-13 (cf. Mar 2:13-17; Luk 5:27-32)
The main point of this pericope is Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ criticism that Jesus and His disciples kept company with tax collectors and sinners.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
This incident probably took place in or near Capernaum. The tax office (NASB) or the tax collector’s booth (NIV) would have been a room close to the border between the territories of Philip and Herod Antipas. There Matthew sat to collect customs and excise taxes. Capernaum stood on the caravan route between Egypt and the East. Matthew thus occupied a lucrative post. As mentioned before, the Jews despised tax collectors because they were notoriously corrupt, and they worked for the occupying Romans extracting money from their own countrymen (cf. Mat 5:46). [Note: W. H. Griffith Thomas, Outline Studies of the Gospel of Matthew, p. 129.]
Jesus proceeded to do the unthinkable. He called a social pariah to become one of His disciples. Matthew was a sinner and an associate of sinners in the eyes of the Jews.
"The pericope on the call of Matthew (Mat 9:9) illustrates yet another aspect of discipleship, to wit: the broad spectrum of those whom Jesus summons to follow him. . . . Matthew . . . is a toll-collector. As such, he is looked upon by the Jewish society of Matthew’s story as no better than a robber and one whose testimony would not be honored in a Jewish court of law. . . . Not only the upright are called by Jesus, but also the despised." [Note: Kingsbury, Matthew as . . ., p. 135.]
"Since Jesus’ mission is predicated upon mercy and not merit, no one is despicable enough by the standards of society to be outside his concern and invitation." [Note: Hagner, p. 240.]
Jews frequently had two names, and Matthew’s other name was Levi (Mar 2:14; Luk 5:27). "Matthew" may derive from Mattaniah (1Ch 9:15) meaning "gift of God," or it may come from the Hebrew emet meaning "faithful." Perhaps because of its meaning Matthew preferred to use "Matthew" in his Gospel rather than "Levi." Matthew’s response to Jesus’ call to follow Him was immediate.