The Exposition of Matthew (Matthew 9:14-17)

December 1, 2020

(Miracles of Jesus)

Questions to be answered in this study

1. What was the primary purpose for Jesus coming to earth?
2. What is the difference in Luke’s style of writing and that of Matthew, and why is it important that we know?
3. Why were Mondays and Thursdays designated to be days of fasting?
4. How are some of today’s church traditions like the rules of the Pharisees?
5. So, why at this time had many of John’s disciples not left John to follow Jesus? Was not this what John instructed them to do?
6. What was the big misunderstanding that John the Baptist’s disciples had concerning fasting?
7. What is the difference in the old covenant and the new covenant?
8. What was the critical flaw in the Pharisees way of looking at the law of God?
9. When was the purpose of the law brought to a conclusion?
10. How are some of the teachings today like those of the Pharisees in the time of Jesus?

Introduction

Today, in Chapter 9, our study covers the second half of an incident between Jesus and His disciples. Thus far, we have studied the second and third groups of miracles that Matthew presents in Chapters 8 and 9. This incident we are looking at today separates the second section from the third. In it, we see Jesus’ authority over those in covenant with the Lord, and particularly, we see Jesus’ authority over those in the Old Covenant, the unbelieving Pharisees.

The Pharisees had made the Old Testament covenant into something it wasn’t. They emphasized the unwritten oral laws, passed down over the decades, instead of the written Word of God. They consequently added many new rules to Israel that were not in the Law of Moses, which burdened the people. Over time, the oral Law of artificial rules was counted equal to Scripture by the Pharisees.

In this brief incident between Jesus, the Pharisees, and the disciples of John the Baptist, He denies and invalidates the Pharisaic oral additions to the Law of God. In our last study, Jesus clarified the purpose of the Messiah, which was not connected to the sacrificial system under the Law. Messiah would extend His mercy and forgiveness to those who failed at keeping the Law and become their vicarious redeemer:

Matthew 9:13: “But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Jesus instructed the Pharisees to go and learn about the Gospel, and the fact that God, through His mercy, provided salvation through His Son, not through the sacrifice of animals. The Pharisees were confused by Jesus’ behavior and teaching because they believed that God’s Law, along with the oral Law, was the way to please God. The Pharisees made themselves the judge over those who did not measure up to their expectations. Opposite their way of thinking, Jesus said, “I desire compassion, not sacrifice.” The Pharisees lacked compassion because they did not accept Jesus by God’s grace through faith. Therefore, they did not know the compassion which comes from that relationship.

In the second half of this dialogue, the incident continues when the disciples of John the Baptist ask Jesus a question:

Matthew 9:14, “Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast

not?”

So, John the Baptist’s disciples ask Jesus a question about Fasting. In Luke 5:33 (KJV), we read the same question, except it is the Pharisees that request it.  And they said to Him, “The disciples of John often fast and offer prayers, the disciples of the Pharisees also do the same, but Yours eat and drink.” It seems that this question is entirely out of context with Jesus, the subject, at hand. This question is asked of Jesus during the meal with the sinners and tax collectors at Matthew’s house. So, what is the relationship within the context? To see the relevance, we must look closely at the context of both Matthew and Luke 5. Both of these groups were asking Jesus the same question, more or less, around the same time. So why are John’s disciples and the Pharisees preoccupied with Fasting, which seems to be out of place at this time? First, there is a difference in Matthew’s style of writing from that of Luke. Matthew’s writing was not in chronological order. He picked out events to emphasize specific topics, while Luke ordinarily wrote events in chronological order. Understanding this helps us to see why the question was asked Jesus at this particular time.

In Luke’s account, this meal took place on a Thursday night before the weekly sabbath; this explains the concern since Mondays and Thursdays were set aside by the rabbis to fast each week; this was observed in the spring between Passover and Pentecost and again in the fall between Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication. So, the question that the disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees were asking, in essence, was why were they having a meal when they were supposed to be fasting?

