Sermon: Following Christ in the Ordinary

Lectionary: Proper 5(A)

Text: Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26

Woman with the Flow of Blood (detail)
Wesley, Frank, 1923-2002

What does it look like to live as a Christ-follower? We have left behind the first half of the Christian year, filled with high days and holidays. We move past the pillars of Christian calendar and enter Ordinary Time. We descend from the mountaintops of the Christian liturgical calendar to spend the next six months walking the ordinary paths with Christ. To live as a Christ-follower is to learn how Jesus lived among the ordinary lives around him.

We need to set up the scene for today’s gospel reading. The Sermon on the Mount has been delivered. Jesus goes to Capernaum. Along the way he performs healings. In Capernaum, he heals a centurion’s servant. Jesus goes to Peter’s house where he heals Peter’s mother-in-law. Large crowds come to Peter’s house, where Jesus is staying, to be healed.

Jesus crosses the Sea of Galilee, where a storm rises. Jesus calms the storm. Upon reaching the other shore Jesus is confronted by two men possessed by demons. Jesus cures them by sending the demons into pigs which result in their destruction. The people of the town beg Jesus to leave. He does and returns to where he came from.

The text in Matthew reads, “And came to his own town.” This could mean Nazareth, but it is more likely to be Capernaum, the home of Peter and the other fishermen disciples. This is where the rest of the story in Matthew 9 takes place.

First, a group of people carry a paralyzed man on a stretcher. Jesus forgives the man’s sins, giving credit to the faith of the entire group as the catalyst for forgiveness. Some of the religious leaders are alarmed by Jesus’ claim to offer forgiveness. In response, to show that he does have authority to forgive, he heals the man’s physical ailment.

It is in this immediate aftermath (at least in the way the writer of Matthew has arranged the text), Jesus comes across Matthew, the tax collector.

Here I pause to make note that the call of Matthew and the two healings that are part of today’s gospel reading are found in both Mark and Luke. The sequence is the same in all three, but details are different and even contradictory in a couple places. I note this to remind us that the gospel writers were not writing factually accurate historical texts. They were writing theological interpretations of Jesus’ life and adjusted details to fit their purposes.

Matthew, the tax collector, is named Levi in the other gospels. He is called by Jesus to follow, and he does. Next there is a banquet held. In Mark, the location is ambiguous. It could be Matthew’s house, or it could be at Jesus’. Luke identifies the location as Levi’s house. Matthew, the writer, use “the house” to identify it. The last house mentioned that fits the grammar is Peter’s house. Using this last reading, at least when reading Matthew’s text, we can conclude that it is Jesus who is hosting the banquet. This interpretation also fits well with the theme of the Messianic banquet found later in Matthew’s text.

In hosting the banquet and inviting “tax collectors and sinners” (as some of Jesus’ antagonists put it), Jesus acts and shows what restoration and wholeness of community looks like.

Some of the religious leaders observe Jesus’ association and question the boundary breaking Jesus is allowing himself and his disciples. It is interesting that the question is directed not to Jesus, but to his disciples. It is almost as if they are attempting to sow seeds of doubt into Jesus’ disciples…

But Jesus hears the question and answers.

But when he heard this, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous but sinners.” (Matthew 9:12-13 NRSVue)

The first saying is an adaptation of similar proverbs in circulation around that time. One commentary states,

Plutarch quotes a similar saying of the Spartan king Pausanias when he was criticized for neglecting his own people: “It is not the custom of doctors to spend time among people who are healthy, but where people are ill.” The philosopher Diogenes is quoted as saying that as a doctor must go among the sick so a wise man must mix with fools. The point is obvious: any effective “healer” must expect to get his hands dirty.[1]

Jesus then says, “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’” The word learn is μανθάνω (manthanō) which forms the root for the word disciple, μαθητής (mathētēs). Here we begin to understand that becoming a disciple means learning. What are disciples to learn? We are to learn the way of God’s mercy.

God’s mercy has already been demonstrated in the Jesus’ works of healing, of casting out demons, and offering forgiveness. Mercy was demonstrated in calling Matthew, someone many would have considered a traitor to the nation. Mercy was demonstrated in Jesus seeking out those that would normally not be invited to dine at a rabbi’s table.

