#pharisee and tax collector

[preacherpollard]

"New And Improved"

Neal Pollard His ministry is exploding, His popularity expanding, and His teaching exposing, but His opponents are exasperating. Luke relates the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. His antagonists had already reasoned in their hearts that Jesus was a blasphemer (5:20), and now they will get more vocal in their criticism. They represented what was, the status quo. As it was, the Pharisees and…

[preacheroftruthblog]

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt.  Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.  The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus:  “God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week; I…

[a-queer-seminarian]

I made these charts to provide an easy reference guide for comparing the four Gospels! Feel free to share around wherever.

I think tumblr's crunching up these images so visit here for crisper versions (plus they're table format instead of png format).

Alt text version is under the readmore, necessarily formatted slightly differently but with all the same info.

TEXT ONLY / NON CHART VERSION:

Images show two charts, each credited to Avery Arden with a note that the material largely derives from the abridged version of Raymond E. Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament.

Chart 1: Comparing the Gospels, Part 1 – historical context

Mark

When: 

Late 60s/early 70s

Who:

Jewish

Multi-lingual — peppers Aramaic into the Greek

Where:

Rome or Syria (clearly unfamiliar with Palestinian geography)

To whom:

Mainly to Gentiles new to Christianity who were experiencing persecution

Priorities:

Encourage audience and show them how their suffering fit into Jesus’ vision of the Kingdom of God

Matthew:

When: 

Late 70s/80s

Who: 

Jewish 

Also multi-lingual, with Aramaic phrases;

Greek more polished than Mark’s

Where:

Probably in or near Antioch (in Syria); possibly Galilee

To Whom: 

Mainly to well-educated Jews who were debating internally about how Jewish tradition fit into following Jesus

Priorities: 

Promote Messiah Jesus who fulfills audience’s Jewish scriptures

inform church life and structure

Luke

When:

mid-to-late-80s

Who:

Gentile (possibly Jewish convert)

Educated Greek “historian” familiar with Septuagint; no use of Aramaic; expert use of Greek

Where:

Probably Greece; possibly Syria; also unfamiliar with Palestine

To whom:

Mainly to wealthy Gentiles influenced by Paul’s mission; living in an urban setting

Priorities:

Promote Isaiah-like Jesus; challenge audience to live out faith more actively (e.g., by redistributing wealth)

John

When: 

90s / as late as 110

Who:

Jewish 

Student(s) of “the Beloved Disciple” (the “Johannine school”)

Where:

Traditionally Ephesus; possibly Syria

To whom:

To a mixed crowd of Jews & Gentiles, at a time when tensions between Jews who did & didn’t follow Jesus had reached an all-time high

Priorities:

Promote Jesus’s divinity; strengthen unity in a group increasingly defining itself as separate from Jewish ones

Chart 2: Comparing the Gospels, Part 2 — Thematic Content

Mark

Emphasizes Jesus as:

Jesus as miracle-worker / healer; human being 

Unafraid to depict human limitations & emotions in Jesus

Other defining attributes / content:

Focuses on Jesus’s actions, e.g., his miracles; as well as on his suffering and death

Originally ended with the empty tomb & fear; no resurrection relief

The disciples often fail to understand Jesus; Jesus is frequently secretive about his identity

Matthew

Emphasizes Jesus as:

A Moses figure, Messiah, Son of God; teacher

Removes descriptions that make Jesus seem limited, naïve

Other defining attributes / content:

Beatitudes (ch. 5); judgment of the “sheep and goats” (ch. 25); 

Instructions for intracommunal relationships; forgiveness; “Great Commission” (ch. 28)

Polishes Mark’s depiction of the disciples to present them more favorably (esp. Peter as the “rock” of the church)

Luke

Emphasizes Jesus as:

Self-aware Son of God; prophet of the poor

Removes descriptions that make Jesus seem emotional, harsh, or weak

Other defining attributes / content:

Beatitudes (ch. 6) — with added “woes”; frequent warnings about risks of wealth

Also depicts disciples more favorably

Favorable depictions of tax collectors as sinners on the way to redemption; 

negative views of Pharisees as rejectors of Jesus, juxtaposed with stories of Gentiles who express faith

John

Emphasizes Jesus as:

Divine, the Word / “I Am” made flesh; lamb of God

Often misunderstood by disciples & crowds due to his use of figurative language

Other defining attributes / content:

Poetic format, full of symbolism; similarities to Gnostic texts that arose in the same era

Lots of “testimony” and “signs”

Despite Jesus & his disciples being Jewish, John depicts “the Jews” as being against Jesus; his Jesus says things like “It is written in your law…”

[jessicalprice]

So I've spent a lot of time untangling Christian exegesis of parables and talking about how the way Christians interpret parables almost always ends up being antisemitic.

