There are two direct parallels called to mind in Mark 2:13-17, a story that describes Jesus walking along the sea of Galilee, encountering a crowd, singling out an individual, and being called out for those whom he is associating with and for his words/actions reflecting an offence in light of Torah faithfulness.
The first call back is in fact the section that just precedes this in 2: 1-12. We just finished reading in 2:2 a story defined by the crowd “gathering” around Jesus. Once again we are in a story where the crowd is “gathering” around Jesus (2:13). This is then interrupted by the arrival of an extant or outside individual. In the case of 2:1-12 it was the paralyzed man. In the case of 2:13-17 it is Levi son of Alphaeus. In both cases the scandal revolves around association with what is called sinners, an act which would have left a Torah faithful adherent unclean simply by coming into contact.
What is equally curious here is to recognize how the term sinner is being applied in these cases. For the paralytic, sin and sickness are intertwined. In the case of Levi, sin and tax collecting were intertwined. Which should indicate that however we make our way into this discussion about sin it is likely that our defintion needs to be broadened. To make sense of why this categorical defintion of “sinner” matters in these stories we need to step outside the narrow paramaters of “moral action.”
This first parallel is also found in Jesus’ response to the scribes (2:16) asking “why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners.” Jesus says in verse 17, “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.” In the previous story we heard Jesus respond to the scibes concerns by saying, “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, your sins are forgiven, or to say stand up and take your mat and walk?” Once again, the line blurs when it comes to this word “sinners,” with our attention immediately conjuring up this portrait of a literal sick man (a paralyitic) being healed of his sickness. And yet here this same conceptualization is applied to the tax collectors.
The second parallel reaches back to 1:16-20. In verse 16 Jesus is passing along the Sea of Galilee and says to the fishermen, come follow me. Here in verses 13-14 he once again is walking along the sea of Galilee, encounters a tax collector and invites him to come “follow me.” Whereas the teaching of the crowd precedes this in 13-17, the teaching of the crowd follows this encounter in 1:21. But here is the real striking part of this parallel. In Mark 1:23-24 it is “an unclean spirit” that opposes Jesus. In chapter 2, both of the parallel stories are dealing with Jesus’ association with “the unclean” while the scribes are the ones opposing Jesus. In the case of the unclean spirit, it knows who Jesus is which sparks a response declaring “have you come to destroy us?”
This raises an interesting question. If Mark wants us as readers to associate the scribes with this portrait of the unclean spirit being cast out, what precisely is this association looking to do and say in the context of this Gospel? This is simply my own reflections, but I found that stated concern of the unclean spirit that Jesus has come to destroy them a possible entry point into exploring that question. The unclean spirits is obviously speaking on a cosmic level, and yet somehow this seems to trickle down into the unspoken fears of the scribes. And it makes sense. The backdrop of the world Jesus has entered into is both Roman occupation and rule (read: the power of Empire) and a persisting exile. Torah faithfulness in this regard isn’t a matter of individual salvation built on legalism, as in people seeking to do good and thus be accepted (Edwards unfortunately straddles a line here in perpetuating this falsehood in his commentary). Rather, its concerns reach much broader. Here Torah faithfulness is directly attached to Torah fulfilment. What’s on the line is the promise of new creation itself. Torah faithfulness is not simply a question of some necessary action that brings about God’s work, nor is it simply about being left out of God’s anticipated work, it’s about whether this hope can be made known at all against the backdrop of Empire and its idols. Edwards does not a nice job in his commentary of outlining why “tax collectors” would be indicative of a marriage to Empire and thus become the subject of such opposition. This also has the ability to create the appropriate level of empathy for the position and concerns of the scribes. In some sense, when seen through the lens of Torah, to locate Torah faithfunless within association with “uncleaness” is to reiterate the terms of exile and the Roman Empire. The concern here could be palpable- have you come to destory us (yes in the case of the unclean spirits and Empire, known as the enslaving Powers) or to liberate us by fulfilling the Torah (yes, in the case of the scribes concern). It’s just a question of how this happens in the person and work of Jesus. This fits with the simple observation that in saying Jesus came not for the righteous for the sick is not framed as an invitation to the scribes as “the sick,” but rather is redirecting the narrative towards the markings of the fulfilliment. In Jewish terms this is indicative of the expected answer to the problem of exile (the return from exile which inaugerates the kingdom of God) which marks the movement of the then inaugerated Kingdom of God into the whole of the world. The distinction being made is always about whether we can find this inaugeration in Jesus or not, and that distinction is always framed against which words are bound to which story- the story of God or the story of the Powers. Which is precisely why the identity of Jesus matters to Mark.
I don’t think the association here in Mark between the unclean spirits and the scribes is to make them synonymous. Rather it is to redirect the concern towards the inaugerating shape of the kingdom of God having arrived among them. In his commentary, James R. Edwards notes the obvious distinction between the fact that the scribes followed Jesus to the home where he ultimately reclines with these sinners, and yet Mark never uses the word “follow” in Jesus’ own words for those who oppose him. Rather it is used exclusively for those whom he calls. And it is this calling that over and over again becomes the means of revealing the how of this fulfilment in the scope of this “good news” proclomation. Here “sinners” reaches far beyond moral action and towards the larger narrative, which begins with the cosmic and moves into the particulars. It has to do with the state of things, not doing good or doing bad. Here righteousness reflects fulfillment not moral upstanding or works, and sinner is clearly associated with enslavement to the Powers who’s markings are Sin and Death and all of its association.
One last observation. In my previous thoughts on Mark 2:1-12 in this space I noted the parallel between the place of Jesus’ teaching in Mark 1 (the synagogue) and the house in Mark 2. This is clear temple imagery being evoked. This is once again made aware in Mark 2:13-17, and it will be accented by what follows in 2:18-28. The word for sitting that Mark uses for picturing Jesus in the home at the table is the word for “reclining.” Why does this matter? As Edwards notes, this word evokes who the host is. Jesus is in Levi’s home but he is presented as the host. This is thus painted once again as a temple, which Mark is about to break open as a portrait of the great anticipated wedding banquet or feast. And once again, this portrait is calling up that imagery of the temple with the inside dwelling place and the outer courts. And what this is indicative of is a picture of a purified space, which is what happens in entering the inner room. The forgiveness of sins becomes synonymous with that purifying act, the actual removing of the pollution of Sin and Death. Thus this isn’t a dismantling of some kind of Torah led legalism, it is actually the reconstituting of the Torah as a story of fulfillment in Jesus. The concerns for idolatry and exile fade away in this portrait of Jesus reclining at the table with “sinners” precisely because the space they are occupying has been transformed by Jesus. Here the enslaving Powers of Sin and Death have been destroyed. That’s the imagination I think Mark is conjuring up here.
The Stories of my Life 