Too often, Jesus’ response has been used to place grace and mercy in opposition with religion, ritual, and law. It has been used to negatively portray Jews and Judaism as self-righteous, legalistic and lacking in grace and mercy. We need to unlearn such misconceptions and harmful stereotypes.

Sacrifice, religion, and rituals are not problems. Neither is righteousness. But when they become boundary markers to define insiders and outsiders, when they become tools to harm and exclude, then their uses become problematic.

In the next two vignettes, Jesus continues to demonstrate his way of mercy.

In the middle of the banquet he is hosting, a community leader enters and entreats Jesus to come now. He is a desperate father and assumes a posture of petitioning, but this scene could be interpreted as showing this leader’s privilege in interrupting a banquet and assuming Jesus would comply.

Jesus sets aside his own banquet to follow the community leader. In this we learn that following Christ might mean following petitions of need, regardless of whomever is making the request. It might mean diverting from our current activities and plans.

While on the way, a woman experiencing hemorrhaging for twelve years quietly comes to Jesus and touches the fringe of his outer garment. In doing so, she is healed and noticed. A woman is restored to physical and social health.

History is replete with Christian sermons that expound on the idea of uncleanness and ritual purity that is supposedly found here. The text is silent on the matter. Even if the concept of ritual purity might have been in the background, the foreground is about the mercy that Jesus shows and the healing and restoration to wholeness that is his work.

When ritual purity becomes the focus of these texts, it too often becomes a boundary marker and a point of judgment by Christians against Jews and Judaism. It ends up reinforcing something these very stories are meant to abolish.

Jesus continues to the leader’s house where funeral practices have already begun. He is laughed at when he says that the girl is only sleeping. Ignoring their ridicule, he commands them out. He resurrects the girl by merely touching. And in so doing, he restores life, family, and community.

On this first Sunday of Ordinary Time, a lesson on following Christ is to learn the way of mercy. God extends the same mercy to all, the mercy that brings healing and wholeness, mercy that begins reconciliations and restorations, mercy that invites all to come. We are agents of God’s mercy and invitation to join at God’s banquet table.

How can we be more inclusive and accepting? How can we be more welcoming? How can we erase boundaries that world’s systems and structures say are needed? What harmful ideas must we unlearn that society, culture, and religion have transmitted to us? This is our work during Ordinary Time, the time of quiet growth and transformation.

In the name of God who Creates,

In the name of God who Invites,

And in the name of God who Cultivates, Amen.

Bibliography

France, R. T. (2007). New International Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Grace, S. (2026, June 2). An Inconvenient Gospel. Retrieved from Companions on the Way: https://www.companionsontheway.com/post/an-inconvenient-gospel

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2013). Feasting on the Gospels--Matthew, Volume 1: A Feasting on the Word Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Levine, A.-J. (2007). Matthew and Anti-Judaism. Currents in Theology and Mission, 34-6, 409-416.

Levine, A.-J. (2009). The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

Mathis, T. M. (2026, June 7). Learning Tenderness, Proper 5 (A) – June 7, 2026. Retrieved from Sermons that Work: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/sermon/learning-tenderness-proper-5-a-june-7-2026/

Van De Laar, J. (2026, May 29). Lectionary Reflection for Proper 5A on Matthew 9:9–13, 18–26. Retrieved from Sacredise Your Life!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/lectionary-reflection-for-proper-853

Wassen, C. (2008). Jesus And The Hemorrhaging Woman In Mark 5:24–34: Insights From Purity Laws From The Dead Sea Scrolls. Scripture in Transition, 647-666.

William B. Eerdmans. (2003). Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

Wilson, W. T. (2022). Eerdmans Critical Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

---

[1] (France, 2007)

Sermon: Faith and Faithfulness

Abraham's Journey to Canaan - 1614

Lectionary: Proper 5A

Texts: Genesis 12:1-9; Romans 4:13-25; Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26

Introduction

For what would you give up all your comforts and stability of life? Is there anything for which you would pull up all roots, cut all relational ties, and embark on a nomadic life, not knowing whether you would ever settle down again?

