Sermon Tone Analysis

A Gospel for Deplorables and Dispicables

Just a note as we are read the text this morning.

You will often hear skeptics quote the fact that there are thousands of ‘Errors’ in the New Testament manuscripts.

We have somewhere in the region of 20,000 manuscripts of the New Testament.

Some of them complete and some of them only a few fragments of a verse.

We don’t have any of the origional autographs, which the Apostles wrote.

They have been lost to the sands of time.

These texts have all been copied by scribes.

Some of those scribes were better, more careful than others.

So the copies are of varying degrees of quality.

Sometimes you will hear scholars like Bart Erhman tell you that there are over 200,000 errors or discrepancies in these manuscripts, and there are.

That’s a lot.

I mean that’s more words than there are in the New Testament.

What scholars like Erhman don’t tell you however is that many of those “errors” come in the form of spelling variations.

Like for example- do you spell Neil N-E-I-L or N-E-A-l.

Well of course it is N-E-I-l, but not everyone knows that!

This difficulty is compounded by the fact that there was no uniformly agreed standardized way of spelling in the ANE.

Different regions spelled names and places differently.

Another fact that these scholars like to leave out of their presentations is that let’s say someone spells Greensboro o-r-0 and another text changes the spelling to o-r-o-u-g-h.

And lets say the ough spelling is copied 500 hundred times in other subsequent copies, scholars don’t count that as one variation, they count it as 500 variations, and not as one variation!

Other details they don’t like to mention is that in almost every case by examining the manuscripts and comparing the good, the better, and the best mansucript traditions we can arrive with over 98% certainty on what the original text actually said.

And that even when there is some doubt, there is not one single instance where a so called error would change or alter the theological truth of the passage, or even affect its meaning in any way.

Our passage this morning contains just such a variation: A significant combination of early manuscripts has “Why does he eat,” but other early manuscripts and related later witnesses have “Why does he eat and drink” in some form.

When “and drink” is present, it may reflect harmonization, as the parallel account in also contains “and drink.”

In other words, scribes added the words from memory because of their knowledge of , or they wanted to try and make the two passage match for fear of undermining the infallibility of Scripture.

Introduction

Text

13He went out again beside the sea, and all the crowd was coming to him, and he was teaching them.

14And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.”

And he rose and followed him.

15And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him.

Other details they don’t like to mention is that in almost every case by examining the manuscripts and comparing the good, the better, and the best mansucript traditions we can arrive with over 98% certainty on what the original text actually said.

And that even when there is some doubt, there is not one single instance where a so called error would change or alter the theological truth of the passage, or even affect its meaning in any way.

16And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

17And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.

I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Our passage this morning contains just such a variation: A significant combination of early manuscripts has “Why does he eat,” but other early manuscripts and related later witnesses have “Why does he eat and drink” in some form.

When “and drink” is present, it may reflect harmonization, as the parallel account in also contains “and drink.”

In other words, scribes added the words from memory because of their knowledge of , or they wanted to try and make the two passage match for fear of undermining the infallibility of Scripture.

Textual Variant

A significant combination of early manuscripts has “Why does he eat,” but other early manuscripts and related later witnesses have “Why does he eat and drink” in some form.

When “and drink” is present, it may reflect harmonization, as the parallel account in also contains “and drink.”

Introduction

Nobody likes paying taxes.

This is true in our day.

But it was especially true in Christ’s day.

The Jews bitterly resented paying taxes to the Roman invader.

So in the days of Jesus, to be a tax collector was a particularly deplorable profession.

In fact, the Pharisees could barely find words dark enough to describe these traitors.

Not only did these men gather taxes for the Romans, but they paid for the privilege.

Think of it a bit like a Tax Franchise.

The Roman authority knew how much a particular area should bring in by way of taxes.

And they farmed out the work to the highest bidder— with the lowest acceptable bid being the estimated tax revenue for the year.

This sucessful bidder would pay this money upfront, and then spend the rest of the year recouping their costs collecting the taxes and adding a commission on the top end in order to walk away with a handsome profit.

The Romans turned a blind eye to this dishonesty.

As long as they got their money each year, they didn’t care how much the Tax Collectors swindled the people.

The Common people were powerless to defend themselves.

To makes matters worse, if you couldn’t afford to pay your tax bill, the tax collectors would lend the bankrupt money at an exorbitantly high interest rates, thereby increasing the burden upon the common man, rather than reducing it.

This is true in our day

But it was especially true in Christ’s day...

As a result, as you can imagine, these men were universally hated.

They were regarded as the outcasts of society, a shame to their family.

In terms of sheer degredation, they were lumped together with other deplorables like prostitutes and sex offenders.

When Hiliary Clinton wants to insult people she calls them ‘Deplorables.”

When Trump wants to kick a reporter in the teeth, he says, ‘fake news.”

For the Pharisees, when they wanted to insult a group of people, they called them, “Tax Collectors and Sinners.”

It was quite simply the worst insult they could imagine.

If the bottomless pit of hell had a bottom, the Pharisees were quite convinced the tax collectors lined it.

To be a Tax Collector

A sinner was a hopelessly irreligious man, a man who cared little for the law, and nothing for God.

The lepers were dirty on the outside, tax collectors and sinners were dirty all the way down to the bottom.

was indeed deplorable

The Pharisees could barely find words dark enough to describe

These traitors

Not only did these men gather taxes for the Roman invaders

They paid for the “privilege”

A Sinner

The Romans farmed the job out to the highest bidder

They left it up to the winner to recoup their costs by adding in generous commissions.

The Romans didn’t really care how much extra you charged.

As long as they got their money, as far as they were concerned, these traitors could charge whatever they liked.

As a result, as you can imagine, they were universally hated.

A Sinner

A shame to their family

In terms of degradation: They were lumped together with other diplorables

So you can perhaps imagine their suprise when the Pharisees found Jesus sitting down for supper with these guys.

I mean it was bad enough bumping into one in the market place, but mealing with these sort was beyond the ability of any self-respecting Pharisee to imagine.

like prostitutes

When the Pharisees wanted to describe the lowest of the low

They called people

Tax Collectors and Sinners

A Sinner

Hopelessly irreligious man

A man who cared nothing for God

A man who had no concern for the law.

So our theme this morning in our sermon is a gospel for deplorables and despicables.

And if you remember the context: Mark has been stitching together these three stories of the leper, the cripple, and the tax collector to illustrate sin— what sin is and what sin does to people.

Like the leper sin makes us dirty.

LIke the cripple sin makes us spiritual cripples, disabled in terms of meaningful righteousness, and like tax collectors, sin makes us despicable.

Sin doth make tax collectors of us all.