Search Results

Jesus was found guilty because he told the truth. When should you speak the truth? And when should you speak out against injustices against others? Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 26:57-68 Jesus was found guilty because he told the truth. When should you speak the truth? And when should you speak out against injustices against others? José de Madrazo y Agudo (1781-1859). Jesus in the House of Annas . 1803. Museo del Prado, Madrid, Spain. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jes%C3%BAs_en_casa_de_An%C3%A1s_Museo_del_Prado_Jos%C3%A9_de_Madrazo.jpg . Tom Faletti September 17, 2025 Matthew 26:57-68 Jesus is subjected to interrogation, false testimony, and abuse Where do the people who arrested Jesus take him? Who and what group is he brought to? Caiaphas, the high priest, was appointed by the Roman authorities, so he was both the highest-ranking civil official and the head of the Temple. The council was the Sanhedrin, the Jewish political authority in Jerusalem. The Romans allowed the council to exercise judicial authority and make judgement in cases that were not capital cases – i.e., where the sentence could not be the death penalty ( New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV , Matthew 26:59 fn., p. 1787). Matthew calls the high priest’s place a “house,” but given that it could be a meeting place for the council, with guards and witnesses and so forth, we might picture the scene better if we thought of it as a mansion or compound. It turns out the Peter didn’t totally desert Jesus. Where did he go (verse 58)? The courtyard of a Jewish house. Who is Peter standing around with? Would it have taken courage for Peter to have gone there? What did the chief priests and council (the ruling elders) seek? Why do you think they sought false testimony? What charge was leveled against Jesus in verse 61 that the chief priests thought was conclusive evidence against him? Had Jesus actually said this? The high priest demands that Jesus answer the charge, but in verse 63, Jesus remains silent. Why do you think Jesus remains silent at this point? Throughout the centuries artists have contemplated how to portray Jesus during this show trial before Caiaphas. How do you think he should be portrayed? Is he stoic? defiant? cowed? confident? humble? steely? How do you envision Jesus here? The high priest then demands that Jesus answer under oath whether he is the Messiah, the Son of God (verse 63), and Jesus finally speaks up. Why do you think he decides to respond to this question? What would it have implied if he had remained silent to this question? There are times when we might get in trouble for speaking the truth but we can remain silent without causing problems, and there are times when silence would be wrong. Maybe the risk is not that you will lose your life, but there might be consequences. What are some examples of times when you should speak the truth even though you may suffer for it? How do you know when you should speak out and when you should be silent? In verse 64, Jesus says, “You have said so,” the same, seemingly enigmatic phrase he used with Judas in Matthew 26:25. When Judas asked, “Am I the one?”, if Jesus had responded with a “Yes” he would have had to quality the answer by adding, “If you persist in your plan; but you could change your mind.” Here, he had to say something more than just a simple “Yes” to avoid implying that he agreed with their mistaken ideas about the messiah. Have you experienced times when a simple “yes” or “no” is not sufficient in answer to a question? Jesus is not ducking Caiaphas’s question. After saying, “You have said so,” he follows it with a statement (verse 64) that is so clear that there will be no doubt in Caiaphas’s mind that Jesus should be executed. What does Jesus say about the Son of Man (i.e., himself), and what does it mean? What is he telling them? In verse 64, Jesus is partially quoting from Daniel’s apocalyptic vision in Daniel 7:13, in which a son of man comes with the clouds of heaven and is given dominion and kingship by God. But it also evokes Psalm 110:1, a verse Jesus used with the Pharisees in Matthew 22:44: “The LORD said to my lord, / ‘Sit at my right hand / until I make your enemies your footstool’” (NRSV). Both references make it very clear that he is stating that he is, indeed, the Messiah and the Son of God. Why is this statement so troubling to the members of the council? Why do you think Jesus decided at this point to speak so clearly and boldly? The high priest convinces the council to agree with him that Jesus has committed blasphemy and should be executed. The death sentence is based on Leviticus 24:16, which says that anyone “who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death” (NRSV). The Sanhedrin does not have the authority to execute anyone (the Romans had taken that power away from them), so they will have to hand him over to the Romans to try to achieve that goal. Once they have reached their conclusion – the conclusion they had already reached before the “trial” began – how do they treat Jesus (verses 67-68)? The Sanhedrin had 71 members, and a quorum of 23 was needed to conduct business. There is some uncertainly as to whether this was a trial or a preliminary investigation more like our grand juries, but either way, they violated their own rules of procedure. Criminal cases were required to be tried in the daytime, were not supposed to happen during Passover, and could not lead to a guilty verdict unless the case was held over for at least one day beyond the beginning of the proceeding. The Sanhedrin was required to meet for trials in its own meeting place, which was separate from the high priest’s house, and evidence could not be accepted unless it was provided separately by two different witnesses (Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 2 , pp. 389-391). Did the Sanhedrin follow proper procedures for properly determining guilt or innocence? How should they have conducted their investigation differently if they truly wanted the truth? Why do you think they did not follow their rules for a trial? They did not follow the rules because they had already decided Jesus’s guilt before they began and wanted to secure the outcome they had already decided was the right one. As you look back over the events from the arrest in the garden through this sham trial, who is in control? How does Jesus show that he is the one in control even as he submits himself to abuse? What does this tell you about how to think about difficult times in your own life? Once they had declared that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy, the members of the council subjected him to abuse. Why do you think they did this? Even people who are guilty of serious crimes retain their God-given human dignity, but they abused him. Are there ways that people in our society violate the human dignity of others by how they treat people who have been identified as guilty of some offense, whether in a court of law or the court of public opinion? How can we avoid, or even take a stand against, participating in such injustices and support efforts to treat with human dignity even people who have been accused of wrongdoing? Are there ways that we are at risk of joining in a bandwagon that declares people guilty of some criminal or social offense without giving them a fair hearing of the evidence? Are there ways that we are tempted or encouraged to join in the abuse of people who do things we don’t like, perhaps on social media? How can we make sure that our treatment of other people honors their God-given dignity, even if we think they have done wrong? Take a step back and consider this: Throughout history, Christians have placed an emphasis on the duty of governments and courts to act justly in their legal proceeding, and this concern has continued in our day. For example, the Catholic Church’s official compilation of social doctrine says: The activity of officers charged with establishing criminal responsibility, which is always personal in character, must strive to be a meticulous search for truth, and must be conducted in full respect for the dignity and rights of the human person ; this means guaranteeing the rights of the guilty as well as those of the innocent. The juridical principal by which punishment cannot be inflicted if a crime has not first been proven must be born in mind. (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, paragraph 404, p. 174; italics in the original). Evangelical Christians have also been a voice for justice for the accused. For example, pastor T. D. Jakes is quoted in an article in Christianity Today , where he spoke out on behalf of a death row inmate who professed his innocence. Jakes said, “If Jesus acquitted the guilty, then surely he would advocate for the innocent” ( Randall ). The proceedings used against Jesus bear a similarity to biased trials in every age that convict innocent people to achieve political or religious ends. Knowing that this happened to our Lord and Savior has led many Christians to fight the unchecked exercise of judicial power and to be advocates for the rights of the accused. Jesus was falsely declared guilty and executed though innocent. The Old Testament stresses in many places the importance of standing for the truth in judicial proceedings. Are we doing enough to speak up for and ensure the rights of the accused in our own society? As of 2023, the National Registry of Exonerations had identified 575 cases of people in the United States being wrongly convicted since 1989 and later exonerated based on DNA tests, including 35 people who were on death row ( Shelby ). The Innocence Project has worked successfully to present DNA evidence leading to the exoneration of more than 200 people who were wrongly convicted. On average, these victims of judicial error and injustice served more than 17 years in prison before they were freed. The Innocence Project reports that 101 additional crimes were committed by the original attackers who had continued to roam free while innocent people were sent to prison in their place, and that 58% of the wrongful convictions were imposed on Black people, a percentage that is greatly disproportionate to their share of the population ( Innocence Project ). What might Christians do to honor their innocent Lord by being a voice for the protection of innocent people in our judicial systems? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

Clean and beautiful on the outside, dirty and ungodly on the inside. How can we avoid falling into the trap of focusing on our exterior image? Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 23:25-36 Clean and beautiful on the outside, dirty and ungodly on the inside. How can we avoid falling into the trap of focusing on our exterior image? Image by Nadot Yannick, provided by Unsplash via Wix. Tom Faletti August 22, 2025 Matthew 23:25-36 (Part 2 of Matthew 23:13-36) Read Matthew 23:13-36 Jesus denounces the scribes and the Pharisees for their hypocrisy Part 2 Verses 25-26 The Pharisees were very conscious of the ritual or ceremonial purity of their cups and dishes. This was not a concern about cleanliness as we mean it; it was a concern about whether their cookware and dinnerware were “clean” as a matter of ritual purity. The Old Testament and the traditions preserved and developed by the scribes identified many ways that a person or object could become unclean. Some were extrapolated directly from the Law. For example: A utensil was unclean if it came in contact with pork. A man was unclean if he touched a dead body or a Gentile. A woman was unclean during her menstrual period. If you came in contact with anyone or anything that was considered “unclean,” you could become unclean too. The Pharisees were very focused on avoiding anything unclean and drew upon the detailed and nuanced teachings of the scribes, who developed intricate rules for what was and was not unclean. What does Jesus accuse the scribes and Pharisees of, in verses 25-26? How does Jesus describe the “inside” things that he says they are neglecting to pay attention to? What are the actual words he uses in verse 25 to describe the “inside”? Jesus uses 2 terms. The first word can mean plunder or robbery or greed. The second word means self-indulgence in the sense of lacking self-restraint, which could be applied to drinking, sexual conduct, or other matters. With these words, Jesus is clearly not talking about cups and plates – cups can’t be accused of greed or self-indulgence. What do you think Jesus is really saying here? When Jesus tells them to clean the inside of the cup, what do you think he means (not cups and plates, but what)? How