We all know what it is to love and to be loved. And knowing what you know about the subject – since you are somewhat of an expert in the subject – How important would you say that a box of chocolates or a dozen posies are in the expression of love? On a scale of 1 to 10 how important are such things? Without recommending it to anyone, could it be possible to be deeply in love with someone and totally forget to buy that person a rose or a card on Valentine’s day? Valentine’s Day is probably started out as a gimmick by some greeting card company to generate revenue for themselves. Love is expressed and demonstrated a thousand different ways spread over 365 days of the year without the help of Valentine’s Day. Love is uttered in words; it is expressed in a touch, a look, a deed, a smile and in a hundred other ways. I won’t say that the world would be better off without Valentine’s Day, but it would not suffer to any great extent if the day was not celebrated.
Now let’s lift our sights and hearts just a bit higher. Has Jehovah ever demanded that we have a Valentine’s Day set aside for Him? Let me rephrase the question: How should we prove our love to God? The Lord has no direct interest in an ice cream cake, a bunch of chocolates or a dozen roses. All right then, without these, what is the best way to demonstrate our love and thanksgiving to Him? There may not be a definitive answer; it’s probably a combination of things. But in what combination – what percentages – should we wrap up our little bouquet of flowers? Properly expressed words of thanksgiving will say something about our love to the Lord. Didn’t those ladies say something about their love, when they washed the Saviour’s feet, anointing them with their dowries and massaging them with their hair? Could we say that Matthew’s meal was an expression of his love to the Lord?
Something that parents and even grandparents can appreciate is when our children ones copy us. Imitation may be the finest form of flattery, but it may also be a fine expression of love. Of course that is a generalization, because an enemy can imitate someone when he sees that there is success in it. When the child of God willingly and joyfully becomes more and more like his Saviour, there could well be love in that. So an holy life could be an expression of love toward God. And so could a hundred small things – from tithing and supporting missions, to wearing our Sunday best when we attend the House of God. Some Christians people pray because they know people who are in need of the Lord’s blessing. Others pray because they love the Lord, and they couldn’t think of not being close to Him. Some Samaritans are good towards others because it is a part of their nature – their upbringing. And others are good Samaritans because they know that the Lord has been good to them, and they love Him for it. Probably every thing which the Bible describes as good for us to do as Christians, could be done out of love and thanksgiving to the Lord. On the other hand, those same things could be done out of necessity and duty – or with an ulterior motive. When you bought that Valentine card the other day, was it out of love, or was it dictated by the calendar?
In that light, let’s try to grasp and apply what the Lord tells us here in verse 13.
Let’s begin with the INTERPRETATION.
“Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you’ll remember, the Lord called Matthew to join His little band of disciples. That man immediately left his job at the custom office and joyfully joined the disciples in following Christ. Then at some point after that, he prepared a dinner to which he invited his former coworkers – apparently so that they could meet his Saviour. I wonder if he first asked the Saviour for His permission? If I had to guess, I would say that he did, but who knows for sure. Obviously, the Lord would have been well aware of who would be at that dinner, even if permission had not be asked. Specifically, Jesus knew that He was going to be eating with Publicans and sinners.
The experts debate about at what point it the Pharisees began to question the guest list. Some of them say that this meal was out in the open, like a picnic, making everything very public. Some suggest that the Pharisees were like the paparazzi, taking pictures of everyone walking up the red carpet into Matthew’s house. Others think that they made an exit pole investigation. However it was done, some of the local Pharisees confronted some of Jesus’ disciples with the question: “Why eateth your master with publicans and sinners?” For those of you who care about such things the word “master” is “didaskalos” – “teacher.” There was some respect there, but not very much. And it appears that the Lord Jesus picked up on that word and flung it back at them. “Go ye and learn what that meaneth” is a Talmudic, rabbinical phrase. It is the sort of thing that the Scribes among those Pharisees might sarcastically say to people whom they were trying to put down. “Hey, you dummies, you should know what the Bible says, ‘Go ye and learn what that meaneth.’” I don’t for a moment believe that Jesus said it in a sarcastic, hurtful or sinful way, but there may have been a hint of fun in it. Jesus then quoted Hosea 6:6 before saying, “for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
What is the meaning of “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice?” John Gill in his verbose and over the top style put it this way: “God takes more delight and pleasure, either in showing mercy himself to poor miserable sinners; or in acts of mercy, compassion, and beneficence done by men, to fallen creatures in distress, whether for the good of their bodies, or more especially for the welfare of their souls, than he does even in sacrifices, and in any of the rituals of the ceremonial law, though of his own appointing: and therefore must be supposed to have a less regard to sacrifices, which were offered, neither in a right manner, nor from a right principle, nor to a right end; and still less to human traditions, and customs, which were put upon a level, and even preferred to his institutions; such as these the Pharisees were so zealous of. The force of our Lord’s reasoning is, that since his conversation with publicans and sinners was an act of mercy and compassion to their souls, and designed for their spiritual good; it must be much more pleasing to God, than had he attended to the traditions of the elders, they charge him with the breach of: besides, what he was now doing was the (purpose in) his coming into this world…”
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown in their commentary said the same thing more simply: “‘Sacrifice,’ the chief part of the ceremonial law, is here put for a religion of literal adherence to mere rules; while ‘mercy’ expresses such compassion for the fallen as seeks to lift them up. The duty of keeping aloof from the polluted, in the sense of ‘having no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,’ is obvious enough; but to understand this as prohibiting such (fellowship) with them as is necessary to their recovery, is to abuse it. This was what these pharisaical religionists did, and this is what our Lord here exposes.”
In other words, the Lord is more interested in our helping someone, especially spiritually, than in our strict obedience to the details of the law or the common traditions of our religion.
Apparently that is the meaning, but what about the EXPRESSION of that principle?
The Pharisees had a rule, or tradition, against associations with sinners. It included the foreign Romans, Greeks and other nationalities – originally because they were idolaters. But what did they think of those Romans who chose to forsake their heritage to worship Jehovah? Most Pharisees expressed some pleasure, but still they rarely openly received them. How do I know that? Take a few minutes this afternoon to read Acts 10 and see how even the Christian Pharisees looked at Cornelius, a whole-hearted proselyte to the worship of the Lord. Generally speaking, the Pharisees of Israel, refused to associate with the foreign dogs among them. And taking that a step farther, they refused to associate with those who associated with the foreigners. It might be hard to love an IRS agent, but it might also be hard to prove that there is sin in their job. To collect taxes for Rome was certainly un-semitic, but it wasn’t prohibited in the Word of God. And yet the Pharisees considered the publicans guilty by association. Then, of course, they condemned a host of other kinds of sinners, even from Israel – such as prostitutes and fornicators. (Unless he was one of their own number.) Where did those people get their ideas and their standards if it wasn’t clearly taken from the Word of God? Traditionnnnnnnn. Tradition!
Now, before we throw the book at those nasty Pharisees, let me remind you that we still have plenty of Christian Pharisees today. Paul and Peter had to deal with them in the first church, and we have to deal with them today. They even reside in our own hearts if we look closely enough. Not only is it natural, but we have Christian scriptures which bolster our own traditions. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” I will not deny the reality of II Corinthians 6, but even the Lord Jesus tells us here to take heed how we apply these words.
In the case of Matthew 9, Gill and JFB tell us that to prohibit friendly conversation, some degree of fellowship, and even association with the lost, especially when there is a desire for their salvation, becomes our sin. Those unbelievers need Christian friends, a Christian witness, and of course they need Christ. Their need in this case trumps the traditions and the overly strict application of the command. Thankfully, most of us are not Pharisees so much that we can’t live with this. But there is an even more troublesome expression of the same sort of thing.
Turn to Matthew 12:1-8 – “At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.”
What the disciples did in eating the corn was not a sin even in the estimation of the Pharisees. According to their rules, anyone could go for a walk on the Sabbath so long as it wasn’t more than 2000 cubits. I have often wondered if that was cumulative throughout the day, or could someone make six or eight 1800 cubit walks. If anyone knows the answer to that please let me know. Also there was nothing wrong with walking through a field, either one’s own or that of another. And there was nothing wrong according to the scripture for someone to pluck and eat another man’s corn. Deuteronomy 23:24 – “When thou comest into thy neighbour’s vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel. When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour’s standing corn.” The Pharisee’s objection was not against walking or eating the corn, but that it took place on the Sabbath. The plucking of the corn and taking the kernel from the husk or the head was considered by those people to be harvesting – work – which was forbidden by the law – or at least by their interpretation of the law. Keep in mind that the disciples were hungry; perhaps this was the first food that they had that day. That didn’t change the Pharisees opinion, but perhaps it should have. Did they ask the Lord’s permission before they started their harvesting? I don’t know if they did or didn’t, but it doesn’t really matter. I would hope that they asked. When the Pharisees took exception to their “working” on the Sabbath, the Lord Jesus used a rather difficult scripture to justify His disciples.
In I Samuel 21 David is described as fleeing for his life from the wrath of King Saul. He left his home with a few of his closest men, but none of them had time to prepare for their trip. They had no food, extra clothing or even much in the way of weapons. One of the first places they came to in their flight from Jerusalem was Nob where the old Tabernacle of the Lord was being maintained. The priest in charge, Ahimelech was afraid, but when David asked if there was any food, he offered the only thing at hand, the week-old bread which had been sitting on the table just inside the Tabernacle. Under the circumstances, Ahimelech gave Tabernacle “shewbread” to David and his men, something which was clearly contrary to the Law – not tradition but to the written law of God. In Leviticus 24 the ingredients of the shewbread were detailed – and then in verse 8 we read – “Every sabbath (the priests) shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant. And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; and they shall eat it IN the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute.” One of the tasks of the priests who were ministering on any particular week was at the end of the Sabbath they were to eat they shewbread. It was not to leave the Tabernacle in any other way. It was not to be shared with anyone – even including the family of the priest. It was not to be taken home, it was not to be burned, it was not to be thrown out. It was to be eaten by the ministering priests. All of this was by the direct command of God. But on this occasion Ahimelech gave this consecrated bread to unconsecrated soldiers. And Christ gave His approval of that, as an argument for what His disciples had done.
Then He went on to the priest’s obvious breaking of the law in all their “work” on the Sabbath. “Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?” Once again the Lord gave His approval of the breaking of God’s ceremonial law. Christ then concluded by declaring Himself to be the Lord of the Sabbath; the Lord over the Sabbath. This is one of those many places where Christ states His divine authority. Jesus Christ is God.
Okay, we’ve considered the interpretation of Jesus’ words here in Matthew 9:13. And we’ve looked at a couple of expressions or implementations of the principle. There are few others, but I wanted to confine myself to ones which Christ has given to us.
And now, what about the APPLICATION?
“But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Let’s keep in mind the context of all of this – it was Christ’s sitting down with people in need of salvation. “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
I do not believe that Christians can go to any extreme in order to be able to share the gospel with someone. Let’s say that someone is burdened for the lost and wicked men in a certain street gang. It would be lunatic to think that he should join the gang, by breaking the law, in order to earn the ear of those men. I think that to spend eight consecutive Friday nights at the bar, getting drunk with the regular patrons in order to win their friendship is contrary to the will of the Lord. Let every man be persuaded in his own heart. But clearly, the Lord shows us that for the sake of mercy, in some cases some of the details of the law can be laid aside.
Now, what would it take to show you that you need to repent before God? Like Matthew’s old friends, you need Christ. How can we – how can I – prove that to you? What can we do to show you the love of Christ without sacrificing Christ in some other way? Do you need to be saved today? Repent before God and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Let someone here talk to you about your need of salvation.