Also, to be considered is why then were Mondays and Thursdays the days of Fasting? The answer to that is, according to oral tradition, Moses was supposed to have gone up to Mt. Sinai on a Thursday and came down on a Monday. Keep in mind that there was no Biblical command to fast on any occasion, must less these particular days; this was another example of how the oral Law had become a regular practice bringing additional burdens on the people. The Pharisees were also confused over the fact that Jesus associated with sinners, and secondly, He did not observe the oral rules they imposed on everyone else. Today some church groups are so caught up in a tradition that they ack like their tradition is the Law of God and are unwilling to make any changes even though changes would be in order and beneficial. Little do they realize that they are acting like the Pharisees in Jesus’ time.

It is easy to understand that when Jesus and His disciples had a meal at Matthew’s home with many outcasts, the Pharisees and John’s disciples were confused. Firstly, the Pharisees did not understand the Gospel, which was the purpose for which Jesus had come to earth. He came to save sinners, not the righteous. So, Jesus was willing to show compassion to these publicans and sinners on this occasion. Secondly, they could not understand why Jesus and His disciples did not observe their oral laws, which they considered binding on everyone. We may wonder why John’s disciples were also concerned, and why were they here in the first place and not following John? Why are they at this time still going by the name of the disciples of John? John was only to be the forerunner of Jesus, and when Jesus came, John was to decrease, according to his saying: “He must become greater; I must become less,” John 3:30 (KJV).

So, why at this time had many of John’s disciples not left John to follow Jesus? This is what John instructed them to do. This group was still calling themselves the disciples of John and perhaps had not yet received Jesus as the Messiah. That is not too amazing when you consider that many so-called religious people have not accepted Jesus today as their savior, some perhaps in name only but not in true faith. Also, today, just as in the time of Christ, some come for reasons other than embracing Jesus as savior.

Some of those disciples of John were still ingrained in the doctrine of the Pharisees. Why were they even with Jesus instead of John? By this time, John had already been beheaded by Herod, and they had no other place to go. When they came here, they were undoubtedly confused as the Pharisees to see Jesus eating with Publicans and sinners. The Pharisees and these disciples of John were closely related but two distinct groups. Therefore, Jesus has two different but related answers for them:

Matthew 9:15, “And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.”

Firstly, Jesus directs His answer to John’s disciples. Jesus’s answer is in a metaphor, which reveals His purpose for coming to Israel. The Jews would have been familiar with this metaphor since a wedding was used in several places of Scripture, such as Psalms and Isaiah, to announce the arrival of the Messiah.

John the Baptist also used a metaphor announcing the Messiah’s arrival when speaking to his disciples. “To this, John replied, “A person receives what is given them from heaven. 28You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Messiah but am sent ahead of him. 29The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. 30He must become greater; I must become less,” John 3:27-30 (KJV).

Jesus chose something familiar to John’s disciples to explain that He was the Messiah, the same bridegroom that John told them to be looking for. Jesus includes in the metaphor the answer to their concerns about fasting. He is announcing the coming Kingdom, at which time there should be rejoicing and celebration instead of mourning and fasting. 

Weddings were times of grand celebration in the Jewish culture. It was the practice of the Jews to suspend fasting during the times of a wedding so the wedding party could feel free to celebrate the occasion with a great feast.  There should be no fasting as long as the groom, Jesus, was with them even. For the disciples to fast during this time was like asking the wedding guest to fast during the time dedicated to feasting and celebration, even if it was during the customary time of fasting under the rules of the Pharisees. So, Jesus seizes on this to explain how His disciples should act at His coming, with great joy and celebration, of which fasting was the opposite.

Some of the disciples of John were so steeped in the traditions of the Pharisees that they could not accept Jesus as the Messiah because He was not willing to abide by their false rules. After all, Fasting was self-imposed and not a command of Scripture; this being the case, the disciples of Jesus were not obliged to fast on any day. Some of the disciples of John were still hung up in trusting in their self-righteousness and personal sacrifice rather than accepting Jesus’ offering of mercy and forgiveness.

Secondly, Jesus answers the Pharisees with a slightly different approach:

Matthew 9:16-17, “No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. 17Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.”

Jesus’s Answer to John’s disciples was in the form of a metaphor, and now Jesus answers the Pharisees with a parable. The wedding metaphor was easier to explain and identify with than the parable, which confused the Pharisees. Parables were given to teach deeper spiritual truths using the principles of a story that were already understood.

