The Calling of Levi and the Meal with the Tax Collectors and Sinners
(Mk 2:13–17; Matt. 9:9–13; Luke 5:27–32).
All three Synoptists place this narrative together with the preceding one and allow the question about fasting to follow it. This arrangement probably arose from a literary interest, since for oral instruction there could hardly have been an intention to group material according to definite viewpoints. Yet the substantive connection emerges even more strongly in Mark than in Matthew, because he has inserted the general statement in v. 13 between the two narratives. The calling of Levi shows a progression, inasmuch as Jesus not only forgives sins but also calls a sinner and sits at table with sinners. Corresponding to this progression there is an intensification of hostility, which manifests itself in the open expression of displeasure. While Matthew pursued the aim of showing, in the calling of the tax collector, the character of the true messiahship of Jesus, Mark rather intends to characterize the narrow-minded opposition guided by Jewish particularism and rigorism, in its contemptuous self-exaltation.
The predominantly Gentile-Christian readers, many of whom had come from among proselytes, had to feel repelled by the Jews’ external observance of regulations, which stood in contradiction to genuine morality, and all the more attracted to Jesus, who called sinners to salvation. The apostles, as authorized representatives of the Lord, were thereby likewise directed toward the conversion and sanctification of sinners. The calling of the tax collector, however, also had a particular significance for the Roman. For the τελῶναι (tax collectors) played an important role in the Roman state, however hated they were in the provinces because of their office and the abuses practiced in connection with it. The Jews simply grouped them together with the ἁμαρτωλοί (sinners) and declared them dishonorable and incapable of giving judicial testimony. They were excluded from the religious community (Lightf. 286, 396, 871; Winer, R.W. 2, 740). For this reason it could only be pleasing to Roman readers to learn that Jesus by no means behaved with aversion even toward this class of Roman officials.
On the identity of our narrative with Matt. 9:9 ff., compare Matthew, p. 2 f.
Mk 2:13*. Ἐξῆλθεν (He went out), namely, out of Capernaum (Mk 1:35). πάλιν (“again”) points back to 1:35, but can also be related to Mk 1:16 (Mald., Hilg., Schegg, Meyer, Klost., Weiß). ἐξῆλθεν πάλιν (He went out again) is not to be taken as “he went again along the lake,” but rather “he went out again (from the city) to the lake” (cf. 2:1). ἐξέρχεσθαι παρά (He went out by) occurs elsewhere only in Acts 16:13, but there together with ἔξω. ἔρχεσθαι παρά in Matt. 15:29. With verbs of going and coming, παρά (by) indicates the destination. Still less is πάλιν (again) to be understood as referring to the transition to teaching. On the other hand, it is indeed noteworthy that the otherwise so common εὐθύς (“immediately”) is missing (Schegg), for this seems to point to a departure that took place later, which corresponds to Mark’s habit of reporting Jesus’ reserve after the completion of a miracle (Cuth., Theophyl.; differently Mald., J. Grimm). One might seek the avoidance of attention in a rapid departure from the place of the miracle (Vict.), but an unnoticed departure was, in view of the large crowd, not possible at that moment. They would have followed him, whereas ἤρχετο (they came to him) indicates a gradual gathering together. αὐτούς is to be referred κατὰ σύνεσιν (“according to the sense”) to ὁ ὄχλος (the crowd) (Winer 58, 4, 480).
Mk 2:14. παράγων, “as he passed by.” Here one must supply not παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν (“by the sea,” Mk 1:16) but in general the place where Levi was. The toll station was probably on the road leading from Ptolemais to Damascus, which for a time ran along the lake. Since, however, this road toward the north had to make a significant curve inland before reaching the mouth of the Jordan, and since because of παρὰ θάλασσαν the toll station must nevertheless have been near the lake, it is not to be sought north of Capernaum.
