Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINE

Part III (Con’t)

Verse 22: Jesus turned and saw the woman. He said, “Cheer up my daughter! You are healthy again because you believed.” The woman was instantly healed.

We saw that Jesus did not hesitate to respond to the synagogue leader’s request, and on His way to this prominent Jews house, a woman with a incurable disease that caused her to incessantly menstruate waited for Him because she had gotten word that Jesus the healer was in town. From what she heard, all she needed to do was touch Jesus and His power would cure her.

But she also had another issue that made her touching Jesus a possible embarrassment. A woman with such a flux is just one step below a leper in uncleanliness. The law was very clear: “Anyone who touches her will be unclean.”¹ In fact, there is an entire section in the Jewish Mishnah that deals with women who are in this unclean condition. Such a state of uncleanliness began on the day of the initial flux and remained in effect until it stopped.² Furthermore, there were penalties for anyone who had such an issue of uncleanliness. In the Babylonian Talmud there are thirty-six of them listed, one of which is a woman with such bleeding. Furthermore, the penalty for defiling someone else with such uncleanliness was “extinction,” meaning that the perpetrator’s life is cut short by Providence.³

Mark in his gospel gives a more detailed description, but Matthew was content to say that Jesus told the woman that her faith had been rewarded. Not only was she so happy to be healed, but I’m sure she was relieved from having to abide by the laws affecting her purity.⁴ And furthermore, Jesus was not upset that an unclean woman had touched Him. But I wonder what His disciples thought after they found out the woman had what they called a “flux” as defined in Scripture.⁵

But none of this bothered our Lord. He greeted her like the sages of old by calling her “daughter.” We find this in a story in Jewish tradition by Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel. He said that a woman came to his father and told him that she had defiled her hands by reaching into some earthenware vessel. So Gamaliel’s father said, “My daughter, what made it unclean?”⁶ Apparently, this was an accepted way to welcome someone who came for help. So again, Jesus shows how in touch He was with the people of Galilee. He didn’t tarry long, and got back underway.

With this aspect in mind, Chrysostom gives a more enlightened response in interpreting why Jesus did not see her actions as disrespectful of Him or or the Law. He writes: “What then is His intention in bringing her out into the open? First, Jesus puts an end to her fear. He does not want her to remain trapped in dread. He gives no cause for her conscience to be harmed, as if she had stolen the gift. Second, he corrects her assumption that she has no right to be seen. Third, He makes her faith an exhibit to all. He encourages the others to emulate her faith. Fourth, His subduing the fountains of her hemorrhage was another sign of His knowledge of all things.”⁷

Verse 23: Jesus continued walking with the Jewish synagogue leader and went into the leader’s house. He saw people there who make music for funerals. And He saw a crowd of people crying loudly.

According to the traditions of that time, the father was obliged to defray the expenses of the burial of his daughter in accordance with his position, and provide for two flute-players and one professional mourner⁸ This was required even if the Jewish man was of the poorest.⁹ These mourners were already in place by the time Jesus arrived. It was also the custom for the body of the deceased to be washed and placed on the bier before the funeral procession began, with the accompaniment of trumpets, dirges and lamentations chanted by wailing women.¹⁰ We are told: “Jeremiah wrote and sang some funeral songs for Josiah. And the men and women singers still sing these sad songs today. It became something the people of Israel always do—they sing a sad song for Josiah. These songs are written in the book, Funeral Songs.”¹¹

But the synagogue leader’s faith had kept him from going that far. So when Jesus shows up, He immediately tells the paid musicians, singers and mourners to go home, that the girl was not dead, she was only sleeping. Apparently their reverence for Jesus was not as high as that of the synagogue leader. But I’m convinced that he made sure Jesus’ instructions were carried out. Since this girl was the daughter of the synagogue leader, the number of flutes and mourners was increased substantially. Nevertheless, it still obligated Jairus to fulfill the tradition of paying the wages of men and women to recite laments and eulogize his daughter.¹² However, Jesus would have none of that because to Him the girl was not dead, so they were being paid for doing something that was not needed. I’m sure these flutist and paid mourners were upset because this itinerant Nazarene was costing them to lose money.

Verse 24: Jesus said to them, “Go away. The girl is not dead. She is only sleeping.” But the people laughed at Him.

There was no reason for them to laugh since referring to someone who had died as “sleeping” was a common phrase in those days. After all, that’s how it’s referred to in Jeremiah.¹³ And in the Rabbis’ commentary on that verse they say: “Concerning such persons it is said, they remain in a state of limbo forever.”¹⁴ This was also the message in Deuteronomy,¹⁵ which the Jews quote in their verbal teachings.¹⁶ And some saw it the way Jesus did, as their Rabbis taught: “The fact that we awake from sleep is some evidence for the resurrection.”¹⁷ Our Lord was echoing the words of Isaiah: “But the Lord says, ‘Your people have died, but they will live again. The bodies of my people will rise from death.”¹⁸ These people could have expressed faith and perhaps witnessed a miracle, but their doubt got them thrown out.

Early Church scholar Peter Chrysologus gives us his understanding here of the difference in Jesus’ mind between death and sleep. He writes: “With God, indeed, death is sleep, for God can bring a dead person back to life sooner than a sleeping person can be wakened from sleep by humans; and God can sooner restore life-giving warmth to limbs frozen in death than humans can infuse vigor in bodies immersed in sleep. Hear the words of the apostle: ‘In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye the dead shall rise.’¹⁹ And how does time enter the picture when something eternal is given outside of time? Even as time applies to temporality, so does eternity exclude time.”²⁰

And another Early Church scholar named Chromatius gives his take on why Jesus treated the unruly crowd the way He did. He writes: “In the flute players and bustling onlookers who laughed to scorn the Lord who said, ‘The girl is asleep, not dead,’ we see an example of the synagogue rulers and the onlookers of Jewish people who, when they heard that the hope of eternal life had been promised by the Son of God to the Gentiles, held up to ridicule and contempt this great grace of the Lord. Not unjustly did the Lord order them to be sent outside. He showed that incredulous and unbelieving people of this kind are to be excluded from the promise of eternal life or from God’s kingdom by him who is the Author of life and the Lord of the heavenly kingdom.”²¹

Verse 25: After the people were put out of the house, Jesus went into the girl’s room. He took the girl’s hand, and the girl stood up.

So once in the room, Luke tells us: “He didn’t allow anyone to enter except Peter, John, James, the father of the child, and her mother.”²² Then in Mark we read: “Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, ‘Talitha cumi!’ which means, being interpreted, ‘Girl, I tell you, get up!’”²³ Again this reminds us of the story of Rabbi Johanan and Rabbi Hiyya ben Abba, where the healer said to his ill comrade, “Give me your hand. He gave him his hand and he raised him.”²⁴

Chromatius offers a spiritual aspect on Jesus raising this girl from death. He says: “In the synagogue ruler we perceive a figure of the prophets or apostles, especially Peter, by whom the calling of the Gentiles was first heard; that is, the girl represented all those holy people who pleased God, not through the works of the law but through the righteousness of faith.…Moreover, for us to understand that the entire mystery of our salvation is prefigured in this girl; after she was raised from the dead, as Luke reports, the Lord directs her to eat something. Evidently the order of our faith and salvation is here shown. For when each believer among us is freed in baptism from perpetual death and comes back to life upon acceptance of the gift of the Holy Spirit, it is necessary that the person also be directed to eat that heavenly bread about which the Lord says, ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you’.²⁵”²⁶

Verses 26: The news about this spread all around the area.

Matthew tells us that word of her resurrection spread rapidly around the city and territory, even though Mark and Luke record that Jesus asked them not to tell anyone.²⁷ Although Christ could not finish answering one request before He was besieged with a new one, yet He carried on undauntedly. Caring, forgiving, healing as He came to each person. However, He never went on a vacation; He didn’t set up office hours, but rather carried on in the thick of it all and His only request was that they should pray for more workers in the vineyard.

Not workers to relieve Him or do His job, but to learn from Him and carry on, doing the many tasks that would be left undone after He departed. Such tireless dedication no doubt was brought on by the fact that He knew He only had a short time – about three years, to accomplish the task for which His heavenly Father had sent Him. In that respect, there is no reason for us sons of men to try and accomplish what the Son of God was able to do. But the one thing we can emulate is His faithfulness and undying commitment to the cause.

Often times when friends sit around chatting and having a good visit, someone will ask the latest brain teaser they heard. For instance, recently someone asked: if you put a coin into an empty bottle and insert a cork into the neck. How can you remove the coin without pulling the cork out or breaking the bottle?

I found out that the answer does not depend on whether you are looking at it as an optimist or pessimist, but whether or not you are ready to opt for unconventional thinking instead of conventional thinking. In other words, your attitude in solving this mystery is more dependent on whether it’s important enough for you to try and figure it out.

Let me explain. A conventional thinker habitually follows the accepted standards in solving puzzles. This is based upon a general agreement among the majority of people that has been established by general consent or accepted usage after having been randomly determined. We see this today displayed in national polls on various subjects or ideas, especially politics. In other words, it doesn’t depend on what you think, but what most people think that influences your decision.

