Post by M.R. Hagerty on Mar 26, 2023 22:59:11 GMT -7
Mark 2:13-14, Luke 5:29, Matthew 9:11-13, Luke 5:32-39
13 And He went out again by the seashore; and all the people were coming to Him, and He was teaching them. 14 As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, "Follow Me!" And he got up and followed Him. (Mark 2:13-14)
29 And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. (Luke 5:29)
11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, "Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?" 12 But when Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. 13 "But go and learn what this means: `I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,' (Matthew 9:11-13)
32 "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." 33 And they said to Him, "The disciples of John often fast and offer prayers, the disciples of the Pharisees also do the same, but Yours eat and drink." 34 And Jesus said to them, "You cannot make the attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you? 35 "But the days will come; and when the bridegroom is taken away from them, then they will fast in those days." 36 And He was also telling them a parable: "No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 "And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. 38 "But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. 39 "And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, `The old is good enough."' (Luke 5:32-39)
_____________________________________________________________
Commentary
Mark 2:13-14
13 And He went out again by the seashore; . . . 14 He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus . . . "Follow Me!" And he got up and followed Him.
On all occasions of the disciples being called, it is not the case that He came upon them out of the blue, said “Follow me,” and they then dropped everything and began following Him. As with Peter and Andrew, earlier, we saw that He had prior familiarity with them and the final call was after their having gotten to know what He was about. We have no record of Jesus and Levi getting to know each other prior to this call, but the pattern has been established, and it would have been as strange back then as it would be today for someone to abruptly leave their responsibilities.
The mention of Levi as the son of Alphaeus has generated much discussion, even among the early church fathers, as did the alternate name, Matthew. This would ordinarily mean that Matthew was the brother of James, son of Alphaeus. This has been problematic because among the disciples, the gospel writers have been keen to mention men as brothers (Simon and Andrew, James and John.) Hence, some have proposed that James and Levi had different fathers with the same name.
Still others have proposed that there were two different tax collectors among Jesus’ disciples – Matthew and Levi. The problem here is that this would make for thirteen apostles, not twelve, and in the lists of the apostles, Matthew only is mentioned.
Mark 2:13-14, Matthew 9:11-13
29 And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus . . 11 "Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?" . .12 "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. . .13 . . `I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,' "
We learn from Mark that the house was that of Levi and that he had invited many from his class of friends. This setting is interesting because Jesus is their guest, but He implies through His analogies that those hosting Him are sinners or the sick in need of a physician.
It is a wonder that the tax collector had any friends to invite. It’s reasonable he would have other tax collectors as friends. As for the others, we must assume that in the interest of having at least some friends he did not treat everyone despicably.
Reclining at table was both an eastern custom and one adopted in Greco-Roman culture. We are not to conclude that this meant lying flat on one’s stomach, trying to eat. Rather, pillows and such arranged to support a reclined position but with the torso more upright to allow food to be taken down.
How the Pharisees came to be there is not stated. But it is likely they were gathered at the door or the window openings along with the crowd of onlookers. Being an observer close enough to speak to those inside was just the way of things in villages and towns. When something happened in a home, those nearby came to look, invited or not.
As noted above, the Pharisees would have been the conservatives of the day, and as such they would have shunned associations with the ungodly. To befriend such people was to neglect the responsibility to tell them they must first repent. That Jesus was known as a rabbi, He would be expected to do likewise. That their conservative position was extreme is shown by their haste in concluding that merely eating with such people condoned their lifestyles. This meant that paying attention to what Jesus was teaching would have been eclipsed by their preoccupation with outward appearances – “Why do you eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
Luke 5:32-33
"It is not those who are healthy . . but those who are sick. . . 32 for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Ordinarily, this would be insulting. We aren’t told the reaction of each person there. It is likely that some did find this offensive. But there is no outburst recorded, no complaint verbalized about Jesus’ comments. There are a couple of reasons why this occurred as it did.
