Associations

“Association” (Mk 2:14-20)

Our minds immediately 'associate' things we perceive with other things we've formerly encountered. It is rather fascinating to discover the various ways that different people make these 'connections' in their heads.

For instance, if I say the word, 'dog' - what immediately comes to your mind? Then what, etc.

When I hear the word 'dog', I think 'house' - as in 'dog house'. Then, with the word 'house', I think 'Boston' - as in the place where our first 'house' was located. When I think 'Boston', I immediately think 'home'. Boston is my home town. With the word 'home' I then think 'parents', followed by 'love', 'God', 'faith', 'heart', 'struggle', 'doubt', 'hope', 'love', 'God', etc. Clearly, my associations send me into a mental loop. And it all got elicited by the word 'dog'.

We not only make associations within our head that focus on us, we also make associations that end up judging others.

Often, when we look at another person, we associate a particular facial expression or body posture or manner of dress with something else in our mind. For instance, some years ago a church member witnessed me entering into a hotel with a woman who was not my wife. She put two and two together and ended up with 17. A man (me, her pastor) and a beautiful woman entering into a hotel together could only mean 'one' thing - in her mind - an affair was at hand. Once this rumor had spread to every church member, long before I even heard of it, I was awkwardly forced into a defensive mode - having to expend tremendous energy and time to unravel an unsavory assumption, an 'association', that was not even true. The two of us just happened to arrive at the door to this hotel at the same time and I had, as a gentleman, opened the door for her. We were both attending a board meeting in the hotel conference room for the American Cancer Society. No more, no less.

As believers in Christ we need to put a check on the near instantaneous 'associations' we make in our heads that wrongly and even unnecessarily bias us against something or someone.

Jesus was often pestered by those who assumed evil where only righteousness dwelt. If we are not careful we will think like a Pharisee 'assassinating' the character of others before they even know what 'hit' them. The following passage from Mark's gospel underscores this issue.

2:14 As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus, sitting in the tax booth,
Previously, (Mk 2:6) we encountered the religiously prestigious scribes and Pharisees 'sitting' in judgment of Jesus' words and practices. Rather than condemning them, Jesus actually invited them into the family of God by saying, 'that you may know (oikeios, not ginosko)..' Jesus refused to make an evil 'association'. Just because these religious leaders doubted Him didn't necessarily mean they were evil men. They were assumed 'innocent until proven guilty'. Doubt had been their 'reasonable' response to Jesus' unusual behavior.

Sadly, they refused to 'see' beyond their already established religious algorithm. The believed that they had more to lose in following Jesus than by rejecting him. With just two options before them - Jesus could only be either of God or the devil - they chose to 'associate' him with the latter.
 
Then there was Levi. Everything about him screamed 'red flags!'. He too was also 'sitting', but not as a religious leader. He sat in a the booth of a lucrative but despised profession. To have accepted such a job was akin to being a traitor. Besides that, it was known that the tax collectors often extorted more from fellow Jews than the law required - selfishly enriching themselves as thieves. Thus, the association was immediate and decisive. Tax collectors are evil. Levi is a tax collector. Therefore Levi is an evil person.

We really don't know, actually, the particulars about Levi. Had he intentionally sold out his nation just to be rich? Had he taken more from his neighbors to pad his own pockets? Or, had he taken this job as a last resort simply to feed his family, never taking a 'penny' more than what was the designated tax? We could 'assume' he was a rogue, but to make that 'association' would be unnecessarily judgmental.

In contrast, 'we see Jesus' (Heb 2:9) 'seeing' all this quite differently. Jesus saw a man, not an 'evil' man. He looked beyond the seemingly reasonable conclusions of others and offered Levi a personal invitation to follow Him. In doing so, Jesus not only confused and offended the Jewish leaders, but his action made Him suspect among the people as well. Calling Levi as a disciple didn't make good sense to even the most candidly minded Jew.

The name Levi, in Hebrew, means “a companion.” Levi's countrymen viewed him as an irredeemable 'companion' of sinners. Jesus viewed him as a precious child of God - regardless of his profession - and invited him to be His 'companion'. Levi responded without hesitancy and left all that he had in order to follow Jesus.

