The LCMS church service this morning focused on Jesus’s outreach to
sinners in Mark 2:14-17. That is unusual for the first Sunday of Lent,
which tends to focus on the story of Jesus’s temptation in either
Matthew 4 or Luke 4.
Here are some items, from both the church service and the Sunday school class:
A. Levi was a collector of either tolls or tariffs. Tariffs were for goods that went through Capernaum from abroad.
B. Mark 2:15 states that, not only was Jesus eating with Levi and the
tax collectors and sinners, but also with his disciples, for there were
many who followed him. These were not only the Twelve, but numerous
other people who were following Jesus.
C. There was a little skit in which a prosecutor was interrogating
Matthew about Jesus. The prosecutor was saying that tax collectors were
scorned because they collected taxes and a little for themselves on the
side. But they were willing to endure the sneers of others because their
job provided them with a materially comfortable life. I would not mind
that situation: “I have my needs and wants met. I do not care if you
like me or not.”
D. Romans 5:7 states that one will scarcely die for a righteous
person, though for a good person one would dare even to die. The class
was playing off the readings from each other, identifying common themes
and possible tensions. Someone was trying to read Romans 5:7 in light of
Jesus’s statement that he came to call not the righteous but sinners.
Romans 5:7 says that one will scarcely die for a righteous person, and
Jesus in Mark 2:17 states that he did not come to call the righteous. I
was unclear about what his point was: it may have been that Jesus died
for sinners and not the righteous or the self-righteous. People were
then saying that Jesus died for the Pharisees, too, but they did not
recognize their need for Jesus and thus did not benefit from his death.
That student’s point did intrigue me, though. The point of Romans 5:7,
of course, is that Jesus did something wonderful and amazing in dying
for sinners, since few people can muster the love to die for even a
righteous person. Romans 5:7 does seem to distinguish the righteous from
the good, however, as if righteousness falls short: perhaps the
righteous are those who dutifully follow the externals of the law,
whereas the good are those who go beyond the letter of the law and help
others even when it is not required, or are good on the inside and not
only in their external actions. I am reminded of Romans 4:2: “For if
Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not
before God” (KJV). Even if Abraham could be righteous by works, he would
not be able to glory before God.
E. Romans 5:6 states: “For when we were yet without strength, in due
time Christ died for the ungodly” (KJV). The teacher said that “without
strength” means totally helpless. But, at the right time, Christ did for
the ungodly. God knew when he needed to step in. I was wondering if the
teacher was connecting human weakness with when God decided to step in.
By the first century, had humans arrived at an acute sense of their
spiritual weakness? Well, in a sense. Israel had a history of sin and
exile, and righteousness could appear to be a high standard that could
confront people with their weakness. But a number of people were not
conscious of their spiritual need, such as the scribes of the Pharisees
whom Jesus criticized. I am reminded of a version of Christ-mythicism,
which asserts that Paul treats Christ’s death and resurrection in terms
of a personal spiritual experience rather than as a historical event:
when we personally arrive at a sense of our weakness, Christ enters the
picture and dies for us. I am not saying Christ’s death was not a
historical event, but, in a sense, it is something that takes place at a
personal spiritual level, as well.
F. The teacher asked if the church is like the Pharisees. One person
said that she always told her children to be careful about what friends
they chose. Their friends could influence them and define them: we are
known by the company we keep. When Christians gather together, they do
so to build each other up in Christianity. But she said that she hopes
to become more compassionate. After the service, she said that she has a
problem with the concept of forgiving everybody, and I certainly
identify with that. The controversial nature of Jesus’s association with
sinners stood out to me throughout the service. Of course, Jesus did
not forget who he was and what he was about when he associated with
sinners, yet he associated with them. On a related note, our church is
hosting an auction to help a group that reaches out to people in the
adult entertainment industry, providing workers there with other jobs.
G. The teacher defined “sinners” in Mark 2:14-17 as people who
blatantly disobey the law, or as people who may not find the time to
scrupulously observe the Mosaic law, as it was interpreted by the
Pharisees. This stood out of me because I have been studying Numbers 15,
which distinguishes between unintentional sin, which receive atonement,
and deliberate or defiant sin, which despises the word of God and does
not receive a sin offering.
H. People complain that the church is full of hypocrites. One of the
teacher’s responses was, “You’re right. Come sin and receive forgiveness
with us!” Another of his responses was, “If you’re letting hypocrites
stand between you and God, then the hypocrites at least are closer to
God than you are!”
I. The class talked about how Jesus was a physician. He makes people
well. And people go to the doctor, not only when they are sick, but to
maintain their health, or to check the status of their health. The law
shows us where we fall short, but Jesus is the remedy. The teacher said
that he personally falls short of forgiving people: of not allowing his
memory of past misdeeds to impact negatively the quality of his
relationship with people. The reason this discussion stood out to me is
that I often find myself saying to myself, “Okay, I fall short of God’s
law, big deal. Nobody’s perfect! I am not going to beat myself up!” It
is easy for me to acknowledge that I need grace and forgiveness on
account of my sins; I struggle, somewhat, with the idea that I go to
church, or to Jesus, to be transformed and healed of my sins. Yet, that
may still be a part of my personal spirituality: maybe I figure that I
am better inside of a relationship with God than I would be outside of
it.
J. The class talked about prioritization. Jesus came not for the
righteous, but for sinners. He came for a purpose. Those who failed to
recognize their need for Jesus would receive another message at another
time, one that challenged them for their sin (I think of Matthew 23).
Similarly, the church only has so many resources, so it needs to figure
out how to prioritize: what does the most good, where is there most
need, or what needs do we encounter? Paul was told not to go to Asia but
to spend his time and resources in Europe (Acts 16:6-10).
K. Another of our texts was Hosea 6:6, in which God declares that he
desires mercy and not sacrifice. Jesus quotes this in Matthew’s version
of the story in which he eats with sinners and the Pharisees criticize
that (Matthew 9:13). The Pharisees here were thinking about
righteousness but lacked compassion for the sinners. Hosea 6:6 stood out
to me because I responded with negative thinking: my churchgoing does
not matter if I cannot like or get along with people. And, sure enough,
Matthew in that trial (see item C) talked about people getting along and
loving each other and Jesus showing them that way of life! I suppose I
admire that way of life. Putting it into practice, in the realm of
real-life people and conflicting personalities, is much more difficult,
such that I barely even bother.
L. The teacher said that the people who criticized Jesus were not the
Pharisees but the scribes of the Pharisees: those who wrote things down
for the Pharisees. He said they were like the media of the day. The
Matthean parallel, however, identifies them as Pharisees. I looked up
Joel Marcus’s comments in his Anchor Bible commentary on Mark 1-8. What
he says is that some scribes were Pharisees, and some scribes were not.
The scribes of Mark 2:16 were Pharisees. Few of the Pharisees worked as
scribes, since they had other jobs, but maybe some of the priests and
Levites, interpreters of the law, were in the Pharisaic party. I am sure
there is more that can be said about this, in terms of scholarly
discussion, but I will stop here.