Whose House? Revisiting the Referent of αὐτοῦ in Mark 2.15

Abstract

The referent of αὐτοῦ in Mk 2.15 is grammatically ambiguous and remains a point of scholarly debate. Does Mark say that Jesus attended a banquet in Levi’s house, or that Jesus hosted one in his own home, with Levi and others as his guests? The current status quaestionis is basically undecided and timeworn arguments keep being rehearsed. Accordingly, this article attempts to move the conversation forward by revisiting some previously touched-upon yet underexplored notions of Mark’s presentation. After reviewing prior arguments, it first adopts a social-scientific lens to show that Jesus is portrayed as host—a role that, in context, implies ownership of the house. Thereafter, adopting a narratological approach, the study analyzes Mark’s use of ‘house’ demonstrating that the idea of Jesus having a house aligns with Mark’s broader characterization of Jesus, is supported by several other references to a Capernaum residence, and reflects a pattern according to which house owners are typically named—except in 2.15—thus, implying the house is Jesus’s. Taken together, these observations support the conclusion that according to Mk 2.15 the house was Jesus’s.

Introduction

The referent of αὐτοῦ in Mk 2.15—Καὶ γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ—is grammatically ambiguous and remains a point of scholarly disagreement. ¹ William R. Telford (2009: 74; cf. May 1993: 147) describes it as ‘a well-known ambiguity in Markan studies’. Does Mark say that Jesus attended a banquet in Levi’s house, or that he hosted one in his own, with Levi and others as his guests? ²

Despite the answer’s ramifications for our comprehension of Mark’s narrative in general, as well as for specific elements, such as the house motif (Trainor 2001: 98), Mark’s repurposing of the messianic banquet theme and its impact on Christology (Kingsbury 1983: 78; Long 2013), and the socio-cultural framework and material context of the Markan community (Smith 2018), ³ the question has garnered limited scholarly attention. Only two relatively brief articles have hitherto been devoted to the matter, viz. Elizabeth Struthers Malbon’s article ‘ΤΗ ΟΙΚΙΑ ΑΥΤΟΥ: Mark 2.15 in Context’ from 1985, and David M. May’s 1993 study ‘Mark 2.15: The Home of Jesus or Levi?’ ⁴ The two, however, come to diametrically different conclusions. According to Malbon the house belongs to Jesus, ⁵ whilst according to May it is Levi’s.

Commentators, by and large, exhibit a corresponding division on the matter. Whereas some merely skim over the question (e.g. Achtemeier 1978: 50–51; Edwards 2002: 83; Heil 2001: 64; Williams 2020: 50), others acknowledge the uncertainty without firmly asserting a position (e.g. Boring 2006: 81; Brooks 1991: 62; Mann 1986: 229; Roberts 2018: 13; Schmid 1964: 64). ⁶

Nonetheless, a slight majority of scholars seem to attribute ownership of the house to Levi, ⁷ and six basic arguments have been put forth to bolster this assertion:

• (1) A comparison with Lk. 5.29, ‘Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house …’, ⁸ suggests that the house is Levi’s (Alexander 1864: 42; Bock 2015: 146 n. 89; Cranfield 1959: 102–3; Culpepper 2007: 84; Decker 2014: 56; Marcus 2005: 225; Painter 1999: 500; Schnackenburg 1981: 43).

• (2) Since Mark nowhere else refers to a house in Capernaum as belonging to Jesus, it is more likely that the banquet is depicted as taking place in Levi’s house (Best 1981: 175; Culpepper 2007: 84; France 2002: 133; Gundry 1993: 124; van Iersel 1998: 152; Loisy 1912: 91; Marcus 2005: 225; Theobald 1978: 175).

• (3) It ought to be clear by means of precedent and comparison that since Jesus called Simon and then followed him into his and Andrew’s house to have dinner there (Mk 1.29–31), he similarly entered Levi’s house for dinner (Focant 2012: 101; Gundry 1993: 127; Marcus 2005: 225; Perkins 1995: 552).

• (4) Since Levi is portrayed as the subject/active agent following Jesus in 2.14, and there is no shift in subject indicated at the beginning of 2.15, Levi is depicted as reclining at dinner in his own house (Painter 1999: 499–500).

• (5) It is unlikely that Mark’s readers would not understand Levi to be the referent of the pronoun, considering that his homeownership was a sign of his relative wealth compared to a craftsman like Jesus (Kok 2023: 28).