But aside from how it makes them think about Jews and Judaism and Jewishness, I also want to talk a bit about how it makes them sympathize more with abusers than with victims.

The easy-to-point-to culprit here is the trilogy of parables that culminates in what most Christians know as the Prodigal Son story.

The common interpretation of these parables is that God does (and therefore Christians should) value a repentant sinner over someone who's never sinned.

The problem here isn't the stories themselves--they're pretty enigmatic as far as their actual meanings--but Luke's gloss:

"Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."

(Mark says, "So it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost," which is very different.

So on its face, in 2023, that's a blatantly dangerous, abuser-supporting belief. What is it like to be a child sexually abused by your youth pastor and to hear that the fact that he hurt you is part of what makes him somehow spiritually "better" than you?

And we can see it play out in the way Kevin M. Young, a popular progressive pastor on Twitter (who describes himself as "post-evangelical" and was the senior pastor at a Quaker congregation) responded to being told one of his tweets was antisemitic, and then jumped in to support a woman who responded by identifying herself as a fan of John Chrysostom (the literal author of "Against the Jews" and the most antisemitic of the Church Fathers, which is saying something).

I'm not going to transcribe the whole thing, because it's not all that important for what I have to say about this, but I am going to call out a few lines:

"The American Christian approach to t'shuvah sees the victim's spirit, character, and speech as equally important to the offenders. I.e. in Christendom, the victim can exceed the sin of the offender simply by their reaction (if it be in sin or acted in a way that is not Spirit led)."

So, to be clear, if someone assaults you, and you don't meekly forgive them in a "Spirit led" way, you're somehow worse than they are.

The uniquely Christian brain rot here is in seeing every sin as an opportunity for forgiveness. After all, if being a repentant sinner gives you a higher spiritual status--if there's more "rejoicing in Heaven" over you--than that of your victim, then you have to sin to get there. It treats other people as props in your salvation journey, not as fellow humans whose suffering matters. (Combine that with the Christian idea that suffering is somehow virtuous in and of itself, and you've got a very toxic recipe. Not only, by abusing others, are you guaranteeing your own value as a repentant sinner, but you're giving your victim the opportunity to ennoble themselves through suffering.)

Of course, a key word here is repentant. Put a pin in that.

These sort of exchanges on Twitter--a Christian being outright genocidal toward Jews, and a supposedly progressive Christian figure jumping in to defend the Christian, with seemingly no ability to comprehend that the Jews in the conversation are human beings who may have their own trauma around violently antisemitic language, with boundless empathy for the Christian abuser and none for the Jewish targets of their abuse--happen frequently and just as frequently leave Jwitter baffled in addition to angry.

Why all this empathy for the abuser and none for the victims?

I think a lot of this comes out of progressive Christian exegesis of parables, which is frequently looking for the radical "twist" to the story.

E.g. in the story of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, the assumption is that the audience of the time would have empathized with the Pharisee, and thus the twist is to make them empathize with the tax collector. In the story of the Good Samaritan, the assumption is that they would have seen the Samaritan as a threat, and the twist is to make him the hero.

The thinking goes that the audience would have had empathy for certain groups and none for others, so the stories push them to feel that empathy for the latter, and that this was needed to balance the scales, to make sure everyone was receiving love and empathy and care.

Except that this, in modernity, has the effect of simply reversing the roles, not balancing them. The groups that are assumed to be in good social standing get no empathy, even become the implicit villains, and the groups (supposedly, since this is now a Christian-dominant society) traditionally looked down on get all of it.

That might still be a balancing act if the "looked down on" groups were actually marginalized. But in the Christian imagination, that role is filled by sinners in need of Christian grace, not necessarily demographically marginalized groups.

The idea seems to be that the victims are getting sympathy from elsewhere, so it's the Christian's job to make sure the abuser/sinner gets sympathy too.

But I'll point again to that pesky word "repentant."