Jesus uses two parables here closely related to teach complementary ideas: First, Jesus uses the parable of mending clothes that were torn of which you were not to use new cloth. I remember when I was in High School when the style was Levi Jeans. When you went to buy jeans, you had to buy ones two sizes larger, for they shrank when washed. Jesus says that you don’t use new unshrank material to patch garments of old material because when the new material shrunk, it would be a mess and ruin the garment.

Luke’s Gospel gives some additional detail: “And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old,” Luke 5:36 (KJV). So, Luke adds that putting two different materials together results in a mismatch and therefore ruins the garment.

In the second parable, Jesus says you can’t put new wine in old wineskins. Since they did not have glass bottles during that time to store wine, they used a pouch made of leather. An old leather pouch would have dried and would not expand and, if used would burst as the gasses of fermenting wine expanded. On the other hand, the new leather pouches would expand as the gases formed and the wine fermented. So, old wine bottles were unfit to be used again, or they would burst and spill the wine. The principle is the same as the first parable; you can’t combine the old materials with the news because they are incompatible.

The second parable also teaches that when something has fulfilled its purpose, we can’t use it in a new service; otherwise, it will ruin the new. Keep in mind, Jesus’ purpose for using these parables was to teach a more profound spiritual truth. In context, Jesus and the Pharisees were in a discussion over the obligation of keeping oral Law. According to the Pharisaical Law, Jesus should not be eating with Publicans and sinners and also keep their laws concerning Fasting. Since they had come to believe these were the laws of God, equal with the written Scripture, Jesus, if He were the true Messiah, should abide by them. Jesus was showing that their logic was flawed and their rules were not the laws of God. Actually, it was a comparison of the old covenant with the new covenant. Jesus came to fulfill the old covenant and replace it with the new covenant. The new covenant was based on His shed blood for the remission of sins. The old covenant was never intended to be the way of salvation only a picture of the need for salvation. However, the Pharisees were relying on it for salvation.

The Pharisees believed the Law of God was full of holes and needed patching by using their oral Law; Jesus was showing by doing so, they were obscuring the very truth of God’s Law and making it useless. The scribes and Pharisees wanted to add to God’s Law by including the oral rules passed down through the decades, little realizing that any addition to God’s inspired word only diminished and distorted the truth. The same as a patch of different material defeats itself and ruins the whole garment.

The additions the scribes and Pharisees added to God’s Law distorted it until Israel no longer knew the truth. They were amazed when Jesus came along teaching with authority and clarity. Jesus did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it. In Luke 16:17 (KJV), Jesus says, “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.” In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

It was the purpose of Jesus to honor the Law as God’s Holy Word, which was non-negotiable and unchangeable; It revealed God’s perfect standard of righteousness that only His Son, Jesus, could fulfill and did fulfill in His finished work on the cross, providing redemption to all who would believe. As John 3:16 (KJV) says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Salvation comes only by God’s grace, based on Ephesians 2:8-9. Therefore, believers under God’s grace are not bound by the Law, as we see in Romans 6:14. Christians don’t have to work at fulfilling the Mosaic Law; Christ fulfilled it on our behalf, Matthew 5:17, “Now by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, we are able to live the godly life pleasing unto God.”

Even as Jesus preached the Kingdom to Israel, the Law continued as the revelation of God’s holy standard. John MacArthur stated it clearly, “The great moral principles of the law, the eternal truths contained in the law’s types and symbols, and the promises recorded by the prophets all remain in force and are not abrogated by the kingdom message,” The MacArthur Study Bible, 1997.

Paul says in Gal. 3:24-25 (KJV), “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” The Law taught that humanity was unable to meet God’s standard, that Jesus alone was able to do so on our behalf.

The purpose of the Law was brought to a conclusion when Jesus died on that cross. He paid the price for all who place their faith in Him to be part of God’s heavenly Kingdom. The sacrifices and rules of the Old Covenant were never meant to be the means for salvation. They were intended as our schoolmaster, leading us to salvation through the shed blood of Christ. The sacrifice of animals was only a foreshadow for the coming of the Messiah, who would shed His blood as an atonement for sins.

Jesus taught a new order that did not include their sacrifices, rules, and self-righteousness, but the Pharisees were unable to accept the new covenant over the old, which did away with their system of rules and self-righteousness. Strangely today, like the Pharisees, some want to add to what the Bible teaches us God’s way of salvation by adding works or baptism.