On the other hand, unconventional thinking requires going outside the box of cultural norms. For instance, a lady who decided to donate to a different charity every day for a year instead of giving once to the United Fund – that’s unconventional giving. Or a travel fanatic who spent years visiting countries abroad who just published a book on how to eat cheaply and enjoy staying at home. Such things are not meant to draw attention nor to offend because of the joy and notoriety that comes with it. Rather, it is an effort to find an answer to some challenge that is not being solved by customary means. This is the basis for invention.

That’s why we call people who take time to find unconventional answers as being inventive. But to be inventive means to risk being wrong from time to time. And that’s the fear that keeps many people from tackling questions or problems for which there is no quick established solution. Such individuals think that if they just throw up their hands and walk away it will somehow take care of itself. When asked why they quit trying to figure it out they’ll often say, “Well, at least I tried!”

Had the inventors of the wheel, electricity, the automobile, the telephone, polio vaccine, computers and the internet taken that same kind of attitude, you can only imagine where we’d be today in our social and civic development. But believe it or not, there may be some among your acquaintances that are exactly in that situation. They have not tried anything new since they were in their teens! So the next time you run into a difficulty that cannot be resolved in the old fashion way, don’t be afraid of getting it wrong the first or second time, try being inventive.

By the way, to answer the brain teaser we started out with is this: Push the cork into the bottle and let the coin fall out on its own when you turn the bottle upside down. – Dr. Robert R. Seyda

Have you ever heard a pastor, Bible teacher, or fellow believer say with great conviction: “The Bible says, Hate the sin but love the sinner?” Sorry to tell you, but that is not in the Bible. In fact, most scholars trace it back to letter written in 423 AD by Augustine of Hippo to the Nuns of a monastery which contains the line: “With love for the person and hatred for the sin.”¹

In fact, this phrase was made popular by none other than Mohandas Gandhi, the famous leader of the nonviolent rebellion against British rule in India, in his 1929 autobiography. Since then it has been used by many who ask for tolerance as they espouse their own points of view. The closest thing we can find to this that Jesus said may be His words in Matthew 5:44, “Love your enemies. Pray for those who treat you badly.” But this is a difficult comparison since what your opponent may be doing to oppose you cannot be properly labeled as sin, thus making him or her a sinner.

When we look at what others are doing, of which we do not approve, it is somewhat judgmental to automatically call it sin. When we do so, we are misusing the word sin by not applying it to what the Bible calls sin. Listen to how Pastor A. J. Thomas explains it: “Sin doesn’t mean ‘bad’ or ‘bad things.’ In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word is chatta’t and it means, ‘separation.’ In the New Testament, the Greek word hamartia, is translated ‘sin.’ It’s a term from archery that literally means ‘to miss the mark.’ It’s when you let the arrow go and it fails to hit the target. So sin is both a condition – one of separation from God, and a missing of the mark – aiming our lives away from God.”²

Taken in that sense, to hate the sin but love the sinner would be to criticize the act but condone the action. It would almost be like saying to someone, I’ll still love you even if you commit murder, just don’t do it with a gun. This would also ignore the fact that using the gun is what would made the person a murderer, so it’s not the gun’s fault. So how can we approve of one thing and disapprove of the other when both are bad?

Now, how do we solve this conundrum? Do we either hate both act and actor or do we love both? It seems that King David had this same choice, so he decided: “Lord, I hate those who hate You. I hate those who are against You.”³ So let’s say that if your child, spouse, neighbor or friend does something that is against the law or accepted moral values, would it be permissible for you to tell them, “I hate what you did and I hate you for doing it. But my love for you is strong enough for me to pay the price for what you did and accept the prescribed punishment?”

If so, you would be subscribing to the same action that Peter speaks about when he wrote: “Christ carried our sins in His body on the cross. He did this so that we would stop living for sin and live for what is right.”⁴ Then the same thing that caused you to love Christ once you understood how much He loved you, might make it possible to believe that your child, spouse, neighbor or friend would feel the same way about you.

Of course, this may go against everything you’ve been taught and believe. So let’s lessen the burden. First of all, hate the sin but love the sinner is not written that way in the Bible. Second, go with what is written there: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and most important command. And the second command is like the first: ‘Love your neighbor the same as you love yourself.’ All of the law and the writings of the prophets take their meaning from these two commands.” – Dr. Robert R. Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINE

Part III

Verse 17: “Also, people never pour fresh wine into old wineskins. They would break, the wine would spill out, and the wineskins would be ruined. People always put fresh wine into new wineskins, which won’t break, and the wine stays good.”

Our Lord’s third parable would certainly be understood by those in the crowd who had vineyards. The longer wine is stored in skin flasks the more mellow it becomes. But freshly pressed grape juice tended to expand as it fermented in the first three to five days because of the yeast. In the same way, the wine of the new covenant could not be contained by the worn out flask of the old covenant. So in other words, Christ did not come to patch up the old sacrificial Law, nor did He come to inject new blood into an anemic sacrificial system for redemption. Rather, He came to spread a new spotless robe of righteousness over our shame, and to provide powerful, revitalizing, cleansing blood to flow through our spiritual veins and into our newly cleansed hearts.

Here is what Early Church scholar Jerome believed our Lord intended for His audience to understand: “What Jesus is saying is this: Until a person has been reborn and, having put aside the old person, puts on the new person, he cannot observe right fasting and the precepts of temperance. Otherwise, through undue self-denial one may lose even the faith one seems to possess. Christ gave two examples: the garment and the old and new wineskins. The old ones denote the scribes and Pharisees. The patch of shrunk cloth and the new wine signify the gospel precepts, which the Jews cannot observe, else a worse tear is made.”¹

When it comes to the condition of the old wineskins mentioned by Jesus, we can see this in how the Gibeonites tried to trick the Israelites: “They gathered together old wineskins that were cracked and broken. They put these old wineskins on the backs of their animals. They put old pieces of cloth on their animals to look as if they had traveled from far away…Look at our wineskins. When we left home, they were new and filled with wine. But now you can see that they are cracked and old. Look at our clothes and sandals. You can see that the long journey has almost destroyed the things we wear”.² Even the dedicated Psalmist compares himself to such an old wineskin by saying: “Even when I am like a dried wineskin on the trash pile, I will not forget your laws.”³

So some may ask, how does this compare to our acceptance of something that we are not familiar with such as new hymns, altered forms of praise and worship, explanations of what Jesus did and taught? We need not be too hasty in dismissing these things because they are new, when in fact they may be fresh and more invigorating traditional ways. But at the same time, they do not make obsolete accustomed forms of worshiping God, studying His Word, and doing His will. But this was not the case with the blood of Christ in the New Testament with the old worn-out wineskin of the Old Testament. This would require that Jesus be crucified each day for each sin committed by each person. And as we can see, that would tear the whole thing apart.

Verse 18: While Jesus was still talking, a leader of the synagogue came to Him. The leader bowed as he greeted Him and said, “My daughter has just died. But if you will come and touch her with Your hand, she will live again.”

Now Matthew tells us that during this encounter with the disciples of John the Baptizer and the Pharisees, Jesus was mercifully interrupted by a leader of the local synagogue who needed immediate help. It is highly possible that Jesus taught in this synagogue, since He came to His new home town of Capernaum where He now lived.⁴ Unlike the Centurion who came earlier,⁵ the synagogue leader’s daughter had already died. Both Mark and Luke say this synagogue leader’s name was Jairus.

Today most Jewish synagogues do not have a single leader, but are run by a committee established by the congregants. In the United States, the leader of this committee is called the President. It is worth noting that this President is almost always a Jewish layman as opposed to a person with theological training who has been taught the Talmud, Code of Jewish Law, and other classical texts of Jewish scholarship, such as a Rabbi.

In one document the Jews discuss the leaders in the synagogue and their responsibilities. For instance, if there was no Levite available to do his duties, then a “kohen” (priest) could take his place in reading the Scriptures. They also speak of “the seven.” Then comes “the scholars” who are appointed as “Parnasim”. This is the plural of Parnas. In Galilee the office of Parnas was connected with the political organization of the town and its title denoted usually a general leader of the people and sometimes also a member of the council. Elsewhere, the function of the Parnas was that of a charity overseer.

We are not told their specific position or task, but it is clear they were part of the hierarchy.⁶ This may have influenced the selection of “the seven” in Acts 6:3-4. In this case, since Jesus spoke in many of the synagogues in His area, there is a good possibility that Jairus was a friend, especially since upon arriving, he immediately bowed in reverence before our Lord.

Another reference to the role of the head of the synagogue reads as follows: “How were the blessings of the High Priest following the completion of the sacrifices on Yom Kippur pronounced? The synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and hands it to the head of the synagogue. The head of the synagogue hands it to the deputy [of the High Priest], and he in turn hands it to the High Priest”.⁷ I’m sure that none of this influenced our Lord’s response which was always based on compassion.

Bishop Hilary gives his interpretation on how all of these incidences of healing wove together to prove a spiritual point. He writes: “The prayers of the ruler, the faith of the woman, the gathering of the crowd in the house and the shouting of the two blind men, as well as the bringing of the deaf and dumb demoniac … are all interrelated. The ruler here is understood to be the law. He prays to the Lord for the people. The law has nourished them on Christ in the expectation of His foretold coming, and He restores life to the dead girl. Now we do not read of any ruler who was a believer. Hence the person of this praying ruler may rightly be taken as a model of the law. The Lord promised to help him, and He made good on his promise.”⁸

While that is an admirable analysis by the Bishop, what Jesus did here for this leader of the local synagogue was intended to show that He was sent from God, and He could do for them what no priest operating under Jewish law could do. Therefore, since the Scriptures did indicate that the Messiah would be one of such power and authority, they should start believing what He said and live by faith, rather than believe what the Torah said and live under the law.