Ultimately, when it comes to treatment of Jews and Muslims and anyone else who points out that a Christian has in some way harmed them, Christian sympathy goes immediately to the offender before the offender has even expressed any repentance.

The repentant sinner is so much more valuable, at this point, than their victims that they must be preemptively forgiven, that they are more valuable purely because they now have the potential to repent.

And this seems to be lurking under not just how "progressive" pastors act on Twitter, but in a lot of our cultural narratives around, say, college rapists and their futures, around white people who are publicly called out for racist acts, etc.

[portraitsofsaints]

Happy Feast Day

Saint Matthew the Apostle

1st century

Feast Day: September 21  Patronage: accountants, Italy, bankers, tax collectors

Matthew, a former tax collector from Capernaum was called by Jesus to be His disciple.  After his call, Matthew invited Jesus home for a feast. On seeing this the Scribes and the Pharisees criticized Jesus for eating with tax collectors and sinners. This prompted Jesus to answer, " I came not to call the just, but sinners." Matthew was the first Evangelist and one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and Ascension.

Prints, plaques & holy cards available for purchase here: (website)

[gayeilgeoir]

Religion being compulsory up until 5th year is so counterproductive to me, because every RE lesson I become even less catholic.

We recently had to go through the story of Jesus forgiving both Zaccheus (apologies if that’s wrong) and the woman in the house of Simon. And it made so obvious to me how blatant it is that religion is inherently misogynistic.

The woman’s crime was to need food, a house, medicine etc. To desire the means for a dignified life and being brutally treated in the meantime. She served men, and was nothing but submissive to others needs, but yet to the Pharisees, she was scum. She was the deepest of sinners. (Note the woman was not named)

However Zaccheus, as a tax collector. Betrayed his people, stole money, hoarded wealth while people starved, and was genuinely just a bad person.

These two being presented as if they’re just the exact same gravity is insane! One is a woman in need, and one is a traitor, thief and awful person.

[myremnantarmy]

𝐉𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟏𝟖, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥

Saturday of the First Week in Ordinary Time

Mark 2:13-17

Jesus went out along the sea.

All the crowd came to him and he taught them.

As he passed by, he saw Levi, son of Alphaeus,

sitting at the customs post.

Jesus said to him, “Follow me.”

And he got up and followed Jesus.

While he was at table in his house,

many tax collectors and sinners sat with Jesus and his disciples;

for there were many who followed him.

Some scribes who were Pharisees saw that Jesus was eating with sinners

and tax collectors and said to his disciples,

“Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

Jesus heard this and said to them,

“Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.

I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

[garden-of-thoughts-fruit-of-lips]

He also told this illustration to some who trusted in their own righteousness and who considered others as nothing:

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

The Pharisee stood and began to pray these things to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like everyone else—extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week; I give the tenth of all things I acquire.'

But the tax collector, standing at a distance, was not willing even to raise his eyes heavenward but kept beating his chest, saying, ‘O God, be gracious to me, a sinner.’ 

I tell you, this man went down to his home and was proved more righteous than that Pharisee. Because everyone who exalts himself will be humiliated, but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”

Luke 18: 9-14

[cafejulii]

How Albert, William, and Louis Reflect The Holy Trinity in Christianity

(a 3 part analysis series that I had made year ago on another social media platform but would like to post here because why not)

P2: William

On to our main character, William, who represents Christ — a martyr who died by the hand of his own people for the salvation of humanity while simultaneously preaching messages of justice and equality for all. Though the other reflections I have made regarding Albert as God the Father and Louis as the Holy Spirit are indirect parallels; William had canonically been intended to serve as a direct parallel to Christ.

Starting from the very beginning William, alike Jesus, was born into poverty. Within both of their present societies, the idea of such a largely influential figure, not to mention, a figure promising salvation, being born without inherent status seemed impossible to fathom, as their mission would be directly hindered by a lack of finance, connections, and the overall discrimination they would face simply from being impoverished. However, this was done intentionally, for in both their cases, their humble beginnings allowed them to truly empathize with the struggles of the common man and show that salvation could be brought upon any person, regardless of societal status.

A direct parallel between William and Christ in Yuumori is made in Chapter 1, where William was seen preaching to the children in the orphanage about his mission to reform British society directly behind a cross, which is representative of not only Christ himself but his mission and eventual passion; a foreshadowing made to William's eventual sacrifice.

