The Gospel of Mark 2:13-22 - Reaching the Lost
After performing great miracles like healing the lame and a Leper, perhaps others would have moved to consolidate power with those who were in power (the Sadducees and Pharisees, etc). Yet Jesus did not do this. Instead, He immediately reached out to those who were broken and outsiders.
Text
“He went out again beside the sea, and all the crowd was coming to him, and he was teaching them. And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him. And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Mark 2:13-17 (ESV)
Discussion:
Here we have the call of another disciple who is called Levi (Mark and Luke 5:27) and Matthew (Matthew 9:9). Levi/Matthew was a tax collector who would have been viewed with great derision and treated almost like a traitor. They were viewed as those who took from their own people for profit while working with the enemy Romans. But who was Levi according to Scripture? Joel Marcus gives us some insight into who Levi may have been (Marcus 2008, 225).
“Levi, the son of Alphaeus. Gk Leuin ton tou Alphaiou. This is a cameo appearance, since Levi never reappears in Mark or, apart from the Lukan parallel (Luke 5:27–29), in the rest of the New Testament. But James son of Alphaeus, who was perhaps his brother, is included in the list of the Twelve in Mark 3:16–19. The Matthean parallel to our passage changes Levi’s name to Matthew and thus identifies him with one of the Twelve (Matt 9:9; cf. Matt 10:3); the same desire to make him a member of the Twelve is probably behind the alteration of his name to James in certain manuscripts.
In the first century most people named Levi were Levites, i.e. people who were presumed to be descended from the biblical Levi, the third son of Jacob, and whose hereditary job was service in the Temple (see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 213 n. 209). Since the NT scribes were probably Levites as well (see the APPENDIX “The Scribes and the Pharisees”), the scribal objection in 2:16 may be a reflection of a “family quarrel” among Levites.”
Whoever Levi was, he was called by Jesus to be one of His disciples. This would have been absolutely shocking to the Jewish people. Not only this but remember that Jesus also had a disciple who was a Zealot. The Zealots were those who fought against the Romans using gorilla style warfare because of their objection to taxes, which was (according to Josephus) started by a man named Judas from Gamala in Galilee. They were much like the Pharisees (at first, later they would become more like assassins and criminals), except for their insistence that having no Lord before God meant objection to Roman occupation and rule. David Rhoads further explains this in his entry on Zealots (Rhoads 1992, 1045-1046).
“Disagreement about the historical identification of the group called the Zealots centers on Josephus’ depiction of Judas the Galilean. Judas enjoined resistance in 6 C.E., when the Romans turned Judea into a province and conducted a census in preparation for tax assessment (JW 2.118, 433; 7.253–57; Ant 18.4–10, 23–25, 102). Although Judas was from Gamala in Galilee, he was active in Judea, that part of the country which became a province at this time. Disagreement exists over whether Judas merely called for non-cooperation with the census (Horsley 1987: 88) or actually incited people to rebellion against Rome (Rhoads 1976: 47–60). In any case he enjoined resistance because in his view the land belonged to God, and the Romans had no right to claim the ownership implied by a census. Judas upbraided his countrymen for being willing to submit to Roman slavery and for giving up the freedom they had fought so hard (under the Maccabees) to obtain. Judas and his followers opposed Jews who cooperated with the census, for they considered cooperation with Caesar to be an idolatrous transgression of the First Commandment to have “no other lords before me.” Judas’ small and unsuccessful revolt was carried out in the belief that if the Jews were faithful to the covenant, God would honor their cause by bringing victory in the struggle against Rome. Judas was apparently killed as a result of his actions…Josephus refers to Judas as a “teacher” and tells us that with a Pharisee named Zadok he founded a sect which Josephus designates as the Fourth Philosophy in order to distinguish it from Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. This Fourth Philosophy, Josephus tells us, was in all respects like the Pharisees except for the principle of “No lord but God” (JW 18.23). This principle represented a novel application of the First Commandment which treated cooperation with Caesar and the Romans as idolatrous allegiance to a lord other than God. Josephus goes on to tell us that after “they had won an abundance of devotees, they filled the body politic immediately with tumult, also planting the seeds of those troubles which subsequently overtook it, all because of the novelty of this hitherto unknown philosophy” (Ant 18.9). After the revolt in 6 C.E., however, we hear nothing of Judas’ sect for four decades. Judas’ sect of followers was either inactive or ineffective (Baumbach 1985) until after 44 C.E., the year when all Israel, including Galilee, became a province of Rome.”
We can see that this was a significant party in Jewish politics, and we know that a similar census was taken during the birth of Jesus. Not only this, but we can see that one of Jesus disciples was a Zealot, and so we can see that spiritual brothers were divided on the political spectrum, one being a Zealot and the other being a tax collector.