• (6) May (1993) has argued that Jesus’s invitation to Levi to follow him initiates a so-called dyadic colleague contract, i.e., a relationship established between individuals of equal social status that serves to generate some type of mutual reciprocity with regards to, e.g., goods, services, honour, and support. Such contracts are typically initiated by a positive challenge of some sort, for example, a gift or an invitation, like ‘Follow me’ in 2.14. If the positive challenge is accepted, then an ongoing reciprocal relationship between the two parties is established. A dinner in Levi’s house would form such an appropriate response to Jesus’s invitation to discipleship. Thus, May (1993: 149) concludes that: ‘the home in which Jesus dined … was not his home but Levi’s’.

At the same time, the view that Jesus was the owner of the house also has its proponents (Allen 1915: 68; Gould 1896: 41; Grant and Luccock 1951: 673; Hauck 1931: 36; Légasse 1997: 180; Lohmeyer 1967: 55; Malbon 1985; Manns 1992: 12; Schweizer 1970: 63) and reasons:

• (1) Mark says that Levi got up and followed Jesus, not the other way around. As there is no intervening action reported it seems more likely that Levi followed Jesus to Jesus’s house rather than vice versa (Allen 1915: 68; Légasse 1997: 180; Malbon 1985: 283; Manns 1992: 12).

• (2) Aὐτοῦ comes third in a series of three pronouns, starting with αὐτῷ in v.14. Since the two preceding ones refer to Jesus it is likely that the third does as well (Gould 1896: 41; Hooker 1991: 95; Malbon 1985: 283; Moloney 2002: 64; Theobald 1978: 175).

• (3) When vv. 15–17 circulated independently from vv. 13–14 the subject ought to have been an explicit ‘Jesus’ (Grant and Luccock 1951: 673; Hooker 1991: 95; Kelber 1974: 19; Malbon 1985: 282; Nineham 1963: 95, 99; Schweizer 1970: 63).

• (4) The same phrase is used reflexively in 6.4, when Jesus, self-referentially, claims that ‘Prophets are not without honor, except … in their own house (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ)’ (Malbon 1985: 283).

• (5) The phrase ‘And it comes to pass’ (Καὶ γίνεται) introduces a new incident, and the αὐτός is, naturally, as elsewhere Jesus (Allen 1915: 68).

• (6) While the presence of scribes and Pharisees would be unlikely in the house of a tax-collector, their attendance would not be as surprising in the house of Jesus (Malbon 1985: 283; Manns 1992: 12).

• (7) The scandal of an otherwise upright Jew eating with tax-collectors and sinners would appear greater if he hosted them in his own home (Malbon 1985: 283; Manns 1992: 12).

• (8) The expression συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ‘sitting with Jesus’ (Mk 2.15), suggests that the tax-collectors and sinners were guests of his (Allen 1915: 68; Theobald 1978: 175).

• (9) Malbon (1985: 285–89) has argued that the opposition between house and synagogue/Temple, with the former gradually replacing the latter as sacred space, is best explained in light of Jesus being the owner of the house. Just as ‘Jesus tears down traditional social and religious distinctions by entertaining tax collectors and sinners in “his house” (2.15)’, at Jesus’s death ‘God tears down similar distinctions by causing the curtain to split (15.38) in God’s “house” (12.17), the house of the Lord’. In turn, the addressees of Mark form a ‘new community beyond those old distinctions, the community that apparently knows the destruction of the house of the Lord and actively awaits the coming of “the Lord of the house” (13.35)’ (Malbon 1985: 289). Thus, she submitted (1985: 282) that ‘this verse refers to Jesus’ house’.

As this brief survey demonstrates, there are reasonable arguments in favour of both positions, and the discussion seems to have reached an impasse. It is now more than thirty years since the publication of the most recent study devoted to the topic, and, for better or worse, much the same arguments keep being rehearsed. In fact, Joel F. Williams (2020: 50), surprisingly, given the grammatical focus of his recent exposition, overlooks the issue completely. Similarly, several recent commentators—for example, McKnight (2023: 35), Moore (2024: 71), O’Donnell (2024: 71), Söding (2022: 79), and Spencer (2023: 42)—do not argue the point but simply submit that the house is Levi’s. Similarly, claims that new theoretical perspectives might help settle the matter turn out ultimately to dress up much the same old arguments in novel theoretical garb. For example, Yoon-Man Park (2010: 192) submits that cognitive linguistics, and more specifically frame theory, can help resolve the question of the ambiguous pronouns, as the assignment of αὐτοῦ depends on the background knowledge of who can play the host. Considering that Mk 1.29–31 shows that Simon and Andrew hosted Jesus in their house after having been called to discipleship by Jesus (vv. 16–17), 2.15–17 activates what Park labels the calling to discipleship frame, which enables the audience to ascribe the role of host to Levi. Relatedly, Park adds, though it is not impossible to ascribe the role of host to Jesus, there is little evidence in the Gospel of Mark to suggest that Jesus had a house in Capernaum. In other words, Park’s arguments are the same as arguments number 2 and 3 in favour of it being Levi’s house relayed above.