As a disciple, Levi was known as 'Matthew' (Mk 3:18; Mt. 9:9). Jesus may have been the one who gave him this other name. The name Matthew, means the “gift of YHWH”. The name change is significant. He would be more than 'a companion' to Jesus. He was the 'gift of God' to Jesus from the Father. The gospels teach us that 'no one comes to the Son except through the Father' (Jn 6:44). The name 'Matthew' is a wonderful reminder to us today of this spiritual truth.

In the Old Testament scriptures we find that the Lord renamed many of his followers. One of my favorite stories is of Jacob who vigorously wrestled with the angel and was later renamed 'Israel'. The people of God have been called by his name ever since. His name is also a reminder to all believers that God invites us to 'wrestle' with Him, for it is in wrestling with God that we move from faith to faith, from blessing to blessing.

Jesus renamed several disciples. He said to Simon, the son of Jonas, "You shall be called Peter," - "rock". He nicknamed James and John, the sons of Zebedee, "sons of thunder." In renaming Levi Jesus teaches us - we are all a 'gift of God' to Christ. If we think about it, each of these new names capture an element of the gospel of grace.

and He said to him, 'Follow Me!'  And he got up and followed Him.
The rabbis called disciples to bind themselves to the Law, but Jesus called men to bind themselves to Him. There were no creeds to commit to, no membership to join, no special clothing to wear, no particular logo to identify with, and no rituals to engage. He called them to follow Him and they simply did.

2:15 And it happened that He was reclining at the table in his house (oikia), and many tax collectors and sinners were dining with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them, and they were following Him. 

In the first century world, to associate with others at a meal was, to varying degrees, to identify with them. Obviously, if you received an invitation from someone everyone admired, your peers would treat you with 'more' honor. If, on the other hand, you associated with the riff raff of society, your peers would think measurably 'less' of you. In this case, it was a great honor for the tax collectors and sinners to have Jesus as an honored guest. Jesus considered it an honor to be accepted as their guest and friend. Yet, others looking on actually lost respect for Jesus because of his social choices.

This is another example of Jesus intentionally adding insult to injury. Inviting a tax-collector to be his disciple was offensive enough. But then, accepting an invitation from the tax-collector to dine at his home (Lk 5:29) with him and a crowd of other well-known sinners was beyond all reasonable expectations.

The setting underscores another important point. Though we mentioned that Jesus did not allow for negative assumptions about others - associating a despised profession with an evil heart - that did not mean he concluded that Levi's 'heart' was pure despite his occupation. Clearly, associating with all these other tax collectors spoke volumes. We cannot assume that Jesus called Levi and/or ate with all these other 'sinners' because he knew all their hearts were pure. The point is that whether or not their hearts were pure, or if they had defrauded their neighbors, or were actual 'traitors' to Israel, Jesus met them where they were - as he does with all of us. He doesn't call us because we are already 'good', but because He is 'good'.

Jesus did not absent mindedly chose to eat with the socially and religiously outcast. He didn't later think, 'oops, well that wasn't very swift of me. I should have more wisely thought that through before accepting the invitation.' Instead, Jesus was making a statement that confronted the very core of Jewish religion. Their 'core' was not God, but man. His actions were as radical as if a well-known, conservative politician in Washington decided to join a gay and lesbian march, or a decidedly liberal politician joined a boycott of an abortion clinic. Jesus knew exactly what he was fomenting. His actions caused a predictable and intentional 'rift in the Jewish universe'.

There was a difference in Jesus' purpose. He intentionally overturned his Jewish religious world. He did not aim with any intention against the secular world. Of course what he did within the religious context had repercussions in the secular. Yet Jesus went on the offensive against his own religion because it was the depository of the oracles of God. He didn't 'just' do good works among the Jews. He overturned the nonsensical notions of the Jews. He intentionally challenged the way they thought and behaved in the world. The Jews were God's chosen representatives in the world. He didn't come to 'fix' the secular world. He came to 'fix' the voice of God within the secular world. Those who leveraged the name of God to cover fleshly desires were obscuring the God of grace. 'That' was 'evil'. Jesus was therefore an 'activist' in the religious sphere, while not specifically so in the secular.

