Jesus Has the Authority to Tell It like It Is -- a study of Matthew 9
- mww
- 4 hours ago
- 17 min read
In the presence of Jesus, dead things come to life.
Bible Study Ideas and Commentary for Matthew 9
Matthew continues to build the case that Jesus is the promised Messiah, here with the story of Jesus' authority over death itself. But in a very personal story, Matthew shows that Jesus had the authority to tell the Pharisees they were wrong for ignoring the sinners of the land, and John's followers were wrong for failing to praise God for answered prayer.
It is not those who are well who need a doctor, but those who are sick. (9:12)
How Has Your Friend Group Changed with Time?
My experience may be different from yours. I became a Christian my last semester of college and then moved to work. Shelly and I got married and then moved to seminary. Those were some stark resets. (And, we work for churches, and churches expect that we become friends with church members, amiright?)
But what about you? Have you noticed your friend group change over time? How and why?
In this week's passage, we're going to meet Matthew's friends. Matthew is a model for things we still see today -- it's generally new church members and new Christians who invite the most people to church, is it not? But I am sure that Matthew's friend group quickly changed; only those who chose to follow Jesus probably stuck with Matthew as long-term friends.
What's Your "Ideal" Experience at the Church Building?
When I say "church building", I'm talking about the place your church gathers for worship (whether or not that's your building). What's your ideal experience when you go there on a Sunday morning?
I'm really hoping you get a range of answers.
Some people want a quiet, meditative experience. Some people want to enjoy fellowship with their friends. Some people want to learn from God's Word. Some people want a boisterous experience of music in worship. I really, really hope that somebody in your group will say that their ideal experience involves people being saved and Christians being convicted of sin.
(In this week's passage, I get the sense that the ideal Pharisee experience was one in which only dutiful, studious Jews were present. And the ideal zealot experience was one in which everyone simply prayed and mourned the whole time.)
Do you see how incongruous those experiences might be? For lost people to be saved, lost people have to be present and engaged. For someone to experience spiritual healing, they have to bring their mess with them. "Quiet meditation" and "boisterous music" certainly can't happen at the same time. And there's not a lot of learning God's Word when you're catching up with your friends.
So, the "point" of this topic would be to talk about how a church family could prioritize all of those things, and also how those things could work together. (I don't see any reason why a Sunday morning can't involve all of those things listed above.) The primary purpose of a church's gathering for worship had better be to worship God (and that would include learning His Word). But this week's passage will remind us that all of our Christian activity needs to make room for the "sick" (as in non-Christians and Christians who are in a bad way). No, Jesus did not "skip synagogue" to eat dinner with Matthew, but He brought Matthew into His orbit and included him in His "church activity".
What's Your Biggest Behavioral Hangup?
In this week's passage, the Pharisees take serious issue with Jesus eating dinner at a sinner's house, and John the Baptist's followers take serious issue with Jesus' followers not being miserable all the time. Jesus puts them both in their place (but we'll talk about that below).
This brings up an interesting topic -- every Christian has some sort of issue with some kind of behavior done by another Christian. What's that for you? First, some ground rules: this hypothetical (1) is about self-professing Christians, and (2) is not about sin (of course we should have issue with sin).
I think you'll discover that this topic is tougher than you expect. If your group is willing to have an honest discussion, I think you'll learn that there's a line between behavior you don't like and behavior that actually sinful (by a biblical definition).
Such discussions I've had (too often) have to do with "proper attire" in a worship service or "proper style of music" in a worship service. I guess for me personally, my biggest "behavioral hangup" is a Christian who doesn't prioritize church involvement.
Once you've talked about that, move on to the "point" of this idea: does that "hangup" affect how you relate to the person who does it? I don't see how it couldn't, else it wouldn't really be a hangup. So, how do we overcome that and work together as Christians? (Don't miss the irony that John the Baptist's followers' hangup was with Jesus Himself!)
Where We Are in Matthew
We are still in the section about Jesus' authority (see last week). Jesus said big things in the Sermon on the Mount, and Matthew follows that with lots of different kinds of demonstrations of Jesus' authority -- his way of proving that Jesus did have the authority to say those things.