The request for Jesus to touch her by His hand was already a part of Jewish tradition for those who ministered as healers.⁹ Apparently, Luke found out that this girl was Jairus’ only daughter, and that she was about twelve years old. This description fits well with standing Jewish tradition that we read as follows: “From the day of a girl’s birth until she becomes twelve years old, she is called a minor and/or a baby.”¹⁰ This certainly condones why a father often refers to his only, or youngest daughter, as “my little girl” or “my baby.”

So what we have here in this portion of the life and ministry of our Lord, is not a case of the Son of God being interrupted, challenged or put upon at the whim and fancy of passersby, but I am convinced that it was all part of God’s plan. None of these people just bumped into Christ, they were led to Him by their search for an answer to a question or need, like a person lost in the darkness gravitates toward the light. This is evident even today when we see the difference in the reaction of people to the power and presence of Christ in the midst of His people when they just happen to show up or when they come with a need and desire for His touch.

Verses 19-21: So Jesus stood up, and His followers went with the man. While on their way there was a woman who had been bleeding for twelve years. She came close behind Jesus and touched the bottom of His coat. She was thinking, “If I can touch His coat, I will be healed.”

It is noteworthy that we mark the statement: “Jesus stood up.” This takes us back to verse ten where we see Jesus reclining in Matthews house having a meal. Once you put that in your mind, then all the things that occurred up until now will be given a different perspective as our Lord interacted with the Pharisees, the disciples of John the Baptizer and what He was doing when this ruler of the synagogue came and bowed down before Him.

We find in one Apocryphal Gospel this woman is called “Bernice,” or “Beronice” in Egyptian Coptic, or “Veronica” in Latin.¹¹ This woman’s condition of constant hemorrhaging no doubt left her anemic, weak, breathless, and hardly able to walk any long distances. So she waited by the road for Jesus to pass by. Today her diagnoses might be termed “menstrual or postpartum bleeding.” The fact that it had gone on for twelve years no doubt was a constant source of frustration and left her too frail to even do the duties of a mother or wife. This condition was thought so important, that the Jewish Mishnah contains an entire section devoted to it.¹²

So in the text is appears that she waited until Jesus passed by where she was standing and came up behind Him to touch the tailing hem of his coat. According to what the Rabbis said, such a woman was considered unclean during this period. As such she was not allowed to participate in any religious functions, feasts, and if someone touches her, they become unclean.¹³ I’m sure this may have been on her mind when she thought of touching Jesus. But her faith told her that instead of her making Him unclean, His power would make her clean instead. This is also true when we read that Jesus took the sins of the world upon Himself. Our uncleanliness did not affect Him, but His purity affected us.

Chrysostom believes that the reason this woman wanted to secretly touch Jesus’ garment is because she was ashamed of her hemorrhaging condition. As such, she did not want to be seen as flagrantly violating the law which forbid her to touch anyone for fear of making them unclean, so that is why she had reservations about approaching Jesus openly. I agree with this early church scholar on this point, but not on his conclusion. Chrysostom states: “For this reason she remained hidden. She concealed herself. In this respect she had not yet understood his ministry; otherwise she would not have thought it necessary to remain concealed.”¹⁴

Yes, there is good reason to believe that she stood unnoticed in the crowd lining the street as Jesus passed by. But I am more convinced that she chose to touch Jesus secretly because of all the reasons cited before pertaining to her condition and uncleanliness, and also because in her eyes He was such a holy man, even being the Messiah, that in her humility she did not want to proverbially sit at the table with those who had been invited, but merely catch any crumbs that might fall within her reach.¹⁵

To me one of the important facts here is that she didn’t see the need of asking Jesus to heal her. She had faith enough to believe touching Him would be sufficient. This was no doubt one of the reasons why after Jesus felt the power go out of Him, He turned and contributed her healing to such faith. This truly brings out what our Lord would say later to His doubting disciple Thomas: “Great blessings belong to the people who believe without seeing me!”¹⁶ So it is today, we can be healed without having to see Jesus in the flesh. It’s only a matter of reaching out by faith to touch Him, especially when we feel His presence so near.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINE

Part II (Con’t)

Verse 15: Jesus answered, “At a wedding the friends of the bridegroom are not sad while he is with them. They should not be fasting. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them. Then they can fast.”

Jesus chooses once again to make His point by using a parable. This one concerned a new groom getting ready for his wedding. During the prenuptial period there would be activities that involved planning and rehearsing. Even today, who would think of declaring a family fast during the wedding week? That’s a time of celebration, feasting and being glad. So keep in mind, Jesus was not speaking here of fasting in the Christian context, but as it was practiced in Jewish tradition.

Jewish scholars tell us that in ancient days fasting was instituted as a sign of mourning,¹ or when danger threatened,² or when the prophet was preparing himself for a divine revelation.³ Individual fasting was common among the early Jews as evident from the provision made⁴ that a vow by a woman “to afflict the soul” may under certain conditions be canceled by the husband.

Also, consider the occasional fasts instituted for the whole community, especially when the nation believed itself to be under divine displeasure,⁵ where it is conjoined with the pouring out of water before the Lord,⁶ or when a great calamity fell on the land,⁷ as when pestilence raged or when drought set in; and also sometimes when an important act was about to be carried out by the officials of the land.⁸ In Isaiah we find a description of a fast-day among the Jews.⁹ In other words, fasting was tied to responding to a crisis or the act of purification. I’m sure the Jews who heard Jesus mention the wedding preparation and planning knew the customs involved.

At this point in Jesus ministry there was neither crisis nor the need to prove purity in order to participate. He was here preparing for the day when He would return for His bride, so the time for fasting was not appropriate. Added to this is the fact that some like the Pharisees had begun to use fasting as a way of increasing their stature in righteousness and holiness. It was an attempt to impress others and God. But with Emmanuel right here on earth, it was not a time them to try and make Him see how much He needed them, but how badly they needed Him.

One ancient Jewish story about such a nuptial ceremony reads like this: “Rabbi Shimon was sitting and studying the Torah on the night when the Bride, (Malchut), unites with her husband, (Zeir Anpin). And all the friends present in the bridal chamber on that night, the eve of the holiday of Shavuot (Pentecost), must stand together with the bridegroom under the wedding canopy, and be with him the whole night, and rejoice with him in the study of the Torah, then Prophets, then Holy Scriptures, and finally the wisdom writings, for these truths are the Bride’s adornment. And the Bride receives these truths, adorns herself with them, and rejoices with them all that night. And on the next day, on the holiday of Shavuot, she alone comes to the wedding canopy together with them. And her friends, who studied the Torah all night long, are called the sons of the wedding canopy. And as she approaches the wedding canopy, the Creator asks about them, blesses and adorns them with the Bride’s adornments. Happy are those who merit this!”¹⁰

What a beautiful picture this parable should have generated in the minds of Jesus’ listeners. This image may have also been in Peter’s thinking,¹¹ as well as John’s.¹² But that’s not all, even Jewish tradition taught what Jesus was saying about such freedoms: “The bride and the groom and all the wedding guests are free from the obligations of prayer and tefillin (“small black boxes”), but are bound to read the Shema’.”¹³

This is repeated from earlier writings: “Rabbi Ba bar Zabeda said, ‘The groomsmen and all who share in the marriage-canopy are exempt from the religious duty of dwelling in a tent’.”¹⁴ Their venerated teachers had this to say: “All the members of the wedding party are absolved of the law only while they are involved in the guidelines of celebrating together with the bride and groom, however, when they leave, they are obligated. Furthermore, there are many authorities who require that the meals served the groom and his attendants be served in a tent”.¹⁵

So it wasn’t that Jesus was teaching them anything new, He was simply reminding them of what they already practiced. I’m sure this may have been the scene when Jesus was invited by His mother to the wedding of a family member in Cana, and a few of the disciples were there with Him.¹⁶ But at the same time, He revealed Himself to be the groom and His followers as the bride. We know this later became a part of Christian doctrine with the bride being the church.

There is also an ancient story connected to this thought. Two rabbis were going down the road. One of them,¹⁷ was riding on a donkey, and the other,¹⁸ was walking behind him. The walking Rabbi said to the riding Rabbi: “Master, teach me a chapter in the Work of the Chariot.” This was a scroll written before 100 BC, commenting on the visions of Ezekiel involving the chariot composed of four heavenly beings. So they stopped, and the walking Rabbi asked permission to speak first on the subject. So the other Rabbi said, “Speak!” At that moment, the story goes: “Then fire fell from heaven all around them, and ministering angels skipped before them like wedding guests rejoicing before the bride. An angel spoke from the midst of the fire and said, ‘According to your words, you are the Work of the Chariot.’ Immediately all the trees opened their mouths and sang, ‘Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy’¹⁹.”²⁰ If the Jews were willing to believe such a tale, why couldn’t they also accept what Jesus was saying? But our Lord will have more to say.

