Last week’s post focused on the dispute following Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist. Today’s post considers the reaction of the Pharisees and Scribes when Jesus ate with tax collectors and those considered sinners. The conflict dimension in this story is not immediately apparent. However, a closer look shows that Jesus’ action concerns various parties with competing interests. The parties are Jesus, the Scribes and Pharisees, and the tax collectors and sinners. In this post, I describe the Scribes and Pharisees together as ‘religious leaders’ and tax collectors and sinners together as ‘sinners.’
In the story, the religious leaders believed Jesus should not be dining with sinners. Sinners were also delighted that Jesus gave them value and recognition, which other religious leaders did not grant. Hence, there are two separate conflicting interests: Jesus against the Pharisees and Scribes, and the tax collectors and sinners against the Pharisees and Scribes.
Setting
The story appears in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Matthew 9:10-17, Mark 2:15-22, Luke 5:29-39). In the three accounts, the incident follows Jesus’ call of Levi (Matthew). When Jesus called Levi from his tax collection office to join him as a disciple, he called a feast inviting many sinners and Jesus and his disciples. When the religious leaders saw this, the scripture reads: “They said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’” (Matt 9:11; Mark 2:16).
Luke’s account says they “were complaining to his disciples”, saying, ‘Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?’” (Luke 5:30). One sees that Luke’s narrative slightly differs from the others. First, it says the Pharisees and Scribes ‘complained to his disciples’ while in Matthew and Mark’s, they simply ‘said to his disciples’. Second, in Luke’s account, they lumped up Jesus with the disciples. In Matthew and Mark, they asked specifically about why Jesus ate with sinners.
The response of Jesus
Jesus’ response was simple. He said: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31). Matthew’s account slightly varies. It reads: “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 come to call not the righteous but sinners” (Matt 9:13).
As usual, Jesus was strategic as he responded to the two simultaneous conflicts. The religious leaders considered Jesus a threat to their societal position and influence. Therefore, anything they could use to counteract this threat to give them an edge over Jesus, even if emotional, was welcomed. Questioning Jesus’ action was an opportunity to show that Jesus did not follow the norms, or as the supporting passage confirms, not a real prophet.
Jesus knew the Pharisees were hypocrites, laying heavy burdens on people without trying to assist them and not practising what they preach (Matt 23: 1-34). Hence, Jesus’ response focused on their hypocrisy He used the analogy of the sick needing a physician. In this way, Jesus reminded the religious leaders that sinners need their help more than those they consider righteous. Jesus spoke of the mercy of God and God’s interest in sinners’ repentance. Interactions between Jesus and the ‘sinners’ were necessary to provide the opportunity to understand their situation and offer spiritual and pastoral help. Meals remain the best moments because they provide a relaxed atmosphere that enables people to open up about their challenges and dispose themselves to listen to God’s word.
In his choice of words, Jesus clarified his mission without offending them, which would have escalated the conflict. Of course, Jesus later reprimanded the Pharisees for who they really were, calling them hypocrites, blind guides, brood of vipers, blind fools, blind men, and whitewashed tombs (Matt 23). As explained under brinksmanship, Jesus took extreme actions after his triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Matt 21:1-7), when his passion was nigh.
Jesus also responded to the tension between the religious leaders and sinners—the hypocritical condemnation and denigration of sinners by the religious leaders (Luke 18:9-14). Jesus addressed this through his analogy of the sick needing a physician and the emphasis on the mercy of God. He reminded the religious leaders what God wanted, thereby giving value to sinners despised in society.
One must emphasise that these two simultaneous conflicts could have easily coalesced into one. The Jews expected that the Messiah would liberate them from the Romans—a common purpose for both the religious leaders and sinners. This happened during Jesus’ passion when the people supported Jesus’ crucifixion. Hence, Jesus’ response at this point was to carefully avoid a scenario that could lead to that gang-up.
Lessons from Jesus
(a) Try to avoid deepening conflicts:
Conflicts are inevitable, yet escalating conflicts are preventable. Jesus faced two simultaneous conflict situations but carefully avoided deepening any of them or their coalescence.
(b) Be careful not to incite people to action:
Every human person has a right to a relationship with God (Christ) because God created all. Jesus could have emphasised this right in responding to the question about dining with sinners. Yet, such a response would have incited them to fight the religious leaders discriminating against them. Although Jesus defended their interest on that occasion, he knew he would not always be available to do so. Hence, he chose a response that avoided inciting them to action. In doing so,
Jesus teaches us to avoid inciting people into action if we cannot support them when challenges arise from that action.
(c) Be consistent in action and avoid hypocrisy:
Jesus’ consistency in pursuing the mission of saving people from sin and death helped to prevent and manage conflicts. This is because people knew Jesus’ stand on issues and his mission. Although they later accused him of blasphemy, it was more of a false accusation rather than a statement of fact. Hypocrisy was the greatest undoing of the Pharisees, and Jesus’ responses focused on this. The scriptures remind us that God detests lukewarmness of attitude (Rev 3:15-16). Being consistent saves us a lot of stress explaining or defending why we do certain things. It prevents us from certain conflicts because it lowers expectations of what people want us to do or say, thereby reducing conflicts that stem from unmet expectations.
(d) Be cautious of intervening in indirect affairs:
We can never control what people think or say about us. Therefore, reacting to every comment we hear about us is not expedient. The religious leaders directed their question about Jesus to the disciples rather than Jesus himself. Jesus responded because he often intervened whenever a question is directed to the apostles about himself or themselves. He did this because he knew they would be with them for a short time. In future situations, they would respond to questions about Jesus and themselves. Caution is necessary for third-party interventions because we might not fully understand the circumstances in which the comments about us were made. We may not also know the depth of the relationship between the person who said something against us and the one who reported what was said against us.
(e) God desires mercy for all:
Understanding that God desires mercy for all is essential in conflict prevention and management because it helps us realise we are just part of God’s big equation and that the mercy to be granted is not ours. This was why Jesus dined with tax collectors and sinners. We do not know what Jesus and his disciples discussed with the tax collectors and sinners at the table. We do not know the number of them who repented or began their journey towards repentance after that meal. As long as it concerns the salvific mission of Christ, bringing sinners closer and dining with them is not a bad strategy.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