Healing an unclean man (8:1-4)
Healing a centurion's servant (with just a word) (8:5-13)
Healing many illnesses and possessions (8:14-17)
Setting the parameters for following Him (8:18-22)
Calming a storm (8:23-27)
Healing the demon-possessed (8:28-34)
Healing a paralytic and forgiving sins (9:1-8)
Calling a sinner to follow Him (9:9-13)
Distinguishing Himself from John (9:14-17)
Raising a dead girl (9:18-26)
Healing the blind (9:27-34)
Summary miracles (9:35-38)
Just a full demonstration of Jesus' authority in every area of existence, from miracles to truth.
This week's passage fits into Matthew's larger purpose of establishing that there are no limits to Jesus' authority. Not only can He perform any manner of miracle (and even forgive sin), but He also establishes what is right religious behavior. In other words, this is a demonstration of the "you have heard . . . but I say" parts of the Sermon on the Mount. It's one thing to hear Jesus say those things -- it's something else to see Jesus do those things. But this conflict included John the Baptist's followers -- Jesus had authority over them as well.
This was really hard for a lot of people to hear, and that's why Jesus started experiencing stronger and stronger opposition for the rest of Matthew's Gospel.
This Week's Big Idea: "The Hem of His Garment"
I was a big Sam Cook fan, so long before I became a Christian, I knew the story of the woman who touched the hem of Jesus' garment in Matthew 9:20-22.
The more familiar version is probably from Mark 5:
25 Now a woman suffering from bleeding for twelve years 26 had endured much under many doctors. She had spent everything she had and was not helped at all. On the contrary, she became worse. 27 Having heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his clothing. 28 For she said, “If I just touch his clothes, I’ll be made well.” 29 Instantly her flow of blood ceased, and she sensed in her body that she was healed of her affliction. 30 Immediately Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and said, “Who touched my clothes?” 31 His disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing against you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’” 32 But he was looking around to see who had done this. 33 The woman, with fear and trembling, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell down before him, and told him the whole truth. 34 “Daughter,” he said to her, “your faith has saved you. Go in peace and be healed from your affliction.”
This has raised all sorts of questions about the nature of Jesus' power and if other people could "use" it without His permission.
Most importantly, remember what I said about studying the different gospels: study what they include, not what they omit. Matthew just wanted to get to the point of Jesus' authority and power over all illnesses and diseases.
Mark and Luke, though, had some other priorities, and those are the versions most of your group members will probably think of.
Luke knew, as a physician, that this woman had been perpetually unclean for at least 12 years, and his brother-doctors had utterly failed her. He wanted to put more of her story in his Gospel out of compassion for her. And I imagine that Mark had learned these details from Luke, particularly as they all talked about this episode with Peter. (My speculation.)
But these other versions also bring up this thorny question of how this woman "got the power without the permission".
Here's my long-and-short answer: why does anybody think that Jesus didn't heal her intentionally? Superstition says that an object contains power in itself (think The Shroud of Turin and the like); Jesus says that there is power in Himself and in faith in Him only.
By stopping and calling attention to this woman, Jesus prevented the woman from the mistake of wondering if the power was in His garment rather than in Him and her faith in Him. (It doesn't hurt that the woman then had the verbal testimony and witness of healing that she could then take to the religious leaders.)
Part 0: The Calling of Matthew (Matthew 9:9)
9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, “Follow me,” and he got up and followed him.
The official Lifeway lesson plan skips this verse. No need. It sets up the next passage.
"The Chosen" takes an awful lot of creative license, but I think they're on the right path with the pre-existing relationships between Jesus and the people who would eventually follow Him. In other words, Matthew knew Jesus when Jesus called him.
Capernaum was near the border between the territories of Herod Antipas and Philip Tetrarch. This too-small map from Wikipedia kinda shows that.
It only makes sense that there would be a "customs booth" keeping a thumb on the commercial traffic. I've earlier mentioned that the Jews would have despised Matthew for "working for the enemy", but that didn't stop Jesus from calling him. Luke's account says that Matthew "left everything" suggesting that Matthew was trying to be more modest in his own account.
