Jesus Eats with Tax Collectors and Sinners

A main debate over the pericope of Mark 2:13–17 involves Jesus’ saying in 2:17: “I have

come to call not the righteous but sinners” (NRSV). This paper argues that the above quote,

hereafter referred to as “Jesus’ proclamation,” answers two questions concerning the kingdom of

God: who are to be accepted into this kingdom and who will be the disciples of Jesus to proclaim

it. I first handle three textual issues relevant to my argument: the limit of this pericope, the

implication of the word καλέω, and who the word τελώνης refers to. Then I discuss the

possibility that Jesus’ proclamation is a pronouncement that the kingdom of God is open to the

Gentiles in addition to the Jews. Finally, I argue that Jesus’ proclamation also implies an

essential prerequisite for discipleship: a commitment to follow Jesus in order to proclaim the

kingdom of God is more important than any other characteristic of a disciple.

Mark 2:13–17 consists of two parts: Jesus’ call of Levi (2:13–14), a τελώνης, and Jesus’

eating with many τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ, which results in a conflict between Jesus and the

scribes of the Pharisees (2:15–17). Given the difference in topic, it seems plausible to divide this

text into two pericopes, as some scholars do.1 Two features of the text, however, indicate that it is

more reasonable to see them as a unity in the Markan narrative, even though they might come

from separately circulated stories in the tradition.2 First, it is highly possible that the banquet in

1
John R. Donahue, “Tax Collectors and Sinner: An Attempt at Identification,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 33 (1971) 39–61
(56); Sharyn E. Dowd, Reading Mark: A Literary and Historical Commentary on the Second Gospel (Macon, GA: Smyth &
Helwys, 2000) 25; William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1974) 99–102;
Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966) 201–08.
2
Hugh Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (Greenwood: The Attic Press, 1976) 103; M. Eugene Boring, Mark: A Commentary
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1988) 79.

1
2:15–17 is held in the house of Levi, the man who was called by Jesus in 2:14. Grammatically,

the Greek expression ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ in 2:15 may refer to the house of either Jesus or Levi.

However, as R. T. France points out, “Mark nowhere else refers to the house in Capernaum…as

Jesus’ house.”3 Following most scholars’ view,4 I posit that Levi is the owner of the house for the

dinner in 2:15–17, a narrative feature that connects 2:13–14 and 2:15–17 together.

More important evidence in support of seeing 2:13–17 as a unity is the word καλέω used

in 2:17. The context indicates that this word may have a sense of calling disciples, for καλέω is

also used in Jesus’ call of disciples both before and after this pericope (1:20, 3:13), and the note

in 2:15, “for there were many who followed him,” hints that those eating with Jesus are his

disciples. Because of this, it seems natural to see καλέω as a call to discipleship and therefore a

thread connecting 2:13–14 and 2:15–17. Nevertheless, in the narrative of 2:13–17, the call of

Levi is directly followed by a banquet, which is absent in other typical stories of calling disciples

(1:16–1:20, 3:13–19). Given this difference, it is also reasonable to hold that καλέω here is an

invitation to the messianic banquet held at Levi’s house rather than a call of disciples. Thus it

seems that we have to make a choice between two options concerning the meaning of καλέω. Is

this a call of disciples or an invitation to the messianic banquet? Most scholars argue for the

second definition;5 few others take the first.6 My suggestion, however, is for both: concerns for

3
R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2002) 133. See also
Ernest Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981) 175; Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000) 225.
4
See, for example, Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, 103; Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, 103.
5
Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, 105; Boring, Mark: A Commentary, 82; France, The Gospel of Mark, 135; Lane, The Gospel
According to Mark, 104–5; Marcus, Mark 1-8, 228.
6
Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993) 130;
Dennis M. Sweetland, Our Journey with Jesus: Discipleship according to Mark (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987) 24.

2
the kingdom of God and for discipleship are closely connected with each other.