might people “clean” this “inside” aspect of their lives? Jesus calls the Pharisees “blind” in verse 26. How might that be an appropriate description of their behavior? How might this metaphor of the “outside” and “inside” apply to our churches today? What are the things on the “inside” that we might be ignoring while we focus on things on the “outside”? Here is an example of failing to focus on what is unclean on the inside: The Catholic Church, and other denominations to a lesser extent, for decades ignored scandalous sexual predation by clergy in its parishes. Local parishes sometimes develop an excessive focus on external things that are less important. For example, I have seen church members get stuck in constant carping over the choice of altar furnishings and music. I spent weeks at one church trying to address the enormous unrest that arose when the pastor decreed that church groups would henceforth have to pay to use the parish hall for their meetings, a move that took everyone’s focus off of the purpose of the parish’s ministries. What are the “outside” matters that you personally might be giving too much attention to, and what might be the “inside” matters that you are ignoring that need to be cleaned up? Verses 27-28 In verses 27-28, what does Jesus say about the scribes and Pharisees? This accusation uses an actual practice that was useful as a metaphor. In Jesus’s time, there were not strict laws about where dead bodies could be buried. Tombs could be encountered anywhere, and if you came into contact with something dead, you would be considered “unclean.” Tombs were painted white to mark them clearly so that people would not accidentally stumble into them. The “whitewashing” of tombs was a practical attempt to help people practice their religion. Jesus uses the idea of a whitewashed exterior covering a corrupt interior as a metaphor for what is going on in people’s spiritual lives. Jesus uses a metaphor of a tomb that is painted white on the outside but is rotting on the inside. In verse 28, how does he describe what is happening on the inside of the scribes and Pharisees? How might a person be “beautiful” on the outside but full of hypocrisy and evil on the inside? What are some ways that we show to the world a public exterior that might not match the less godly things going on inside us? A question to consider in the silence of your own heart: What is an area of inward unrighteousness that you could work on so that your inner reality would better match the exterior ways you present yourself? Verses 29-36 In verses 29-30, what does Jesus say their attitude was toward the murder of prophets of the past? According to Jesus, what will they do to the prophets and wise people of their own time? As Matthew writes this, several decades later, who do you think he has in mind? Who are the kinds of people that were scourged, hunted from town to town, killed, and crucified? Matthew is thinking about the Christians who have been persecuted in the early years of the Church. In verse 35, Jesus uses an “A to Z” formulation to summarize the breadth of the murders in the Old Testament, from Abel to Zechariah. Abel is in Genesis. For Zechariah, there are two possibilities. A Zechariah was murdered in 2 Chronicles 24, which was the last book in the Hebrew Bible because they put the books of history after the books of the prophets in their scriptures, but he was the son of Jehoida (2 Chron. 24:20), not the son of Berechiah. Alternatively, Zechariah the prophet is described in Zechariah 1:1 as the son of Berechiah, and his book is the second-to-last book of the prophets. The Bible does not describe him as having been murdered, but later rabbinic tradition said that he was murdered in the Temple (( Ignatius Catholic Study Bible , Matthew 25:35 fn., p. 49). Jesus’s point is that from beginning to end, the Jewish scriptures tell of people who claim to be following God killing other people who are following God. Jesus accuses the scribes and Pharisees of following in that long line of rejecting people who are actually following God. In vv. 34-36, what does Jesus say is coming in the years ahead? Who are the people that will experience this suffering? Christians. Matthew, written perhaps 50 years after Jesus spoke these words, can see how Jesus’s prophecy came true as Christians were mistreated by Jewish leaders in the decades after Jesus’s resurrection. Given Jesus’s repeated and frank warning that Christians will suffer persecution, does it make sense that some Christian leaders in our day preach that Christians should expect prosperity and a good life? Explain. Take a step back and consider this: We live in a time where people curate themselves, posting a carefully crafted image of themselves online in social media. A person may be clean and beautiful on the outside, yet evil and violent on the inside, and we would never know it from their social media accounts. Most Christians use social media, and there is nothing wrong with telling others about the good things going on in our lives. But does that lure us into embracing the world’s priorities, which say that the exterior is what really matters? How important is the interior, really? How can we stay engaged with others via social media yet avoid falling into the trap of focusing primarily on our exterior image? What can we do to keep our focus on becoming like Jesus on the inside and letting that guide what we do on the outside? And, perhaps not on social media but in more intimate settings, is there a place for letting people know what is really going on inside of us, on the inside? Consider the song “Inside” by John Fischer ( audio , lyrics ): “Come see / Everything that lies inside of me / ’Cause amidst the mess I’ve made of me / You might see the Lord.” Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

Why does Jesus tell us to love our enemies? Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 5:43-48 Why does Jesus tell us to love our enemies? Image provided by Wix. Tom Faletti May 8, 2024 Matthew 5:43-48 Love your enemies This is the last of the 6 antitheses, where Jesus reinterprets and transforms the Jewish teachings in the Law. What does Jesus suggest that his Jewish audience has been taught? They have been taught: love your neighbor and hate your enemy. The Hebrew Bible does not teach that you should hate your enemy. You could imagine his audience nodding along as he says it, because that is what they have been raised to think. But it’s not there in the Old Testament. Leviticus 19:18 says, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (NRSV). Leviticus 19:17 says you shall not hate your kin. That might have been interpreted by some as allowing you to hate your enemy, even if you are not directed to do so. But the Old Testament does not say it; and Jesus not only rejects it, he goes further. What does Jesus teach here? The word for love here is agape , which is the kind of love that goes beyond even one’s love for one’s family and taps into the love that comes from God. This love does what is best for the other person even at cost to oneself. This does not necessarily mean letting others do whatever they want against us. Sometimes, restraining or refusing another person is the best thing for them. But this kind of love is the love that is done solely for the other person’s benefit, not to meet our own desires. What does this kind of love look like in action? According to Jesus in verse 45, who will we be if we do this? What does it mean to be “children of God”? The literal phrase here is “sons of God.” In the Hebrew language, there were relatively few adjectives, and “son of . . .” was often a way to convey an adjective – for example, the Jews might have said someone was a “son of peace” to signify that the person was peaceful. In this case, saying someone is a son of God might convey that they are a “godlike” person (Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1 , p. 175). Jesus is saying that if you love your enemies, you are acting like God would act – you are showing the character of God. How does loving our enemies make us like God? When we love, we reflect the mind and actions of God, because that is how God thinks and acts toward all people. If we love our enemies like God does, people will see the “family” resemblance – like Father, like son or daughter. In verse 44, Jesus tells us not only to love our enemies but to pray for those who persecute us. Why is praying for our enemies part of the package here? In the second part of verse 45, Jesus gives some examples of what God does to show his love even toward his enemies. What does he say God does? What are some ways we can treat our “enemies” – or those who are hard to love – that would be like the way God provides the sun and rain even to people who are evil or unrighteous? What attitude lies behind these ways that God and we show love to others? What attitude toward humans leads to a desire to love them even when they are being difficult? In verse 46-47, how does Jesus describe the more shallow, transactional care for others that is part of normal human nature? In his examples, Jesus refers to tax collectors and Gentiles – the non-favored people of his society. In a subtle way, he is suggesting that, although the Jews looked down on these groups, the “love your neighbor, hate your enemy” attitude of the prevailing Jewish society was no better. How can we adopt more fully an approach of love toward those we don’t agree with that would reflect the mind and actions of God? What would it look like if we were to routinely approach others, in every facet of life, this way? What would it look like: in business dealings? in political discourse? in disagreements within the church? in family squabbles and estrangements? in other areas of your life? Jesus is trying to help us embrace a whole new conception of ourselves, where we become like God and always keep God as our focus. He must increase in us, and our self-centeredness must decrease. Focus now on verse 48. What does it mean to be “perfect”? The Greek word here for perfect is teleios , which comes from the word telos , meaning end, purpose, aim, or goal. This word for “perfect” is not about being flawless in some abstract way. The word is about fulfilling the purpose for which you have been created (Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1 , p. 176). How does loving our enemy help perfect us to that we can become more fully what God intended us to be? When we choose to love our enemies, we move forward in the transformation by which we take on God’s character and allow every part of our lives – our thoughts, words, and actions – to reflect the image of the God in whose image we were originally created. We could interpret the “be perfect” statement in this way: Jesus calls us to “be [fill in the blank] as your heavenly Father is [that thing].” Be holy as he is holy; be loving as he is loving; be patient as he is patient; etc. Be fully what God intends you to be. How does the call, in verse 48, to be fully what we are intended by God to be, sum up the entire teaching of the 6 “antitheses” from verses 21-47? In this part of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus totally transforms some of the core teachings from the Jewish Law on how to relate to and deal with one another. Where in your life do you need to work on this new way of living? Take a step back and consider this: Why does God want us to love our enemies? The easy answer, based on this passage, is: to become children of God. But let’s push ourselves to think more rigorously. One reason to love our enemies is that Jesus told us to do so, to become children of God. What are some additional reasons why we should love our enemies? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that we should love our enemies because (1) only love can overcome hate; (2) hate scars the soul; (3) only love can turn an enemy into a friend; and (4) love allows us to experience God’s holiness: (1) “Why should we love our enemies? The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” (Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love , Beacon Press, Boston, 1963, p. 47). (2) “Another reason we must love our enemies is that hate scars the soul and distorts the personality. . . . [H]ate brings irreparable damage to its victims. . . . But there is another side which we must never overlook. Hate is just as injurious to the person who hates. Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to . . . confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.” (Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love , Beacon Press, Boston, 1963, pp. 47, 48). (3) “A third reason why we should love our enemies is that love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend. We never get rid of an enemy by meeting hate with hate; we get rid of an enemy by getting rid of enmity. . . . Love transforms with redemptive power.” (Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love , Beacon Press, Boston, 1963, p. 48 ) . (4) “An even more basic reason why we are commanded to love is expressed in Jesus’ words, ‘Love your enemies . . . that you may be children of your Father which is in heaven .” [ellipses and italics in the original] We are called to this difficult task in order to realize a unique relationship with God. . . . We must love our enemies, because only by loving them can we know God and experience the beauty of his holiness.” (Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love , Beacon Press, Boston, 1963, p. 50 ) . If someone were to ask you, “Why should I love my enemies?”, how would you respond? How can you apply these insights about love to some particular situation in your life? What is something you can do to choose love over hate? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