One of the early church patriarchs of the Syrian Orthodox Church, was known for his homilies, and he had this to say about what Jesus was teaching here. He does so by offering a paraphrase of Jesus’ answer to the question about fasting: “It is with the words of John the Baptizer, your own teacher, whom you esteem so highly, that I answer you. Keep it in mind, and you will have the answer to your question. When John the Baptizer bore witness concerning me, he said, ‘He who has the bride is the groom.’²¹ So, if I am the groom and you don’t make a liar out of your own teacher, you know in advance that it is important for my disciples, while they are the children of the marriage … to be cheerful and joyful and not to become upset or miserable over fasting. In certain respects, fasting is a source of annoyance and can also be grueling, especially for those without a mature disposition.”²²

Some scholars think that since the Church – who is the Bride, is waiting on the Groom to return – who is Christ, that fasting is not a factor believers use in order to be seen by the world as being dedicated to the Lord. Therefore, if one does fast, it must be for a cause, not for contriteness; for sacrifice, not for showmanship. Fasting is not done to force or obligate God to answer a prayer on our terms, but to prepare us more emotionally, mentally, and spiritually for whatever answer we may receive from Him.

But our Lord was not finished because He knew that His listeners were always taking what He had to say about the Law and the Prophets, and criticizing what He said where it did not fit their understanding of how things should be taken and applied. He wanted to point out to them that while God wanted to keep His covenant with Abraham in place, He wanted to revitalize it with new meaning and purpose. So Jesus explains this with another illustration.

Verse 16: “When someone sews a patch over a rip in an old coat, they never use a new piece of cloth that has not already been shrunk. If they do, the patch will shrink and pull away from the coat when it is washed. Then the rip will be even bigger.”

I’m certain that any tailors or seamstresses in the crowd would be nodding their heads in agreement. On the subject of patches, I am neither bragging nor complaining, but I did grow up in an era when it was not unusual to see me and my fellow classmates with patches on our jeans to cover up the holes in the knee area. So you can imagine my shock when I see young people walking around today with their jeans torn in the knees and other areas, and they buy them like that! But the main point here was the significance of trying to patch up old cloth with new cloth.

The new covenant message that Jesus brought from the Father could not be used as a patch on the old covenant to make it more viable for attaining salvation and forgiveness required under the law. As we know from the witness of Paul and John, many were trying to do this in the early stages of Christianity. Jesus said that if it were tried, the new covenant patch would start shrinking with each new washing and end up making the schism already apparent in the old covenant even wider.

Early Church scholar Peter Chrysologus gives us his thoughts on such patching. He writes: “Jesus says that the fabric of the old law was worn away by Judaic zealousness, corrupted by the senses, split apart by factions and worn out by impure actions. The shrunk cloth of the gospel he calls a garment. But make note of the cloth, not simply the tear but the beginning of the weave. First of all, the fabric of Christ’s royal garment was woven out of wool that came from a lamb: ‘The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.’²³ The royal vestment was a woven vestment, which the blood of his passion tinged with purple splendor.”²⁴

In some ways, this seems to be the same reasoning given by those today who are trying to seek salvation, sanctification, and doing God’s will in their lives as believers by injecting Old Testament laws, rituals and ceremonies into New Testament worship and living. We know some of them as Messianic Jews. Many of them are non-Jews who are trying to be Christians by becoming more Jewish in the thinking a practice. Believe it or not, there are Jews who have become believers in Jesus as the Messiah, and they have given up all their practices in the Torah and Jewish traditions to accept the freedom found in Christ. As we can see, this didn’t start yesterday, it was already a problem back in Paul’s day.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINE

Part III

Verse 12: As soon as Jesus heard them say this, He said to them, “It is the sick people who need a physician, not those who are healthy.”

It is noteworthy here that Jesus uses the term “physician.” Yes, He was a healer, but not according to the traditional medical customs of His day. Rabbi Ashi had a saying similar to this: “Do we need Scripture to tell us this?¹ Is it not common sense that if a man has pain he visits the doctor?”² In the case of Matthew, and others like him, Jesus had the healing ministry for what a Jewish philosopher called, “the diseases of the soul.”³ It is also remarkable that these doubting Jews did not adhere to what one of their venerable Rabbis spoke of: “Whoever lives in the Land of Israel will have his sins forgiven as Isaiah states: ‘The inhabitants will not say “I am sick,” because the people who dwell there have been forgiven of their sins.’⁴”⁵

Then Jesus blithely told them to go study the Scriptures again, perhaps hoping they might read where Micah says: “This is what He wants from you: Be fair to other people with love and kindness.”⁶ Solomon also had something to say on this subject: “Do what is right and fair. The Lord loves that more than sacrifices.”⁷ We have a similar problem today in some of our churches. So many are ready to do their duty on Sunday morning by attending worship, but don’t want to be bothered during the week about being kind or helping others. That’s why every Christian should pay close attention to this saying of our Lord. Many Christians know all about commitments – this is what sacrifices to God in the temple represented, but little about compassion – this is what sacrifices for God is all about.

Verse 13: “You need to go and learn what this Scripture means: ‘I don’t want animal sacrifices; but being kind to people.’ I did not come to restore the saints but the sinners.

Here Jesus quotes from Hosea in the context of the Pharisees’ objection to Him eating with these low-life tax collectors.⁸ By pointing to this Scripture and advising His critics to revisit it for better understanding, Jesus uses a common phrase employed by teachers in His day. We see this in the following command by the Rabbis: “Go and learn from the thirteen principles whereby the Torah is interpreted”.⁹ Also, in the KJV, verse 13 ends with: “for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” However, neither the Latin Vulgate, Munster’s Hebrew Gospel, nor the Syrian, Ethiopian or Persian versions end that way. The Aramaic version reads: “I came to call on the sinners rather than on the righteous.” The oldest Hebrew version of Matthew reads: “I have not come to restore the righteous but the wicked.”¹⁰

Prioritizing the ministry to such as these was not new to the way of thinking because it was already part of their tradition. The Rabbis said: “Come and hear: ‘For shepherds, tax collectors and revenue farmers it is difficult to make repentance, yet they must make restitution of the articles in question to all those whom they know they have robbed. It may, however, also be said here that though they have to make restitution, it would not be accepted from them. If that’s true, why should they make restitution? — To make it quite evident that out of their free will they are prepared to fulfill their duty before God. But if that is true, then should it be difficult for them to make repentance?”¹¹

Here the point is made that only those who have been guilty of doing wrong need to repent. In the minds of these religious leaders they needed no repentance because they were living according to the law. So why then should they be so upset if Jesus goes to the very ones this Rabbi is talking about? Couldn’t they see that Jesus was following one of their own teachings? Believe it or not, in our own day and age people have been refused entrance into some churches because they did not dress right or had the smell of alcohol on their breath or were known to be of questionable character, when that is the whole purpose for the church to be there. So it seems that things have not changed all that much since Jesus day.

That should have been enough to quiet these skeptics, but things were only getting more intense for our Lord. In one polemic work against the gospels the writer points to this saying of Jesus and complains that Christians say all sinners will wind up in hell. He writes: “Moreover, the view that all were damned is untenable in light of the verse, ‘I will praise you, O Lord my God, with all my heart, and I will glorify your name for evermore; for great is your mercy toward me, and you have delivered my soul from the lowest hell.’¹²”¹³ It is remarkable that he didn’t notice the attitude of the Pharisees and how they objected to Christ reaching out to sinners with the same mercy to deliver them spoken of by the Psalmist.

Jerome talks about Jesus attending the banquet of sinners, and says: “The Lord went to the banquet of sinners that He might have an opportunity to teach and to offer spiritual food to His hosts. In effect, when He is mentioned as frequently going out to attend feasts, nothing is said other than what He did there and taught there. Thus, we see both the Lord’s humility in reaching out to sinners and the force of His teaching in converting the repentant. What follows: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice’ and ‘I came not to call the righteous but sinners’ (as he cites testimony from the prophet) challenged the scribes and Pharisees, who considered themselves righteous and shunned both publicans and sinners.”¹⁴

So here our Lord shows us another factor in personal evangelism. He did not wait for Matthew to come to Him, but He went to Matthew. But He did not go as a complete stranger. I’m sure that on those occasions when Jesus saw Matthew sitting there as He spoke to the crowds that gathered, He knew that this tax-collector wanted to become a follower but was hesitant and unsure. As ministers we must also be sensitive when to go and share with someone the Gospel and Christ’s call for all those who believe to follow Him. Too often we wait for them to come to us or show up at our door. And when we don’t see them in attendance anymore, it hurts our spirit because we know that we did not reach out when we should have. Then all we can do is hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will find another servant who is more willing to go and find this lost soul.

Verse 14: Then the followers of John came to Jesus and said, “We and the Pharisees fast often, but your followers don’t ever fast. Why?”

Apparently, some days went by before another issue came to the surface. This time it was raised by fellow believers who followed John the Baptizer. They pointed out that they were still keeping some of their old Jewish traditions while the followers of Jesus were not. This may have been done out of jealousy by the Baptizer’s followers because Jesus’ ministry was growing so fast while theirs was dwindling. But also the Pharisees may have chosen this method of urging John the Baptizer’s followers to ask this question in order to find another way to get into the mind of Jesus who would look more favorable on John the Baptizer’s disciples than on them.