In light of the current stalemate, the following study attempts to move the conversation forward by highlighting some hitherto touched upon, yet largely overlooked, aspects of Mark’s presentation. More specifically, after clearing the ground by evaluating the arguments previously adduced, it first adopts a social-scientific perspective that attempts to locate the events portrayed within the cultural context that gave rise to it, and then argues that (a) several features of Mark’s narrative converge to attribute to Jesus the role of host, and (b) in alignment with the default cultural assumption this function suggests Jesus’s ownership of the house. Thereafter, embracing more of a narratological approach, the study proceeds to (1) examine Mark’s overall use of the terms οἶκος and οἰκία and (2) show that the notion of Jesus having a house fits his overall portrayal of Jesus, (3) is corroborated by several other passages that refer to a house in Capernaum, and (4) manifests a pattern of how Mark typically identifies the owner of houses that Jesus enters, thereby suggesting, by the lack of comparable identification in 2.15, that the house is Jesus’s.

Evaluating Previous Arguments

… for the House Being Levi’s

Before proceeding to lay out the positive arguments for the house being Jesus’s, the arguments previously adduced in favour of it being Levi’s will be addressed.

• Argument 1: It is difficult to see why Lk. 5.29 should be decisive for the meaning of Mark. Unless one assumes that the event portrayed reflects a historic happening that Luke had independent information about that specified that it was Levi’s house, this explication represents Luke’s own reading and redaction of Mark. From the perspective of Markan priority, however, a comparison with the parallel in Mt. 9.9–13 suggests that there is no additional traditional material present. We are rather dealing with Luke’s interpretation and redaction of his Markan Vorlage, and Luke may very well have had his reasons for placing this event in the home of Levi (Malbon 1985: 284). As the story about Zacchaeus intimates (19.1–10), Luke was evidently interested in placing Jesus in homes of tax-collectors. Moreover, Matthew’s interpretation of Mark is just as relevant as Luke’s, and though Matthew is less explicit than Luke as he drops the possessive pronoun and opts for ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ, many Matthean specialists have—for good reasons—understood Matthew to suggest that it was Jesus’s house. ⁹ Notably, already in 4.13, before Jesus met his first disciples, Peter and Andrew (4.18–20), Matthew claims that Jesus ‘left Nazareth and made his home (κατοικέω) in Capernaum’. Thus, it seems unlikely that Matthew envisions the house as belonging to Peter and Andrew. ¹⁰

• Argument 2: The assertion that Mark nowhere else refers to a house in Capernaum as belonging to Jesus is not quite accurate and is ultimately a matter of perspective. There are several references to ‘the house’ in Capernaum, and nothing necessitates that this must have been Peter’s (or somebody else’s) house rather than Jesus’s. In fact, the argument appears circular. Only if one has already decided that it is not Jesus’s house can the argument be maintained. ¹¹

• Argument 3: The alleged parallelism between 1.29–31 and 2.14–17 does not necessarily suggest to the reader that Levi followed Jesus and that Jesus entered Levi’s house for dinner. Had there been a clear and recurring pattern in Mark, according to which someone is first called to discipleship and then invites Jesus to eat, there would be a stronger case for such a position. However, we are dealing with merely two passages, and the symmetry between them, at closer inspection, turns out to not be that close. Notably, the calling-narrative (1.16–18) and the (alleged) meal-narrative (1.29–31) are, unlike in the case of 2.13–17, disconnected by the episode about Jesus’s visit in Capernaum’s synagogue (1.21–28). Thus, the basic pattern of calling > dinner is undermined. ¹² Second, it is debatable whether we are dealing with a meal-narrative at all in 1.29–31. Granted, a meal might be implied. Nonetheless, Mark says nothing explicitly of it. In any case, it is not a focus of the pericope in the same ways that it is in 2.15–17. In fact, the single clue that there is a meal is the note that Peter’s mother-in-law ‘began to serve (διακονέω) them’. ¹³ Still, even though διακονέω can be used in relation to serving at table (cf., e.g., Lk. 10.40; Acts 6.2), and the setting in a home is consonant with such use, Mark is known to employ this verb in other ways as well (1.13; 10.45; 15.41). It is, thus, far from certain that διακονέω must refer specifically to arranging a meal in 1.31. ¹⁴ Even if one assigns Peter’s mother-in-law a more traditional role, v. 30 states that when Jesus entered the house ‘they told him about her at once (εὐθέως)’, ¹⁵ which suggests that there could have been other traditional courtesies besides food, such as foot-washing and anointing with oil (cf. Lk. 7.44–46), that were initially overlooked and, thus, might be implied by διακονέω. In any case, the symmetry with 2.14–17 is restricted.