The healing love of God is for Gentiles, too Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 15:21-28 The healing love of God is for Gentiles, too. Pieter Lastman (1583-1633). Christus en de vrouw uit Kanaän [Christ and the woman of Canaan] . 1617. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christus_en_de_vrouw_uit_Kana%C3%A4n_Rijksmuseum_SK-A-1533.jpeg . Tom Faletti June 13, 2025 Matthew 15:21-28 The healing of the Canaanite woman Jesus now moves clearly into Gentile territory. Tyre and Sidon are coastal cities northwest of Galilee, outside of Jewish territory. Who comes to Jesus, and what does she ask? Mark tells us more specifically that this woman is a Greek(-speaking) Syrian Phoenician woman. Matthew calls her a Canaanite, which is an anachronistic term he takes from the Old Testament. Centuries earlier, the Israelites had battled the Canaanites when they took over the Promised Land. In Genesis’s table of the origins of the nations, Canaan is the father of Sidon (Gen. 10:15). The Pharisees of Jesus’s time would have had nothing to do with this woman for multiple reasons: she was a woman, a foreigner, and a Gentile, and therefore unclean. Jesus, however, allows her to engage him. In verse 22, what words does she use to describe Jesus? What does her uses of these terms tell you about her faith? How does Jesus react, initially? He says nothing. Why do you think Jesus at first does not respond to her, but waits until she persists and the disciple ask him to send her away? How does Jesus respond to the disciples and her in verse 24? The woman’s reply is very simple: “Lord, help me” (Matt. 15:25). How is that a good example for us? I will explain Jesus’s troubling statements in verses 24 and 26 in a moment, but first, given that the woman gets what she wants in the end, do you think Jesus may be testing her in some way? Jesus appears to be prejudiced here, but that's a misunderstanding. What is really going on? Jesus’s dismissive and seemingly racist comments to the Syrophoenician/Canaanite woman – “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24) and “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (Matt. 15:26) – have troubled many people. Jesus sounds callous and prejudiced. But that interpretation does not fit with the rest of what we know about Jesus, so there must be more to the story. And there is! Here are 5 big points that can help us accurately interpret what Jesus says here: First, Jesus has already shown that he cares about Gentiles and is willing to heal them: In Matthew 8:28-34, Jesus goes to the Gentile territory of Gadara and heals the men who were possessed by demons. In Matthew 8:5-13, he heals a Gentile centurion’s servant. Matthew has been hinting to us from the very first chapter that Jesus’s gospel is for all people. He started by identifying the Gentile women in Jesus’s genealogy (see the study Matt. 1:1-17 ). Although when Jesus sent the apostles out on their first preaching mission he told them to stay in Jewish territory and not preach to the Samaritans (Matt. 10:5-6), that was only a first step. Matthew’s whole Gospel is driving toward its final verses where Jesus says the gospel must be preached to all nations (Matt. 28:19-20). In the passage right before this one, Jesus demolishes the idea that something outside of you can defile you. That’s how Jews felt about Gentiles, that they were a source of defilement. Second, this appears to be another case where Jesus quotes a claim others are making before showing how it is wrong. We have seen this in several places: In Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:38, and Matthew 5:43, Jesus begins a teaching by starting with, “You have heard that it was said . . .” or similar words, and then reframes the issue. In Matthew 11:7, he quotes people’s erroneous thinking about John the Baptist before providing a true understanding of John’s role. In Matthew 15:5, he quotes the Pharisees’ flimsy excuse for not taking care of their parents, before calling out their hypocrisy. This appears to be another case where Jesus is quoting the erroneous thinking of the people of his time. In fact, it is quite possible that the disciples said these things to Jesus when they were asking him to send the woman away. Third, Jesus went to the region of Tyre and Sidon for a reason – perhaps with the specific intention of having an interaction such as this one. Matthew tells us that Jesus “withdrew” to the region of Tyre and Sidon, but he doesn’t say why. In Matthew’s Gospel, nothing happens without a reason. Some scholars think that Jesus just wanted to get away from the crowds so that he could focus on training his disciples and preparing them for his crucifixion. But there were out-of-the way Jewish places he could have gone to. Or he could have gone to Bethsaida, the Gentile city his disciples were supposed to meet him in when he walked on the water (see Matt. 14:22 and Mark 6:45). Going to the Tyre and Sidon allows him to show by his actions that his point in the previous passage that nothing external can defile you apply to the Gentiles. Fourth, when he said, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (Matt. 15:26), the word isn’t actually “dogs.” The Jews routinely called Gentiles “dogs.” Dogs were despised at this time: mostly unclean, stray scavengers, not domesticated pets. But Jesus doesn’t actually use the word “dog.” The word he uses is the word for a little dog, a house dog, or a puppy. So he is twisting the standard quote of his day as he prepares to demolish the ungodly attitude behind it. Finally, Jesus is following the typical style of verbal jousting that was common for the men of his time, which was to make an argument and then see if the other person can make a better argument. Jesus honors this woman by treating her as an equal and worthy of such an argument. When you put all these points together, it becomes clear that Jesus is quoting the prejudices of his day to in order to demolish them, not because he believes them. How does the woman react in verse 26? Jesus loves the woman’s response. Why? How is her response an act of faith? How does Jesus respond to her in verse 28? This is the only person of whom Jesus says that they have “great” faith. What does this woman teach us about faith? What did this event show about Jesus’s relationship to the Gentiles? Can we talk back to God? If so, how? Does it matter that she talked back to him while still being respectful? . . . and that it was based in faith? What do you think this woman thought about Jesus? What do you think she thought he felt about her? She must have sensed that he really cared about her, even though his words didn’t sound like it. We, too, can embrace the fact that God really cares about us, even though some of the things he allows to happen might make it seem like he doesn’t. Jesus didn’t even make her bring her daughter to him. He just healed the daughter from a distance. That also happened in the healing of the centurion’s servant. Both requesters were Gentiles. Why do you think he did the healing at a distance in both cases? What does the fact that he never sent her away tell us? What can we learn from that, with regard to our own relationship with Jesus? Take a step back and consider this: Unless you are a Jew by heritage, this is a really important story. Jesus shows that his good news is for you, not just for Jews. Are we as welcoming? Are there any groups in your society that are not welcome in your church community? How do you think Jesus would respond? How can you help make all people welcome in the church? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

Who are you willing to befriend? Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 9:1-17 Who are you willing to befriend? “I say to you: Stand up.” Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church, Berlin, Germany. Photo by Tom Faletti, 24 June 2024. Tom Faletti August 3, 2024 Matthew 9:1-8 a paralyzed man is forgiven of his sins (and healed) Jesus returns home to Capernaum, the city he moved to after he started his public ministry (Matt. 4:13). Matthew leaves out some details we are familiar with from Mark’s version of this story – for example, in Mark’s telling, they let the man down through the roof of the house. What does Jesus see in the men who are carrying the paralyzed man? What does he say first to the man (verse 2)? Why would Jesus focus on the man’s need for forgiveness from his sins? Why do the scribes react so negatively? Mark explains why they think he is blaspheming. They are saying to themselves, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7, NRSV) Unstated but probably also in their minds is that sins are forgiven through sacrifices offered in the Temple. Note that if Jesus were merely human, his claim would indeed be blasphemous, because sin is, at root, an offense against God, and only God can forgive that. Note also that blasphemy is a serious charge. Jesus will ultimately be charged with blasphemy when the religious leaders use it to call for his execution by crucifixion (Matt. 26:65). How does Jesus respond to the scribes in verses 4-5? Some people find Jesus’s statement confusing. The key to understanding it is to picture how easily people could check to see if the statement is accurate. It is easy to say , “Your sins are forgiven,” because no human can verify whether your words have made it happen. But it is hard to claim that a paralyzed person is now able to stand up and walk unless you actually have healing powers, because the evidence will clearly show whether you are telling the truth or lying. For a purely human person, which is easier: to tell someone their sins are forgiven or to tell them they are healed and can now walk? Why? In verse 6, Jesus says that healing the man will help the scribes know that Jesus can forgive sins. Explain how this is so. It is only at this point that Jesus now heals the man. How might this conversation have been important for the man to hear, before he was healed? How do you think the man felt, having his sins forgiven and his body healed? How do you feel when you experience God’s forgiveness? In John 20:22-23, Jesus gives to the apostles the power to forgive sins. How do you see this power flowing through the church today? How do the crowds react to what Jesus has said and done? How is their reaction different from the reaction of the people in the town where the demon-possessed men lived? How does this story ratchet up even further the power and authority Jesus is showing? How does forgiving sins show an even greater authority than stilling a storm or ordering demons to leave a man? What does this story say to you about your own life and your own relationship with Jesus? Go back to verse 2 for a moment. The man was only able to have this encounter with God because some friends brought him to Jesus. How are friends important to our faith? Are there some friends of yours who might need a little help from you to bring them to Jesus so that they can have an experience of God? Introduction to Matthew 9:9-17 : Jesus’s relationship with tax collectors and fasting Having related 3 more miracles, Matthew again takes a break to bring us two more conversations between Jesus and those around him. In both cases, Jesus is trying to give religious leaders a clearer insight into his purpose or mission. In each of these two dialogues, Jesus presents three arguments in response to a challenge. Matthew 9:9-13 going to a party at a tax collector’s house What good thing happens in verse 9? In Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27, the tax