It is also reasonable to believe that the question did not pertain to the public fasts that accompanied their sacred holidays, but private fasts. Of course, it may not have dawned on them that they were asking the man who fasted 40 days and nights. Such unscheduled fasts were often brought on by needs or disasters. In one case the Rabbis tell us it often occurred because of needed rain. When this was the case, most committed Torah Scholars began to fast Monday, Thursday and again the following Monday. If the rains still did not come, they would then call on the entire community to fasts those same days. If it still didn’t rain, then the local court would order three more fast days.¹⁵ Also, in a city if there was an epidemic, or collapse of sturdy buildings, or other catastrophes, the city would fast and blow the shofar (trumpet) as a sign of repentance.¹⁶

One Jewish expert on fasting instructed the people that if anyone asks about fasting, tell them: “Fasting is permitted on all days except the Sabbath and festival days, New Moons and the intermediate days of a festival, Hanukkah and Purim.”¹⁷ Other Rabbis taught: “Fasting is as potent against a dream as fire is against straw.¹⁸ Jewish scholars tell us that dreams were believed to be omens foreshadowing the future. This was often because the evil foretold in the dream might then be averted. Normally fasting was forbidden on the Sabbath, but a dream-fast was permitted”.¹⁹

In fact, one highly respected Jewish teacher stated: “A person who has a disturbing dream must fast on the following day, so that he will be motivated to improve his conduct, inspect his deeds, and turn to God in repentance. He should undertake such a fast even on the Sabbath, reciting the passage asking for forgiveness in each of the prayer services. This applies even though he did not resolve on the previous day to fast. When a person fasts on the Sabbath, he must fast on another day as well, to atone for nullifying the law by indulging in pleasurable activities on the Sabbath.”²⁰

There is much more in the commentary on this teaching in the same location. But by now we all can see how important fasting was to the Jews, and apparently to the disciples of John the Baptizer. But Jesus gave them a novel answer. In other words, Jesus wanted His listeners know that fasting was not to be done to impress God or one’s fellow believers. Fasting is a method whereby the believer can bring his or her own body under more spiritual control. After all, if you cannot control what you eat that is not good for you physically, then how do you expect to control your desire for things that are not good for you spiritually? It is also another way of showing submission to God’s will by denying oneself in order to be available for God’s use.

Early church preacher Peter Chrysologus gives his thoughts on this verse when he said: “What did John’s disciples have in common with the Pharisees if not a common bond of ill will uniting those who were separated by different spiritual lifestyles? In this case jealousy loses its direction: Accustomed to separating people, it now united them. The Jews were not disposed to esteem Moses less than the Lord, and John’s disciples were by no means willing to prefer Christ to John. Thus they grumbled in common malice against Christ. ‘Why do we and the Pharisees often fast, whereas Your disciples do not fast?’ Why? Because with you Pharisees and disciples of John, fasting is a matter of the law and not of the will. Fasting does not reflect the one who fasts but the One who orders the fast. And what do you expect to get out of fasting when you really don’t want to?”²¹

One scholar explained fasting for believers this way: “Christian fasting isn’t some kind of a ‘work’ that’s commanded by Christ or required by Scripture. However, that doesn’t mean that fasting isn’t recommended as a part of our spiritual growth. The Book of Acts records believers fasting before they made important decisions.²² Fasting and prayer are often linked together.²³ Too often, the focus of fasting is on the lack of food. However, the purpose of fasting is to take our eyes off the things of this world and instead focus on God. Fasting is a way to demonstrate to God and to ourselves that we are serious about our relationship with Him. Although fasting in Scripture is almost always a fasting from food, there are other ways to fast. Anything you can temporarily give up in order to better focus on God can be considered a fast.²⁴ Fasting should be limited to a set time, especially when the fasting is from food. Extended periods of time without eating are harmful to the body. Fasting is not intended to punish our flesh, but to focus on God.”²⁵

Oh how many believers not only fast, but also pray, attend worship, participate in praise and worship, and volunteer for ministries, not because they want to but because they feel they have too? It’s a matter of spiritual pride. And yet they somehow expect the same blessing as those who do it willingly and out of love for their Master and the body of Christ that unites them. Jesus must have seen that these people would only understand what He wanted to tell them if He used an illustration to explain it.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINE

Part II

Verse 7: The man stood up, grabbed his mat, and went home.

Now Matthew reports the impact this healing had on everyone else in the room. The scribes may have been skeptical, but not those who came to see Jesus and those who brought loved ones to be healed. We see that it had two effects on those observing our Lord’s ministry. As soon as the man stood up and walked away, it shut the mouths of the critics, and opened the mouths of the believers who began rejoicing over this miracle.

We must remember now, Jesus did not cure this man to prove that He had the power to heal, but to show them that as the Anointed One He had the authority to proclaim sins forgiven. We must keep this tandem alive in the church today. And as it was done back then in Bible days, so it is done to day – by the authority of Jesus, the Son of God, the Anointed One.

Verse 8: The people saw this and they were amazed. They praised God for letting a human being on earth have such power.

The people who saw this happen had little doubt about where the power to forgive sins and heal the sick came from. In their minds, only God had the power to take away the chastisement for sin. In this case, Jesus did both. Not only was the illness removed that they saw as punishment from God for sin, but it simultaneously removed the record of that sin. And once God obliterates the record, there can be no punishment ever given for that same sin.

Chrysostom gave this commentary: “Do you see how He is shown to be both Creator of souls and bodies? He heals therefore the palsy in each of the two substances, and makes the invisible evident by that which can be seen, even while the body is restricted to remaining on the earth.”¹ Chrysostom goes on to point out that the term “marveled” was actually more out of awe than admiration. This then caused them some anxiety, seeing that a human among them had been given such power.

We also see that Jesus did not rebuke them for harboring such reservations about Him. His whole purpose of doing such miracles was to arouse their faith and get them to think more spiritually than legally about the forgiveness of sin. Chrysostom goes on to write: “Since at the time it was no small thing for Him to be thought greater than all men since He came from God. For had they established this firmly in their own minds, it would follow that they would have known, that He was in fact the Son of God. But they did not retain these things clearly, wherefore neither were they unable to recognize Him. For they said again, ‘This man is not of God;’² ‘how is this man of God?’ And they continually harped on these things, putting them forward as cloaks for their own misgivings.”³

But it was more than just being unsure, behind it all was their unwillingness and emotional temperament that kept them from bringing themselves to accept Him as the true Messiah, the Anointed One on whom they all waited; the One who was to bring them deliverance and victory; not from sin, but from the Romans and poverty. Perhaps that’s why Bishop Hilary states: “Admiration and not fear had to accomplish this work, but even now the order of the mystery remains. To add a glimpse of the future to the truth of the present, the crowds fear the Lord’s words and actions. It is frightful to face death without having one’s sins forgiven by Christ, for no one returns to the eternal home unless forgiveness of sins has been granted.”⁴

In other words, their reluctance to accept Jesus as Messiah involved their recognition that if sins needed to be forgiven in order to inherit everlasting life; and He was in fact the Anointed One sent to redeem mankind from sin, then the whole legal mechanism they had under the Law requiring sacrifices would go out the window and they would not be able to manipulate the system as they were doing. After all, if He could discern what they were thinking without their saying a word, then they would by necessity need to seek forgiveness with full and total sincerity and contrition. Because if they did not, then their request for forgiveness would be denied because of their lack honesty and integrity.

Verse 9: As Jesus was leaving the city, He saw a man named Matthew sitting in a booth collecting taxes. Jesus walked up to him and said, “Follow me.” So he immediately got up and followed Jesus.

Now the narrative takes a sudden twist. There is no record that Matthew had been seeking to follow Jesus or that he attended any of His teaching sessions. We know that elsewhere he is also referred to as Levi, the son of Alphaeus.⁵ He was one of the dreaded tax collectors for the Romans, as well as for the Temple. But from Matthew’s instant response to Jesus’ invitation, it is clear that Jesus recognizes Matthew and that Matthew knew who Jesus was. No doubt he had heard Him teach and saw His miracles, but had not to that point decided to give up his position as tax collector to become a permanent disciple.

However, the call of Jesus was all he needed to help him decided that this was his moment, and he did not fail to answer. We see what the Jews thought of this apostate of the Torah and deserter of his position as a true Jew. The Rabbis even kept record when one of their own left to follow Jesus. In their writings we find this: “Our Rabbis taught: Yeshua had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Thodah. When Matthai was brought before the court he said to the judges, Should not I, Matthai, be executed? Is it not written, Matthai, shall come and appear before God?⁶ At that point they countered; Yes, Matthai, you shall be executed, since it is written, when Matthai, shall die, his notoriety will fade away.⁷”⁸

In this secondhand account of how Matthew was called by Jesus to be a disciple had given scholars a reason to believe that this gospel was written by someone who wanted Matthews experiences and memories to be made public. Scholars reckon that it was written between 80-90 AD, which means that Matthew had passed away by that time, especially since we don’t hear anymore about him after the Upper Room experience (cf. Acts 1:13). As a matter of fact, sometime after the 2^nd Century AD the phrase “According to Matthew” was added to the Gospel title on most manuscripts.