This particular scene also serves as reference to when Jesus spoke to the elders at the temple in Matthew 21:23, proclaiming the mission that the God had planned for the redemption of humanity at the ripe age of twelve, the very same age in which William was during this particular scene.

Both William and Christ always acted on the principal that all human life was of value regardless of status and were always charitable to those in need. In his lifetime, Jesus was known for dining with tax collectors, women of the night, the sick, and the poor; all people who during his time period were considered the lowest of the low.

William did the same with members of the lower class, as he associated with them regularly, despite protests from other members of the nobility.

Also, just as how Jesus preformed miracles to alter the course of people's lives for the better, William ran his criminal consultant business. Both Jesus and William insisted on no material cost for their services, only that the person would become a disciple of theirs; offering their life towards the mission they have in store.

During his ministry, Jesus was never shy on expressing his distaste for the Pharisees (the predominate religious sect that opposed Jesus because they wanted to maintain their own power), even flipping a table when they turned the temple into a marketplace...."Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in men's faces. You yourselves will not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!"

The hatred that William harbors towards the nobles is similar to Jesus's hatred of the Pharisees, as both groups hinder the progression and redemption of society solely because of their need for power. (The shutting of the Kingdom of Heaven in men's faces).

Not only this but like the Pharisees, the nobility of England are massive hypocrites, as they treat the lower class almost as savages who have no purpose in the world, objectively incorrect rhetoric, as it is the working class who upholds the foundations of England. The rich are savages, for they do nothing but bask in their own wealth while actively bringing about discord among the majority of the population. Due to this, William rebels against the nobility by bestowing punishment upon them, fueled by the rage he holds for their sins.

{ looking back on this analysis, I also potentially realize that the nobility is also representative of the demons that Christ had cast out during certain portions of his ministry, as William directly calls them "devils" in the moments before he kills them}

It is also important to note that Jesus was actually considered a criminal by the Pharisees, as they were concerned with the sheer amount of support he was gaining from the people of Israel who genuinely believed he was the Messiah. Since he preached that he was the Son of God despite regularly associating with the sinful, he was accused of blasphemy, even being compared to the Devil himself. The combination of these two things then led to him being framed for rebellion, as insisting on being "King of the Judeans", was a capital crime- which resulted in him being charged with counts of both treason and blasphemy, despite being innocent of any real crime and in fact, even making the world a better place. Such claims eventually led to his execution, and even though he could have possibly gotten out of this situation, his death was a necessary act, as it was the only way to the restoration of Original Holiness to humanity.

Like Jesus, William was also dubbed as a criminal, however, unlike Jesus; William did actually commit crimes. Still, the overwhelming support he gained from the common people at the beginning of the story is representative of the followers that Jesus gained during his ministry. However, by committing these crimes, William was eventually charged with both treason and conspiracy, even being called a Devil by London society [and himself], even though he committed such atrocities for the chance that someday there will be a world in which all people have equality of opportunity.

Similarly, to the mission of Christ, the only way that his plan would be fulfilled is if the common folk and the nobility targeted their anger at one singular person, ultimately unifying them but resulting in his own death.

On to the final problem, Albert states that "he [William] is starting to look like the guy who carried a cross while climbing the hill of Golgotha bearing all our sins and ultimately dying alone" which is a direct reference to Christ who died on the hill of Golgotha, bearing the sins of humanity on his back represented by a cross.

Then, as William fell of the Tower Bridge, He fell not only willingly, as Christ died willingly, but also in a position where both of his arms were stretched out on either side and his legs were more or less together in reference to the position that Jesus was forced in when he died on the cross.

Finally, both Jesus and William came back from "dead" to their Apostles (Jesus after 3 days and William after three years) after being in a state of Hell. Though William was not in a literal Hell, the agony that his mental state caused him at the time could definitely be considered a form of hell.

There is also this official art [left] in which William is depicted with a crown of thorns atop of his head.This is a direct reference to Christ who had a wreath of thorns placed upon his head by the Roman soldiers who mocked his title as "The King of the Jews" before he climbed Golgotha for his execution.

