Thank you for reading Theological Letters. To my subscribers, thank you for being here. To my paid subscribers, thank you for sustaining this work. A paid subscription costs about two coffees and unlocks my full archive, weekly letters, the 15-hour Orthodox Foundations lecture series, and monthly live Q&A sessions. If paid support isn’t possible, your likes and restacks truly help expand my reach. I appreciate you all.
13 Then He went out again by the sea; and all the multitude came to Him, and He taught them. 14 As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, “Follow Me.” So he arose and followed Him. 15 Now it happened, as He was dining in Levi’s house, that many tax collectors and sinners also sat together with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many, and they followed Him. 16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
Mark 2:13
By way of context, Christ “went out” after healing the paralytic. Chrysostom sees in this Christ’s mercy toward the Scribes and Pharisees. Having scandalized them, he departed from them so as to not enflame their passions further. As he explains:
“For when He had performed the miracle, He did not remain, lest, being in sight, He should kindle their jealousy the more; but He indulges them by retiring, and soothing their passion. This then let us also do, not encountering them that are plotting against us; let us rather soothe their wound, giving way and relaxing their vehemence.” (Hom. 30, Matt.)
In this we see Christ’s desire for all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but rather that they turn and live. Such words are often uttered without thought to the Scribes and Pharisees, who are the emblematic villains in the minds of many. Yet, these, too, bear the image of God; these, too, Christ desires to save; these, too, are sinners that he calls to repentance. Yes, their hardness of heart leads them to repel the mercy of Christ, but his work is no less on their behalf, his desire to save mankind is no less for them. And so, even here, he goes out from them, relaxing their passions against him.
Why specify that he went out again by the sea? The answer may well have to do with Mark’s thematic emphasis on Christ’s power over the demonic.
Within Ancient Near Eastern literature, the sea is a symbol of chaos. For example, in the Babylonian creation myth, Marduk, the son of Enki, gathers the four winds in order to wage war with Tiamat, the god of the chaotic waters. Within this tale, Marduk fires an arrow down her gullet, slaying her, and the dry land that appears is the dead body of the defeated chaos monster. Throughout the Old Testament, we find echoes of this connection between chaos and the waters. Genesis alludes to the Babylonian myth in its statement that the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the deep, the Hebrew word “deep” (təhôm = תְּהוֹם) being a cognate of Tiamat. Of course, the contrast Moses wishes to draw is that the Lord God does not go to war with another deity in order to conquer the chaotic waters. Rather, he breathes upon them and they grow still, even obeying his command to bring forth life. And the OT continues to echo the point, speaking of God’s sovereignty over the deep, in Job, for example, or the Psalmist noting that the chaotic waters do not swallow the land because of the command of God.
The theme echoes the rites and hymnody of the Eastern fathers. While we did not discuss the point in our treatment of Mark 1:1-15, both the baptismal rite and the blessings of the water on Theophany speaks of Christ’s descent into the waters at baptism as the breaking of the head of the sea monsters and the crushing of the head of the Leviathan (cf. Psalm 74:13-4). Much like the way that Christ touches the unclean and they become clean, so his descent into the waters purifies them, crushing the demonic powers and making the waters holy. This is the entire rationale for holy water, which is produced by the blessing of the waters every Theophany, when the Church commemorates Christ’s baptism, casting a cross into the waters, reenacting Christ’s entrance into them that first made them holy.
No doubt Mark is building to a demonstration of Christ’s authority over the chaotic waters, as he will calm the wind and the waves with a rebuke, much like the way he rebukes unclean spirits or even a fever (Mark 4:35-41). So, his walking along the sea may well anticipate this further demonstration of power.
Mark 2:14
Concerning the calling of Matthew (Levi of Alphaeus), note that Mark frequently speaks of the immediacy of events — of healing, of people following. But in the case of Matthew, there is no mention of his following being immediate. The reason for the omission may well be to contrast Matthew with Simon and Andrew who did follow Christ “immediately” (εὐθύς) (Mark 1:16-20). This is not the sole contrast between the two callings. As Chrysostom observes, Matthew’s calling is later than the other disciples. He believes the reason is one of readiness. Simon and Andrew were ready to hear and obey the call of Christ, but Matthew was not — or not yet. Hence, Chrysostom reasons, Christ waited to call Matthew until word of miracles and the spread of Christ’s fame had sufficiently softened the tax collector.1 Chrysostom writes,
“Because He who is acquainted with the hearts, and knows the secrets of each man’s mind, knew also when each of these would obey. Therefore not at the beginning did He call him, when he was yet in rather a hardened state, but after His countless miracles, and the great fame concerning Him, when He knew him to have actually become more prepared for obedience.” (Hom. 30, Matt.)
Two further details about Matthew’s calling are noteworthy. First, Matthew is not merely identified as a tax collector. Rather, he is said to be “reclining” (καθήμενον) at his tax collector’s booth — the symbol of his life of sin. In other words, the state in which Christ finds Levi is one in which he is resting or wallowing in sin.
The image pairs with a second subtlety in the verse. Matthew’s obedience is a picture of resurrection. For the word used for his rising is not ἤγειρεν but ἀναστὰς, which shares the same root as “resurrection” (ἀνάστασις). Hence, the image is of one reclining in sin, and then being raised by Christ.