However, early Christian writings reveal: “Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to the non-Jews, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thereby made up to those he was ministering to for his no longer being with them.”⁹

So it may have been then from these journals that this gospel was put into Greek by one of Matthew’s own disciples. In any case, we find Jesus over at Matthew’s house where the new disciple invited many of his friends to come and dine with the Master. Now it was the Pharisees’ turn. They were obsessed with rules and rituals concerning purity, so it upset them that One who called Himself the Messiah, would eat with those considered unclean for many reasons. Little did they know what God said about people like them with such attitudes: “They are like smoke in My eyes, and their fire never goes out.”¹⁰ Jesus had a touché response to their objections, by pointing out that the sick need the doctor, not the healthy.

With regard to Matthew’s sudden and undelayed response to Christ’s call, early church theologian Chromatius had this to say: “The Lord, about to give salvation to all sinners believing in Him, willingly chose Matthew the former publican. The gift of His esteem for Matthew stands as an example for our salvation. Every sinner must be chosen by God and can receive the grace of eternal salvation if one is not without a religious mind and a devout heart. So Matthew was chosen willingly by God. And though he is immersed in worldly affairs, because of his sincere religious devotion he is judged worthy to be called forth by the Lord (‘Follow me’), who by virtue of his divine nature knows the hidden recesses of the heart. From what follows, we know that Matthew was accepted by the Lord not by reason of his status but of his faith and devotion. As soon as the Lord says to him, ‘Follow Me,’ he does not linger or delay, but thereupon ‘he arose and followed Him’.”¹¹

We find that some have identified the other four disciples listed in this Talmudic story: Buni was the Semitic name for Nicodemus, and Todah was short for Thaddaeus, also known as Judas, son of James. Also Nezer and Nakai are thought to be the Semitic names for Andrew and Philip.¹² However, others believe that these disciples were not part of the original twelve, but of the 60¹³ that Jesus sent out.¹⁴

The place where Matthew worked was variously known at the “Custom House”, “Toll Booth”, or “Publican’s House.” We are told by this story: “A human king passed through his custom-house and said to his attendants, ‘pay the tax to the tax-collectors’. They said to him, ‘But all taxes go to you!’ He answered them, ‘All travelers will learn from me not to evade their payments of taxes’.”¹⁵ These collection houses were not just in the city center, nor were they elusively for taxes. They were also built at the foot of bridges, at the mouth of rivers, and at passenger ports on the sea shore to levy tolls.¹⁶

As such, tax collectors were not held in high esteem in Jesus’ day. In fact, Jewish scholar Rashi describes what we may call the “Wild West Days” in Israel: “…that instead of the noise of your adversaries, its the noise of ambushers, bandits, and tax collectors who band together to ambush travelers at water crossings, there the donkey riders and travelers will remind them of the righteous deeds of the Lord”¹⁷. As a matter of fact, the Jews made receipts to show what they paid for. We read: “Parchment paper made from papyrus large enough to write a tax collector’s receipt upon was given to each one who crossed a river, to be shown at the other side. And anyone who carries a tax collector’s receipt would require a large piece of parchment.”¹⁸

When we put all of this together, it appears that Matthew was sitting in a toll booth on Lake Galilee’s shore collecting taxes as ships with cargo arrived as Jesus walked out of Capernaum. It also could be that he had been sitting there and heard Jesus teaching the crowd that gathered there on the beach. After being called by the awe inspiring prophet, Matthew was so moved that he invited Jesus home for dinner. Although it was a time of celebration, it offered the opponents of Jesus an opportunity for criticism and trouble for making such a choice as Matthew.

Chrysostom offers this comment on Matthew being selected. He says: “He who is acquainted with our inmost hearts and knows the secrets of our minds knows when each one of us is ready to respond fully. Therefore He did not call all disciples together at the beginning, when Matthew was still in a hardened condition. Rather, only after countless miracles, after his fame was spread abroad, did he call Matthew. He knew Matthew had been softened for full responsiveness. We may admire, incidentally, the self-effacing temperament of Matthew, for we note how he does not disguise his own former life. In his account he freely adds his own name and his own bad profession, while the other Gospel writers had generously protected him under another name.¹⁹ But why did Matthew himself indicate precisely that he was ‘sitting at the tax office’? To point to the power of the One who called him, underscoring that he was being actively drawn away from the midst of the very evils in which he was presently engaged and that he had not already abandoned his wicked business as a tax gatherer.”²⁰

Verse 10: While Jesus ate dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and others with bad reputations came and ate with Him and His followers.

It appears that Matthew had many friends in the civil service around Capernaum. But like himself, they were all considered the worst of the worst. The Pharisee’s reaction can be taken two ways. One, they were looking for anything to criticize Jesus. Or two, if they were going to accept Him as the Messiah, this was not the kind of conduct they wanted to see. It appears that these tax collectors, or “publicans” as they were called, were lumped in together with other types abhorred by the citizenry, such as murderers and thieves.²¹ The venerable Maimonides speaks disparagingly about customs-collectors by comparing them to highway robbers: “…all of their property can be assumed to have come from robbery, for their profession is based on robbery.”²²

No doubt he drew his conclusion from verbal traditions that expressed it this way: “No money may be taken for change either from the box of the customs collectors or from the purse of the tax collectors who collect customs or taxes in an unlawful manner, especially those who were not appointed by the government, or one, who charges, as he pleases, as these are considered to be stolen goods, nor may charity be taken from them”.²³ And since the food for this meal was purchased by funds collected by this publican Matthew, Jesus was violating this custom because He was benefiting from ill-gotten wealth. And in the Greek dictionary by Fabricii, he states: “…all publicans are robbers.”²⁴ This thinking is clearly supported by Maimonides: “When a trusted aide becomes a tax collector, a collector of customs duty, or the like, he must be stripped of his status as an aide. However, if he abandons his evil deeds, he will be considered as every other person. If he is rehired as an aide, he must begin at the bottom as he did in the beginning.”²⁵

This was also part of the Jews’ unwritten traditions.²⁶ Maimonides goes on to say: “When Jewish tax-collectors for the ruling government entered a house to take security for money that is owed, everything in the house they touch becomes contaminated. If they are accompanied by a non-Jewish official, their word is accepted if they say they did not touch anything, because they are afraid of the non-Jewish official.”²⁷ Not only that, but such transactions were known to be done under pressure, much like we’ve seen in movies of mafia men or loan shark bullies. One Jewish Rabbi includes them in his list of crooks: “…herdsmen, tax collectors and civil servants.”²⁸ In fact, if a tax collector entered a Jew’s house for anything, it was immediately considered unclean.²⁹

Chrysostom gives his understanding of the status of such civil servants. He writes: “Now the tax collectors came together because they were of the same trade as Matthew was. For he took pride in the visit of the Messiah and invited them all together. The Messiah applied every form of healing. Not only while He was engaging in a formal discussion or healing or refuting His enemies, but even at breakfast He used to restore persons who were in bad condition. By means of these practices He taught us that every moment and every action can offer benefit to us.”³⁰ How different was our Lord’s selection process than the ones we use today in choosing candidates for ministry. That’s because Jesus saw what only He could see. That’s why most of us who were chosen by God through the Spirit before we sought any accreditation or licensing by a church or denomination, know how humbling it is to look back and say, “He knew!”

Then Chrysostom goes on: “Certainly the food Matthew set before Him at that time had come from unrighteousness and covetousness. But Christ did not ask to be excused from participating in them, because the gain to be derived from it was going to be great. Rather, He shared the same roof and the same table with people who had erred in their manner of acquiring such things. For such is the nature of the physician. If He did not put up with the decay of the persons who are sick, He would not set them free from their sickness. Certainly Jesus got a bad reputation from this action, by eating with Matthew, by eating in his house and by eating with many tax collectors. This is why you see them criticizing Him (in verse 11).”³¹

And Chrysologus, also known for his preaching, gives us this homily: “Jesus’ sitting at table has more significance for Matthew than just dining. Jesus will be feasting not on food but on the return of sinners. He will call them back through feasting, collegiality and human affection, enjoying Himself with their pleasant conversation while reclining at table. He knew that if they recognized Him as a powerful judge they would be shattered by the terror of His majesty and overwhelmed by the sheer presence of God unveiled. Thus, veiled in a human body He was able to communicate with humans. He who wanted to assist the guilty hides the fact that He was a judge. He who did not deny dignity to faithful servants conceals His lordship. He who desired the weak to be embraced by a parent’s love covers His majesty.”³²

Verse 11: And when the Pharisees saw Jesus eating with these people, they asked His followers, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and other sinners?”

Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria said that people of his day “…looked upon tax collectors as common enemies and destroyers,” so they made all kinds of different excuses at different times, and neglected all laws and ordinances, and with much jumbling and evasion tried to avoid the taxes and payments which are levied on them.³³ Now we see that part of the Pharisee’s objection is that a clean person should not eat with an unclean person, because in so doing they become unclean themselves. But today, this would be like telling a person with infected hands not to use sanitizing soap or gel because they might get the disinfectant dirty. Couldn’t they see the effect Jesus was having on Matthew?