collector’s name is Levi, and in Mark 2:15 and Luke 5:29 the party takes place at Levi’s house. The fact that in the Gospel of Matthew this man’s name was changed to Matthew suggests that there may be some connection between this Gospel and this man. However, as our Introduction to Matthew explains, this tax collector is probably not the actual author of this Gospel, even though some sayings in this Gospel may have been handed down from him. Tax collectors (also called by their Roman name “publicans”) were responsible for collecting local taxes in Roman provinces and remitting the taxes to Rome. In Israel, they were Jews who were usually despised for two reasons First, they were seen as collaborators with the imperial overlords who oppressed them. Second, they were seen as extortionists. Tax collectors did not receive a salary. To become a tax collector, they had to win an auction where they made the best bid to collect the most taxes for Rome, and they had to deliver on the amount of taxes they promised. The only way they could make money was by collecting more taxes than they had to remit to Rome. They were allowed to use whatever means were necessary to collect the taxes, and since the more they collected the richer they became, the system was highly vulnerable to abuse. Many tax collectors used extortionist methods to enrichment themselves at the expense of their fellow countrymen. As a result, they tended to be wealthy and hated. The term “sinners” is used repeatedly in the Gospels. It includes people in a variety of occupations, including camel drivers, herders, and physicians (who expose themselves to blood and other impurities that might make them ritually unclean) (Benedict T. Viviano, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” The New Jerome Biblical Commentary , par. 61, p. 649). H. L. Ellison indicates that there is a place in the Talmud where a list of sinners includes gamblers, people who engage in usury, criminals, and tax collectors, among others (H. L. Ellison, “Matthew,” The International Bible Commentary , p. 1131). In both cases, the word appears to focus on people who have made persistent business or vocational choices, not people who have committed individual sins in their private lives. Is Matthew’s decision to follow Jesus a good thing even if he is a tax collector? Are there times when we are skeptical about people who count themselves among the followers of Jesus? How do we deal with that? Why is it significant that Jesus dines at Matthew’s home? What is the Pharisees’ complaint against Jesus in verse 11? The Pharisees were devoted to strict observance of every tiny detail of the Law, with great concern about ritual purity. They would never have entered the home of a tax collector or sinner, much less eaten with them. They think Jesus should have the same view. What are they implying about Jesus? They are implying he is a sinner because he hangs out with sinners. As my Bible Study group member Migna Taveras put it, they are suggesting that “you are who you hang out with.” Matthew has now brought into the light the opposition of both scribes and Pharisees to Jesus. Jesus offers 3 arguments in response to the Pharisees’ concern. First, he uses the analogy of healthy and sick people (verse 12). How does this analogy fit the situation of going to this dinner party? Are we “well” or “sick”? Explain. What might we do when we realize that we and others are a combination of well and sick? Jesus’s second argument (verse 13a) uses a quote from Hosea 6:6 in which God says he desires mercy, not sacrifice. What does that mean? The prophet Hosea, speaking to the northern kingdom of Israel, was trying to call back to God a people who had rejected the Davidic line of kings, set up their own worship practices in place of worship in the Temple, and tolerated and often embraced the worship of other gods. The Pharisees, in their response to Jesus, are rejecting the Messiah in the Davidic line who is, like Hosea, trying to bring a wayward people back to God. Jesus echoes Hosea in saying that mercy is the first thing on God’s mind. How can we embrace Jesus’s call for mercy in our lives? Jesus’s third argument (verse 13b) is that he came to call sinners, not the (self-)righteous. We might find it uncomfortable to be counted among either of those groups. Is there a third option besides “sinners” and the “(self-)righteous”? How is Jesus’s statement that he has come to call sinners, not the righteous, a direct appeal to those who complained? How can we embrace more fully the attitude of the Lord who welcomes sinners, comes for the sick, and extends the mercy of God? What is something specific that you can do differently or do more consistently to by like Jesus? Matthew 9:14-17 John’s disciples and fasting Jesus encounters a third complaint, this time from the followers of John the Baptist. What is the complaint in verse 14? What are they implying about Jesus? Jesus offers 3 arguments in response to this question about fasting. First, he notes that people don’t mourn at a wedding (verse 15). What is the meaning of this seeming non-sequitur? Jesus is the bridegroom, and his disciples are the wedding guests. They do not need to fast while he is present. When Jesus refers to himself as a bridegroom, it evokes several Old Testament Scriptures where God is described as a bridegroom, including Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 3:20; Hosea 2:14-20. When Jesus says that later they “will” fast, is that an order or just a prediction/prophecy? Jesus’s second point is that you don’t sow a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak (verse 16). What is wrong with doing that? What is Jesus’s point? What does the unshrunk cloth stand for, in this analogy? What is the old cloth? What are we? Where do we fit in the analogy Jesus offers? Jesus’s third point is that you don’t put new wine in old wineskins (verse 17). What is wrong with doing that? What is Jesus’s point? What does the new wine stand for, in this analogy? What are the old wineskins? What are we? Where do we fit in the story Jesus tells? How can we welcome the “new wine” in our lives and live as new wineskins? What about the “old wineskins” who live among us? Is there hope for them? What can we do with them? Note: In 9:15, Jesus gives his first hint of his coming death: “The days will come. . . .” These hints will get stronger and more explicit as we continue in Matthew. Take a step back and consider this: In the story of the paralyzed man, the man’s friends bring him to Jesus and the scribes are resistant to Jesus’s authority. In the story of the party at the home of the tax collector, the Pharisees are indignant that Jesus has befriended these obvious sinners. Whenever Jesus is confronted with a person, he begins with the fact they are created by God and loved by God, and therefore worthy of receiving our welcoming and love. He always sees the whole person – not just one thing they have done, or one aspect of who they are. Therefore, when he sees the paralyzed man, he sees someone who needs both healing and forgiveness. When he sees the tax collector, he sees someone who could be an apostle. When he sees the tax collector’s dinner companions, he sees people who are more than what they currently seem to be. And he wants to befriend them all. How can we put on Jesus’s eyes and see the fuller story of every person we meet, rather than rejecting people because parts of their story are objectionable? Who are you willing to befriend? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

Jesus fulfills the Old Testament: the Law and the Prophets. Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus fulfills the Old Testament: the Law and the Prophets. Image provided by Wix. Tom Faletti April 26, 2024 Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus came to fulfill the Law What does Jesus say in verse 17? Jesus refers to “the law and the prophets.” The law and the prophets are two of the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible, our Old Testament. The “law” is the Torah, the first 5 books of the Old Testament. The “prophets” refers to the books of the prophets – Isaiah, etc. The third division of the Hebrew Bible is the “writings” – which includes the Psalms and other books of literature (Proverbs, etc.) that are grouped with the Psalms in the Hebrew Bible. In Matthew, Jesus uses the phrase “the law and the prophets” here and in three other places: Matthew 7:12; 11:13; and 22:40. In 7:12, he says that the “Golden Rule” – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – is the law and the prophets. In 22:40, after talking about the two Great Commandments – love the Lord our God and love your neighbor – he says that all that is written in the law and the prophets hangs on these two commandments. Jesus says he did not come to “abolish” the law and the prophets. What would it mean to “abolish” them? And therefore, what does it mean to not abolish them? What does it mean to “fulfill” the law and the prophets? To “fulfill” means to “complete,” or to bring to completion, or to have reached the point of completion. To “fulfill” the law and the prophets can be explored in two ways: How the law is fulfilled as we follow the moral law first outlined in the Old Testament; and How Jesus , by his life, death, and resurrection, fulfilled the purposes and promises of God presented in the Old Testament. With regard to Jesus, it is useful to note that in Luke 24:44, Jesus said that “everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled” (NRSV). There, he is referring to all three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures. With regard to how the law applies to us, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible comments that the New Covenant Jesus presented “perfects and transforms” the Old Covenant: “While sacrificial laws of the OT expired with the sacrifice of Jesus, the moral Law (Ten Commandments, etc.) was retained and refined” (fn. to 5:17, p. 15). In the next section of Matthew’s Gospel, we see Jesus transforming the teachings of the Old Testament in ways that we still try to follow today. In what ways do we continue to follow the commandments of the Old Testament and embrace the teachings of the prophets? How does our commitment to following the law allow the law to fulfill its intended purpose? In what ways did Jesus fulfill the law and the prophets? Some scholars argue that this teaching in Matthew contradicts what Paul says when he says that we are not justified by doing the works of the law (for example, in Galatians 2:15-16; Romans 3:21-31). How would you respond? Is Jesus saying we are justified by doing the works of the Law? Is Paul saying we don’t have to obey the basic commandments of the Law? Or do these passages of the Bible fit together even though they may be looking at the issue from different perspectives? Some scholars overstate Paul’s rejection of the Law. Paul affirmatively cites the Ten Commandments in Romans 13:8-10 and says they are summed up in the command to love your neighbor, as Jesus said in Matthew. And throughout his letters, Paul expects a high moral standard of the people to whom he is writing. We are not justified by doing the works of the law – we still need salvation through Jesus; but Jesus expects us to follow the Ten Commandments and also other elements of the moral/social law – for example, to care for the poor, treat workers justly, welcome the stranger, etc. In verse 18, Jesus says that not one letter of the law will pass away. The word for “letter” is literally the Greek word iota – their name for the letter “i,” which is the smallest letter in Greek as it is in English. It is important to note that Jesus is not endorsing all the tiny details of the interpretations of the Law that the scribes and Pharisees had piled on top of the actual words of the Old Testament Law. He broke their "laws" frequently and derided them for their excessive devotion to the laws they had made. But he is expressing a deep reverence for the word of God handed down in the Old Testament itself. Jesus’s reference to heaven and earth passing away may be recalling Isaiah’s prophecy of a “new heavens and a new earth” (Isaiah 65:17, NRSV and NABRE). In Matthew 5:18, Jesus says that nothing will “pass” from the law “until all is accomplished.” This could be interpreted as referring to the “eschatological” end of the world (the “end times”), but it makes more sense to understand it as referring to Jesus’s fulfillment of the law and the prophets by his death and resurrection. Jesus has already preached that the kingdom of heaven is near. In what ways are we living, metaphorically or partially, in the “new heavens and new earth” that