In challenging the religious status quo, Jesus appealed to the hearts of the religious outcasts. They flocked to Him, which may be what Jesus meant when He said, "everyone is forcing his way into the kingdom of God" (Lk 16:16). Finally there was hope, ever so scandalous that hope, for those who didn't 'fit' into the box of their contemporary exclusive religion.

2:16 When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, 

So far, Mark has presented five incidents which reveal the refusal of Jesus to be boxed in by human expectations, deliberately provoking controversy in order that the true nature of freedom might be made evident.

(1) Jesus cast out a demon on the Sabbath
   - unexpectedly telling the demon not to speak the truth regarding His true identity,
(2) Jesus left Capernaum while people were still looking for him
   - unexpectedly not healing everyone,
(3) Jesus touched a leper
   - unexpectedly breaking the law of Moses,
(4) Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic
   - unexpectedly acting as if he was God, and
(5) Jesus dined with tax collectors
   - unexpectedly identifying with the social pariahs.

Jesus acted, as it were, more like a court jester, or as Basil the Blessed, yet was as welcomed as were jesters after Oliver Cromwell established Puritan Christianity. Everything he did was a commentary on the inadequacies of religion in his day - and a warning about the dangers of religion in our day as well. He was a contrarian leader, often playful in his oppositions, yet occasionally forceful. Religion must serve the people, leading them to God. Religion must not become 'god', obstructing the way to God. Woe be the 'religionist' who ceases to be a 'preparer of the way of the Lord'.

they said to His disciples...

Notice how Mark exposes the cowardly behavior of many of those who were around Jesus. Rather than being direct and to the point with Jesus:

1:27 - they debated among themselves
1:32 - after sunset they began bringing to Him
1:37 - said, everyone is looking for you
1:40 - asked, if you are willing
2:6 - they were reasoning in their hearts
2:16 - they said to His disciples

With what do we 'associate' speaking openly and honestly to others? Do we consider it rude, or brazen, or is it simply culturally unacceptable? What are our 'excuses' for not coming face to face with Jesus and taking ownership of our own stuff?

Notice that the demon-possessed spoke directly to Jesus without any hesitancy. They, the 'mentally ill', don't have normal social filters and fears. Their low level of 'latent inhibitions' allows their minds to be flooded with all kinds of stimuli and thus they act in ways that to most of us seem 'irrational'. Yet, maybe, 'normal' filters out too much. Maybe we, even often, exclude as a 'useless distraction' that which is divinely inspired. Maybe we need to learn to be a tad more assertive.

Notice also that Jesus spoke as directly to others as the so-called 'demon-possessed' had spoken to him. He had no fear in 'appropriate' and useful, face-to-face, honest communication.

What drives our dishonest communication? Why do we often prefer to gossip rather than to speak directly to the person involved, to wait until something has become socially acceptable, to hide our feelings in those of a crowd, to speak hesitantly giving the other permission ahead of time to 'shoot us down', to keep our thoughts to ourselves, or to solicit a third person to ask for us? What negative 'associations' have we made that keep us from being honest?

"Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?"

Here is an erroneous association - that eating and drinking with societies outcasts means that your own character is evil. Attributing evil to someone because of their profession - tax collector or prostitute - isn't any more valid than attributing sin to someone who is sick (2:1-13). Attributing evil to someone who associates with folks in these particular professions isn't valid either.

How often did Jesus accept such invitations? How frequently did folks witness Him mingling with the social riff raff? Was Jesus setting an example for us? If so, didn't he realize that his practice went contrary to OT teachings. Bible counsel was abundantly clear:

"The righteous should choose his friends carefully, for the way of the wicked leads them astray" (Prv 12:26)

"He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will be destroyed.” (Prv 13:20)

"Whoever is a partner with a thief hates his own life; he swears to tell the truth, but reveals nothing" (Prv 29:24)

Even counsel written decades after Jesus evoked these OT teachings:

“Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.” Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God.” (1 Cor 15:33)

"Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." (Jas 4:4)

On one hand Jesus commands us to value every jot and tittle of scripture - referring to the Old Testament, yet on the other hand he seems to suggest that it is OK to ignore it. On the one hand Jesus fulfills OT Messianic prophecies that usefully establish his credentials as the Messiah, yet on the other hand he appears to jettison the scriptures as a valid guide to life. Truly all this must have been confusing not only to the religious leaders, but also to the disciples of Jesus and the common people. How can we make sense of this paradox?