A striking feature of discipleship, according to Mark’s narrative, is that disciples are

called by Jesus not merely to travel with him or just to listen to his teaching, but also to proclaim

the kingdom of God. This feature is clearly shown in 6:6–13, where the twelve are called to

proclaim “that all should repent” (6:12), a proclamation similar to the summary of Jesus’

message in 1:15. Given this, it is reasonable to assume that the evangelist portrays the contour of

the kingdom of God for his audience who are the potential disciples. It is not surprising to see an

account of the call of a disciple being followed by the narrative of messianic banquet, which

prefigures the coming of the kingdom of God. Moreover, it seems intentional for the evangelist

to have the messianic banquet narrative be preceded by a story of call to discipleship, because

this narrative can stand alone without any mention of that story. There must be certain reasons

for the evangelist to put them together. As Dennis M. Sweetland points out, “It is reasonable to

conclude that Mark inserted this story [of the call of Levi] here in order to make a point about the

kind of individuals who followed Jesus as his disciples.”7

A notable idea about the meaning of καλέω comes from R. T. France, who argues that this

word does not mean “invite,” “as Jesus is not the host at this meal in Levi’s house,”8 but is a call

“to repent and believe in the good news.”9 As to the issue of hosting, France’s presupposition

that the host of a meal should be the owner of the place for the meal seems to be problematic.

Rather, it is more reasonable to accept M. Eugene Boring’s assumption that Jesus is the host

7
Sweetland, Our Journey with Jesus, 24.
8
France, The Gospel of Mark, 135.
9
Ibid., 136.

3
here, even though the house might not be his.10 With respect to the issue of repentance, I will

soon argue that it is not Jesus’ concern here. Therefore, I insist in seeing καλέω in Jesus’

proclamation as a pun, referring to both a call to discipleship and an invitation to the messianic

banquet. If so, the characteristics of those sinners called by Jesus become significant to our

knowledge of the kingdom of God and discipleship. A good indication of these characteristics is

the identity of τελώνης, translated as “publican” (KJV) or “tax collector” (NRSV), who is among

those sinners.

The first issue needs to be addressed is how to read τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ. Here I agree

that “tax collectors/publicans and other sinners”11 is an appropriate reading. To read this text as

“tax collectors/publicans and sinners” may lead to the impression that the “tax

collectors/publicans” are not sinful, which, as will soon be shown, flies in the face of the real

identity of τελώνης. The second and more important issue is the translation of τελώνης: tax

collector or publican? As scholars have realized,12 τελώνης was not publicani in Roman Near

East, who “were usually quite wealthy,” “collected custom tolls and similar taxes,” and “were

nearly always foreigners.”13 Rather, those τελώναι were tax collectors, Jews who had limited

right to collect “one form of tax in a town or small district”14 and were usually not very rich

because they were too numerous. Given this distinction, I accept the translation “tax collector”

10
Boring, Mark: A Commentary, 81.
11
Boring, Mark: A Commentary, 81; Marcus, Mark 1-8, 226.
12
Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, 103; D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark (New York: Seabury Press, 1963) 99.
13
Harold W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (London: Cambridge University Press, 1972) 77.
14
Ibid., 78.

4
rather than “publican.”

While these tax collectors were probably poor,15 two features of them are more notable

concerning sinfulness, which is the focus of the controversy between Jesus and the scribes of the

Pharisees. First, they had a bad reputation, as they exploited or extorted countrymen by illegally

collecting more money than the proper amount. Thus they were hated by Jews and called

robbers.16 They may also have real associations with robbers and murders.17 They were even

known as traitors.18 Second, they had frequent contact with the Gentiles because of their

occupation, which made them ritually impure according to the Pharisees’ understanding of

Jewish law.19 Because of these things, it is reasonable to see that the tax collectors are

representatives of sinners here: they are bad in morality and spirituality in the eyes of Jews. If so,

what is the message behind Jesus’ proclamation that he comes to call sinners of all kinds to enjoy

a dinner with him as well as to be his disciples? Why does he not call the righteous? I argue that

Jesus calls them because the ritual impurity of these sinners hints at an important feature of the

kingdom of God and their moral impurity implies a principle requirement of discipleship.20 We

15
Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971) 109; E. P.
Sanders, “Jesus and the Sinners,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 19 (1983) 7; E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986) 176.
16
Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 78.
17
I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1967) 54.
18
Sanders, “Jesus and the Sinners,” 9; James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
2002) 82-3.
19
Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, 103; Boring, Mark: A Commentary, 80; France, The Gospel of Mark, 134; Marcus, Mark 1–8,
225; Roger P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986)
110; Gedalyahu Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1977) 146–
49.
20
There is a debate over whether 2:17 is a historical report or a construction of early Church; see, for example, W. M. O. Walker,
“Jesus and the Tax Collectors,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 97/1(1978) 221–38 (231–34). This debate is not my concern; my
discussion is based on the final text. For the same reason, it does not matter to me that “tax collector” might be a mistranslation of
Aramaic word tĕlānê (Walker, “Jesus and the Tax Collectors,”237); what matters is the evangelist’s use of it.