Isaiah foretold, even as we wait for its complete fulfillment at an end time that is yet to come? In what ways do the law and prophets still apply to us in this interim time we live in? Given that Christians do not accept the obligation to carry out all 613 commandments in the Old Testament – for example, we do not follow the kosher laws, the sacrificial laws, or other ceremonial laws – how do we know which laws Jesus still expects us to follow today? Notice in verse 19 that Jesus does not consign to hell those who break the commandments, but he says they will be called “least” in the kingdom of heaven. What do you think this means? What might “least” look like in heaven? Verse 19 particularly makes a point about teachers. Why are they so important? Jesus ends this passage with a statement that would have been a surprise to his followers. The scribes and Pharisees sought to live at an extreme or maximum level of righteousness. What does Jesus say in verse 20? What do you think Jesus is telling you, in saying that your righteousness must be greater than that of the people who are trying the hardest to be righteousness? For you, what is the good news in this passage? Take a step back and consider this: If the Law was a sentient being, you might picture it eagerly anticipating its “fulfillment.” It was created for a purpose – to prepare the way for Jesus and the salvation of not only the Jewish people but all of humanity. Now, in Jesus, the beginning of that time of fulfillment is at hand. We, too, are on a path to fulfillment. God is working his character into us and reflecting his goodness and love out through us to a world that desperately needs opportunities to see God through us. In the end, our goal is to allow God to work his character fully into us so that we are like Jesus. I can’t be exhibiting God’s character and manifesting God’s love if I am insulting, unfaithful, hateful, etc. – issues that Jesus will take up in the next passage. Those attitudes do not reflect the image of God because God does not have those attitudes. If my ultimate fulfillment is to be like Christ, then those attitudes must go. The moral law set forth in the Old Testament, however, does reflect aspects of God’s character. The Law helps me understand, in some ways, the kind of person God is calling me to be. For you, is the Law a bad guy that prohibits you from doing what you want to do and being what you want to be? Or is it a good thing that reminds you of what you want to do and who you want to be? How does the Law help you to live the life of Christ? How can you embrace more fully this vision: that the Law, which is fulfilled in Christ, is not something to be abolished but rather is a support for your life of faith that can help you reach your ultimate fulfillment in Christ? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

Pilate tried to pretend that Jesus’s death was not his decision. How can we be honest about the role we play in what goes on in our lives? [Matthew 27:11-14; 27:15-26] Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 27:11-26 Pilate tried to pretend that Jesus’s death was not his decision. How can we be honest about the role we play in what goes on in our lives? Pilate washes his hands in front of a bound Jesus. Andrea Schiavone (c. 1510-15 - 1563). Kristus inför Pilatus [Christ before Pilate] . 16 th century. Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, Sweden. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrea_Schiavone_-_Christ_before_Pilate_GG_1516.jpg . Tom Faletti September 19, 2025 Matthew 27:11-26 Pilate questions Jesus and sentences him without finding him guilty Pilate was given authority over Judea as a military governor from AD 26 to 36, so he is not new to the position when Jesus shows up in his court in AD 30 (or 33 according to some scholars). His headquarters were in Caesarea, on the Mediterranean coast, but he knew it was important to be in Jerusalem during the Passover feast due to the huge crowds that gathered there. He was an unsympathetic person, not well liked, and unnecessarily cruel, which eventually led to his being recalled to Rome. He apparently considered his primary duty to be to keep the lid on the pressure-cooker of Judea, where there were many fervent and sometimes resistant Jews living under Roman occupation. Sadly, his methods often inflamed the population rather than pacifying them. Pilate’s formal title was “prefect,” a military governor. Some translations refer to him as the “procurator,” a generic term indicating that a person has been given power but is subordinate to a higher authority. Pilate had received power from the emperor and was responsible to him for what went on in Judea. In verse 11, what does Pilate ask Jesus? Why would he care about that particular question? Matthew is providing a condensed version of what happened. The Gospel of John provides a much fuller account of the multiple hearings that led to Jesus’s execution. Matthew does not state the formal charges that were brought against Jesus. We see them in Luke 23:2. The charges included that he claimed to be “the Messiah, a king.” Pilate asks about the claim that he is a king because that would be an unacceptable claim in the Roman Empire. He would be much less concerned about whether Jesus claimed to a messiah. He would consider that to be mainly a religious squabble among the Jews unless it was accompanied by acts of insurrection against the Empire. How does Jesus answer in verse 11? When asked if he is a king, Jesus again the same “You say so” that we have seen him use previously. Again, a straight “Yes” would be misleading because he was not claiming to be the king of the Jews in the military sense that Pilate would have understood the term to mean. We often get ourselves into trouble by saying too much or by saying things that people can misinterpret and that we could have said better. What can we learn from Jesus about saying the right things in the right ways at the right times? How does Barabbas come into the story starting in verse 16)? The claim that Pilate had a practice of allowing one prisoner to go free during the feast is not mentioned in sources outside of the Gospels, but it is a prominent element of the story in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John. Verse 18 tells us that Pilate had reached a conclusion as to why Jesus was brought before him. What does he think is going on? If that is what Pilate thought, do you think he should have handled Jesus’s case differently? What happens to Herod’s wife (verse 19)? It looks like God is giving Pilate every opportunity to do the right thing and refuse to do the wrong thing. Does God also give us little signals when we are contemplating doing something wrong, or does he just sit back and watch as we wrestle with sin? What is God’s attitude toward you as you are grappling with temptation? Reread Matthew 27:20-26 . Who do you think these “crowds” were, that were there in Pilate’s court rather than focusing on their Passover celebration? Why do you think they asked for Barabbas to be released rather than Jesus? What does verse 23 tell us about whether Pilate thinks Jesus is innocent or guilty? How does verse 24 further show what Pilate thinks about Jesus? If Pilate thought that Jesus was innocent, why didn’t he release him? We might wonder how concerned Pilate is about justice. Verse 24 offers some insight about his biggest concern here. What does Pilate care about most? Matthew’s is the only Gospel where Pilate washes his hands (verse 24). What is Pilate’s point in doing that? The Jews had a practice of washing one’s hands to show innocence. It arose from an instruction in the Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 21:1-9, which said that if a corpse was found in the wilderness and no one had any idea who killed the person, the elders of the nearest town were directed to sacrifice a heifer and wash their hands over it as a sign of their innocence, asking God not to hold against the people the guilt of the shedding of innocent blood. Pilate is unlikely to have had any interest in following a Jewish ritual, and the circumstances in Deuteronomy don’t fit Jesus’s situation. However, this gesture by Pilate has come down through the ages as a symbol of professed innocence. Pilate further underscores his innocence by saying to the crowd in verse 24, “See to it yourselves” (27:24), the same thing the chief priests had said to Judas when he repented of betraying innocent blood (27:4). He is saying, “Don’t put the blame on me.” However, who ultimately hands Jesus over to be crucified – the crowd or Pilate? Can a person in power get off the hook or absolve themselves from something by washing their hands of it? When is it appropriate for them to say, “Don’t blame me,” and when is a person in power still morally responsible for what they allow others to do? Verse 25 has a statement that has been misused throughout history to justify discrimination, mistreatment, and oppression of Jews. In Matthew’s telling, the people say, “His blood be on us and on our children.” In Western history, how have Christian churches and individual Christians used this statement as a bogus reason to treat Jews badly? Jews in later generations were falsely called “Christ-killers,” discriminated against, kept from good jobs and neighborhoods, forced into ghettos, evicted from their homes, murdered in vicious pogroms, and ultimately subjected to the Holocaust. Many of these acts were falsely justified on the grounds that a tiny number of their distant ancestors sought Jesus’s execution. Matthew is expressing a view that arises from the contentious and sometimes violent relations between Christians and Jews in his time. The words he places in the mouth of the crowd are not a judgment from God. God’s view is entirely different. Read Ezekiel 18:4 and Ezekiel 18:20 . Does God allow children to be punished for the sins of their parents? No. God says: “For all life is mine: the life of the parent is like the life of the child, both are mine. Only the one who sins shall die!” (Ezekiel 18:4, NABRE) If that isn’t clear enough God adds: “Only the one who sins shall die. The son shall not be charged with the guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of his son” (Ezekiel 18:20, NABRE). Is there any legitimate justification for blaming the entire Jewish people for the acts of the few who were there at the time? Why not? Note that in the end, in verse 26, it is Pilate who hands Jesus over to be crucified, not the Jews generally or even the chief priests specifically. Pilate is the only one with the authority to order the crucifixion. How does that guide your thinking about Pilate’s protestations of innocence? It is Pilate’s Roman soldiers who will crucify Jesus, and they will do so on the orders of a Roman, Pilate. How does that guide your thinking about the ways that Christians have unjust treated Jews throughout the ages? In verse 26, Jesus is scourged. Scourging was an incredibly excruciating form of torture, where a condemned prisoner was whipped with leather straps that had bits of bone and lead embedded in them. This was different than using a regular whip to whip someone as a form of punishment. Instead, it was part of the torture of execution, intended to deliver maximum pain and weaken the prisoner while still keeping him alive to suffer the further intense agony of the crucifixion itself. In verse 26, Jesus is “handed over” to be crucified. Matthew uses the same Greek work for “handed over” in all of the following places: In Matthew 11:27, Jesus says that the Father has handed over all things to him. In Matthew 20:18, Jesus says that he will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, who will condemn him to death. In Matthew 26:2, Jesus says that he will be handed over to be crucified. In Matthew 27:2, Jesus is handed over from the chief priests to Pilate. In Matthew 27:18, Matthew tells us that Pilate knew the chief priests handed Jesus over to him out of jealously. In Matthew 27:26, Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified. Interestingly, not in Matthew but in John, when Jesus died, he bowed his head and handed over his spirit (John 19:30). To the end, Jesus was in control of his destiny. Do you ever feel like your life is a series of instances where you are “handed over” to some experience or another? In John 10:17-18, Jesus says that he has the power to lay down his life and the power to take it up again. In Matthew 26:53, Jesus declares that he could summon legions of angels to intervene if that was what the Father wanted to happen. What does the fact that he allowed this to happen, when he could have stopped it, tell you about him? How might Jesus’s example give you a sense of perspective as you deal with difficult situations in your life that are not of your own choosing? Take a step back and consider this: The Roman Empire is often praised for the Pax Romana , a period of supposed peace and prosperity the reigned under Roman rule from roughly 27 BC to AD 180. There may have been relative peace on the Italian peninsula during this time, but to people of other ethnic groups it was a period of oppression that was so extensive that any attempt to fight for freedom was quickly and brutally crushed. Moreover, people did try to fight for freedom, leading to massacres such as Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. And even during periods of relative “peace” such as the years in which Jesus lived, Roman crucifixions lined the roads of the Empire as vicious warnings not to disrupt the peace of Roman oppression. How can we hold historians to account, and challenge ourselves as well, to tell an accurate history that includes the experiences of the oppressed and does not present the views of the victors as the only way to understand what happened? How do you think God would want you to tell your own nation’s history? Christ died on the cross for all people, not just the people who were most powerful. Does your nation’s history tell the stories of people who were oppressed or held back as honestly as God would tell their stories? Whose story might need to be more fully told if seen through God’s eyes? Why does it matter whether Christians tell the whole history of a people? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

Who is Jesus? – Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus. Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 1:1-17 Who is Jesus? – Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus. Image provided by Wix. Tom Faletti February 13, 2024 NOTE: Whenever the chapter and verse for a passage are underlined, please read the passage before proceeding. Matthew 1:1 Who is this Gospel about? How does Matthew identify or describe the chief character of his story? Let’s look at each of these terms: Jesus, Messiah, son of David, and son of Abraham. What does each term mean and why is it important to Matthew or significant to the Jews or early Christians? Jesus : Greek for the Hebrew name Joshua (Yeshua), which in Hebrew means “God saves,” or “Jehovah (Yahweh) is salvation,” or “Yahweh, save [us]!”. Why is this identification important for Matthew’s Gospel and for us? Messiah : Hebrew for “Anointed One”; Christ, from the Greek Christos , has the same meaning). Special people were anointed, usually kings and priests; but the “Messiah” took on a greater connotation of a savior of some kind. Why is this identification of Jesus important for Matthew’s Gospel and for us? Sneak peak: You are probably familiar with the story of the key turning point when Peter first recognizes that Jesus is the Messiah, which is told in Matt. 16:16. Son of David : The Jews expected that they would find relief from foreign occupation and domination when David’s throne was restored. God had told David that a descendant of his would be on the throne forever. Why is this identification of Jesus important for Matthew’s Gospel and for us? Consider Isaiah 9:2-7; see verse 7: “there shall be endless peace / for the throne of David and his kingdom.” (NRSV) Consider Isaiah 11:1-9; see verse 1: “a shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse” (NRSV) – Jesse was David’s father. Consider Jeremiah 33:14-17; see verse 15: “I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land” (NRSV), and verse 17: “David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel” (NRSV). Sneak peak: The term “Son of David” will be used by people who were healed by Jesus and by people in Jerusalem when he entered the city on the first day of his last week on Earth, so it takes on important significance as his crucifixion nears. Son of Abraham : God made the Jewish people’s original covenant with Abraham, and all Jews trace their lineage from him (whereas not all are from the house of David). Why is this identification of Jesus important for Matthew’s Gospel and for us? David was only one part of one of the 12 tribes of Israel. Abraham was the father of the entire Jewish people. Muslims also see their lineage going back to Abraham, but it goes further than that. Through Abraham, all people were to be blessed, not just Abraham’s children: Gen. 12:2-3: “I will make of you a great nation, and . . . in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (NRSV). After Abraham shows his willingness to sacrifice Isaac: Gen. 22:17-18: “I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And . . . by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves” (NRSV). Pick one of these identifications of Jesus and explain why it is important to you or has special meaning for you. Matt. 1:2-17 Jesus’s genealogy What names or other features of this genealogy stand out for you? It was unusual to include women in a Jewish genealogy, but Matthew’s genealogy names four: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. . What makes these four women stand out as worthy of mention? All four of the women were from other nations; they were not Israelites: Tamar, Canaanite: Genesis 38. Rahab, from Jericho, so Canaanite: Joshua 2:1-21; 6:22-25. Ruth, Moabite: Ruth 2-4. Bathsheba, Hittite: 2 Samuel 11-12. Why would Matthew want to call attention to these foreign women in Jesus’s genealogy? What message would that send? Matthew might have included these women in part to deflect any criticism about Jesus’s birth circumstances. If the irregularities in David and Solomon’s lineage did not disqualify them from the throne of an eternal dynasty, then Jesus’s lineage does not disqualify him either. Joseph essentially adopted Jesus into the family line by taking him into his home, so he had a legitimate claim to being a son of David on the human level. Matthew’s genealogy ends with “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born” (1:17 NRSV), which does not follow the standard male-line genealogy of “So-and-so, the father of So-and-such,” which might have been expected to end with “Joseph, the father of Jesus.” That would not have been accurate, as Matthew will explain shortly. When we look at God choice to make room in Jesus’s lineage for people of different backgrounds, how might that guide us in our attitudes toward people who have different backgrounds from ours? How does the presence of Gentiles in Jesus’s ancestry connect to the last two verses of Matthew’s Gospel (Mat. 28:19-20)? The good news about Jesus is meant for people of all nations. Sneak peak: Matthew spends a significant portion of his Gospel reporting Jesus’s preaching, healing, and miracles in Gentile areas. Matthew says in verse 14 that his genealogy has 3 sets of 14 generations. The number 14 might have been considered important as the numerical value of the sum of the three letters that make up David’s name in Hebrew. Matthew’s genealogy walks through the story of the Jews from the beginning with Abraham, to a high point when David was king, to the depths of despair when the Israelites were sent into exile to Babylon, and on to Jesus. How do you see Jesus serving as the climax to this story? Note: The Gospel writers were not aiming for genealogical perfection. Matthew is focused on his 3 times 14 arrangement. Luke has many more names in his list and is telling the genealogical history to make a different point. (Note: It is possible that Luke’s list is a genealogy of Mary, but there is no evidence to support the claim.) Matthew is not trying to nail down every genealogical detail. For example, considering the many decades between Rahab’s role in the Jericho story and Boaz’s role in the story of Ruth (David’s great-grandmother), Rahab could not have been the mother of Boaz. (Matthew is the only one who makes that claim; the book of Ruth, where Boaz’s story is told, does not make that claim.) Matthew’s list also doesn’t quite match up with the list in 1 Chronicles (see 1 Chron. 3:11-12). The Gospel writers were not trying to nail down every genealogical detail. They were trying to make much bigger and broader points. What do you think Matthew’s goals were in including this genealogy at the beginning of his story of Jesus? What points does he want us to take from it? It connects Jesus to the great past figures and also prepares us for the unique birth of Jesus by showing that irregularities show up in many places in the story of God’s people. Scholarly footnote: The third genealogical group, from the Exile to Jesus, is only 13 generations. Some scholars wonder if the 14th generation is Christ begetting the church. Take a step back and consider this: During Advent of 2023, my home parish posted online a musical reflection for each of the weeks of Advent. On the page Music for the Second Week of Advent ( St. Peter’s Church on Capitol Hill , https://saintpetersdc.org/pray/advent23/35171-music-for-the-second-week-of-advent ), we could listen to some lovely music including a remarkable interpretation of the genealogy of Jesus. The third musical selection on that page offered a video titled “…which was the Son of — Arvo Pärt (b.1935).” It can be found on YouTube here: Which Was the Son of... (Arvo Pärt) - Sofia Vokalensemble (“Which Was the Son of... (Arvo Pärt) - Sofia Vokalensemble.” Sofia Vokalensemble , 23 Oct. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyPmFBpiF7E ). In this piece, a choir sings a beautiful musical selection telling the genealogy of Jesus as presented in the Gospel of Luke. The commentary on the page posted by St. Peter’s Parish acknowledged that “it can be dull to hear about Jesus’s genealogy,” but went on to say: “Estonian composer Arvo Pärt has set Luke’s version of this genealogy in such a way that it is no burden to hear Jesus’s family tree. Rather, Pärt’s music seems something like an overture to the whole biblical narrative, an epic tale on par with Lord of the Rings or Chronicles of Narnia. We are not bored by Jesus’s family tree; we are overwhelmed with wonder at its sweep across time.” This is beautiful! Jesus takes his place within an entire history of the working of God in our world, so that he can save all of the people in that genealogy, all of the people who descended from them, and indeed all human beings, wherever they fall in human history. God loved this world and the people he created so much that he chose to embed Himself in the world he created, in the history of that world, in the person of Jesus. That is what we celebrate at Christmas — not a pleasant story about a sweet little baby, but rather an audacious story about a God who loved his creation so much that he was not afraid to get his hands dirty and assume our genealogy, to become one of us so that we could become like him. Glory in the story — the story of God coming among us at Christmas! We can embrace Joseph as a role model of one who was willing, as Mary did, to say “Yes” to God, so that God could do his great work of salvation among us. What is one way you can say “Yes” to God, that will allow God to do something new in your life or the lives of those around you? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