First, in the ancient world there was among common people more ready recognition of one’s sinful life in certain classes of people. Upstanding citizens would be horrified to have themselves characterized in this way, but the lower classes did not have that level of sophistication. The prostitute knew what she was and her primary justification was her desperateness to make a living. She did not argue with society (as they do today) that her profession was as good as anyone else’s. The same applied to the tax collector.
Second, Jesus represented hope for those who knew themselves and desired to climb out of the life they now lived. This is to say that when Jesus implied that those present were the sinners He had come to save, the majority were intensely interested, knew themselves, and would not have disagreed. Jesus here quotes to the Pharisees a compilation between Hosea 6:6 and Exodus 33:19. But He does not merely quote it. He asks that they go and learn its meaning. As such, He disengaged Himself and rather pointed to Scripture as their accuser. They need only study such passages to see their error.
"I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
It is not that Jesus did not come for the righteous, but that He did not come to bring them to repentance. His work on the Cross was just as needful for the righteous, but the prior call to repentance was for the sinner. Neither did this mean that the righteous did not sin or that only those who never sinned were the righteous. It is to designate that with respect to sin wherever it may be found, He came to call men away from it, not to condemn or judge them on account of it.
33 And they said to Him, "The disciples of John often fast and offer prayers, the disciples of the Pharisees also do the same, but Yours eat and drink.”
This begins the sort of checking/entrapment approach which will characterize the Pharisees from here forward. The Pharisees could discredit a man in two ways: 1) by showing that his teaching or practice was in conflict with Scripture, or 2) by showing that he was in conflict with them as the religious leaders of Israel. They knew full well that their particular view of prayer and fasting could not be found specifically in Scripture, so their question was not about Jesus’ attitude toward Scripture itself.
To reject them as the custodians of God’s truth for His people, however, was to reject God’s chosen. This included the tradition of how the scriptures were to be applied. They had by now observed that He had not strictly follow these traditions. So their question is not aimed at entrapping Him about a particular scripture, but about His attitude toward them. Jesus must either agree that they have the correct view, making Him and His disciples contrary in practice, or He must deny their view, making Him disrespectful of their position.
Jesus takes the latter option, but not to deny them their position outright, but rather to show that their interpretation here is too narrow.
Do Matthew and Luke Present a Discrepancy?
Their accounts seem to raise an apparent discrepancy. Here, the Pharisees and Scribes are asking this question as part of their ongoing dialog with Jesus, whereas Matthew has the disciples of John asking this question. Also, these versions do not discuss the same aspects of the old and new cloth.
The key is in Mark’s rendition of this account. Mark states that both the Pharisees and John’s disciples asked this question, ” John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him,” The dilemma of who really asked the question can be resolved if we consider that both parties asked the question more or less consecutively. Perhaps John’s disciples asked first, then the Pharisees repeated the question, as in:
Disciples of John: “We fast and the disciples of the Pharisee’s fast, but why do your disciples not fast?”
Pharisees: “Yes, the disciples of John fast, and the disciples of the Pharisees also, but why do your . .”
Luke presents the Pharisees’ question while Matthew presents the question from the disciples of John. This is the classic case of having more than one component comprising a condition, but no discrepancy if you choose to mention only one. In the formula A+B it is possible to say A, or B by themselves because A is true and B is true. They are true, but simply incomplete. But you cannot say A and B are true followed by A is true but not B.
So, as long as the gospel writers did not say “only John’s disciples asked,” or only the Pharisees asked, there is no discrepancy.
But we might ask why the disciples of John seemed here aligned with the Pharisees in questioning Jesus. It is possible that these are those disciples of the Baptist who encountered the arrival of Jesus with some indignation. He was, after all, stealing away some of their party; and John was talking about decreasing while Jesus increased. It is reasonable that some took this badly and may have taken up an adversarial position which fueled the occasion to test Jesus. This would place them more on the side of the Pharisees than with their friends among the disciples of Jesus.
Luke 5:34-35
34 "You cannot make the attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you? 35 "But the days will come . . when the bridegroom is taken away from them, then they will fast in those days."
