The first verse of each of these quotations is listed in “The Calling;
The Choices” section of Part 1 of our disquisition. Here, it is appropriate to direct close attention to what is said
in each one. St. Matthew, of course, does not mention his former name nor occupation, Levi and tax collector, respectively.
Even after we have personally met with God and have taken care of that “old man”, others still remember us as
we were; and, still identify with our previous “self” to a greater extent than with our “new creation”.
St. Mark was nice enough not to use the common, vulgar term “publican”, but still identified him by his former
name and his previous occupation.
“Publicans” were hated, period. They collected the taxes, tolls
and tariffs for the current ruler of the area, whomever it might be. They were the living symbol of oppression and tyranny:
unmerciful, dishonest, arrogant, and wealthy though not through land ownership or business. They were hated by everyone in
whatever country they lived, not just Israel. St. Matthew’s wealth was evidenced by the “feast” which immediately
followed his calling. There is no mention of the disposition of his financial resources. One thing for sure: he immediately
put it to use to get his acquaintances to Jesus. Funny, most of my old acquaintances, and some of my newer ones, are just
like Matthew’s old buddies; sinners and rejects of the church crowd. Thank God for publicans and sinners! If it wasn’t
for them, the self-righteous religious crowd wouldn’t need a Messiah.
We can tell a lot about someone if we’ll really listen to what they
say or read what they write. Most Biblical scholars agree that St. Luke was a Gentile. Some believe he was the “Macedonian”
of Acts who called St. Paul to go there; because, after this point in the narrative, the missionaries (those with Paul) were
referred to as “we” and “us”, not they and them. Of course, a “Macedonian” could also
have been a Jew since the Jews were already scattered. But, here, St. Luke reveals his non-Jewish alignment by referring to
the scribes and Pharisees as “their scribes and Pharisees”. Both St. Matthew and St. Mark simply use “the
scribes and Pharisees”, thereby identifying with them. What St. Luke did is very common in cross-cultural conversation,
even today. When talking of one’s friends and family, when the person is not of the same culture, they are referred
to as “your people” or “their people”. Man is still man.
St. Mark, on the other hand, was a Jew, probably native to Jerusalem, since
Peter went to his mother’s house after his arrest in Acts 12. His Gospel, however, is flavored with Gentile words, mostly
Latin; and he uses Latin money terms. His mention of specific Gentiles from Rome is indicative that he wrote the Gospel in
that city, along with the fact that he was with St. Paul in Rome. St. Mark, like St. Paul and St. Luke, were not among the
apostles who knew Jesus in the flesh.
St. Matthew’s Gospel contains more references to the Old Testament
than any of the others. Based on this, I’d surmise that St. Matthew probably knew the Old Testament better than most
of the other disciples. (A publican, a Jewish scholar?) Jesus’ last remark in this event is just one example. St. Mark
and St. Luke omit the phrase, “But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice”. We can excuse St. Luke for not identifying with this comment. But, St. Mark
would have, in all probability, known that “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice”
is a clearly understood reference to Hosea 6:6. But, all of Hosea 6 (11 verses), which any conscientious Jew would have read
if they bothered to check the reference, talks of returning to the Lord for healing; how God will revive Ephraim (the
Northern Kingdom) and Judah (the Southern Kingdom); “his (the Lord’s) coming is prepared
as the morning”; “he hath set a harvest for thee, when I returned the captivity of my people.”
The phrase “But go ye and learn what that meaneth” is referring to the statement: “They that be whole need not a
physician, but they that are sick.” Jesus is telling them
to go back and find out where that applies in their scriptures. St. Mark missed the point - St. Matthew didn’t. Just
as Hosea was talking of healing, restoration, and redemption for all Israel after their Babylonian captivity; so Jesus’
declaration of the need of a “physician” is with the same conditions in mind. The words of Jeremiah, the prophet,
weeping over Israel (Judah, in particular), “Is not the Lord in Zion? is not her king in her? Why have they provoked
me to anger with their graven images, and with strange vanities? The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not
saved. For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me. Is there no balm
in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?” St. Matthew
answered Jeremiah’s first question for the Jews in St. Matthew Chapter 1, with his quotation of Isaiah when Jesus’
prophetic name was given as “Emmanuel”, God with us. St. Matthew’s message was directed to the Jews.
As with the Jews, who ‘read’, ‘studied’, and (supposedly)
‘understood’ the Scriptures, Jesus is reminding us to “go ye and learn what that meaneth”. He told them to do that here, and again, “Search the Scriptures;
for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”
What does that statement mean? It surely doesn’t mean that the Scriptures (the words) have eternal life in them
for us. The Scriptures testify, bear witness, of Jesus, the Christ. Who is Jesus? Jesus is the embodiment of
the relationship God desires with Man; a relationship which God, alone, makes possible; a relationship which Man, in general,
simply does not want. And, when Man thinks he wants it, he only wants that part which suits Man. We, as Man, really do need
to “go ye and learn what that meaneth”. If
the scribes and Pharisees had gone and had done what they were told, they would have found that they (the religious elite)
were in the same position as the “publicans and sinners” whom they were denouncing. Jesus was really being nice,
and not blatantly condemning them in front of these rejects.
The generally accepted implication of Jesus’ statements is that the
religious crowd was healthy, and didn’t need a physician. The church still thinks that about themselves! They
are just as wrong today as the Jews were when Jesus said what He did. We can no more justify that conclusion today than the
Jews could then. How pathetic! How ludicrous! How absurd! That we could think that our relationship with God is anywhere
close to what God desires. We have absolutely never, for our
part, in our heart, intended to have that relationship with God. Proof?
We have on the earth, today, one half of the total population of the
world since Adam, about 4.5 billion souls. Likewise, we have
more than one half of the total number of professing “Christians” since Jesus Christ. Statistically, this means that we should have, right now, half as many “saints”
as have existed since Adam! They must be very well hidden. And, we are the ones responsible. We’ve been called
“toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect,
be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.”
“Perfect” means “whole” or “complete”,
not beautiful as in the eyes of the world. All saints are not beautiful in the eyes of the world, nor the church! That is
no excuse not to strive for what God wants. God knows which “saints” have answered their calling. Speaking of
our calling……