• Argument 4: While it is grammatically possible that there is no change of active agent between vv. 14 and 15, and Levi could thus be depicted as reclining in his own house, this argument falters because of its restriction to vv. 14–15 at the expense of the flow of the broader literary context and its persistent focus on Jesus. It is Jesus who ‘went out again beside the sea’, around whom ‘the whole crowd gathered’, who ‘taught’ the crowd, who was ‘walking along’, ‘saw Levi’ and ‘said to him, “Follow me’’’, who is then ‘followed’ by Levi, with whom the tax collectors and sinners are ‘sitting’—‘for there were many who followed him’—and who answers both the scribes of the Pharisees and the people (vv. 13–22). In this broader context, with its clear and consistent focus on Jesus, Levi’s function as subject in v. 14b appears more as a parenthesis than anything else. By the same logic, the flow of the narrative, from vv. 13–18 rather suggests that the actions and the house are Jesus’s.

• Argument 5: Granted, homeownership could be a sign of the relative wealth of one individual over against another. Still, it is far from clear that it could serve this function in a comparison between a craftsman (τέκτων, 6.3) like Jesus vis-à-vis a tax-collector (τελώνης) like Levi. Simon and Andrew, who were fishermen (1.16)—and, thus, of comparable social and economic standing with Jesus—are, of course, said to have their own house (1.29).

• Argument 6: Whereas May’s argument with reference to a dyadic colleague contract is reasonable, it is not necessary to make sense of the passage. Levi’s immediate and primary response to Jesus’s invitation is not that he arranged a banquet, but rather that ‘he got up and followed him’ (2.15). Besides, in comparison, neither Simon and Andrew, nor James and John, responded to the same invitation by arranging a banquet; they simply ‘followed’ Jesus (cf. Mk 1.16–20). Accordingly, though a banquet would form a suitable response, it can hardly be taken as evidence that the banquet took place in Levi’s house.

In conclusion, it does not appear that there are any compelling arguments that the house was depicted as Levi’s in Mk 2.15.

…for the House Being Jesus’s

There are both objections and answers to the arguments adduced in favour of the house being Jesus’s as well, and the above-mentioned reasons for that position are not all equally persuasive. While numbers 1 and 8, about Levi following Jesus and the tax-collectors and sinners ‘sitting with Jesus’, appear convincing—and number 1 will therefore be briefly defended against some of the criticism levelled against it in this setting, while number 8 is discussed below—for the following reasons, the other arguments appear ultimately unconvincing.

• Argument 1: John Painter (1999: 499) has objected to the argument that, since Levi is said to have followed Jesus, it is more likely that Mark references Jesus’s house, arguing that following (ἀκολουθέω) is better understood as a metaphor for discipleship that should not be taken literally, and that a follower in the sense of disciple may still offer hospitality to Jesus. Although Painter is correct in asserting that Levi’s ‘following’ of Jesus entails more than a mere literal act of walking behind him, and while Mark elsewhere clearly associates ἀκολουθέω with the concept of discipleship (1.16–20; 6.1; 8.34; 10.21), the verb does not thereby exclude a physical or spatial dimension. Indeed, Mark demonstrates familiarity with the more literal usage of ἀκολουθέω in several other contexts (3.7; 5.24; 10.52; 14.13, 54). In the end, as with all polysemous terms, the semantic nuance must be determined by the immediate literary context. In this regard, it should be noted that in 2.14 ‘follow’ does not stand by itself but is used in the context of several other terms related to literal spatial positioning and/or movement: ‘As he was walking along (παράγω), he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting (κάθημαι) at (ἐπί) the tax-collection station, and he said to him, ‘Follow me’. And he got up (ἀνίστημι) and followed him’. ¹⁶ Accordingly, it appears reasonable to maintain that Levi, not only became a disciple, but also literally followed Jesus, presumably to the latter’s house.

• Argument 2: From the series of pronouns, it is problematic to consider the grammatical possibility that the second αὐτὸν refers to Levi.

• Argument 3: It seems ill advised to draw too far-reaching conclusions based on reconstructions of what oral or literary precursors of traditions may have looked like. In any case, it is Mark’s redaction of the purported tradition that matters for the present study.