{Also at the time I had written this, the remains had not been released, and this may be a bit of a stretch as well, however, I believe that the flower crown Albert is placing on William's head similarly serves as a reference to Jesus as well. Only, the only difference is that it is not a crown of thorns yet a crown of flowers, perhaps meant to represent a halo}

disclaimer: I am an ex-christian, however, I had been raised in the faith and just happened to keep a large interest in scripture despite the fact I have departed from the church. Do correct me if there is any misinformation.

[saltoftheearth5x2]

What is your genuine interpretation of Luke 7:32-33?

I need to know right now for what im studying

Luke 7:31-35

Jesus went on to say, “To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? 32 They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other:

“‘We played the pipe for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not cry.’ 33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ 35 But wisdom is proved right by all her children.”

My interpretation of the passage above is that Jesus used a metaphor to explain how people rejected the gospel, essentially.

The verse talks about how a song was played on the pipe, yet the people did not dance, and a dirge (a mourning song) was played, yet the people didn't cry.

The song on the pipe song represents Jesus and his ministry. The dirge represents John the Baptist and his preaching. The "you" of the metaphor represents the generation of people (especially Pharisees and teachers of law) who reject Jesus and John.

What it's talking about where it says "but you didn't dance" and "but you didn't cry" is better explained in the following verses (Luke 7:33-34). Basically, it's saying they tired one way, yet the people didn't like it. So then they tried a different way, and the people still didn't like it.

If you like neither a joyful song nor a sad song, then the music is not for you.

If you didn't like John because he didn't drink wine or eat bread, yet you also don't like Jesus because he drank wine and ate bread, you have hardened your heart against the truth.

I hope all of that makes sense!

If you have any questions, or something was unclear (which, I'll admit, is highly possible), feel free to ask in the comments or in my ask box again. I'm here to help!

God bless!

[hiswordsarekisses]

9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Luke 18❤️

[geminiagentgreen]

Mark 2:15-17

New International Version

¹⁵ While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. ¹⁶ When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” ¹⁷ On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

[atropinenightshade]

Favorite myth or fairy tale of all time?

It doesn’t really count as either but the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector/publican. I just don't see it only being relatable in its original religious context but basically for anyone in any belief that has a "thank goodness I'm not like them!" attitude and how it's basically useless. I actually like quite a few of the parables.

Others I love would be the Peasant's Wise Daughter, The Ant and the Grasshopper, La Gallinita Roja, and the Tortoise and the Hare. There were also these stories about Mary-- one where this devout but simple minded man only knew the first two words of the Hail Mary and was made fun of, only to have a rose grow at his grave. (I think iirc) The other one involved the juggler who entertained Mary and in some versions he died afterwards, in peace.

I think some can notice a couple underlying themes in choosing these as my favorites.

Thanks for the question!

[koko-mochi]

I just finished the first season of The Chosen, here are my thoughts...

For context, I have a Master of Divinity degree from Harvard, and I am a United Church of Christ preacher and member-in-discernment.

Overall I am really enjoying the show, I've cried a few times, and it has made my faith feel deeper and made me feel more connected to Jesus. I can't wait to pick up season two from the library on Monday and keep watching.

Here's a list, in no particular order, of things on my mind as I finish season one:

I love the show's portrayal of Jesus. He is welcoming, friendly, funny, and sensitive. At the same time he can be strange and uncanny. Jonathan Roumie absolutely crushes it in this role, and it was easy to think "this is Jesus" instead of thinking it is an actor playing Jesus. I do sort of wish Jesus was a little bit scarier, a little more challenging, but I get the feeling that will come later.

Nicodemus as a POV character is an inspired choice. Much like many modern Christians, Nicodemus struggles to believe what he is seeing, yet he longs to believe anyways. It's easy for me to see myself in him, especially as a highly-educated theologian. Additionally, seeing things from Nicodemus' perspective adds nuance and depth to how we see the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin, instead of succumbing to the unambiguous (and grossly antisemitic) villain treatment so many Christians still gleefully participate in on Palm Sunday. And the astute viewer will remember that Nicodemus has a very important role to play at the end of the story, when we eventually get there.

On the other hand, the Romans are cartoonish villains for most of the first season. I started rolling my eyes whenever Quintus appears on screen, eyebrow cocked, wicked sneer on his lips. It sure drives home the point about the Romans being violent colonizers and oppressors, but in a story that presents everyone as redeemable--even tax collectors--the fact that Quintus doesn't seem redeemable stands out. Gaius seems to be quite a bit more nuanced, so I can't help but wonder if we'll continue to see development for him.