Matthew, as usual, names the later name Ματθαῖος (Matthew), for it is not to be assumed that Mark first introduced an unknown name for the well-known apostle. Accordingly, in Matthew humility is indeed not the sole motive for the anticipation, but Mk 10:3 nevertheless shows that he was chiefly guided by it (Victor). Mark and Luke did not have this interest and also did not need to tell their readers explicitly in the list of apostles that Matthew the tax collector was Levi. Mark, in the apostle list, mentions only the surnames given by the Lord and names the father in order to distinguish apostles of the same name. The name Matthew, however, could—like Saul/Paul, John/Mark, Joseph/Justus, Titius/Justus, and others—have been connected with Levi and later used alone.
Mark here adds only τὸν τοῦ ᾿Αλφαίου (“the son of Alphaeus”). Of this Alphaeus nothing further is known. In any case he cannot be identified with the father of James (Ewald), since apart from the name there is nowhere any indication of this, and the Hebrews later were very restricted in personal names. The exact listing of the apostles in Matt. 10:2–3 also speaks against it, where Matthew would have had to be grouped together with James. To exclude Levi from the circle of the apostles (W. Grimm, Em., and others) is contrary to the almost unanimous tradition and to the solemn account of his calling. The name in Aramaic is חַלְפִי (cf. among the Talmudists, Lightf., p. 325), from which the Greek ᾿Αλφαῖος (Alphaeus) or Κλωπᾶς (Clopas; John 19:25) could be formed. For even in the LXX there was a double pronunciation (e.g., חַגַּי = Ἀγγαῖος [Haggai], חֲמַת = Ἐμάθ [Hamath]), and it is used elsewhere similarly (e.g., חֵלֶב = Aleppo; 27:18 חֶלְבּוֹן = Χαλυβών).
From the more detailed description in Matthew—ἄνθρωπον καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον, Ματθαῖον λεγόμενον (“a man sitting at the tax booth, called Matthew”)—and in Luke—τελώνην ὀνόματι Λευΐν, καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον (“a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth”)—one has sought to prove their dependence on Mark. But since Mark wanted on this occasion to omit the later name, only ἄνθρωπον (“a man”) remained to him, which is of little value. Luke’s placing of τελώνην (tax office) first probably points to reflection. Mark, as elsewhere, presupposes familiarity with the matter on the part of his readers. This is also true of Matthew, but because he himself was identical with the one called, he allowed his own person to recede into the background.
Mk 2:15*. Mark here uses, as in Mk 14:3, the classical κατακεῖσθαι (“to recline at table”), whereas Matthew here and in 27:6 writes ἀνακεῖσθαι (reclining), “since he does not use that compound at all” (Weiß). But if he does not use it despite the source, he can also omit other things without a source that stand in the source. γίνεται κατὰ (it happens/came about) is a Hebraism, which has been altered, as in Mk 2:23, by transformation into the accusative with infinitive. ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ (“in his house”) is the house of Levi, as Luke states more precisely (Ew., Klost.). Already because of the preceding αὐτόν, αὐτοῦ cannot be referred to Jesus, of whose house in Capernaum Mark knows nothing at all. What Fr. Sanchz is getting at is that Matthew seems to have used Mark as a source and made editorial changes to improve the syntax of Mark's account. This he does by by not adopting certain occurs compound verbs employed by Mark; as well as converting Hebraisms into better Greek. A Hebraism occurs when a syntactically good Hebrew phrase, such as "day one of the week," is translated into another lanugage in which it sounds odd. Both Luke and John, in their resurrection accounts, use this phrase; it's perfectly good Hebrew, but not good Greek (or English).
ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ (“rising, he followed him”) is in the first instance to be understood of following in the apostolate, which does not require an immediate departure from Levi’s house. Entering the house with the Lord, even though he himself was the householder, already proves the following. This understanding also corresponds to the calling of the first disciples, after which Jesus also associated in Simon’s house. The purpose of the account is not merely to narrate the calling of Levi, but also to show how Jesus came into the company of tax collectors and sinners, since the intensification of opposition was connected with this. That καλέσαι ("to call") in Mk 2:17 is not to be interpreted as an invitation to table (Meyer) scarcely needs to be mentioned. The point here, contra Meyer, is that Jesus came to be in the company of tax collectors and sinners, not by eating with them, but by calling them (Mk 2:17) to repentance/discipleship.