Ultra-conservatives tend to see things as black and white and often wrapped up in an emphasis on certain things at the expense of balance. This is not to say that the preferred mode of understanding is to always look for compromise. Here, Jesus doesn’t deny the appropriateness of fasting and praying, He simply denies that it should be practiced as they have come to see it. But He doesn’t pit Himself against them, group against group. He simply explains why their view is too narrow. In essence, He reasons with them. And He uses analogies with which they are very familiar.
As we learned above in John the Baptist’s case, the friends of the bridegroom are not cloistered and contemplative when the groom is with them, but rejoice and enter into the festivities of the wedding scene. This is not a picture of fasting and prayer. For the Pharisees this would produce some overworking of the analogy: how is Jesus of Nazareth to be seen as the bridegroom and in such a way that His disciples are His attendants?
The intended Bride is Israel herself, but this is a conclusion they would hardly make themselves, and Jesus did not help them with more explanation. So the analogy for them is simply that there are appropriate times for all things, including the occasions for fasting and praying, and if so, it is allowable to behave differently at other times.
The rub comes in with respect to the model for prayer and fasting which both the Pharisees and John’s disciples have adopted. But since there were no scriptures that could be marshaled to support their traditional view, they couldn’t argue. What is subtle here is that while comparison to Jesus and his disciples is readily understood (the attendants do not fast when they are with the bridegroom), there is no ready parallel to fasting when the bridegroom is taken away. The custom of the wedding feast did not have this feature.
But for John’s disciples, there was instant recognition ready at hand. They were at that very moment fasting because John was now in prison. Their bridegroom had been taken away and they were now fasting. Jesus was here hinting at the future moment when He too will be taken away in the Crucifixion and the tomb, and then his disciples would fast and pray.
Jesus continues this aspect in the very next analogy.
Luke 5:36-39
36 "No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; . . 37 no one puts new wine into old wineskins; . . 39 And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, `The old is good enough."'
The analogy is about what happens when something new is brought into contact with something old (the new cloth on old garments, new wine in old wineskins.) He is picturing the New Covenant coming into contact with the Old - the new life in Christ against the Old Testament and the Law. The garment is pictured as needing repair. But merely adding new patches to it is not adequate or helpful. The new patches will pull the old fabric when they shrink from being washed. The suggestion here is that what is really needed is a whole new garment. The same is said for the wineskin. When putting new wine into an old wineskin, the freshness of the wine may test the old cracks and weaknesses to the point of bursting, and all is lost. Again, what is really needed is new wineskins.
The application is that the faith Jesus is talking about is not something meant to be pressed and fitted into the OT forms and patterns. Instead they are arriving as something new, something that takes the baton forward. This can be seen as a strong argument for casting away absolutes. Liberalism might be seen as a case of simply being adult, by seeking out that which is new and disconnecting from old traditions. But there is a difference between shedding the forms in which wisdom was conveyed and the wisdom itself.
The other observation is that Jesus is the one inaugurating what is new. This is not an endorsement that man is now equally fit to shed old traditions wherever they be found and inaugurate new ones.
The Two Versions of The Parable
Luke’s version, above, emphasizes that new and old things don’t match and the outcome is worse because the new must be torn into pieces in order to make patches. Matthew and Mark emphasize the ill effects of adding new cloth to the old, since the new cloth will make the old garment worse by shrinking – “But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results.”
Again, this may be resolved by proposing that Jesus may have said both things in His reply. He may have first explained that the new must be torn to provide material for the patch and the net result would be a noticeable mismatch. He may then have added that if the new is unshrunk when added, it will then also tear the old garment when washed. And again, Luke chooses to represent one part of this teaching while Matthew and Mark emphasize the other.
“And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, `The old is good enough.’”
This is an odd addition. Since the emphasis has been on new vessels to accommodate new wine it seems counter to his point to mention that someone who has drunk the old wine does not wish for the new. The best explanation is that this identifies people who are complacent in the old things and are therefore not looking for something new. With respect to new things, there will always be two groups: those who are looking for them, and those who want to maintain things as they are.
The Pharisees would be of the latter group, and more from a selfish point of view, being the principal party in Jerusalem.