William Loader
Pentecost 2: 11 June Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26
For today we really have two readings, separated by the controversy about fasting in Matthew and in Mark separated by a few chapters: Mark 2:13-17 and 5:21-43. The verse count for the second (9 as against 23!) shows that Matthew's is a heavily abbreviated version of Mark's interwoven stories of Jairus' daughter and the woman with the constant bleeding.
Matthew's version of the call of Levi may well be responsible for the title of his gospel, for instead of 'Levi' we read 'Matthew'. There could be a number of explanations for this. The proposal that this Matthew is in fact the author seems least likely because one would not then expect the author to be so dependent on secondary sources as the evangelist clearly is, on Mark and Q. It is more likely that the author has noticed that in the list of the 12 apostles in Mark 3:16-19 Levi does not feature, whereas a Matthew does. So much for a minor detail.
In 9:9-13 Matthew (as I am happy to use for 'the author') continues his use of Mark 2 to which he returned at the beginning of the chapter. The first verse mentions the call of the toll collector. 'Matthew' was sitting at the toll booth. Capernaum is not far from the border between the territories of Antipas and Philip. Toll collectors feature in the episode which immediately follows, so that many think Levi threw a party in response to his call - Luke suggests so. Here it is not clear.
Eating with toll collectors and sinners is noted as a cause of offence at a number of points in our sources. Both Matthew and Luke recall the Q tradition according to which Jesus challenges the accusation that he is a glutton and drunkard (Luke 7:31-34; Matt 11:16-19). Luke cites the issue as the basis for Jesus' telling a number of parables: the lost coin, the lost sheep and the prodigal son (Luke 15). Jesus ate with the marginalised. This lends itself to reinforcement of the Aussie value system of siding with the underdog. Jesus gave all his attention to the poor, the quintessential spiritual Aussie Marxist before his time! But wait a moment. Is that really true?
The passage envisages a kind of public meal, not just a family affair. Such occasions were affordable only for the reasonably well to do. The evidence indicates that toll collectors certainly fitted this category. So this is not about Jesus mixing with down and outs, but dining with the top of the pile in the local scene. The 'sinners' who often accompanied such meals were frequently hired women who sang and danced and performed in the range of ways which earned such a reputation, using the erotic oils and ointments of the day. One later caused enormous embarrassment to the disciples when she intruded on their gathering and began to anoint Jesus. Other entertainers might include local gurus, paid or unpaid, respected or just for a laugh. That probably explains Jesus' presence at such occasions, but it left him wide open to suspicion. The offence was primarily keeping immoral company. Perhaps issues of purity also came into view, because in such circles one could not always be sure that the resources had been appropriately tithed and prepared.
From the episode which follows we see Jesus defending his celebratory lifestyle in contrast to John's authority on grounds that the kingdom was breaking in - it was time for festivities. Certainly austerity would have kept Jesus from dining with the local rich, had that been his concern, but it was not. In the anecdote itself Jesus replies somewhat cryptically that the sick need a doctor not the well and then explains that he had come to call not the righteous but sinners - that is how it reads in Mark. Matthew slips in between the two statements a reference to Hosea 6:6, which he will introduce also in the controversy of plucking heads of wheat on the sabbath (12:7): 'Go and learn what this means: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice"' (9:13). These are people in need of compassion. Jesus does not write them off. 'The righteous' could be tongue in cheek or it could be genuine. It is not always time or love well spent if we confine ourselves to ministering to those who are well established in their religion (yes and were they?).
The passage has links with the feast imagery in the ministry of Jesus which will also envisage the inclusion of the real poor and the outcast, and Gentiles from all directions (8:11-12). It is also therefore linked with the eucharist, which frequently is administered in a way which has more in common with those who complain about Jesus here: as something only for righteous company.
Lots of challenging material in just this passage. Now for some very brief comments on the other one. In Mark it serves to illustrate Jesus' ministry to Israel, symbolised by the figure 12 which occurs in both the intertwined stories: the girl is 12 and the woman has been 12 years without a cure. The matching panel in the second half of Mark 5 will illustrate Jesus' victory over demons in the land of the Gentiles.
In a more Jewish context the story of the woman might have evoked a number of concerns about purity. If so it would almost amount to a celebration of setting them aside or, at least, putting them in their place, so that women's inclusion might be fully affirmed. This does not seem to be Mark's concern who celebrates Jesus' power and exposes the disciples' rude failure to know what is going on. Matthew uses the censor's knife on such disparagements of the disciples, deletes the symbolic numbers, and reduces (enhances) the story to a celebration of Jesus' healing action.
The surrounding story, stripped of its symbolic number, Jairus's name, and much else, is simpler than in Mark. The girl is already dead, not in the process of dying, as in Mark. Matthew adds a touch of funeral ritual (the flute players). The girl is raised and, as in Mark, the effect is also to suggest that the woman who touched Jesus also experienced resurrection. In both women's stories there is a strong message of inclusion and compassion which connects to the theme of mercy in the other passage.
It all sounds a bit like magic and can easily be set aside or used to reinforce that area of unreality and unconnectedness which is faith for many people. Even apart from playing with natural explanations, we can also recognise that already the evangelists use such stories to say something about a more lasting kind of 'magic', a more profound understanding of divine compassion which asks hard questions of our prejudices about rich and poor, male and female, and challenges our naive bondage to simplistic ideologies, religious and otherwise.
Epistle: Pentecost 2: 11 June Romans 4:13-25