5
will discuss the issue of the kingdom of God first.

As mentioned above, the sinners who ate with Jesus are seen by the scribes of the

Pharisees as ritually impure. These Pharisees, probably the hasidim,21 held strict purity rules

according to the requirement in the Old Testament and probably separated themselves from

others in order to maintain their purity.22 Similarly, the scribes were “within the larger Pharisaic

party…whose concern, even more than that of Pharisees in general, was to ensure correct

observance of the law.”23 Thus we read the conflict between the scribes of the Pharisees and

Jesus as a debate over the issue of law observance. What is controversial is how to understand

Jesus’ attitude towards those so-called “law breakers” in his proclamation in 2:17.

A seemingly plausible view sees Jesus’ proclamation as a call to repentance.24 Such an

opinion is problematic, however, as it is not able to explain the conflict between Jesus and the

scribes of the Pharisees. As E. P. Sanders helpfully points out, “If Jesus, by eating with tax

collectors, led them to repent, repay those whom they had robbed, and leave off practicing their

profession, he would have been a national hero.”25 An appropriate corollary of Sanders’s

comment is that Jesus is not calling these sinners to repent morally, because this would not cause

21
See, for example, Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, 104; Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, 104; Nineham, The Gospel of St
Mark, 100. Jeremias maintains that they are identical (Jeremias, The Proclamation of Jesus, 118), but Sanders thinks this to be
dubious (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 187).
22
Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, 104; Boring, Mark: A Commentary, 82; Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, 104; Nineham,
The Gospel of St Mark, 99–100. Sanders doubts about the separation of the Pharisees in E. P. Sanders, Judaism Practice and
Belief: 63 BE-66CE (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992) 429.
23
France, The Gospel of Mark, 134
24
Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 191.
25
Sanders, “Jesus and the sinner,” 23; Norman H. Young agrees with Sanders with regard to this point, even though he basically
disagrees with Sanders’ interpretation of Jesus’ proclamation, Norman H. Young, “‘Jesus and the sinners’: Some Queries,”
Journal of the Study of the New Testament, 24 (1985) 74.

6
a conflict between Jesus and the scribes of the Pharisees. If we develop Sanders’s idea from

moral perspective to spiritual or ritual one, a similar inference could be made. On one hand,

obviously Jesus is not calling the sinners to be ritually pure like the Pharisees want them to be.

This would make the scribes of the Pharisees happy. On the other hand, as I will soon point out,

it seems more likely that Jesus is not concerned with the sinners’ so-called ritual impurity.

Altogether, it is safe to conclude that Jesus’ proclamation has nothing to do with the issue of

repentance: the Markan Jesus is not calling these “law-breakers” to repent.26

A more reasonable view says that Jesus’ eating with the sinners displays his acceptance

or inclusion of outcasts into the messianic banquet.27 While this second view may explain the

conflict between Jesus and the scribes of the Pharisees, it raises the problem of how to

understand the usage of “not. . .but” in Jesus’ proclamation. It does not make sense to claim that

in order to accept some people into the kingdom of God, others should be rejected. Sanders

points out that “Jesus was accused of associating with, and offering the kingdom to those who by

the normal standards of Judaism were wicked.”28 If we see the normal standards mentioned by

Sanders as a version of exclusion, the saying of “not…but” in Jesus’ proclamation may turn out

to be another exclusive proclamation according to our understanding of this second view.

To avoid such an exclusive reading perhaps we can accept Eugene Boring’s explanation

of “not. . .but:” this usage reflects a “dialectic negation” common in Jewish literature. Thus,

26
Edwards calls this a scandal (Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark, 85). I think he means to say that this is a scandal to the
scribes of the Pharisees. Whatever his idea might be, I agree with him that there is no repentance here.
27
Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, 105; France, The Gospel of Mark, 136; Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 105.
28
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 187.