But there is no accident that Matthew put the story of his own calling immediately after the story in which he establishes that Jesus has the authority to forgive sin. This tells you what Matthew thought of himself (as well as his friends).
Part 1: Authority to Reach out to Sinners (Matthew 9:10-13)
10 While he was reclining at the table in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came to eat with Jesus and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 Now when he heard this, he said, “It is not those who are well who need a doctor, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Pharisees are just kinda everywhere Jesus goes. They seem to follow Him around (just like demons seem to follow Him around).
As a tax collector, Matthew was a man of some means, and he had relationships with people who did not run in Jewish circles. Why? Because his own people forced him into those circles. That's not a small thing to remember.
Anyway, in what was probably the last thing Matthew did with his money and position, he threw a banquet at his house for Jesus and the other disciples, and he invited all of his friends. (Think "Babette's Feast".) But Matthew's friends were considered "undesirable" by the "fine upstanding Jews", and they grumbled against Jesus.
Note: this was just a dinner. It's not like Matthew threw a rave or an orgy.
The Pharisees are just here to stir up trouble. They wouldn't have gone into Matthew's house; they would have just gathered around the outside watching through the windows (like creepers) and trying to sow discord among Jesus' followers.
This was early in Jesus' ministry, and no doubt some of Jesus' followers were having trouble adapting to this new paradigm of ministry, so Jesus interjected Himself into the conversation. Jesus -- the Great Physician -- came for the sick, not the healthy; the sinners, not the righteous.
What do you think that means?
Most importantly, realize that Jesus isn't talking about the Pharisees at all. He's not calling them "righteous" (nor is He calling them "sinners") -- He's just posing a hypothetical question: "If a person is sick, should a doctor see him?" The answer should be very obviously YES, but the Pharisees have trouble admitting even that. This makes me think of a story Matthew will share in a few chapters:
12: 9 Moving on from there, he entered their synagogue. 10 There he saw a man who had a shriveled hand, and in order to accuse him they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” 11 He replied to them, “Who among you, if he had a sheep that fell into a pit on the Sabbath, wouldn’t take hold of it and lift it out? 12 A person is worth far more than a sheep; so it is lawful to do what is good on the Sabbath.”
Because Jesus did the healing on the Sabbath, the Pharisees began plotting to kill Him (rather than let Him overturn their teachings on the Old Testament).
Jesus is simply doing what any good healer should do -- seek out those in need of healing. But the people in need of healing tend to have baggage, baggage that makes them less-than-reputable.
This leads to a very common debate in some churches -- is the church for the people "inside" or the people "outside"? As much as some people might disagree, the answer is both.
We can use this week's story as an illustration. (I'm going to use modern terms to make my point clear.)
Jesus had a relationship with Matthew and "leveraged" that into a "gospel presentation". Matthew "became a Christian" and invited his friends to learn more about Jesus. Why? Because the church exists to reach people who are not yet a part of the church.
BUT Jesus did not coddle these newcomers. He did not accommodate His mission to the felt needs of these newcomers. He gave them the same choice He gave Matthew -- some of them probably chose to follow Jesus, and some did not. Jesus moved on with His mission to the next town, and the people in Capernaum (hopefully) kept an open door for all of the non-believers while continuing to grow as disciples of Jesus.
Do you see how the answer has to be both? According to the Great Commission, we are to take the gospel to everyone and help them become disciples of Jesus. But being a disciple of Jesus means learning what He taught and obeying it.
This leads to a second common debate in churches -- is a church "just a hospital"? I've heard a number of church leaders call his church a "hospital". He uses that phrase to acknowledge all the "sick" people in the congregation. And that's good! Jesus clearly came for the "sick"! But the people in that pastor's "hospital" never seem to get well. Hm.
What is the point of a hospital? To make sick people well. And the "head physician" of our hospital is Jesus, and He came to make sick people well. If healing doesn't happen in a church -- spiritual, emotional, relational healing that's real and evident -- then that should be a concern. The Holy Spirit changes lives. Matthew was never the same again.