• Argument 4: Though ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ is used reflexively in 6.4, there is nothing that necessitates that this common, everyday phrase must always be used the same way.

• Argument 5: At most the argument about Jesus being the subject of καὶ γίνεται suggests that Jesus is the antecedent of αὐτὸν, but it does not really say anything about the referent of αὐτοῦ.

• Argument 6: The reference to scribes and Pharisees need not be construed as them partaking in the banquet. As Kenneth E. Bailey (1983: 7) explains, ‘In an oriental banquet, the door of the house is open and there is a great deal of coming and going’. In other words, the scribes and Pharisees need not have been guests reclining at the banquet to be present.

• Argument 7: Though the scandal of an upright Jew eating with tax-collectors and sinners might be greater if he hosts them in his own house, the Pharisees’ outrage is still perfectly explainable even if Jesus merely dined in Levi’s house. ¹⁷ In the socio-cultural context of the first-century CE mediterranean world, shared meals served as a key indicator of social boundaries. Dining with someone signified acceptance, and habitual table fellowship both reflected and reinforced a distinctive relational bond (Bartchy 2002). Accordingly, Jesus’s table-fellowship with tax-collectors and sinners itself, irrespective of whose house it is envisaged as having taken place in, was enough to prompt the scribes and Pharisees’ indignation.

To sum up, not all the arguments favouring the interpretation of the house as belonging to Jesus hold the same weight. Upon closer examination, many reveal themselves to be rather feeble. Nevertheless, considering Mark’s assertion that Levi literally rose and followed Jesus, the narrative strongly suggests that Levi accompanied Jesus to his own house, rather than the other way around. ¹⁸

Jesus as the Host of the Banquet

Several scholars have pointed out—without exploring the matter much further, however—that the passage in question, not only portrays Jesus as the host of the banquet (see below), but also that this depiction carries implications for the question of whose house the events take place in. ¹⁹ Michael Theobald (1978: 175), for example, speaks of the role of host, which Jesus hardly would have assumed in someone else’s house. Likewise, Dennis E. Smith (2017: 84; cf. 2018: 218) observed how, ‘The invitation was traditionally extended by the host, who, in most cases, would also be the householder of the house where the group gathered’. Similarly, Andrew B. McGowan (2005: 159) submits that, ‘The most natural patron at a domestic meal was the householder who invited others to dine …’

As far as I can tell, however, there is no ancient evidence unequivocally stating that this was the case. In fact, there are papyri (P. Fay. 132; P. Fuad I Univ. 7; P. Oxy. 524) that attest to invitations to houses of individuals other than the host (Llewelyn 2002: 62), and Jesus hosts the last supper in the ‘guest room’ (καταλύμα) of somebody else’s house (Mk 14.12–25). Consequently, this connection neither can, nor should, be pressed too far.

Nevertheless, support for a close connection between the host and his house can, in addition to other papyri (Llewelyn 2002: 63) be found in that Lukan verse (5.29) so commonly adduced in favour of the house being Levi’s: ‘Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house (Καὶ ἐποίησεν δοχὴν μεγάλην Λευὶς αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ …)’. No doubt, Luke’s claim here is that the festivities take place in the house of the host.

Correspondingly, Lk. 7.36, ‘One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and when he went into the Pharisee’s house he reclined to dine (Ἠρώτα δέ τις αὐτὸν τῶν Φαρισαίων ἵνα ϕάγῃ μετ’ αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Φαρισαίου κατεκλίθη)’, not only corroborates the link between hosting and ownership of the house, but it also adds the notion of invitation to the nexus (and, as will be argued below, it was typically the host who issued the invitation). ²⁰

Subsequently, in Lk. 14.1–24, there is both further and more extensive corroboration of the same assumption. The first thing to note in relation to that passage is how Luke states that Jesus ‘was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the Sabbath (εἰς οἶκόν τινος τῶν ἀρχόντων [τῶν] Φαρισαίων σαββάτῳ ϕαγεῖν ἄρτον)’. Slightly later, in v. 12, the same individual is identified as ‘the one who had invited him (τῷ κεκληκότι)’. In other words, the banquet takes place in the house of the host, and it is the host/owner of the house who issues the invitation. Second, in several places in the same passage, the connection between hosting and inviting is assumed: ‘When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite … But when you give a banquet, invite … (ὅταν ποιῇς ἄριστον ἢ δεῖπνον, μὴ ϕώνει … ὅταν δοχὴν ποιῇς, κάλει)’ (vv. 12–13)’; ²¹ ‘Someone gave a great dinner and invited … (ἄνθρωπός τις ἐποίει δεῖπνον μέγα, καὶ ἐκάλεσεν …)’ (v. 16). Throughout, it is the person who gives the dinner who extends the invitation, and this unidentified ‘someone’ in v. 16 is subsequently explicitly identified as ‘the owner of the house’ (οἰκοδεσπότης) in v. 21. Likewise, in the climactic v. 23 the connection is made abundantly clear with the words of the householder: ‘so that my house may be filled (ἵνα γεμισθῇ μου ὁ οἶκος)’.

In other words, these three Lukan passages illustrate and attest to the default assumption that banquets were held in the house of the host who also issued the invitation. Accordingly, insofar as Mark identifies Jesus as the host, it is also natural to assume that the house is Jesus’s.

Before such a conclusion can be more firmly drawn, however, it must first be shown that Mark indeed portrays Jesus as host. As we will see, there are several features indicative of such a status for Mark’s Jesus.

The Use of καλέω as ‘Invitation’ in Mark 2.15

As is commonly recognized, Mark’s use of the verbs κατάκειμαι and συνανάκειμαι (v. 15) suggest that the pertinent occasion was not an ordinary meal, at which one typically sat to eat, but rather a more formal banquet, at which one reclined (France 2002: 132; Jeremias 1977: 48), and, in extension, to which the guests were deliberately ‘invited’ by the host. Is it, thus, possible, that when the Markan Jesus says in v. 17 that he has ‘not come to call (καλέω) the righteous but sinners’, he refers to his invitation of tax collectors and sinners to his dinner (Smith 2017: 84), and that this implies his role as host and, in extension, his ownership of the house?

However, despite the fact that this saying is uttered in the context of a banquet and follows as a direct reply to the charge against Jesus for sharing table-fellowship with tax-collectors and sinners, few seem to have made a connection between this logion and the question of whose house it is. ²² On the contrary, perhaps under the influence of Lk. 5.32—which not only repeats Mark’s ‘I have not come to call the righteous but sinners’, but also adds ‘to repentance (εἰς μετάνοιαν)’—most interpreters appear to have construed the pertinent verb in relation to the notion of repentance. ²³

In fact, even scholars who argue for Jesus being the host in his own house fail to note the possible connection, ²⁴ and the few times that the connection between vv. 15 and 17 is noticed it is typically from the inverted perspective. The focus is on the meaning of the verb καλέω rather than on the ownership of the house. The argument is then that if Jesus is the host, then καλέω can mean ‘invitation’, not the other way around, i.e., that since the context suggests that καλέω means ‘invite’ to a banquet Jesus is probably the host, and in extension the owner of the house. Morna D. Hooker (1991: 97), who otherwise identifies the house as Jesus’s, illustrates this position well when she remarks that, ‘If Mark means that Jesus himself was the host at the meal, then the verb ‘to summon’ (καλέσθαι) [sic] could have the sense ‘to invite …’ ²⁵ R. T. France (2002: 135) even goes so far as to submit that while καλέω could mean ‘invite’ in the context of a meal, since ‘Jesus is not the host at this meal in Levi’s house, the reference would be obscure in the narrative setting’.

Nevertheless, if Mark wanted to emphasize and disambiguate the soteriological nuance of Jesus’s words, he could easily have phrased things differently. Instead of καλέω, he could have had Jesus say something akin to Luke’s ‘For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save (ζητῆσαι καὶ σῶσαι) the lost’ (Lk. 19.10). However, Mark does not. Unlike Luke, Mark says nothing of Jesus calling the sinners ‘to repentance’. He instead opts for simply καλέω, with its clear overtones of ‘invitation’ to a party/dinner/banquet. ²⁶ In other words, it is certainly possible to construe καλέω in Mk 2.17, not as calling sinners to repentance, but (primarily) in the sense of inviting them to a party, and, as such, as a sign of Jesus’s identity as host.

After all, καλέω was, together with ἐρωτάω, one of the standard terms used for an invitation to a meal. In fact, as the following examples suggest, when used in the context of a banquet, this is the more likely sense of the term. Use of καλέω as ‘invitation’ is found, ²⁷ for example, with Homer (7^th century BCE) in the Odyssey:

So he spoke, and they cried aloud and called to her. And she at once came forth and opened the bright doors, and invited (κάλει) them in; and they all, in their innocence, followed her inside. Only Eurylochus remained behind, for he suspected that this was a snare. She brought them in and made them all sit on chairs and seats, and made for them a potion of cheese and barley meal and yellow honey with Pramnian wine; but in the food she mixed evil drugs, that they might utterly forget their native land. Now when she had given them the potion, and they had drunk it off, then she immediately struck them with her wand, and penned them in the pigsties. And they had the heads, and voice, and bristles, and shape of swine, but their minds remained unchanged, just as they were before. So they were penned there weeping, and before them Circe flung mast, and acorns, and the fruit of the cornel tree to eat, such things as wallowing swine are accustomed to feed upon (Od. 10.231–44). ²⁸

Likewise, Greek historian Herodotos (c. 484–420 BCE) writes in his Histories, about the wars between the Greeks and the Persians, that:

While the foreigners were employed about this work, Attaginus son of Phrynon, a Theban, made great preparation and invited (ἐκάλεε) Mardonius with fifty who were the most notable of the Persians to be his guests at a banquet. They came as they were bidden (κληθέντες); the dinner was given at Thebes. Now here follows the end of that matter, which was told me by Thersandrus of Orchomenus, one of the most notable men of that place. Thersandrus too (he said) was bidden (κληθῆναι) to this dinner, and fifty Thebans besides; and Attaginus made them sit, not each man by himself, but on each couch a Persian and a Theban together (Herodotos, The Persian Wars, 9.16). ²⁹

Similarly, the Greek military leader, philosopher, and historian Xenophon of Athens (c. 428–354 BCE) notes in his (partly fictional) biography on Cyrus of Persia, Cyropaedia:

And for himself Cyrus had a tent made big enough to accommodate all whom he might invite (καλοίη) to dinner. Now he usually invited (ἐκάλει) as many of the captains as he thought proper, and sometimes also some of the lieutenants and sergeants and corporals; and occasionally he invited (ἐκάλει) some of the privates, sometimes a squad of five together, or a squad of ten, or a platoon, or a whole company in a body. And he also used to invite (ἐκάλει) individuals as a mark of honour, whenever he saw that they had done what he himself wished everybody to do. And the same dishes were always placed before those whom he invited (τοῖς καλουμένοις) to dinner as before himself (Cyr. 2.1.30). ³⁰

In addition to this non-biblical, classical, usage there are numerous examples of καλέω meaning to ‘invite’ to a banquet in the New Testament as well (e.g., Mt. 22.3; Lk. 7.39; Jn 2.2; 1 Cor. 10.27; Rev. 19.9). However, Lk. 14.7–24 (discussed above) is especially instructive in this regard due to the frequency of the verb and its derivative forms in the context of invitation and invitees to a banquet: ³¹

⁷ When he noticed how the guests (τοὺς κεκλημένους) chose the places of honor, he told them a parable. ⁸ ‘When you are invited (κληθῇς) by someone to a wedding banquet, do not sit down at the place of honor, in case someone more distinguished than you has been invited (κεκλημένος) by your host, ⁹ and the host who invited (καλέσας) both of you may come and say to you, “Give this person your place”, and then in disgrace you would start to take the lowest place. ¹⁰ But when you are invited (κληθῇς), go and sit down at the lowest place, so that when your host (ὁ κεκληκώς) comes, he may say to you, “Friend, move up higher”; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at the table with you. ¹¹ For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted’. ¹² He said also to the one who had invited (τῷ κεκληκότι) him, ‘When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers and sisters or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite (ἀντικαλέσωσίν) you in return, and you would be repaid. ¹³ But when you give a banquet, invite (κάλει) the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. ¹⁴ And you will be blessed because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous’. ¹⁵ One of the dinner guests, on hearing this, said to him, ‘Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!’ ¹⁶ Then Jesus said to him, ‘Someone gave a great dinner and invited (ἐκάλεσεν) many. ¹⁷ At the time for the dinner he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited (τοῖς κεκλημένοις), “Come, for everything is ready now”. ¹⁸ But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, “I have bought a piece of land, and I must go out and see it; please accept my regrets”. ¹⁹ Another said, “I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please accept my regrets”. ²⁰ Another said, “I have just been married, and therefore I cannot come”. ²¹ So the slave returned and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and said to his slave, “Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame”. ²² And the slave said, “Sir, what you ordered has been done, and there is still room”. ²³ Then the master said to the slave, “Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled. ²⁴ For I tell you, none of those who were invited (τῶν κεκλημένων) will taste my dinner”’. ³²