What kind of soil can I be, to allow the seed of God’s word to take root and be fruitful in my life? Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 13:1-23 What kind of soil can I be, to allow the seed of God’s word to take root and be fruitful in my life? Jean-François Millet (1814-1875). The Sower . ca. 1865. Cropped. The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, MD, https://art.thewalters.org/object/37.905/ . Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. Tom Faletti June 3, 2025 Preview: In chapter 13, Matthew gathers together some of Jesus’s teachings that are in the form of parables. In chapter 14, Matthew gathers together some of Jesus’s actions that might be thought of as living parables – stories that reveal something bigger than just what happens in the story. Read Matt. 13:1-23 The sower and the seed, and why Jesus speaks in parables Although it is helpful to read the whole passage at once, we will discuss the sower and seed parable first, before discussing verses 10-17 about Jesus’s use of parables more generally. Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23 The sower, the seed, and the soils Parables are stories in the form of metaphors or similes that use ordinary human experiences to communicate deeper truths about spiritual matters. In v. 19, Jesus says that the parable of the sower and the seed is about the kingdom of heaven, which is everywhere that people follow God’s Word and acknowledge his lordship. In this parable, what is the seed a metaphor for? The seed is “the word of the kingdom” (13:18); so represents the Word of God, the message of good news that Jesus is preaching about the kingdom of God. What are the different soils a metaphor for ? The soils are different types of people with their different responses to the message of Jesus. Or, to personalize it, the soil is the state of your heart as you hear the word of God. Who are the people in whom the seed takes root and produces fruit? Who are the people in whom the seed doesn’t take permanent root? Now let’s look at each type of soil more closely. There are 3 types of soil where the seed does not take lasting root: the path, the rocky ground, and the ground where there are thorns. In each of those cases, what is the reaction of the person who hears the word in that kind of soil? What goes wrong that prevents the word from taking permanent root? The path: They don’t understand the word, so it does not take root in their heart and the evil one snatches it away. The rocky ground: They receive it with joy for a while, but it does not last. Trouble or persecution arises, and they fall away. The thorns: They hear the word, but anxiety about worldly concerns and the desire for wealth choke it off; so the word does not produce fruit. Consider the seed on the path. Verse 19 says the evil one snatches the word from them because they do not understand it. How can the seed be sowed but not understood? How are people in our day vulnerable to hearing the word but not really understanding it, so that it gets snatched away before it can take root and turn into a solid faith? Consider the seed on rocky ground. In verse 20, how do people respond at first? In verse 21, Jesus says that when they encounter troubles or persecution because of the word , they fall away. In the Western world today, Christians may not encounter a lot of direct persecution, but what are some ways that living the faith can cause trouble or become difficult for a person who starts out believing? What does it look like when a person’s faith “withers” (verse 6) because it has no roots. How might we be vulnerable to having our faith wither when living the faith becomes more difficult? How can we build stronger roots for our faith? Consider the seed among thorns. How are people in our day vulnerable to having their faith choked off by worldly concerns and the desire for money? Consider these three risks: that the word of God might be snatched away because we don’t understand it, that it might wither in the face of difficulties, and that it might be choked off by the cares of the world. How are you vulnerable to these risks? Which risk is the greatest danger for you? [If you are studying this passage with a group, break into smaller groups of two or three people and share together.] Now consider the good soil. How does the person in good soil respond to the seed/word? For the people in good soil, what is the result? In our time, what does a person in good soil look like? What can we do to be good soil for God’s Word to take root? Jesus says that the fruitful people produce thirty-, sixty-, even a hundredfold. This means that, even among the people who let the Word of God take root in them, we are not all alike in our output. What do you think affects the fruit produced? Can you produce a lot of “fruit” for God even if your life is difficult and you encounter a lot of troubles? Explain. If the soil is the heart or receptivity of the person, it is not something that is external and just “happens” to us; we have some control over what kind of soil we are. What do we need to do to be the kind of good soil that allows God’s word to take deep and fruitful root in our lives? Matthew 13:10-17 Why Jesus speaks in parables Jesus is asked why he speaks in parables. He describes in vv. 16-17 how his disciples are different than other people. How are they different? What does it mean when Jesus says that the disciples see and hear while others do not? What do they see and hear that others do not? When Jesus says in verse 11 that the disciples have been allowed to know the “mysteries” or “secrets” of the kingdom, he is using a technical term that does not mean something that can never be understood by anyone; rather, it is something that can be understood only by those to whom God has revealed it. God has revealed his divine plan to the disciples through Jesus. For those who do not understand God’s divine plan, it does not make sense. In what ways is Christianity a mystery to those who have not embraced it, even though those who have become part of God’s people understood God’s plans? In what ways is it true that, as Jesus says in verse 12, to those who have some knowledge of God, more will be given? In verse 13, Jesus explains why he speaks in parables. In the typical Jewish thinking of Jesus’s time and in the Old Testament, everything was caused by God – even when people turned away from God and were held responsible for their actions. Following that line of thinking, in Mark 4:11 Jesus says that he speaks in parables “so that” they will not understand – which implies that Jesus’s use of parables is the reason they don’t understand. Matthew says it differently, in a way that make the human responsibility clearer: Jesus speaks in parables because” they hear but do not listen or understand. In verse 13, Jesus says that people hear but do not listen. What is going on when a person hears but doesn’t listen? Whose fault is it that they don’t understand? Does it suggest that they aren’t trying very hard to understand? Matthew then quotes from Isaiah 6:9-10, which can be interpreted either to say that God has prevented the people from understanding or that the people themselves bear some responsibility for not understanding and turning to God. (Matthew quotes the Greek Septuagint translation, which preserves the element of human responsibility more clearly.) What do you see in verse 15 that indicates that the people’s lack of understanding is because of choices on their part? Their hearts are insensitive, they are barely hearing, and they have closed their eyes. What challenge does this present to us? Are there times when we might be at risk of not hearing God because of our own apathetic or halfhearted approach to the Gospel? What do we need to do in order to understand Jesus’s teachings and allow his seeds to bear fruit in our lives? Why might Jesus choose to shift to parables if people aren’t trying very hard to understand him? Perhaps it helps separate out those who want to learn from those who don’t really want to put any effort into his new way of following God. What are some advantages of teaching in parables? Stories are powerful. They capture our imagination. They engage us an motivate us. Illustrations are concrete rather than abstract. They use familiar circumstances to open the door to more abstract points. In Matthew 13:3, Jesus begins the parable by saying, “Behold the sower went out to sow” – not “ a sower went out to sow” (64). He might have been pointing at a specific sower who was at that very moment sowing seed. Parables use familiar, concrete situations from everyday life. Parables make people think. They force listeners to discover truth for themselves. We have to do some work if we want to gain any benefit. Is there a value in that? Parables remain opaque for people who are not willing to be open to the message. William Barclay makes one other point. Parables are especially useful as a speaking technique: “A parable is not an allegory; an allegory is a story in which every possible detail has an inner meaning; but an allegory has to be read and studied : a parable is heard . We must be very careful not to make allegories of the parables, but to remember that they were designed to make one stabbing truth flash out at a man the moment he heard it” (Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 2 , p. 63). We have looked at what this parable means for us from the perspective of our being the one who hears the word. But it can also be looked at from the perspective of the sower, the one who preaches or shares God’s word with others. What lessons are there in this parable for us as we try to share God’s word with others? There are many good answers to this question. One answer is: Don’t be surprised that you will get varying responses when you share the word of God with others. Take courage and don’t be discouraged. Some people will hear and receive the message and produce fruit. You may not know how big the harvest will be – that’s God’s business; but there will be a harvest. Take a step back and consider this: One interpretation of this parable focuses on the fact that only a small proportion of the people who receive the word are actually transformed by it. Just as there are times in the Old Testament where only a remnant survive, Jesus is being very realistic that the Word of God will not be embraced by all. In many areas of our lives, we want to find the pleasant middle ground where we don’t have to work too hard: The house may not be perfectly clean, but it’s clean enough. I didn’t write an A paper, but it was pretty good. I put as much into that event as everyone else did. But does that work with our spiritual life? Is there a middle-ground level of faith, or does trying to settle for a middle ground lead us to situations where the seed withers or is choked off? How can I be part of the remnant or smaller group that gives itself fully to the divine plan for us to be fruitful in this world? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

Subscribing to Faith Explored is free and lets you receive an email notification when new posts are added that can help you apply the Bible to your everyday life. Thank You for Subscribing! We appreciate you! As a subscriber you will receive email notifications when we post new articles, which can help you grow in your faith! If you haven't already become a member, join here to post comments: Become a member Check Out Our Blog Posts What Would You Like to Do Now? Explore a Bible study to grow in your faith: Matthew Philemon John Hope 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians Mary Read an article on how to apply the Bible to everyday life: I Wince When I Hear People Say That Bad Things are God’s Will I was watching a movie last night, and a character explained something bad that happened by saying, "It was God's will." Christians sometimes say this. But, while God allows evil, he does not cause evil, and evil is never his will. We need to be more precise in our language and ask the right questions. Empty Yourself to be Filled God doesn’t force us to let him be part of our lives. Read this wonderful poem by Thomas Edward Brown, touted by Madeleine L’Engle, that calls us to make room for him so that he can fill us with himself. Are we too full of ourselves to make a space for him? “If thou could'st empty all thyself of self....” A Lesson from the Creators of Les Misérables Les Misérables director John Caird says, "As a bunch of liberal humanists, we had tried to avoid every mention of religion, [but] sewing God into the show was what animated the characters." We have the same opportunity: to let God sew himself into the fabric of our lives so that he animates our character and gives life to everything we do. We Are Called to Cultivate and Care for the Earth and Its People Evangelical and Catholic Christians all over the world, except for some in the United States, know that climate change is real and are working to reverse the damage to our planet and address the ways it disrupts and devastates so many lives. At a conference, Pope Leo said: God will ask us if we cultivated and cared for the world and took care of our brothers and sisters. In the Bible, God commands us to do both. Do we? Take a Quiz: What Do You Know About Faith, Hope, and Love? You’ve probably heard the words “faith, hope, and love” together many times. Take this 6-question quiz to see how much you know about them. Who was the first person to talk about “faith, hope, and love” (Shakespeare? the Bible?) and what do they mean? Welcoming Immigrants is Not Political, It’s Christian People who oppose immigration accuse Christians of being “political.” Their argument is with God, not with us. Jesus told us to “welcome the stranger.” We are just following his teachings. National Migration Week is a good time to recall that Catholics have celebrated World Day for Migrants and Refugees for 111 years and Christians have supported migrants from the earliest days of the faith. It's not new, and it's not political. Image at top  Mateus Campos Felipe, provided by Unsplash via Wix. Oher images provided by Wix.

Jesus’s compassion extends to all people; even foreigners. How can we be like Jesus? Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 15:29-39 Jesus’s compassion extends to all people; even foreigners. How can we be like Jesus? James Tissot (1836-1902). La multiplication des pains [The Multiplication of the Loaves] . Between 1886 and 1894. Brooklyn Museum, New York, NY. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brooklyn_Museum_-_The_Miracle_of_the_Loaves_and_Fishes_(La_multiplication_des_pains)_by_James_Tissot.jpg . Tom Faletti June 13, 2025 Matthew 15:29-31 Crowds come to be healed Although some Bibles have a footnote on this passage suggesting that these crowds may be Jews, there is overwhelming evidence that in this scene and the next, where Jesus feeds the 4,000, he is in Gentile territory: Jesus and the disciples were in Gentile territory in the previous passage. To get to this location, Jesus walks by the Sea of Galilee and continues on. Mark 7:31 tells us that he went by the Sea of Galilee to the Decapolis, which was Gentile territory southeast of the Sea of Galilee. In the next passage – the feeding of the 4,000 (Matt. 15:32-39) – Matthew uses language that clearly signals that they are in Gentile territory. In the next chapter, he will be in the Gentile region of Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:13), north of the Sea of Galilee. Matthew doesn’t tell us Jesus is back in Jewish territory again until Matthew 17:22-24. So it is pure supposition to put Jesus back in Jewish territory for this incident. Furthermore, this period of ministry in Gentile territory is central to the entire arc of the narrative of Matthew’s Gospel (see the study Matt. 1:1-17 ). Matthew foreshadows in the early chapters that Jesus is for all people, Jewish and the Gentile, and then shows Jesus teaching and working miracles first in Jewish territory and then in Gentile territory before he goes to Jerusalem, dies, rises back to life, and tells the disciples to take the gospel to all nations. In Matthew 5:1, Jesus went up on a mountain to teach the Jewish crowds in the “Sermon on the Mount” at the beginning of his ministry (Luke placed Jesus on a plain for this sermon). Here, Matthew tells us that Jesus went up on another mountain, this time in Gentile territory. What do you think Matthew is signaling to us by placing Jesus on mountains in these passages? What kinds of people come to Jesus on the mountain? Why do you think they are coming to him and bringing sick people to him? What does Jesus do? Considering Jewish attitudes toward non-Jews (Gentiles) at the time of Jesus, how significant is it that Jesus is healing all the Gentiles who come to him? Why were the crowds amazed, and how did they react? Notice in verse 31 that the people “glorified the God of Israel.” This is the only time Matthew uses the phrase “the God of Israel,” and Mark and John never use it at all (Luke uses it only once). It would be rather redundant to say that Jewish people “glorified the God of Israel” – you would just say they glorified God. But this is exactly what Gentiles would say. Since the God of the Jews was not their God and they did not believe in the God of Israel, if they now wanted to acknowledge that God they would call him “the God of Israel.” Why is it significant that these Gentiles are praising the God of Israel? Jesus has made a significant breakthrough: crowds of Gentiles are honoring the God of the Jews, the one true God. How do you think Jesus felt when he saw Gentiles, who did not believe in the one true God the Jews believed in, now glorifying the God of Israel because of his healings? If scholars are right that one of the reasons Jesus “withdrew” from Jewish territory was to get away from the Jewish crowds and prepare his disciples for what was to come, what lessons do you think his disciples were learning, or were supposed to be learning, from watching what he is doing? Are there times when we need to re-learn that the mercy of God is for everyone? How can we be as willing to minister to foreigners as Jesus was? How might we bring this example of caring for the foreigner into our society and help our society be more caring about foreigners? Matthew 15:32-39 The feeding of the 4,000 Jesus has been healing people, and probably teaching them too (that’s what he did when he sat down on a mountain for the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:1). How do you think Jesus feels about this crowd who has bene with him for 3 days? What does Jesus do? How are the details of this story different than the details of the feeding of the 5,000 (Matt. 14:13-21)? Some scholars think the only differences between the feeding of the 5,000 and the feeding of the 4,000 are the numbers, so they suggest that these are two different tellings of the same story. They have missed key information and jumped to a false conclusion. William Barclay, who was an expert in the Greek language of the New Testament, found nuances that others missed. In this passage, he finds clear evidence that the people fed here are living in a Gentile culture, and that therefore this is a different event than the feeding of the 5,000 in Jewish territory. He writes: “When Jesus fed the five thousand (Matt. 14:15-21; Mark 6:31-44), we read that they sat down on the green grass (Matt. 14:19; Mark 6:39). It was therefore the spring time, for at no other time would the grass be green in that hot land. On this occasion when the crowd are bidden to sit down, they sit on the ground ( epi tēn gēn ) , on the earth; it was by this time high summer and the grass was scorched leaving only the bare earth…. The people and the place are different. The feeding of the four thousand in this passage took place in Decapolis; Decapolis literally means ten cities , and the Decapolis was a loose federation of ten free Greek cities. On this occasion there would be many Gentiles present, perhaps more Gentiles than Jews. It is that fact that explains the curious phrase in Matthew 15:31, ‘They glorified the God of Israel.’ To the Gentile crowds this was a demonstration of the power of the God of Israel. There is another curious little hint of difference. In the feeding of the five thousand the baskets which were used to take up the fragments are called kophinoi ; in the feeding of the four thousand they are called sphurides . The kophinos was a narrow-necked, flask-shaped basket which Jews often carried with them, for a Jew often carried his own food, lest he should be compelled to eat food which had been touched by Gentile hands and which was therefore unclean. The sphuris was much more like a hamper; it could be big enough to carry a man, and it was a kind of basket that a Gentile would use.” (Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 2 , pp. 138-139). Matthew says they “ate and were satisfied” (Matt. 15:37, NABRE) (or “filled,” NRSV). What does that phrase say to you: they ate and were satisfied? Jesus called himself the Bread of Life (John 6:35), and at the Supper he broke bread, gave it to his disciples, and said, “This is my body.” Given the overtones of Eucharist or Holy Communion when Jesus feeds the people with bread, what are the spiritual implications of this story? Going beyond the event itself, what deeper spiritual message does it offer you? This story has a spiritual dimension, but it also has a practical, physical dimension. God does not want anyone to go hungry. God explicitly calls us to feed the hungry (Matt. 25:35; Is. 58:7; Prov. 22:9). What does the fact that in Jesus’s ministry all the people “ate and were filled” say to us about our responsibility for the hungry? Despite Jesus’s teaching and example, millions of people regularly go hungry in our nation and hundreds of millions of people go hungry around the world. As Christians and followers of Jesus, what should we do about it? Jesus had compassion for the crowd of Jews in Matthew 14:14, and he has compassion for this crowd of Gentiles (Matt. 15:32). He cares for everyone. How are we called to have God’s compassion for whoever is in need, regardless of whether they are part of “our” people? What can we do to extend God’s compassion to others? How can we find tangible ways to show care for people who are not of our own race, nationality, ethnic group, class, religion, or church? How might this set of passages about Jesus’s ministry to the Gentiles (15:21-39) be seen as a follow-on to the previous passage (15:10-20) about what is and is not unclean? And what does it say to us? Jesus showed that the Gentiles are not unclean. No one is unclean. No one is excluded from the being fed by the Lord. God is accessible to all and has compassion for everyone. How might this insight be applied to marginalized groups in our society today? What can you do to be like Jesus here? Take a step back and consider this: The feeding of the 5,000 comes near the end of Jesus’s public ministry to the Jews in chapters 5-14. The feeding of the 4,000 comes near the end of this period of time when Jesus has been ministering to the Gentiles. The Last Supper comes at the end of Jesus’s ministry in Jerusalem before his crucifixion and resurrection. How central to our faith is the image of being fed by the Lord? Why? How central to your faith is the idea of feeding at the table of the Lord? Why? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

A healing, a second warning of suffering to come, an interruption to pay a tax – just a normal day in the life of Jesus . . . and us? [Matthew 17:14-21; 17:22-23; 17:24-27] Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 17:14-27 A healing, a second warning of suffering to come, an interruption to pay a tax – just a normal day in the life of Jesus . . . and us? Mattia Preti (1613-1699). Il tributo della moneta [The tribute coin] . circa 1640. Cropped. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mattia_Preti_-_Tribute_Money_-_WGA18400.jpg . Tom Faletti June 19, 2025 ! Widget Didn’t Load Check your internet and refresh this page. If that doesn’t work, contact us. ! Widget Didn’t Load Check your internet and refresh this page. If that doesn’t work, contact us. Previous Matthew Index Next