Now let's come back to the Pharisees. I've already said that Jesus was not suggesting that the Pharisees were "righteous" (although they probably interpreted Jesus as saying that). If the Pharisees had recognized their own need for God's mercy, Jesus would have gladly offered it to them. Jesus' quoting Hosea 6:6 was a sharp barb -- as experts in the Old Testament, the Pharisees should have known what Jesus was doing.
In Hosea's day, the Jewish leaders had carried on the rituals but completely lost the heart (hence God comparing them to a harlot). They should have been focused on gathering the remnant of Israel together "before it was too late", but they cared more about the ritual purity than the fate of the people. Kinda like how the Pharisees were treating these tax collectors and sinners.
Jesus came to save sinners. The Pharisees failed to acknowledge that they themselves were also sinners, and so their "righteousness" fell. But these sinners who listened to Jesus were saved, and their righteousness grew.
Does your church care both about reaching the lost and also helping church members grow in Christlikeness? (I hope your church's priority is not simply keeping church members comfortable.)
Part 2: Authority to Correct the Misguided (Matthew 9:14-17)
14 Then John’s disciples came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?” 15 Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests be sad while the groom is with them? The time will come when the groom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one patches an old garment with unshrunk cloth, because the patch pulls away from the garment and makes the tear worse. 17 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the skins burst, the wine spills out, and the skins are ruined. No, they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”
This section is very similar to the previous, except from the opposite side. Where the Pharisees represented the old establishment, John's disciples (John the Baptist) represented the hard line of Jesus' presumptive movement. John the Baptist came first, after all. Then Jesus shows up and claims the authority to tell them that they're doing it wrong.
Remember we said that Matthew associated the beginning of Jesus' public ministry with John being put in prison; Matthew did not want to show any conflict between John's ministry and Jesus'. But that doesn't mean there wasn't conflict between John's followers and Jesus'. Now that John was in prison, his followers felt a need to continue his ministry, and I shouldn't have to remind you about John's hardcore behavior! (Read Matthew 3 if you need to.) John was as ascetic as they come; in the model of the great Old Testament prophets, he was broken by his people's sin and called on them to repent.
His followers took that to mean that all of God's children should live in the equivalent of sackcloth and ashes all the time.
Jesus put them in their place. Yes, the people should fast and pray and mourn and cry out to God for forgiveness and mercy. But Jesus was here to bring that forgiveness and mercy! This was now a time of rejoicing and celebration! If God's people did not celebrate when God answered their prayers, wouldn't that suggest that they didn't believe God had answered their prayers?
Jesus then gives a feast/wedding/celebration parable (Luke 5:36 calls this a parable). This is appropriate in context because John has thought of himself as the Messiah's "best man" (so to speak). John's entire ministry was for the Messiah -- and now the Messiah was here! John (if he were not in prison and about to be executed) would have celebrated that, and so should his disciples.
(Note this early reference to the cross -- yes, the disciples are celebrating with Jesus now, but they day will come when they understand the cost of this forgiveness, and then they will fast and mourn. And that should be characteristic of us today -- we celebrate our forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and we mourn the continued presence of sin in the world and its cost.)
Jesus' illustration is difficult for us to understand. We don't really patch clothing anymore. And we certainly don't make liquid containers out of animal skin. Let me share how D. A. Carson explained the meaning of these words:
These illustrations show that the new situation introduced by Jesus could not simply be patched onto old Judaism or poured into the old wineskins of Judaism. New forms would have to accompany the kingdom Jesus was now inauguration; to try to domesticate him and incorporate him into the matrix of established Jewish religion would only succeed in ruining both Judaism and Jesus' teaching.
I really like that language of trying to "domesticate" Jesus. It applies just as much today. If we try to put Jesus into the box of our pleasant, domesticated, preferred church, we will ruin Jesus' teaching. And if we try to put Jesus into the box of a wild, out-of-control, rough-and-tumble church, we will equally ruin Jesus' teaching.
We do not get to decide who Jesus is or what Jesus taught. Jesus tells us who He is and what He prioritizes, and we submit ourselves to that.
The Pharisees obviously wouldn't do that, and John's followers also had a bit of a crisis with that.
Do you listen to Jesus even when it runs counter to something you heard someone say that you really liked? Does your church?