We could hypothesize that Jesus valued the scriptures, yet in a manner that was and is far different than we have imagined. What if Jesus valued the scriptures not as a daily guide to 'how to' live life, but as a 'pointing device' to Him? In other words, Jesus mocked man's reliance on 'ink' as if it were 'god' and instead invited them to see that the 'ink' pointed them to the living 'God' standing right before their eyes.

It would be like having this beautiful song in your head that you never played so that others could enjoy it, or holding on to the architectural plans of an incredible house that you never got around to building, or having written an awesome screen play that you never submitted to Hollywood. The Jews were the depository of the oracles of God that they never permitted to lead them to the Messiah. They were squandering their inestimable opportunity and privilege - burying it, as it were, under a bushel.

2:17 And hearing this Jesus said to them,

Again, take note that Jesus spoke directly to them - the scribes and the Pharisees. It is essential that we believe that Jesus continues to speak directly to each of us today as well. He speaks to each of us uniquely, in a way that each of us can hear. The Spirit speaks through our conscience - however it has been trained. As we persist in reading the scriptures as a pointing device to God and to appreciate the insights and perspectives of others who are listening to God's voice in their lives, we grow in our 'knowing' of God.

"It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." 

Mindlessly attributing righteousness to someone who happens to behave in ways that are socially acceptable is foolish. We can't judge a book by its cover - pleasant or not. God looks at the heart. Religiously appropriate external behavior can often serve as a white-wash over a rotten interior character. It doesn't have to, but it certainly may. Alternatively, attributing unrighteousness to someone who happens to be acting in ways that are socially unacceptable may be equally as erroneous.

Jesus was clearly speaking factitiously (or even facetiously) when he said that he did not come to call the righteous. We could as easily substitute the more directly accurate word, “self-righteous'. This is a reminder on how Jesus spoke in those days. We encounter a lot of this in the gospels (ex. Mt 5:20). Be ever ready to recognize both factitious and facetious speech from Jesus as we continue reading through the gospels.

Jesus words, 'who need a physician' tells us that though Jesus dined with the 'sick' he did so recognizing their need to be 'healed'. Yet before we jump to conclusions and associate 'our' notions of what a healed person 'should' look like when we hear the word 'sick', let's recall a few things from the context of what Mark has already presented to us.

Remember, this story follows the previous story where Jesus 'forgave' the paralytic WHILE still paralyzed. When Jesus physically 'healed' the man after forgiving him, he did so to demonstrate the genuineness of his authority to forgive sins. In other words, to Jesus, to be healed meant to be reconciled with God, not merely made physically healthy.

Some unwittingly suggest that to be 'healed' is to become like those who did not need a physician. That would, in the context of this story, mean to be like the scribes and Pharisees - the 'self-righteous'. But that wouldn't make any sense, right? Rather, to be 'healed' by the great physician meant to be reconciled to God WHILE being 'just as they were'.

The point is that many of us will not be delivered from our sufferings - the consequences of bad living, ill health, unfortunate loss, etc - but we can be 'healed' of our separation from God. We can have a relationship with the living God despite whatever circumstances this world throws us into.

2:18 John's disciple and the Pharisees were fasting;

John the Baptist was the son of a temple priest. His notions of Messiah and many of his religious practices were in harmony with the thinking of his day, though clearly not in harmony with the purposes of God. Yet, God did not attempt to re-educate John, rather God met John where John was and called him to perform the role of a prophet. John did that faithfully despite many inaccuracies in his theology. John's, and his disciples', beliefs were probably more in harmony with the Pharisees than with Jesus'.