7
Jesus’ proclamation says, “I come to call the sinners more than the righteous.”29 Although this

explanation makes sense in the context of 2:13–17, it does not fit the basic tone of the large

section of 2:1–3:6. As Joel Marcus and Joanna Dewey30 point out, Mark 2:18–22, which concerns

the relationship between the new and the old, is the center of the section 2:1–3:6. According to

this context, Jesus comes to make a radical proclamation, a complete replacement of the old

worldview with a new one, rather than to make a revision or improvement of the old. Seen from

this context, “not. . .but” in Jesus’ proclamation does not look like a “dialectic negation,” but a

radical rejection of one opinion through an acceptance of the opposite.

Given this difficulty, my suggestion is to revise the second view by seeing the terms “the

righteous” and “sinners” as hints about the attitudes held by people rather than those persons per

se. On other words, “the righteous” hints at the Pharisees’ attitude of making a distinction

between different groups of people, whereas “sinners” hints at the attitude of rejecting such a

distinction. Since the Pharisees’ main reason for accusing the tax collectors of impurity is their

contact with the Gentiles, the distinction highlighted by “the righteous” might be between Jews

and the Gentiles. Altogether, according to the revised view, Jesus’ proclamation is read as: “I

come to proclaim that the invitation of the kingdom of God is also for the Gentiles rather than

only to the Jews as the Pharisees think.”

This reading gives a reasonable interpretation of the usage “not…but.” It not only keeps

the radical sense of this usage as 2:18–22 suggests, but also avoids an exclusive reading of “not. .

29
Boring, Mark: A Commentary, 82. Similar idea is held by France, who thinks “not…but” here is an “expression of priority
rather than of exclusion” (France, The Gospel of Mark, 135), and Gundry: “‘not righteous people but sinners’ is meant
comparatively rather than exclusively” (Gundry, Mark, 130).
30
Joanna Dewey, Markan Public Debate (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980) 138; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 214.

8
.but.” Here “the righteous” hints at an exclusive attitude towards the kingdom of God. The

rejection of this means an inclusion. A potential trouble this reading may cause is how to explain

the proverb cited by Jesus: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are

sick” (2:17). It is easy for the second view discussed above to interpret this proverb, for this view

would say that “those who are sick” are the sinners and “those who are well” are the righteous,

so as to makes a reasonable correspondence between the proverb and Jesus’ proclamation.

Although the revised view is not able to establish such a correspondence, it may explain the

proverb in a different way that is also reasonable.

According to the revised view, “those who are well” may refer to Jews, who have already

known God and thus “have no need of a physician,” while “those who are sick” perhaps refers to

the Gentiles, who have not known God yet and thus need a physician. Jesus’ reply to the scribes

of the Pharisees in 2:17 could be read together like this: the Jews already know God but the

Gentiles do not; I come to proclaim that the kingdom of God is also open to the Gentiles rather

than being only for the Jews as the Pharisees think. Such a reading is in line with the relationship

between the entire section of 2:1–3:6 and the gospel as a whole.

A brief observation will show that the issues discussed in the five controversies in 2:1–3:6

will be repeated in the following narratives. For instance, the scribes’ doubt about Jesus’ divine

authority in 2:1–12 foreshadows more intense controversies concerning similar issues, such as

the debate over Jesus’ power of casting demons (3:21–28) and the chief priests and elders’

interrogation of Jesus’ authority concerning the temple (11:27–33). The saying that the

bridegroom will be taken away from them in 2:20 foreshadows Jesus’ death and could be seen as

9
a prelude of his three passion predications (8:31–32, 9:30–32; 10:32–34). The Pharisees’

accusation of Jesus’ disciples’ behavior on the Sabbath in 2:23–27 indicates more conflicts

between Jesus and the Pharisees concerning law issues, such as hand-washing (7:1–15). Finally,

the pact between the Pharisees and the Herodians to kill Jesus foretells the coming of sharper

battles between Jesus and his opponents, such as the chief priests and the scribes’ plot to kill

Jesus in 14:1–2.

Similarly, Jesus’ proclamation in 2:17 could be seen as a manifesto of his special mission

of spreading the good news to the Gentiles who were thought to be excluded from God’s plan.