I liked the portrayal of Matthew as autistic-coded. To me he doesn't feel like a caricature, I can see myself in him, and I empathize with him. The scene when Jesus asks him to follow really hit me.

Much has been said about this show's portrayal of emotionally-vulnerable masculinity and I strongly agree with it. The men in this show are tender, they're affectionate, they're supportive. They laugh and cry and hug freely. It's probably the best portrayal of masculinity in media that I've seen since Lord of the Rings.

The theology of the show was more progressive than I was expecting, though I didn't agree with everything the writing posits. The show's framing of Jesus' healing miracles as him forgiving the sins of the sick/disabled person grates on me. At the same time, I love how the opening of most episodes present a scene from the Hebrew Bible. It grounds the show's theology and Jesus' ministry in the Jewish scriptures, a thing that I think Christians too often avoid. It also does so in a way that feels connected to the Hebrew Bible instead of being supersessionist.

"Get used to different." What a great line. I wanna use that in a sermon. That's what following Jesus is all about, isn't it? Amen.

[portraitsofsaints]

Saint Matthew the Apostle

1st century

Feast Day: September 21 

Patronage: accountants, Italy, bankers, tax collectors

Matthew, a former tax collector from Capernaum was called by Jesus to be His disciple.  After his call, Matthew invited Jesus home for a feast. On seeing this the Scribes and the Pharisees criticized Jesus for eating with tax collectors and sinners. This prompted Jesus to answer, " I came not to call the just, but sinners." Matthew was the first Evangelist and one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and Ascension.

Prints, plaques & holy cards available for purchase here: (website)

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Jesus Heals a Paralytic

1 And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. 2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.” 7 And he rose and went home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Jesus Calls Matthew

9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.

10 And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

A Question About Fasting

14 Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” 15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. 17 Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.”

A Girl Restored to Life and a Woman Healed

18 While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, “My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.” 19 And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. 20 And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, 21 for she said to herself, “If I only touch his garment, I will be made well.” 22 Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly the woman was made well. 23 And when Jesus came to the ruler's house and saw the flute players and the crowd making a commotion, 24 he said, “Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping.” And they laughed at him. 25 But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose. 26 And the report of this went through all that district.

Jesus Heals Two Blind Men

27 And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, “Have mercy on us, Son of David.” 28 When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord.” 29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith be it done to you.” 30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, “See that no one knows about it.” 31 But they went away and spread his fame through all that district.

Jesus Heals a Man Unable to Speak

32 As they were going away, behold, a demon-oppressed man who was mute was brought to him. 33 And when the demon had been cast out, the mute man spoke. And the crowds marveled, saying, “Never was anything like this seen in Israel.” 34 But the Pharisees said, “He casts out demons by the prince of demons.”

The Harvest Is Plentiful, the Laborers Few

35 And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; 38 therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.” — Matthew 9 | English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Cross References: Leviticus 15:25; Numbers 15:28; Numbers 15:30; Numbers 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; 2 Chronicles 35:25; Ezra 4:13; Job 32:19; Psalm 139:2; Psalm 146:8; Isaiah 35:6; Isaiah 65:5; Jeremiah 8:22; Jeremiah 9:17; Hosea 6:6; Matthew 1:1; Matthew 4:13; Matthew 4:23-24; Matthew 5:16; Matthew 5:46; Matthew 8:2; Matthew 8:4; Matthew 8:10; Matthew 8:13; Matthew 8:25; Matthew 9:26; Matthew 10:1; Matthew 10:25; Matthew 11:18; Matthew 12:22-23; Matthew 13:1; Matthew 14:36; Mark 2:5; Mark 2:12; Mark 2:18-19; Mark 2:21-22; Mark 3:10; Mark 5:40; Mark 9:27; Luke 5:33-34; Luke 10:2; John 4:35; Acts 9:40; Acts 14:9; 2 Corinthians 9:12

Matthew 9 Chapter Summary

Key Events in Matthew 9

1. Jesus heals a paralytic 9. calls Matthew from the receipt of custom; 10. eats with tax collectors and sinners; 14. defends his disciples for not fasting; 20. cures the sick woman; 23. raises Jairus' daughter from death; 27. gives sight to two blind men; 32. heals a mute man possessed of a demon; 36. and has compassion on the multitude.