In this image, Cyril of Alexandria sees a foreshadowing of Christ ransacking the Devil’s house — that is, Hades.2 We will discuss the doctrine more in reference to Mark 3:27. But for our purposes here, suffice it to say that the Eastern fathers understand Christ’s talk of binding a strong man to ransack his home as a reference to his future binding of the Devil in order to ransack Hades, robbing Satan of humanity whom he bound by sin. For example, Cyril writes:
“‘Or how can a man enter the house of the strong man, and spoil his vessels, unless first he have bound the strong man, and then he will spoil his vessels.’ By the house of the strong man, that is of Satan, He means this country upon earth, and his vessels are those who are likeminded with him. For just as we call the saints holy vessels, so there is nothing to prevent our giving the name of ‘vessels of the devil; to those who are the contrivers of all wickedness. The Only-begotten Word therefore of God at His incarnation entered into the strong man’s house, even into this world, and having bound him, and ‘sunk him in fetters of darkness,’ as it is written, spoiled his goods.” (Hom. 21 from the Syriac MS.12,154)
Cyril sees the calling of Matthew as a foreshadowing of this future liberation of mankind from Hades. For Christ finds Matthew reclining in his life of sin and raises him up, making this possession of the Devil his own (see Hom. 12, Lk.).
Mark is very intentional about the order of stories, the telling of one story anticipating or highlighting or explaining something in the next. No doubt the introduction of Matthew follows the story of the paralytic for good reason. For the tale of the paralytic offers the demonstration that Christ has the power or authority to forgive sins — a power not previously demonstrated. Here, on the heels of this demonstration, Christ raises up a tax collector, dead in his sins. And this physician of souls is immediately after found dining with other sinners and tax collectors, calling them to repentance.
Chrysostom highlights both here and in the gathering at his home Christ’s lack of shame, precisely because he came for this very purpose: To heal not only the body but the soul. He writes,
“And why do I talk of him not being ashamed of a publican? Since even with regard to a harlot woman, so far from being ashamed to call her, he actually permitted her to kiss his feet, and to moisten them with her tears. For to this end he came, not to cure bodies only, but to heal likewise the wickedness of the soul. Which he did also in the case of the paralytic; and having shown clearly that He is able to forgive sins, then, not before, he comes to him whom we are now speaking of; that they might no more be troubled at seeing a publican chosen into the choir of the disciples. For he that has power to undo all our offenses, why marvel if he even makes this man an apostle?” (ibid.)
Mark 2:15-7
As in the case of Levi, Christ now embraces the scandal of association with sinners and tax collectors, since this is the reason he came — to be a physician to souls, calling sinners to repentance. But notice the nature of the scandal. These were unclean and thus unfit to be communed with by the pious and clean. But Christ has already shown himself to be one who dispels uncleanness — by both his touch and his presence. And his healing of the paralytic has shown that this includes dispelling the uncleanness of soul, which is sin.
Chrysostom notes a further scandal, namely, that the feast was attained by means of Matthew’s immoral dealings. Yet, Christ misses no opportunity to pursue the souls of the lost. He compares this to the way a physician of the body cannot help but expose himself to the corruption that has infected the body. And so, too, Christ willingly exposes himself to the corruption of these sinners and tax collectors in order to heal their souls. We see the same with Zacchaeus: Christ insists on dining with him, even though Zacchaeus’ table was paid for with ill-gotten gains.
The point, of course, raises the question about St. Paul’s instruction to not eat with those who practice such things? Do we find, here, a contradiction? Chrysostom thinks not. Why? Because of a critical contrast between the men Paul describes and Matthew. Having heard the call of Christ, Matthew abandoned his sinful ways. And calling together those like him, he summoned to dine with Christ that they, too, might repent. St. Paul, by contrast, speaks of the believer who persists in vice.
While Christ’s mention of repentance may not strike us as extraordinary, the call being so familiar to us, it is worth noting that the call was not shared by the Scribes and Pharisees. Unlike Christ, these did not admit a road of repentance for tax collectors and sinners. Yet, to be a physician to souls and to call all to repentance, no matter how grave the sin, is the very reason for Christ’s coming.
In Matthew’s Gospel, Matthew/Levi does, in fact, rise “immediately” and follow Christ. Chrysostom takes the inclusion of εὐθύς in this case as proof that Christ had chosen an ideal time to call him, Levi now being ready. I do not see Chrysostom’s observation about the gospel of Matthew as incompatible with the above observation about Mark, but rather, the difference is one of emphasis. Mark’s frequent use of the term, εὐθύς, makes its omission in the case of Levi an obvious point of contrast between this later calling and the earlier ones. Such contrast can be real, Mark observing that Levi was not ready to follow Christ until after his miracles and fame spread, while Matthew’s gospel emphasizes the transformation that had taken place in the tax collector’s heart, making him eager to follow Christ.
For a full treatment of the Eastern patristic understanding of Christ’s descent into Hades, see my letter, “Hell, Hades, and Christ’s Descent - Part 1.”