But even the direct reference to those present at table—as though the fellow diners regarded their eating together as obedience to the καλεῖν (calling) of Jesus, as an entry into the circle of his followers (Klostermann)—presses the general sense too strongly. (Klostermann assumed that the diners understood that their eating with Jesus fulfilled the call to become follower of Jesus. This assumes something not in the text). The construction of the sentence is Hebraizing, yet nevertheless καὶ πολλοί κτλ (and many). cannot be a continuation of ἐν τῷ κατακεῖσθαι (while he was reclining), with the subordinate clause beginning only in Mk 2:16 (Ewald), for ἐγένετο καί (and it happened that) is not uncommon in the New Testament, and Mk 2:16 likewise begins with καί (and). The word "and" does not necessarily indicate the beginning of a subordinate clause. The fact that verse 16 also begins with "and" suggests that in verse 15 Mark has already completed what he wanted to communicate.
ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοί … αὐτῷ (for they were many who followed him) was referred by the older exegetes to the tax collectors and sinners; ἠκολούθουν (or ἠκολούθησαν = they followed) was taken as a pluperfect (Fr. Lucas, Fritzsche, de Wette, Schegg), and from this it was explained that Matthew, either by his example or by his word, had induced the tax collectors and sinners to follow him into his house. ἦσαν (they) was then explained either of their presence at table or more generally of their number. But although the imperfect is indeed used by Greek writers in subordinate statements in place of the pluperfect (Krüger 53, 2, 8), it can scarcely be demonstrated in the New Testament (Winer 40, 3, 253). Moreover, ἀκολουθεῖν (followed), according to Mk 2:14, denotes discipleship, and πολλοί (many) in connection with τελῶναι (tax collectors) would be rather striking. For this reason Patrizzi already decided in favor of the disciples as the subject, and more recently Weiss has adopted this explanation. It also fits Mark’s consistently motivating mode of presentation to emphasize here, where he introduces the disciples (μαθηταί) for the first time, their great number and their constant attendance. The motivating γάρ (for) does not stand in the way of this, but would rather be more surprising if referred to the τελῶναι (tax collectors), since their large number (πολλοί) had already been stated.
Mk 2:16*. “The scribes of the Pharisees” are those belonging to the party of the Pharisees, whereas in Mk 2:6 only the scribes in general are mentioned. Since the Pharisaic party sought to restore the Jewish theocracy in its separation from all that was sinful and unclean by the practice of legal piety, they necessarily took the greatest offense at Jesus’ association with sinners. No prophet—not even John—had associated with sinners, even if they had preached to sinners. The Pharisees could not rise to the thought that remission of sins was possible without the satisfactions of the Law. Therefore they believed themselves to be in the right and dared to come forward openly with their reproach. Yet because the authoritative bearing of Jesus and his influence over the people inspired them with respect, they did not wish to address Jesus himself directly.
ἰδόντες ὅτι ἤσθιεν means “when they saw that he was eating.” For this they did not need to enter the house; they could make the observation from the street or the courtyard, since among Orientals the entrances are not closed. Thus ἰδόντες is not equivalent to cum intellegerent (Grotius, de Wette). With ὅτι, ἰδεῖν is also constructed in Mk 9:25; John 6:22, 24, and elsewhere. Among the classical writers ὅτι after ὁρᾶν occurs only in the figurative sense, “when the thought is presented as a fact” (Krüger 56, 7, 12). ὅτι after ἔλεγον is recitative and introduces the reproach of the scribes in direct speech. τί ὅτι would be equivalent to τί ἐστιν ὅτι, cur? quam ob causam? (Luke 2:49; Acts 5:4, 9). Basically, Fr. Sanchz is saying that (1) the Scribes didn't have to enter into the house to see what was happening. This is not about an intellectual conclusion that the Scribes have come to because they saw Jesus enter a house; they actually saw him eating (contra Grotius and de Wette). These authors based their interpretation on classical Greek usage where ὅτι (that) coming after ὁρᾶν (seeing) communicated a figurative or mental sense ("they realized"/"understood that"). New Testament usage (Mk 9:25; John 6:22, 24) indicates that their argument need not be accepted. Although he doesn't use the term here, Fr. Sanchz is implying that this is another example of a Hebraism.