Given our modern context with its technology and communications, it’s difficult to imagine the Bronze Age world in which leaving one’s place of belonging – the land on which one was born and would inherit and all the family, clan, and tribal ties – meant risking one’s own very life and survival.

Yet Abraham (or technically, at the time, Abram) did just that. Why?

This turns out to be yet another instance where the story is quite familiar, and because it has been heard so many times, we assume a lot about it that just isn’t there in the actual text. But there are also other details that aren’t in the immediate text of the narrative but can help fill in the broader context. Some of these can be found by looking at other texts in the Bible, and others from historical and cultural studies of the times and places in question.

Gods of Abram’s Household

The text reads that Yahweh spoke to Abram and told him to “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.” (Gen 12:1[1]) Because God commands, Abram obeys. It’s as simple as that. Or is it?

Most of us read these patriarchal narratives with the assumption of monotheism, where the one true God is already known and worshiped. But that is not at all the case. When archaeology is examined, monotheism among the Israelites does not take hold until the Jews return from their Babylonian Exile. Up until their captivity into exile, most Israelites assumed the existence of, and often worshiped, multiple gods.[2]

Abram and his father’s household was no different. There is evidence that their primary deity was Sin, or the moon god of Sumeria. Many of the names found in the family may have references to the worship of the moon god.[3] The city of Haran is known to have had a temple to Sin.[4]

Abram does descend from the line of Shem, so it shouldn’t be surprising to find Yahweh among the household gods. But it is quite possible and (in my opinion) likely Yahweh had been relegated to one of the minor household deities.[5] We aren’t told how Yahweh speaks to Abram. It could be through divination, it could be through omens, it could be through a dream.[6]

The One Thing that Matters to Abram

However it happens, Abram hears from Yahweh. But why heed the words of one god among so many? As for Abram, there is nothing special about Yahweh. Except one thing. Yahweh promises Abram that he will have descendants. Back in Genesis 11:30, it was noted that Abram was married to Sarai, who was barren. We read that when Abram hears from Yahweh, he is about seventy-five years old. It would seem nearly impossible to have a child under these circumstances. Yet that is Yahweh’s promise. And it is the one thing for which Abram would and does leave his father’s family and ancestral lands. It is the one and only thing that is of value to him.

It was no simple or easy matter to leave one’s household behind.

A man was identified in the ancient world as a member of his father’s household. When the head of the household died, his heir assumed that title and its responsibilities. It is also identified with ancestral lands and property. By leaving his father’s household, Abram was thus giving up his inheritance and his right to family property.

Land, family and inheritance were among the most significant elements in ancient society. For farmers and herdsmen land was their livelihood. For city dwellers land represented their political identity. Descendants represented the future. Children provided for their parents in old age and enabled the family line to extend another generation. They gave proper burial to their parents and honored the names of their ancestors. In some of the ancient Near Eastern cultures these were considered essential to maintaining a comfortable existence in the afterlife. When Abram gave up his place in his father’s household, he forfeited his security.[7]

Abram was not only forfeiting his own security, but he was also turning his back on caring for his ancestors and the rest of the household. I strongly suspect that there was tremendous pushback and appeals to change his mind. Yet the one thing – having descendants of his own – was stronger. And one of the gods, Yahweh, promised that one thing to him. 

Abram’s Self-Interest

Lest we assume that Abram is just that devoted and willing to follow words he hears from a god, we only need to go a few verses into the next narrative to discover that Abram is self-serving and conniving. At least at this point in life, Abram’s primary interest is making sure he prospers.

¹⁰ Now there was a famine in the land. So Abram went down to Egypt to reside there as an alien, for the famine was severe in the land. ¹¹ When he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know well that you are a woman beautiful in appearance, ¹² and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife’; then they will kill me, but they will let you live. ¹³ Say you are my sister, so that it may go well with me because of you and that my life may be spared on your account.” (Genesis 12:10-13)

When Abram hears from Yahweh the promise of descendants and a great nation to boot, I’m sure he notices there are no conditions other than leaving his ancestral ties. There are no ongoing requirements. There is nothing required to be given to Yahweh once the promise is fulfilled. It’s all win for Abram. Subsequent promises and covenants Yahweh makes with Abram do not contain conditions either. This Yahweh seems to be all about giving and not requiring nor expecting anything in return. This is about as unconditional a promise as one can be.[8]

Although Abram left behind security of land, belonging to a household, and the comforts of living in a city, he did take along sufficient wealth that could be carried or walk on their own – livestock, portable wealth, his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and slaves. Abram gave up much, but according to the text, certainly not everything.