Early church theologian Hilary has this to say of why Jesus ate with sinners. He writes: “The Jews were seething with envy that the Lord was spending time with publicans and sinners. He declared to them that the words of the law were being concealed under a cloak of faithlessness. He gave aid to the sick and medicine to those in need. For those who believed they were healthy, however, no cure was necessary. But in order for them to understand that none of His followers were healthy, He advised them to learn the meaning of ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’³⁴ In other words, the law linked to the ritual of sacrifices was unable to give help, but health was in store for all in the granting of mercy. ‘For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’³⁵ He had come for all. So why does Jesus say that He did not come for the righteous?… No one is righteous by reason of the law. He therefore showed the emptiness of boasting about the law, because with sacrifices imposed on the sick for their health, mercy was needed for all things set down in the law. For if righteousness came from the law, forgiveness through grace would not be necessary.”³⁶

And one of Hilary’s contemporary theologians, Chromatius, gave this spiritual exposition: “According to the allegorical or mystical account, Matthew’s house is his mind, which Christ entered through Matthew’s faith in His grace. He is viewed as having truly ‘sat at table’ there, for this same Matthew deserved to be the writer of this Gospel. Describing the Lord’s deeds and power, he presented a heavenly feast not only to the Lord and His disciples but also to all believers who, coming as publicans and sinners to the knowledge of Christ, deserved being included in so great a feast. In effect, Matthew’s house can be viewed as a church comprising publicans and sinners. He presents to all the leaders there the feast of his faith and preaching, with the Lord and His disciples seated at table.”³⁷

While all of this skepticism and derogatory response to a person such as Matthew, known as being part of the criminal class as far as Jews were concern, to be suddenly walking behind Jesus as one of His disciples might be passed off as a result of the times and conditions in Jesus’ day, believe it or not the same is often heard today when a former criminal is converted while in jail and goes out to become a preacher of the Gospel. For those who remember, such was the case of Nicky Cruz who was a member of a New York street gang before being converted under the ministry of David Wilkerson.³⁸

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINE

Part I

NOTE: In this chapter we find on display the whole gamut of human need and the power of God in Christ to supply the answer to those needs in every situation.

          Condition                                            Source                                            Remedy

          Sin                                                        Satan                                  Forgiveness of Christ

          Physical illness                                Nature                                Words of Christ

          Internal bleeding                            Illness                                 Touching Christ

          Being dead                                         Death                                  Touch of Christ

          Blindness                                           Disease                               Command of Christ

          Being possessed                              Demons                              Superiority of Christ

Verse 1: Jesus got into a boat and went back across the lake to His own town.

With His work completed in Gadara, Jesus now sails north some 12 miles across the Sea of Galilee to where He is living. By this time it was understood that Matthew was not referring to Bethlehem or Nazareth, but Capernaum.¹ The key factor is that the writer indicates this was now Jesus’ home town.² Even early church writer Chrysostom says: “By His ‘own city’ here he means Capernaum. For that which gave Him birth was Bethlehem; that which brought Him up, Nazareth; that which had Him continually inhabiting it, Capernaum.”³

There were several factors that went into someone claiming a town or city as the permanent residence in those days. In a discussion by Jewish Rabbis one asked: “How long must a man reside in a city to be considered a resident of the city and thereby be liable to participate in the aforementioned costs? Twelve months. If, however, he buys a house there, he is immediately regarded as a resident of the city”.⁴ Also, a Jewish teacher known as Raba was asked: “How long must [a stranger] stay in a town, that he may be as its citizen? Answered Raba, twelve months”.⁵ So it appears that by this time, Jesus had passed the one year mark in Capernaum.

Verse 2: Some people brought to Him a man who was paralyzed and was lying on a mat. Jesus saw that these people had much faith. So He said to the paralyzed man, “Young man, you will be glad to hear this. Your sins have been forgiven.”

It is remarkable that Jesus greeted the young man the way He did. How did Jesus know this man had committed any sins? Did He know what sins the man was involved in? The answer is found in the teaching of the Jews related to illnesses. We read that the Rabbis taught that many of the consequences of sin is physical punishment in the form of disease. After all, isn’t this what God threatened when He said to Moses, “How much longer is this people going to treat me with contempt? How much longer will they not trust Me, especially considering all the signs I have performed among them? I am going to strike them with sickness, destroy them and make from you a nation greater and stronger than they are!”⁶ Another Rabbi also taught: “There is no death without sin, and there is no suffering without transgression.”⁷ And Jewish commentators tell us that this is based on the words in Ezekiel where it says: “The person who sins is the one that will die — a son is not to bear his father’s guilt with him, nor is the father to bear his son’s guilt with him; but the righteousness of the righteous will be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked will be his own.”⁸

From this we get this picture: this man’s friends knew the man was dying as the result of some sinful behavior that had left him unable to move and having to be carried about. This could have involved alcoholism, venereal disease, or after having had a stroke. But the fact that Jesus calls his condition the result of sin, does not necessarily mean that our Lord agreed that all sickness is a result of sin, but because He knew what error the man had made. However, his friends believed that even though this young man may not have had any faith of his own, they were hoping that their faith in Jesus would be enough to find healing for him.

Early church commentator Peter Chrysologus had this to say on what happened here. He writes: “Note in this regard, my brothers, that God does not inquire into the wants of those who are deliriously ill. He does not wait to see the faith of the uneducated or probe the senseless wishes of the sick. Yet He does not refuse to help the faith of another, so that by grace alone He confers whatever is proper of the divine will. In fact, my brothers, when does a doctor ever inquire into or examine the wishes of those who are ailing, for a patient is prone to be confused in his wishes and demands.”⁹ In other words, when someone is in need of healing and they are mentally unable to petition God in prayer, God will recognize the faith of those who bring their request to Him, just like Jesus responded to the faith of those who brought this paralyzed man to Him.

Verse 3: Some of the teachers of the law heard what Jesus said. They murmured among themselves, “What an insult to God for this man to say such a thing!”

When Jesus voluntarily turned to this man and told him that his sins had been forgiven, you would have thought that the teachers of the law might rejoice with the words of David, “It is a great blessing when people are forgiven for the wrongs they have done, when their sins are erased. It is a great blessing when the Lord says they are not guilty, when they don’t try to hide their sins.”¹⁰ But instead, they became critical. Possibly for two reasons: Bible scholars tell us that such paralysis in ancient days was cause by over drinking which brought on a stroke or palsy. So the scribes may have been upset for that reason. And of course the second reason, was that Jesus was playing God, in their eyes. As far as the man was concerned, certainly Jesus’s words were like what Isaiah heard God say to Israel, “Your sins were like a big cloud, but I wiped them all away. Your sins are gone, like a cloud that disappeared into thin air.”¹¹ It is also remarkable that Jesus uses an indicative verb “have been” which is a statement of fact. Perhaps that also upset the scribes because it took away any need for Temple sacrifices.

But what upset them most was a violation of the law whereby they could accuse Him of misusing the name of the Lord.¹² In other words, it wasn’t Jesus who was forgiving this man, but Jesus used God’s prerogative to do so. What strikes me, however, is how many other cities could have had the honor of being known as Jesus’ “home town?” Was He not born in Bethlehem; raised in Nazareth; ministered throughout Galilee, and ended up in Jerusalem? But He chose Capernaum instead. Perhaps that is because there was no room in Bethlehem; Nazareth simply could not believe in the carpenter’s son being the Messiah so they drove Him out; and Jerusalem would reject Him once too often. How many hearts have also been visited by Christ, but they too have turned Him away. Oh soul! Have you also been equally as uninviting to the Lamb of God? Don’t you know He wants to make your heart His home?

Chrysostom makes this comment on what the scribes where thinking here. He writes: “It belongs only to God to know men’s secrets, hear what saith the prophet, ‘Since you know their hearts (for you alone know the human heart);’¹³ and again, ‘You, the righteous God who probes minds and hearts;’¹⁴ and Jeremiah too says, ‘The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?’¹⁵ and, ‘People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.’¹⁶ And by many things one may see, that to know what is in the mind belongs to God alone. Implying therefore that He [Jesus] is God, equal to Him as His Son; what things they were reasoning in themselves (for through fear of the multitude, they dare not speak their mind), but He unveils and makes manifest their opinion, evincing herein also His great gentleness. And yet if there was any cause for displeasure, it was the sick man who should have been displeased, as being altogether deceived, and should have said ‘One thing I came to have healed, and You add another. Why, how is it manifest that my sins are forgiven?’ But for his part he utters no such word, but gives himself up to the power of the healer; but these critics being curious and envious, plot against the good deeds of others. Wherefore He rebukes them indeed, but with all gentleness. ‘Why, if you did not believe what I said first [about his sins being forgiven], and though it was boasting, at least consider that I am added to it that I can reveal your secret thoughts.”¹⁷

It is also noteworthy to focus on the fact that Jesus did not say: “I forgive you your sins,” but rather, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” This is the same phrase He used for the woman who came and anointed His feet with oil.¹⁸ This may have led the critical onlookers to conclude that since only God the Father can forgive sins, Jesus was assuming power that did not belong to Him. But even on the cross He would cry out, “Father forgive them.” But Jesus did say: “Take up your mat and walk.” He did so with the same authority by which He told the demons to come out. No doubt our Lord saw this as critical in their understanding of Him as well as His own disciples. So our Lord chose this occasion to teach a very valuable lesson.

Verse 4: Jesus knew what they were thinking. So He said, “Why are you thinking such grievous thoughts?”