“and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,”
Luke 6:15 (ESV)
We then have two disciples of Jesus, one a tax collector, and the other a rebel who was objecting to taxation. This must have led to some heated debates! I imagine it would have been like having two disciples who fought in the American Civil War, one on the north side and one on the south side! Of course, since it says he was “called the Zealot” perhaps he wasn’t an actual Zealot but was often agreeing with their view on political and religious life. Either way the call of these two spiritual brothers must have led to some tense discussions and disagreements. It is important to see from this that even though they had different views on Israel and religion, they came together in their views on Jesus. We can take much from this today! In the US we often see great division between left and right, Democrat and Republican, etc. Yet we do not belong to this world, we are in it but not of it! We are not first Americans, we are first Christians! Yes, we wish for the best of our nation, that is the Christian way! But this does not mean that we have a right to break fellowship over political disagreements. Indeed, it means the exact opposite, as Christians we are called to love each other no matter what our political view. Let us use these two disciples as an example to us, to find peace in Jesus no matter what our views on religion and politics!
After Jesus called Levi, it seems that Levi was very excited and threw Jesus a feast (Guelich 1989, 101) in which he invited his friends who were called “tax collectors and sinners”.
Surprisingly this term for sinners doesn’t mean what we think of as sinners today. It does not mean “lawbreakers” or criminals, instead, it refers to a class of common people, who didn’t fall in line with the religious elite (Pharisees). It was a term of derision, used to put them down. In other words, this feast was made up of those who were considered traitors by some and others who were considered religious outcasts and outsiders (Lane 1974, 103-104).
“This term cannot be understood in the generally accepted sense of “transgressors of the moral law of God” since Mark would then have written “tax officers and other sinners.” The term is technical in this context for a class of people who were regarded by the Pharisees as inferior because they showed no interest in the scribal tradition. With the derisive epithet “the people of the land,” the scribes often dismissed as inconsequential the common people who possessed neither time nor inclination to regulate their conduct by Pharisaic standards. They were particularly despised because they did not ear their food in a state of ceremonial cleanness and because they failed to separate the tithe.39 The designation “sinners” as used by the scribes is roughly equivalent to “outcasts.” The joint expression “publicans and sinners” denotes well-known and despised classes among the people.”
This was shocking to me when I read it! I had always read this and assumed they were the basest sinners and those who were lawless. Yet here I found that they were not but instead did not conform to the manmade standards put upon them by the Pharisees. This paints a very different picture of this dinner.
When confronted about this dinner, Jesus responded by defending the people, saying that He didn’t come to call the righteous but the sinners to repentance. This is very interesting, because by context the “righteous” would be the Pharisees, but we know that Jesus thought very little of their actual righteousness. I believe He was pointing out that these were people who were willing to admit to their sin, and thus, would find healing, whereas the Pharisees, claiming to be righteous but yet full of sin, would not find such healing. Thus, by calling them “sinners” and the Pharisees “righteous” He is actually issuing a statement of future judgment, that the Pharisees would be judged by their own “righteousness” but the “sinners” would receive His healing.
Text:
“Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. And people came and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day. No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins.”
Mark 2:18-22 (ESV)
Discussion:
Remember that John and his disciples often fasted and also abstained from wine (Matthew 11:18) (Guelich 1989, 109). The Pharisees would fast twice a week and so there was an attitude that those who were truly devoted and religious would fast. Yet the disciples of Jesus did not follow these extra fasts (in my opinion this does not mean that they didn’t fast on the Day of Atonement). The challenge here is a honor and shame challenge to Jesus, designed to take away from His honor by making his disciples appear to be insincere, and thus, He also would be considered insincere. Jesus responds with an interesting metaphor that would not have been commonly connected to the Messiah at that time (Lane 1974, 109-110).
“Jesus, in typical debate fashion, poses a counter-question designed to center attention on the new situation created by his presence with the disciples. He replies: “Can the bridal guests mourn during the bridal celebrations?” The statement may be proverbial for any inappropriate action, since a wedding was a time of great joy and festivity, heralded by music and gala processions. To fast in the presence of the groom would be unthinkable. Although the image of the wedding feast was sometimes used by the rabbis to express the joy of the messianic era, neither in the OT nor in later Jewish literature was the Messiah represented as the bridegroom. It is important to stress this fact, for it indicates that Jesus’ statement would not have been recognized by his disciples or his adversaries as an explicitly messianic assertion. Jesus speaks of himself in an implicit, veiled manner because he has not yet spoken openly and in detail to his disciples about his distinctive mission (see Ch. 8:32). The messianic significance of this use of the bridal image was understood only later. The central comparison between the wedding festivities and Jesus’ disciples lies in the joy which they possess in their master. Jesus emphasizes this with his answer to the critical question. The reason for the fundamentally different position of his disciples is that “the bridegroom is with them,” and in his presence they experience joy. Even on this veiled level of parabolic speech something significant is said: an expression of sorrow is inappropriate to the new situation which has come with Jesus’ presence.”