Because of this manifesto, it is unsurprising to see Jesus went “to the other side of the sea” (5:1),

where the Gentiles were living, to do his mission. This manifesto also makes it natural for

readers to encounter a further controversy on the issue of ritual purity—washing hand before

eating (7:1–15). A result of this is Jesus’ declaration that all foods are clean (7:19), which is

similar to Jesus’ proclamation in 2:17. Moreover, with Jesus’ proclamation in 2:17 in mind, the

audience may feel prepared to hear his other similar claims, such as “Is it not written ‘My house

shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’?” (11:17) and “the good news must first be

proclaimed to all nations” (13:9). Briefly, Jesus’ proclamation could be seen as the basis for the

evangelist to develop his concern for the Gentiles through different perspectives in the following

narratives. This comment also applies to another message conveyed by Jesus’ proclamation: the

principle requirement of discipleship. We will pick up this topic now.

As pointed out earlier, the tax collectors were immoral to some extent, sometimes being

called robbers. If I am right that Jesus’ proclamation also involves a call of disciples, we must

10
consider the following question: why does Jesus call some immoral people, even robbers, rather

than those who have better reputation morally, to be his disciples? A good starting point is to take

a brief look at the main characteristics of Jesus’ disciples. As the text shows, most of the time

Jesus’ disciples behave as negative examples, despite their occasional participation in Jesus’

ministry: casting out demons (6:13) and feeding people for Jesus (6:37).

First of all, the disciples frequently display spiritual dullness or hardness of heart on

various occasions. They seem to have difficulty understanding Jesus’ parables (4:10–13; 7:17–

19), and even when Jesus performs miracles, such as stilling the storm (4:39) and walking on the

sea (6:47–50), the disciples are unable to understand the message behind it (4:41, 6:52). Second,

they often demonstrate an apparent fear or unfaithfulness when facing danger. During the storm,

they wake up Jesus, who is asleep, because they are afraid that Jesus would not care about them

(4:38). Seeing Jesus walking on the sea, the disciples are terrified and Jesus had to console them

(6:50). Briefly, the disciples are just heart-hardened and unfaithful, even though Jesus chose

them and took them with him.

In fact the narrative of 2:13–17 is the first place in the Gospel of Mark where certain

weaknesses of the disciples are implied. For this reason, it seems reasonable to assume that the

account here previews the disciples’ negative behaviors in the following stories, just as it also

foreshadows Jesus’ mission to the Gentiles. Put another way, because of the narrative here, the

disciples’ spiritual dullness or fear becomes unsurprising: these negative characteristics are not

as striking as a moral defect would be. With these observations of Jesus’ disciples in mind, we

are able to understand the message behind Jesus’ call of sinners. The point here is to find the

11
positive characteristics of these sinners, which may be the reason Jesus calls them despite their

negative characteristics, and which could be seen as the basic requirement of discipleship.

Turning to the narrative of 2:13–14, we see that Levi does not ask any questions when

hearing Jesus’ call, but “got up and followed him” (2:14), just like Simon, Andrew, James, and

John do in 1:16–21. These disciples do not ask what Jesus calls them to do or what they would

face on their way following Jesus. This is a response of obedience Marcus calls a miracle.31

These disciples probably witnessed Jesus’ miracles before being called32 or perhaps they had

heard about Jesus’ reputation. Whatever the reasons might be, the narrative makes it clear that

Simon, Andrew, James, John, and Levi demonstrate their strong commitment to Jesus’ call: they

give up their possessions and occupations to be “professional” followers of Jesus, without any

hesitation, doubt, or reservation. Thus, it is not surprising that however dull or fearful the

disciples appear in the future as they journey with Jesus, “they do remain with him until his

arrest.”33 Seen from this perspective, another aspect of the message behind Jesus’ proclamation

could be this: I come not to call people who have no commitment to my mission even if they are

morally perfect, but those who are committed to my mission despite their moral defects. 34

This reading leads to the most basic requirement of discipleship: the commitment to

proclaim the kingdom of God is more important than any other characteristic. This requirement

does not conflict with Mark’s narrative as it might appear to be, because the disciples’ spiritual

31
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 185
32
Ibid.
33
Sweetland, Our Journey with Jesus, 78.
34
Ernest Best has an idea that “The New Testament shows generally that success in discipleship depends not on the degree of
robust faith…but on his willingness to accept help from God” (Best, Following Jesus, 12). This ides is obviously in support of
mine.

12
dullness, unfaithfulness, and cowardice do not mean that they are not committed to their mission.