Surely these scribes knew what God said to Isaiah: “I, the I AM wipes away all your sins. I do this to please Myself. I choose not remember your sins.”¹⁹ So we can see why it offended them that Jesus would presume He had such a divine privilege. How could He exalt Himself that way when the prophet Micah had said: “There is no God like you. You take away people’s guilt.”²⁰ This ability of Christ to read man’s thoughts should not be interpreted as some display of power to validate His divinity. Coupled with His other acts of power however, it does give it a supreme essence for revealing and recognizing Jesus as the true Son of God. His ability to order that sins be forgiven is truly marvelous; His healing virtue is absolutely magnificent; but to realize that He knows the secrets of our hearts and minds is awesome. To the sinner it is debilitating, but to His children it is a delight. To know that He forgives me is unspeakable joy; to know that He can heal me is undefinable happiness; and to know that He understands just what I need brings unutterable peace.

Once some Rabbis were discussing the characteristics of the Messiah to come and one of them said: “It is written of the Messiah: And the Spirit of the Lord will rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge of the fear of the LORD. And will give him quick discernment with reverence to the LORD.”²¹ In the same place it goes on to say that a man named Bar Koziba²² reigned two and a half years, and then said to the Rabbis, “I am the Messiah.” They answered, “Of Messiah it is written that He discerns and judges: let us see whether Bar Koziba can do the same.” When they saw that he was unable to judge by discernment, they killed him for being a false messiah.

Certainly our Lord’s discernment of what they were thinking should have given these teachers of the law pause to think that maybe this Jesus could in fact be the Messiah. Someone may be able to initiate any of these phenomenon of healing, discerning of thoughts, and announce the forgiveness of sin has been attained one at a time, but it takes the Son of God to do all three at once. This three-fold ministry of Christ has been largely neglected and missing in our churches today.

In any Catholic church you can go to confession and hear a priest or say, “The priest will now absolve you of your sins,” but seldom, if ever, will you hear him say to a paralyzed person, “Take up your bed and walk.” In most Evangelical churches you will rarely hear, “I will now absolve you of your sins,” and most likely will also not hear “Your faith has brought you healing.” And in many Pentecostal churches you may hear a prayer for divine healing, but seldom will you hear a word of discernment or word of knowledge given such as: “The Spirit tells me that you are suffering this because of something wrong you have done.”

It is what I call “The Empty Egg” condition of the church. That’s like breaking open an egg only to find out that it is empty inside. Likewise, we have everything it takes on the outside to look like a church that represents the power, the presence, and the perception of the Lord Jesus Christ, but inside His power, presence and perception is missing. In this instance, Jesus was ready to give an answer for what He had done, but not before teaching His critics a lesson.

Verses 5-6: “The Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins. But how can I prove this to you? Maybe you are thinking it was easy for me to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ There’s no proof that it really happened. But what if I say to this man, ‘Stand up and walk’? Then you will be able to see that I really have this power.” So Jesus said to the paralyzed man, “Stand up. Take your mat and go home.”

Here our Lord was asking a rhetorical question because He was about to prove the point that He was making. If our Lord’s ability to discern was not enough, certainly this display of divine power should have been convincing. If there was any doubt that when Jesus told this man, “Your sins are forgiven,” that He had the authority to do so, He removes all doubt by claiming such power. It is conjectured therefore, that since Jesus told His disciples that all the power given to Him by the Father He was passing on to them, then certainly the authority to forgive sins on behalf of the Father was included.²³

The reason why, is because He ended by saying, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”²⁴ The Roman Catholic Church, Anglican Church and Lutheran Church have also trained their priests and pastors to exercise this same authority through the sacrament of penance, confession and reconciliation. According to one Catholic writing it says: “He exercised this power in His human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, ‘The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins,’²⁵ which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God ‘had given such authority to men.’²⁶”²⁷

In most Protestant churches, the Pastor’s authority to declare that one’s sins have been forgiven, is more of a confirmation when the Biblical requirements of repentance and confession of sins has been done sincerely by the individual seeking forgiveness. And such confirmation is based on the finished work of Christ on Calvary. However, we notice that Jesus had not yet died as the Lamb of God, therefore some believe that our Lord was talking about the sin, or error, that brought on the paralysis in the first place, and that this would be proven by the healing he would receive.

In other words, Jesus was not going to allow this young man’s carelessness to keep Him from receiving healing for his malady. The same goes for the woman mentioned earlier that came and anointed His feet with ointment. She was known to be a woman of ill repute, so Jesus was willing to overlook her moral failure and accept her veneration as the Son of Man. This then would put the forgiveness of the original sin inherited from Adam out of reach for any pastor or priest, since only God can forgive that sin. Although it may not have had that effect on the scribes, it certainly did on this young man, because Matthew has more to tell us.

When I first read this brain teaser, I wasn’t sure there was an answer. But I didn’t believe it would have been asked if it couldn’t be solved. So here it is: “What makes this series of numbers unique – 8,549,176,320?” I guess it’s all in how you look at it. Sometimes answers are not obvious all at once, it may take one or two steps to figure it out.

It’s the same with the age old question of what’s the difference between what the optimist sees and the pessimist sees when they look at a glass that is partially filled with water. The optimist says it’s half full, while the pessimist says it’s half empty. But the real factor is not how they view the amount of water still inside the glass, but how they interpret the empty part.

Some say that this is the result of the optimist thinking positively and the pessimist thinking negatively. That may be true, but it still doesn’t answer the question, “Why?” For me it is the presence or absence of a thing called “faith.” The optimist believes there is more to come, while the pessimist believes there is little left. This can relate to opportunities, ideas, solutions, etc. Such faith gives hope, and hope inspires motivation.

When looking at a half-filled glass, both the optimist and the pessimist see that the unfilled portion can either be a reason to go on, or a reason to get out. That’s because the empty portion is really a vacuum to be filled with what is needed to make sense out of the situation. So often that’s how people look at life. For some, they get to a point where they say: “There’s nothing else I can do.” Or they can look as what they’ve already done and say: “Let me try something different.”

So faith then can be seen as unused potential. The dictionary describes potential as having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future; the latent excellence or ability that is there for the taking. In other words, the pessimist looks at the situation and is mesmerized by the status quo, while the optimist looks at the situation and dreams of what’s possible.

As such, there is either the reactive potential for failure or the proactive potential for success. But one thing remains true. You will never know which it will be until you try. The optimist exclaims: “Let’s do it! I believe it can happen!” The pessimist murmurs: “Don’t even bother, I already know the answer.” Now the real question: Which one are you? It may take one or two steps before you find out.

Oh yes, the reason the number in the brain teaser is so unique is because it contains all ten numbers between 0 – 9, and in spelling those numbers the first letter of each word are in alphabetical order. – Dr. Robert R. Seyda

Many times I have heard pastors, friends, even family members respond to someone who was going through a hard time of disappointment, loss, grief or failure by saying, “You know, the Bible says God will not give you more than you can bear.” This is without doubt a paraphrase of what the apostle Paul told the believers in Corinth, which reads: “God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear.”¹

But there are some serious questions about using this scripture as a way of saying that when we go through difficult times, God won’t allow it to go beyond our ability to handle it by giving us relief and a way to get out from under the burden that is weighing us down. To think this way will lead to our becoming more or less dependent on God’s good grace to make sure we never cross the line in our Christian walk so that it may cause us some serious trouble, even a devastating loss or embarrassment.

What was Paul talking about? We join the context for this particular verse back in Chapter 9:24. Paul is talking about running the believer’s race in order to gain the crown that comes with finishing it faithfully. He warns about getting off track and going our own way (9:26). He then begins Chapter 10 by pointing back to the children of Israel, who although they were all part of God’s miraculous deliverance from Egypt, many were left as skeletons in the wilderness because they did not keep their eyes on the One who delivered them, but instead set up a golden calf to worship.

So in 10:6 Paul says: “Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.” In other words, let us learn by example. Don’t take God’s deliverance from evil and mishandle it so that it leads back into evil because you become discouraged or upset at the way things are going. Look at what the children of Israel did: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry” (10:7).

Then Paul warns: “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fullness of time has come” (10:11). To put this another way, Paul is saying that what happened to the Israelites as a result of their turning back to idolatry while in the wilderness was recorded so that we who now follow Christ through the wilderness, which is this world, do not commit the same error.

Now comes the real intent of Paul’s teaching on this subject. He cautions everyone not to become too overconfident in their own ability to remain faithful to God’s calling and deliverance (10:12). Why? Because there will be the same forces at work in our lives as there were among the Israelites that drew them away from trusting in the One True God. So Paul caps this off by saying, we are all susceptible to temptation and the danger of falling. But here’s the good news, when such temptations come, God will be faithful to His promise and will not allow such temptations to be greater than what we are able to resist or overcome with His help (10:13).

So Paul is talking about temptations, not the hardships of everyday life. Yet, here is some good news! It is exactly those hardships, difficulties, problems and forces over which we have no control that often lead to the temptation to give up, to quit, to turn away from God and go our own way. It’s at the moment of temptation, when God will step in and show us what we need to do in order to conquer that temptation. So often we get our eyes on the temptation that is spawned by our difficulties that we allow it to become such a threat, we start looking for a hole to crawl into and pity ourselves, instead of looking for the door God will open to help us get out to victory. – Dr. Robert R. Seyda