Definitions of Terms Matter

Although the Genesis 12 text does not explicitly state that Abram believed Yahweh, farther into the Abraham cycle of stories, in chapter 15 we read that Abram believed Yahweh. I think it is appropriate to read Abram’s believing back into chapter 12.

But what does it mean to believe? What is faith? In the reading from Romans, we heard the two terms faith and believe multiple times in Paul’s use of the story of God’s promise made to Abraham. The first verse that we heard from Romans reads:

¹³ For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:13)

Righteousness is yet another term that pops up in frequent association with faith and belief. Many of Paul’s references to Abraham in this section of Romans comes from Genesis 15, including one that is the key to Paul’s argument, “And he [Abram] believed the LORD, and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6)

Frameworks for Defining Theological Terms

Those of us who were raised in the modern Western world traditionally approach the concepts of faith, belief, and righteousness from a perspective of science and law. We tend to emphasize knowable facts and attributes of God. Faith and belief then, becomes accepting and believing those data points about God. Righteousness is a term weighed with judicial and moral overtones. So, a righteous person is one who is morally good and does their best to always keep the law.

Maybe it comes as a surprise that this kind of thinking is exactly what Paul is writing against in Romans chapter 4. Or maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise at all. The Roman Empire was fastidious in its laws and observances. There were detailed and specific rituals to be performed to maintain one’s good standing with the gods. It is to those who were raised in this environment, immersed in this way of thinking about the law, to whom Paul writes. And it should be noted that we in the West are inheritors of this way of thinking, both in secular politics and in religion.

Paul, even though he is a Roman citizen, is thoroughly Jewish and Hebrew in the way he approaches the concepts of faith, belief, and righteousness. Instead of a legal framework for these terms, Paul understands and utilizes them within a relational framework.[9] The starting point of faith for Paul is not accepting facts about God, but rather, trust in the reliability of a relationship. Belief is not about an intellectual assent about God’s attributes, but rather, the confidence that God will deliver on God’s promises. And righteousness is primarily not about being in good moral or legal standing with God, but in a trusting relationship with God.

That is why Paul writes about Abraham, “No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, being fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. Therefore ‘it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’” (Romans 4:20-22)

Stated another way, faith is trust in God’s absolute faithfulness. And that is the only human response necessary and appropriate to God’s invitation to be in right relationship with God; aka, righteousness. Unlike with other deities and nearly all human relationships, there are no conditions, no rituals, and no imposed penalties. The offer from God is unconditional.[10] This is grace.

Examples of Faith (Trust)

This is the framework in which we can read the gospel text for today. Yes, it begins with the call of Matthew into Jesus’ group and Matthew seems to get up and follow Jesus, leaving behind his prior life, much like Abraham. But in the broader textual context, the call appears to be just a minor detail. It seems mostly a narrative hook to bring us to the series of other vignettes that follow.

The thematic thread that I see going through the vignettes of our gospel reading is the question, “What kinds of people place their trust in God (or more precisely here, in Jesus)?”

First, there is Matthew and then all his family, friends, and acquaintances. They were generally thought to be socially unacceptable at best, and treasonous at worst. Jesus invites Matthew to trust in him, and Matthew does and brings many others to get a chance to meet Jesus. Those who thought they could never be fully accepted by God are now being invited into a relationship with God.

But then, a leader of the people (Mark identifies this person as a synagogue leader) comes to ask Jesus for help. Jesus does not turn aside the request from someone with higher social standing.

And then a woman with a flow of blood for twelve years quietly approaches Jesus, not wanting to make a scene nor to be known. Here is a person who is ritually impure, to be avoided. When she does get her wish to touch Jesus’ cloak and is healed, Jesus notices and commends her for her faith (or shall we say, trust?). With her healing, she can return to normal society and restore relationships that had been ruptured due to her condition.