It just takes time for them to grow. As human beings we learn to gain knowledge, to have faith,

and to be courageous: we do not develop any of these characteristics overnight. It is not

surprising to see the disciples’ misunderstanding or fear; it is natural for them to be so before

they grow up and to mature spiritually. They are learners as well as followers, and Jesus is the

teacher who “explained everything to his disciples” (4:33), encouraged them to take heart and

not to be afraid (6:50), pushed them by pointing out their dullness and unfaithfulness (7:18;

9:19), and corrected them when they misunderstood important concepts (8:33, 10:35–45), and so

on.

Thus I think Ernest Best is right to point out concerning disciples: “Any apparent attack

on them normally ends, not in the negative side of their failure, but in positive teaching on the

part of Jesus which will assist Mark’s community.”35 It is notable, however, that if those disciples

were not committed to follow Jesus, to learn and mature, it would be useless or meaningless for

Jesus to teach them: it is ridiculous to see a teacher teaching students who do not want to learn at

all. Robert C. Tannehill has an insightful idea: “The recognition of the disciple’s failure and the

search for an alternative way becomes a search for the new self who can follow Jesus faithfully

as a disciple.”36 But it deserves consideration: what pushes the disciple to “search the new self?”

Some motive must be behind the discipleship; commitment is a possible option.

A merit of seeing commitment as the basic requirement of discipleship is that it may help

35
Ernest Best, Disciples and Discipleship: Studies in the Gospel according to Mark (Edinburgh, T.& T. Clark, 1986) 129.
36
Robert C. Tannehill, “The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role (1977),” in The Interpretation of Mark, 2nd ed,
ed. William R. Telford (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1995) 169–95 (178).

13
to solve certain confusions on the issue of discipleship. Regarding discipleship, Marcus has an

idea that the behavior of Jesus’ disciples shows “an intermediate state of seeing–yet–not–

seeing,”37 a combination of faithfulness and unfaithfulness.38 However, it seems illogical to be

both faithful and unfaithful, and Marcus has to hold a view that while “logically faith and

unbelief are opposites, in Christian experience they are simultaneous realities.”39 Marcus also

writes that “The combination of negative and positive aspects in the portrayal of the disciples…is

part of a general Markan ambiguity.”40 Both comments from Marcus seem to be contradictory

even though they are not totally without reason. By contrast, if we accept commitment as the

basis of discipleship, the disciples’ seemingly conflicted characteristics become more natural:

they have committed to following Jesus and are in the process of learning.

In their book Mark as Story,41 David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie

maintain that the disciples’ fear demonstrates that they are as unfaithful as the Jewish and Roman

authorities.42 Although it might be right that the disciples’ fear reflect their unfaithfulness, it

seems too harsh to place this unfaithfulness on par with that of Jesus’ opponents, the Pharisees.

However similar the disciples might be to the Pharisees with regard to unfaithfulness, there is

one special characteristic of the former which makes them strikingly different: their commitment

to following Jesus. All in all, as Christopher D. Marshall points out, Mark actually retains a

37
Marcus, Mark 8–16 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 601.
38
Ibid., 657.
39
Ibid., 663.
40
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 420.
41
David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel, 3rd ed,
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012).
42
Ibid., 124–25.

14
distinction between disciples and the ruling authorities.43 I believe such a distinction lies in the

disciples’ commitment to the kingdom of God.44

Combining this discussion of discipleship with that of the kingdom of God, I am now

able to draw a conclusion with my understanding of the pericope 2:13–17, especially Jesus’

proclamation in 2:17. As I see it, this pericope has two concerns, the kingdom of God and

discipleship, which means that there are two important messages in Jesus’ proclamation that he

comes to call not the righteous but sinners. On one hand, regarding the kingdom of God, Jesus

says that this kingdom is not merely for Jews, as the righteous tend to think, but is for Gentiles as

well, as the attitude of the sinners indicates. On the other hand, as for discipleship, Jesus says

that a commitment to follow him to proclaim the kingdom of God, like sinners do, is the basic

requirement of being his disciple, however defective they might be in their other characteristics

compared to those of the righteous.

43
Christopher D. Marshall, Faith as a theme in Mark’s Narrative (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 224.
44
Marshall thinks the distinction is that the disciples accepted, while the ruling authorities rejected, “the claims and demands of
Jesus” (Ibid., 224). His opinion is similar to mine.

15