-THE LIFE OF CHRIST - THE GALILEAN MINISTRY

-Jesus Calls Matthew (Levi)

-Matt 9:9, Mark 2:13-14, Luke 5:27-28

-Matthew, unlike those previously called, is not a fisherman.  Instead, he is a publican
   (Luke 5:27) – a tax collector.

-The Romans imposed heavy taxes on the Jewish people.  Therefore, the tax collectors were
    not popular amongst the people at all.  To many, they were viewed as traitors and, according
    to Vines, they were “hated intensely by the people” and “classed with ‘sinners’”. 

-We are not told any details regarding Matthew prior to this event.  Had he previously heard the

  teachings of Jesus and witnessed His miracles?  Working in the area of Capernaum, Matthew
    would have had ample opportunity to do so.  “Such obedience was not, of course, performed in
    ignorance; it indicates that Matthew was already a disciple, as were the four fishermen when
    they also received a like call.  Matthew was now called to become a personal attendant of
    Jesus, preparatory to being chosen an apostle” (McGarvey/Pendleton, p191). 

-The Feast at Matthew’s House

-Matt 9:10-17, Mark 2:15-22, Luke 5:29-39

-Here we find that Matthew hosted a feast.  Those in attendance included Jesus, his disciples,
    publicans and sinners.

-Once again, we find some opposition on the part of the Jewish leaders. 

-The Jewish leaders were not happy with the fact that Jesus ate with the publicans and sinners. 
   Jesus illustrates His role as a Physician with a duty to those who are sick (sinners).  His merciful
   outreach to those lost was more pleasing to God than sacrifices.  Since His purpose was to call
   sinners to repentance (Luke 19:10), He had to go to the sinners.

-Also on this occasion, a question arose from the followers of John - along with the followers of
   the Pharisees (Mark 2:18) - regarding fasting.  Since this question did not come directly from the
   Jewish leaders, it was probably an honest inquiry.  To answer this question, Jesus gave three
   illustrations.  McGarvey and Pendleton have given an outstanding explanation of these illustrations:
        -In regards to the bridegroom, they wrote, “Arriving at the bridegroom’s house, a feast usually
          lasting seven days ensued…Mourning and fasting would therefore ill befit such an occasion”
         (p 350). 

      -In regards to the old and new cloth:  “Jesus justifies the conduct of his disciples by an appeal
         to the principles of the new dispensation, by which they were governed.  The disciples of John
         looked upon Jesus as a reformer of Judaism, but he corrects their false impressions.  To tear
         the new dispensation to pieces to renovate or embellish the old would be to injure the new and
         to destroy the old…The new cloth…in its movement while shrinking…would tear the weaker
         fiber of the old cloth to which it was sewed, and thus enlarge the rent.  The new dispensation
         could have rites and forms of its own, but could not conform to the rites of the Pharisees.  If
         the conduct of his disciples had made a rent in the rabbinical traditions with regard to fasting,
         Jesus could not so modify the conduct of his disciples as to patch the rent without injuring the
         moral sense of the disciples, and without making Phariseeim a more meaningless hypocrisy
         than ever” (pg 351). 

      -In regards to the wine skins:  “Wine-skins, newly made, were elastic, and would expand to
         accommodate the fermentation of the new wine within.  But the old wine-skins were stiff
         and of little strength, and would burst if fermenting liquid were confined within them” (p352).

-Clearly, Jesus was showing the preeminence of the coming New Covenant (the Gospel) over the
    Old (the Law of Moses).

          -However, in Luke 5:39, Jesus shows that there were those who were under the Old
             Covenant who thought it was “good” (NIV) or  “good enough” (NAS) and would
             therefore have no immediate desire for the new.