Mk 2:17. As in Matthew and Luke, Fritzsche, Schegg, and others here also reject the ironic interpretation of the words οὐκ ἦλθον κτλ. (“I did not come …”), since neither the circumstances nor the words, they say, permit it. Schegg ascribes the origin of this interpretation to the Protestant doctrine of the complete destruction of the divine image in man through sin, which must in principle deny any distinction between sinners and the righteous. Thus Calvin says of our passage: est concessio ironica ("It is an ironic concession; meaning the speaker is "agreeing" with a point only to mock it or show its absurdity). This historical explanation, however, is incorrect. Already in Matthew, p. 270, I noted that Chrysostom understands the passage ironically. Cuthymius indeed first gives the general explanation, but then adds that of Chrysostom, which Theophylact also adopts. Jerome is of the same opinion, and Jansen introduces this explanation with the words alii post Chrysostomum intellegunt, Dominum ironice locutum ("Others, following Chrysostom, understand that the Lord spoke ironically"), even though he himself rejects it. Maldonatus rightly designates it as the sententia veterum auctorum ("the opinion of the ancient authors"), and only ventures timidly—si quid valet meum judicium ("If my judgement has any value")—to propose another, yet even he significantly restricts the concept of righteousness. Fr. Lucas remains with the older explanation. For this reason the opposite is more likely true, namely that the ironic interpretation has been abandoned in opposition to Protestant dogma.
Yet this interpretation is not contrary to the text. For it abstracts entirely from the question whether there really are righteous persons or not, directs—as the context requires—the point of the saying against the Pharisees, who are thus certainly dismissed more pointedly than by a general statement, and in Matthew it even has the direct address in its favor (cf. Matt. 5:20; Luke 18:9). The seriousness of the situation loses nothing thereby, for the sharp sting which the questioners receive with this ironic answer marks Jesus’ opposition to them far more strongly than a purely factual explanation. Luke has further added εἰς μετάνοιαν (“to repentance,” 5:32) and thereby favored another explanation, which Jansen already attempted, by taking ad vocandum as convertendum, while denying conversion in the case of the righteous. But even this interpretation does not exclude the reference to the Pharisees, for they too were not to be called εἰς μετάνοιαν, because they lacked the necessary disposition.
It should be noted that Fr. Sanchz is not insinuating that the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity was accepted by the ancient authors he mentions. While those authors and Calvin shared the same rhetorical force of this verse, it does not mean they shared the same theological system.
What he is doing is separating three things that are often conflated: (1) the rhetorical strategy of Jesus’ saying in Mark 2:17, (2) the anthropological assumptions of the interpreter, and (3) later dogmatic systems (especially post-Reformation ones).
The ironic interpretation, taking "I cam not to call the righteous, but sinners" as spoken inirony, does not presuppose that there are absolutely no righteous persons in any sense, nor does it require a doctrine of total depravity in the later Protestant sense. Rather, it presupposes a much more modest and very patristic claim: that the Pharisees are not righteous in the sense they claim to be, and that Jesus deliberately adopts their self-designation in order to expose its emptiness.
This is why the author insists that the ironic reading “abstracts entirely from the question whether there really are righteous persons or not.” That sentence is decisive. Irony here is not metaphysical but rhetorical. Jesus is not making a universal anthropological statement (“all humans are equally depraved and incapable of good”), but engaging in a pointed dialogical exchange. He speaks ad homines, not in abstracto.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment