After healing the man who had been paralyzed, Jesus left his house with his disciples, and the whole multitude accompanied him, as he walked along the northern beach of the Sea of Galilee (Mark 2:13). It was here that he saw a man by the name of Levi (verse-14). Levi was a publican or tax collector, and he had set up his booth to receive toll charges from businessmen, both local and travelers from places like Damascus, who desired to ship their goods south and east from the port at Capernaum.
A straightforward reading of Mark’s narrative seems to say that Jesus simply went up to Levi, as he was conducting his business, and told him to follow him. Immediately, Levi left his business and followed Jesus (Mark 2:14)! In our modern literary culture we love details, but Mark doesn’t tell us why Levi decided to leave his business to follow Jesus. Did he know Jesus before he called him? Assuming Levi is a family man (we aren’t told this specifically, either), what sort of man would leave the labor he knew in order to follow after an itinerate preacher, whom he, presumably, just met? Mark simply gives us the facts, but he leaves out many of the details. Yet, this is the manner in which ancient authors were taught to write history:
Brevity is always desirable, and especially where matter is abundant; and the problem is less a grammatical than a substantial one; the solution, I mean, is to deal summarily with all immaterial details, and give adequate treatment to the principal events; much, indeed, is better omitted altogether”[1] (emphasis mine).
We may presume, therefore, that Jesus and Levi probably had a prior relationship of some kind, simply because folks don’t normally act the way we find Jesus and Levi behaving here. They must have had a prior relationship of sorts, even if such was through a third party, and Jesus was something of a curiosity for Levi. Logic and understanding human behavior demand such prior knowledge of the two existed, even if it was only recent.
Mark also tells us that Levi was the son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), but Alphaeus, we are told later, was the father of James, who was one of Jesus’ leading disciples: Peter, Philip and James. Each one is always listed first among three groups of four in the lists of the Apostles (Mark 3:14-19; Matthew 10:1-4; Luke 6:13-16; Acts 1:13), and presumably each group had different responsibilities among the Twelve. In all four lists of the Twelve, Levi is missing, but Matthew, whose call is exactly like that of Levi (Matthew 9:9-13) appears in all four lists. Thus, it seems certain that Levi is Matthew, one of the Twelve,[2] but at this point he had not become one of Jesus’ disciples, which is further proof of the early timeline of Marks first few chapters. The point is this. Both Matthew / Levi and James are the sons of Alphaeus. Levi is his son, according to Mark 2:14, and James is his son, according to all four lists of the Apostles. Yet, Matthew / Levi is never mentioned as one of the sons of the other Mary (Matthew 27:61), who is James’ mother (cp. Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 24:10).
I mentioned all this in order to say Levi, the son of Alphaeus, may be the older of the two sons, which may be why James is later referred to as “the Less” or “the Younger” (Mark 15:40), for he is listed where the eldest son should be found in the four verses where his name appears with that of his mother, Mary. If such reasoning is true, then Levi was the eldest son of Alphaeus, perhaps by an earlier marriage, or perhaps Levi, being a publican, was disinherited by his family, whereupon we may presume that Jesus reconciled Alphaeus and his son.
After Levi was called, he made a feast in Jesus’ honor and invited his friends, so they could meet Jesus, too (Mark 2:15). As a result, Jesus and his disciples were found eating and drinking with tax collectors, who were labeled public sinners by the Jewish leadership. Moreover, Jesus’ ties to publicans soon became a problem with Jews who were zealously loyal to the Jewish state, especially among the chief priests, scribes and Pharisees (Mark 2:16) who ruled the Jews under the watchful eye of the Roman governor, who dwelt in Caesarea. Nearly all of Jesus’ trouble during his three and one half year ministry came from these three groups of Jews, and they often criticized him over his relationship with sinners (Matthew 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 15:1-2). Jesus’ reply to his critics who found his feasting with sinners distasteful, was that it’s illogical to call the righteous to change (repent). Nonetheless, it was necessary for the sinners to change (repent). Therefore, he ate with them in an effort to turn their hearts to the Lord (Mark 2:17).
_______________________________________________
[1] Lucian of Samosata (cir. 120 AD to 180 AD); The Way to Write History 55-56; (emphasis mine)
[2] See my earlier study in the Gospel of Luke: Is Levi Really Matthew, the Apostle?
Smoodock's Blog 