And finally, Jesus touches a dead girl (although he does say that she “is not dead but sleeping”). Touching a corpse rendered a person ritually unclean. Yet that fact does not stop Jesus. Instead of being contaminated, Jesus restores life to the girl and restores relationships that moments ago were, metaphorically speaking, dead.

Faith Begins and Ends with God

Each of these is a vignette of someone placing their trust in God and God’s promises, and God holding to the promise. A broad range of social standing, gender, and age are included as an example of God’s encompassing acceptance and faithfulness.

God’s faithfulness does not depend on human response. It is God’s to unilaterally and unconditionally offer. I think that is the most important point that is being made across the three readings. Human faith in God is fallible. Abraham’s trust in God faltered many times. The churches to whom Paul wrote often had serious issues. Jesus’ had to often rebuke his disciples for lack of faith. Yet God remained and remains faithful to any and all who dare take a chance on God’s promises and begin the walk of trust in God’s reliability. That is faith and faithfulness.

In the name of God who provides and sustains,

In the name of God who walked the path of faith,

In the name of God who stirs us to walk in faith…

---

[1] Bible texts from the NRSV Updated Edition, unless otherwise noted.

[2] Many of the references to monotheism in the Old Testament may be seen as aspirational or idealistic; it can be seen as exilic and post-exilic editors attempting to explain the reason for being conquered and exiled, and a polemic against their prior history of religious unfaithfulness.

[3] New International Commentary, Old Testament, Genesis 1-17. Commentary on Genesis 11:27.

“Yet the possible connection of Terah (Heb. teraḥ) with the word yārēaḥ, “moon,” and yeraḥ, “lunar month,” if substantiated, would suggest that Abram’s family and ancestors were worshipers of the moon. One suggestion is that Terah means “Têr is (the divine) brother (or protector, Heb. ʾaḥ),” têr being a dialectal variant of šhr, a South Arabic term for the moon. Sarai (Sarah) is the equivalent of šarratu, “queen,” an Akkadian translation of a Sumerian name for Ningal, the female partner of the moon-god Sin. Milcah is the same name as the goddess Malkatu, the daughter of Sin. Laban (Heb. lāḇān) means “white,” and leḇāná, “the white one,” is a poetic term for the full moon. In addition, both Ur and Haran were thriving centers of moon worship; thus it is probable that the theological milieu in which Abram lived for a good bit of his life was one in which the cult focused its adoration on moon worship.”

[4] IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament. Commentary on Genesis 11:31.

[5] Wondrium, Understanding the Old Testament: Lecture 5; Abraham, the Father of Three Faiths.

               “There is no suggestion in the text that Abraham has met God or knows anything about him. Later Jewish tradition filled in all sorts of stories from Abraham’s earlier life, but those are not in the text here.

               According to verse 1, Abraham is being asked to relinquish “his land and his family.” He is being asked to leave Mesopotamia—that is, ancient Iraq. Essentially, Abraham is asked to relinquish rich mercantile cities for a life of nomadism, leaving behind gold and jade.

               There is no indication that Abraham has any established credentials for this deity that has made this command.”

[6] It should be noted that there are many behaviors and actions that are taken by the patriarchs that would later be proscribed in Israel. Divination is one. Marriage and sexual relations with siblings or half-siblings is another.

[7] IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Commentary on Genesis 12:1.

[8] Wondrium, Understanding the Old Testament: Lecture 5; Abraham, the Father of Three Faiths.

               “In chapter 15, God reiterates an earlier promise that Abraham will have abundant descendants. God provides him a visual image of how many descendants he will have, but that supplies no basis at all to shore up any confidence. Still, Abraham accepted God as reliable…

               God is making promises to Abraham that are unconditional. There’s nothing Abraham has to do in order for God to keep his side of the bargain. Symbolically, God binds himself in this treaty ceremony without asking Abraham to do the same.”

[9] Richards, E. Randolph and James, Richard. Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes. “Grace and faith are the language of relationship.” (108)

[10] Richards. “God, however, is not like the typical patron. God generously gives patronage to all, including undeserving and treacherous clients, because he can and wants to.” (108)