Again, the point is that we can hold many erroneous ideas as sacred and true and still have a relationship with God. God can change our heart and love others through us even when our 'doctrine' is way off base. We may, on the other hand, believe many 'true' things and yet have no relationship with God. Though doctrine can either assist or obstruct us in truly knowing God, the most important aspect is what happens in our heart rather than in our reasoning. We shouldn't automatically associate 'bad' doctrine with having a 'bad' heart. Nor should we assume that 'good' doctrine guarantees a 'good' heart.

and they came and said to Him,

Despite so many wrong ideas and useless practices, those with an honest heart seeking for truth went directly to Jesus in an attempt to reconcile this one particular 'seeming' contradiction.

Here I believe is the salient point. Rather than to accept our knee-jerk cultural/religious 'associations' as inviolate, the genuine seeker of God will go directly to God and present his or her paradox with a willingness to yield previously cherished assumptions for something better. We will be willing to be 'Israel' - to 'wrestle' with God. This attitude divided those who 'followed' from those who 'frowned'.

"Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?"

Their minds had been culturally educated to 'associate' frequent fasting with being truly pious. 'Good' people fast every Monday and Thursday (Lk 18:12). Jesus and his disciples did not. Therefore it was 'natural' to wonder if Jesus was a 'good' person. Scripturally speaking, though, fasting was only required on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16). Was fasting twice a week a sincere act of enhanced piety or subtle expression of self-centered elitism (Mt 6:16-18)? Who knows, depends on the person, right? Best not to 'judge'.

In our culture some associate saying 'grace' before a meal with being a thankful Christian, while others associate it with being a 'show off', 'look at me' Christian. Some associate kneeling as one enters a sanctuary with being a reverent Christian, while others associate that practice with being 'Catholic'. Some associate reading from the KJV version of scripture as being a superior Christian, while others associate such a selection as being a narrow-minded Christian. Some associate acceptance of a literal 6 day creation story as being a truly biblical Christian, while others associate such a belief as being an ignorant Christian. But are any of these 'associations' necessarily correct?

What are your automatic 'associations'?

It wasn't that Jesus was against fasting, nor was he carelessly and unnecessarily offending those who were respectful of their religious heritage. Rather, as the people had over-thought his good miracles to the point that they were missing his message of the kingdom, so they were over-practicing 'good' rituals to the point of also missing the salient message.

It is of interest that even at this early point in Jesus' ministry, his disciples - at least those he had called thus far - were adopting a religious lifestyle that emulated their master rather than the cultural practices of their religious leaders. Had Jesus chosen them because they weren't stuck in rituals, or had they reluctantly ceased practicing these rituals because Jesus didn't, or had he already taught them that the practices of the Pharisees weren't necessarily efficacious? We can't make any rigorous association here either.

2:19 And Jesus said to them, 'While the Bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the Bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the Bridegroom with them, they cannot fast."

Fasting was associated with mourning. Today, we view fasting as a spiritual discipline to help us to better focus on God during times of intense prayer. It certainly has a place in a Christians' life.

Would it be fair to make the 'association' that a person who 'fasts' during a time of celebration is being 'inappropriately nonsensical'? To walk side by side with the Messiah each day was a joy and a privilege not to be lost. Jesus was, in other words, cautioning well-meaning disciples of both John the Baptist and the Pharisees to not allow religious rituals to obscure the real intent of all religious rituals - Him. They were, for all intents and purposes, missing the point. They associated frequency of religious practices with being faithful to God while God in human flesh stood unrecognized right in front of them.

What are we faithfully 'doing' today as Christians that unwittingly keeps us from 'seeing' God at work right around us or 'hearing' the voice of God speaking to us?

2:20 "But the days will come when the Bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day."

The emphasis is on the phrase, 'in that day'. This was probably not a reference to the many centuries after the cross until Jesus may eventually return. Rather, it most likely referred to a particular and literal day, Saturday the Sabbath between the cross and the resurrection. In that day they would mourn. And they would fast appropriately. They would 'associate' the death of Jesus with the need to fast.  Interestingly, it would actually be the day after the 'day of Atonement'.

In summary, we would do well to think about our 'associations'. Not so much about 'who' we associate with, but the 'associations' we make between what we see and how we label what we see. It is in the very midst of the 'associations' we make in our minds that Jesus intervenes - challenging us to re-evaluate.