Aside: John the Baptist
Matthew cared a lot about John the Baptist (and that's because Jesus did). In just a couple of chapters, Matthew shares this exchange:
11:2 Now when John heard in prison what the Christ was doing, he sent a message through his disciples 3 and asked him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” 4 Jesus replied to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5 The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, those with leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor are told the good news, 6 and blessed is the one who isn’t offended by me.”
We're going to cover that passage on Feb 8, so I won't say much about it.
Jesus is telling John about the Messianic Age described by Isaiah -- one in which these miracles are common -- and He uses those miracles to give John (or rather his followers) the assurance that He is the Messiah.
What have we already seen in chapters 8 and 9?
a man with leprosy cleansed,
a lame man made to walk.
And what are we about to see in chapter 9?
a dead girl raised to life,
a blind man made to see.
In other words, Matthew has structured this section of his Gospel around Jesus' own words.
Part 3: Authority Over Death (Matthew 9:18-26)
18 As he was telling them these things, suddenly one of the leaders came and knelt down before him, saying, “My daughter just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.” 19 So Jesus and his disciples got up and followed him. 20 Just then, a woman who had suffered from bleeding for twelve years approached from behind and touched the end of his robe, 21 for she said to herself, “If I can just touch his robe, I’ll be made well.” 22 Jesus turned and saw her. “Have courage, daughter,” he said. “Your faith has saved you.” And the woman was made well from that moment. 23 When Jesus came to the leader’s house, he saw the flute players and a crowd lamenting loudly. 24 “Leave,” he said, “because the girl is not dead but asleep.” And they laughed at him. 25 After the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl got up. 26 Then news of this spread throughout that whole area.
The Lifeway outline skips the middle miracle in here, and that's why I addressed it above.
Again, we can go to Mark and Luke for a few more details. They don't change the event, but they add some "flavor" to it. This "leader" was a leader of the synagogue named Jairus. When we studied this parallel in Mark, I included some more details:
There I note that Jesus would have attended Jairus's synagogue in Capernaum, and He would have known the little girl. And it's certain that Jairus would have known about the opposition to Jesus and may have even participated in it himself!
Funny how your personal feelings can get shoved aside when the well-being of your child is at stake.
In Mark, Jairus says that his daughter "is dying". Perhaps our best bet is to say that Jairus waited until it was too late to seek out Jesus -- maybe this was out of pride or opposition to Jesus. Jairus knew that his daughter would be dead by the time he found Jesus, so he probably said both things to Jesus -- the first to better compel Jesus to come with him and the second when Jesus' knowing look compelled him to spill the truth.
What is easier to ask of someone -- "perform a miraculous healing" or "raise my daughter from the dead"? (We'll see this tension again in the episode of Lazarus.) Jesus wanted Jairus to be fully aware of what he was asking Jesus to do. And I like to think that Jairus and his family became faithful followers of Jesus.
According to some Jewish authorities of the day (in this case, the Mishnah Kebubot), even a poor family had to hire two flute players and a "wailing woman" when a family member died. These were "professional mourners". And you can see how emotionally attached they were (not) to the girl -- when Jesus suggested she wasn't dead, they broke character and laughed.
Jews expressed their mourning in loud wailing, and adding professionals just made their "mourning" bigger. So here, Matthew also gives the symbolism of Jesus interposing Himself into the Jewish rituals of grief and despair. God's people were so far beyond hope that they had turned mourning into a profession.
Matthew does not give some of the details that Mark and Luke give, and that's because he's just getting to the point. Jesus touched the corpse. You should know that this would have immediately made Jesus unclean. But . . . well, you see where Matthew is going with this.
Not only does Jesus have authority over uncleanness, He has authority over death itself.
This is how Matthew explains the "case for Jesus" as Messiah. Matthew's audience would have been keenly interested. And, assuming that Matthew wrote in the early 60s, this would mean that people who were there were still alive. Matthew was giving them the option to travel to Capernaum and interview the elders of the town.
But Matthew wants us to see the parallels between Jesus' encounter with this dead girl and his own sinner friends from earlier. When Jesus comes by, dead things come to life.
How do these amazing events shape your expectations of Jesus?