Thus, the disciples were not called to appear religious or devoted, but instead were called to joy in the fact that they were with the Messiah! All too often it can be tempting to appear to be devoted at church, to be those who are religious and “pure” but the reality is that God places our relationship with Him at a much higher place than our appearance to men! The call of a Christian is not one that appears holy to others, but one that is holy because he or she pursues a relationship with the living God!
Jesus then uses another metaphor, one of cloth and a patch and another of wine and a wineskin. This was more than a defense of His actions, to not fast; it was a response to the honor and shame battle going on. Jesus is not just defending Himself, He is shaming the Pharisees! His teachings are new and are not compatible with those of the Pharisees. This, with the recent miracles would make the Pharisees appear as old news, the old faction, that is fading away. Thus, Jesus comes not in line with the Pharisees but in opposition to them. He, Himself is an outsider! Thus those who follow Jesus cannot also follow the Pharisees (France 2002, 142).
“Clearly the new wine (and the new cloth) represents the teaching of Jesus and the new vitality which is coming into the religious experience of those who through him are encountering God’s kingship. The old skins and the old garment are, in the narrative context, the structures of the existing religious tradition, as represented especially by the Pharisees and their scribal teaching, whether in theology (the forgiveness of sins) or practice (purity of table fellowship; fasting). Attempts to contain Jesus with these constraints have already proved futile, and his followers must be prepared to break free.”
The new things of Jesus are coming He warned. They could not be applied to the old methods and teachings of the Pharisees. Those who try to combine them would be “torn in two” (metaphorically speaking). Instead, followers of Jesus must choose Him and not the Pharisees.
Summary
The conflict here between Jesus and the Pharisees started with them calling those whom He was ministering to outsiders, tax collectors and sinners, and ended with Jesus informing the Pharisees that He was an outsider, because they were with the old and going to be replaced.
Life Application
How can we apply this to our life? The story of Jesus calling the tax collectors and sinners hits home. For all too often the church sees the world as undesirable, yet Jesus saw them as His mission. We are called to love and seek those who are lost in order to bring them to the Kingdom of God (Garland 1996, 118).
“Other religions are the result of a human search for God; Christianity presents itself as God’s search for humans—even those the world deems the most unworthy. The toll collectors and sinners are in as much need of healing and forgiveness as the leper and the paralytic. The surprise of the suddenness of Jesus’ call of Levi to follow him is magnified by the shock that he would call such a one as this.
This incident exposes a persistent tendency among God’s people throughout history to exclude and to write off others we classify as irredeemable. We are predisposed to believe that those chosen by God are those who are most like us, and we tend to forget that Jesus went to those who were despised and unclean to win them for God’s rule.”
Questions to Consider
Jesus called and ministered to those who were social outcasts. What are we doing to reach those who are the “outside”?
Jesus expected His disciples to unite in Him regardless of their religious or political views. Do we let such things divide us?
Connections
Matthew 9:9–17
Luke 5:27–39
Outline
Jesus calls Levi the son of Alphaeus the tax collector to follow Him.
Levi threw Jesus a great banquet dinner.
The Pharisees challenged Jesus in an honor and shame battle because He ate with Tax Collectors and Sinners.
Jesus responds by explaining that the sick need a physician, not those who are well.
Jesus is challenged because His disciples do not fast like John’s disciples and the Pharisees.
Jesus explains that the disciples are not called to fast now because they are to take joy in the Messiah.
Jesus uses a metaphor of a cloth and patch and wine in a wineskin to explain that Jesus is bringing something new and the Pharisees are the old.
References-
Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 225.
David Rhoads, “Zealots,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1045-1046.
“Dining” (κατακεῖσθαι) indicates reclining at the meal. The Jewish custom, according to Jeremias, was for people to sit down for their ordinary meals. They reclined on pillows or rugs only on festive occasions or when special guests were present (Words, 48–49). The context implies that Levi arranged a banquet to celebrate his call to discipleship.”
Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, vol. 34A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), 101.
William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 103–104.
“John’s fasts were doubtless associated with his ascetic lifestyle (“neither eating nor drinking,” Matt 11:18 // Luke 7:33, see Comment on 1:6) and corresponded to his call to repentance as a sign of penitence and humility before God in view of the coming Kingdom. Jesus’ ministry by contrast was marked by festive meals (“eating and drinking,” Matt 11:19 // Luke 7:34) and table-fellowship even with “sinners” (e.g., 2:13–17), in which those who followed him experienced God’s acceptance and forgiveness, the blessings of the Kingdom.”
Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, vol. 34A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), 109.
William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 109–110.
R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002), 142.
David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 118.
