E. The calling of Levi (5:27–32)
E. The calling of Levi (5:27–32)
27–28. Jesus went out, perhaps from the house, though some think from the city, for they hold that the toll-booth would have been outside the town. He saw Levi sitting at the tax office, which probably means sitting in front of it; had he been in the office it would not have been easy for Jesus to see and call him. His name is given as Matthew in our First Gospel (and in the list of apostles in Mark and Luke). For tax collector (telōnēs) see note on 3:12–13. The Roman system of farming out the taxing rights would have been in force, though the Romans had assigned the revenues in this area to Herod Antipas (Josephus, Antiquities xvii.318). The taxes that Levi collected are likely to have been toll or customs duties rather than poll tax or the like. The tax collectors were heartily disliked both as collaborators and as extortioners. As a class they were regarded as dishonest and the Talmud classes them as robbers (Sanhedrin 25b). Jesus saw Levi and said no more than Follow me. Levi left everything (a detail only in Luke) and followed him. This must have meant a considerable sacrifice, for tax collectors were normally wealthy. Matthew must have been the richest of the apostles. We should not miss the quiet heroism in this. If following Jesus had not worked out for the fishermen, they could have returned to their trade without difficulty. But when Levi walked out of his job he was through. They would surely never take back a man who had simply abandoned his tax office. His following of Jesus was a final commitment.
29. But clearly he took the step not in a spirit of grim resignation but with banners flying. He had no regrets, but on the contrary gathered a large company for a great feast in celebration (for Luke’s dinner scenes see 7:36; 9:12ff.; 10:38ff.; 11:37; 14:1; 19:7; 22:14; 24:30, 41ff.). Clearly Levi found it an exhilarating thing to forsake wealth for Christ. And he probably wished to introduce some of his associates to his new Lord. ‘A converted man will not wish to go to heaven alone’ (Ryle).
30. The Pharisees would not have been at the reception. Perhaps the house was open and they perceived what was going on; or Luke may be giving us a later reaction when they came to hear what had happened. They and their scribes (some scribes were Sadducees, but many belonged to the Pharisaic party) murmured against, i.e. complained about, the disciples. With their strict rules of ceremonial purity it was unthinkable that they would have eaten with people such as Levi and his associates. Some members of such a company were bound to be ceremonially unclean and there was no surer way of contracting defilement than by associating with sinners. Moreover to eat with a man meant friendship, full acceptance. So they criticize the disciples. How could people who professed to be religious countenance sinners like these?
31–32. It was the disciples who were addressed, but Jesus who replied. With unanswerable logic he pointed out that it is the sick, not the well, who need the physician. His business was with sinners (Talbert quotes Robert Munger, ‘The church is the only fellowship in the world where the one requirement for membership is the unworthiness of the candidate’). He did not, however, come to leave them in their sin. He called them to repentance. Jesus’ reference to the righteous is, of course, ironical. But the Pharisees saw themselves as righteous and on their premises Jesus’ conduct was justified. Their failure to become disciples is perhaps connected with the fact that repentance is not easy for the respectable and the self-righteous. Luke is very interested in the theme of repentance and develops it much more fully than either Matthew or Mark (see 3:3, 8; 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 16:30; 17:3–4; 24:47).