To be clear, the claim made here is not that καλέω always means ‘invite to a party’. No, this verb is semantically versatile and encompasses the three basic uses of ‘to call, summon’, ‘to call aloud’, and ‘to give name to’. It is capable of denoting everything from a shepherd’s call to gather a flock, to an act of summoning to an appointment, to even a simple act of naming. ³³ Rather, what the texts above suggest is that ‘invitation’ is one of the verb’s possible meanings, and that it is this particular semantic nuance that the verb carries when—as in Mk 2.15–23—it is used in relation to an invitation to a banquet. As Lothar Coenen (1975: 274) rightly observes: ‘Probably this is how we should understand “I came not to call the righteous but sinners”’. ³⁴

Reclining with the Host

In addition to the issuing of the invitation, the remark about the tax-collectors and sinners ‘sitting with Jesus’ (συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ), as noted, further substantiates Jesus’s role as host. ³⁵ Granted, συνανάκειμαι simply means ‘to recline together’, and does not by itself necessarily indicate who is host and who is guest. In Lk. 14.10, for example, it is used about guests sitting together, ‘then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at the table with you (πάντων τῶν συνανακειμένων σοι)’. Nonetheless, four features suggest that it does intimate these roles in this context.

To begin with, the note occurs in tandem with the claim by Jesus that he is the one who has invited (καλέω) these guests to the banquet. Second, it is worth noticing that the only other time the verb is used by Mark, in 6.22, it clearly suggests that guests are reclining with their host: ‘When his daughter Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests (τῷ Ἡρῴδῃ καὶ τοῖς συνανακειμένοις)’. Of course, this does not necessitate that the phrase is used the same way in 2.15, but it suggests the general plausibility that, as Herod is the host in 6.22, so is Jesus in 2.15. Third, though Mark frequently uses the verb ἔρχομαι with the everyday sense of ‘arriving’ or ‘returning’ from one place or person to another (see 1.9, 14, 39; 3.20; 6.48; 7.31; 10.1), in a few passages the verb assumes a more programmatic function. This is especially the case when it is followed by an infinitive (1.23–24; 10.45). The analogous use in 2.17, where ἔρχομαι is similarly followed by the infinitive καλέσαι, thus, has a comparable programmatic function. ³⁶ This being the case, the Markan Jesus’s deliberate action is, arguably, better explained if Jesus is the host of the banquet, who intentionally takes the initiative to invite tax collectors and sinners (perhaps as an enactment of prophecies about the Messianic banquet, such as Isa. 25.6; 49.9–12; 55.1–2; 65.13–16, and Zech. 9.9–17), ³⁷ rather than him just happening to be invited to someone else’s party.

William L. Lane (1974: 106–7; cf. France 2002: 132) perceives a similar concern in the Markan narrative and explains it well when he notes how:

To the scribes Jesus’ conduct was offensive because it was improper for a teacher of the Law to share meal fellowship with outcast and ignorant common people. Jesus’ action was actually more revolutionary than they could imagine. When Jesus shared meal fellowship with the tax officials and the common people, it was Messiah who was sitting with sinners. The expression used in Ch. 2:15, ‘they reclined at table together with Jesus’, suggests that Jesus-the Messiah-and not Levi, was the host at this festive meal. When this is understood, the interest of the entire pericope centers on the significance of Messiah eating with sinners. The specific reference in verse 17 to Jesus’ call of sinners to the Kingdom suggests that the basis of table-fellowship was messianic forgiveness, and the meal itself was an anticipation of the messianic banquet. When Jesus broke bread with the outcasts, Messiah ate with them at his table and extended to them fellowship with God. Mark’s interest in recording this incident lies precisely in the demonstration of forgiveness which it affords. It takes its place very naturally with the two preceding sections of the Gospel (Ch. 2:1-12, 13-14) as a sovereign demonstration of the forgiveness of sins. The meal was an extension of the grace of God and an anticipation of the consummation when Messiah will sit down with sinners in the Kingdom of God.

Fourth, the pericope does not necessarily end with v. 17, as suggested by many translations that insert a heading between vv. 12–17/18–22, but continues all the way throughout v. 22. ³⁸ Therefore, Jesus’s reply in vv. 19–20 (‘The wedding attendants cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day’) to the inquiry about why his disciples do not fast when John’s and the Pharisees’ followers do is relevant to the question of whose house it is. The Markan Jesus conceptualizes the event not merely as a banquet or dinner in general, but specifically as a wedding feast. However, a bridegroom is not a guest at, but rather the host of, such festivities. Accordingly, Jesus, the bridegroom of 2.19–20, is the host of the banquet of v. 15.

Together these four features—the issuing of the invitation, the ‘sitting with Jesus’, the programmatic function of ἔρχομαι, and Jesus’s identity as bridegroom—suggest that Mark makes Jesus out as the host of the banquet. Consequently, considering the preceding discussion, indicating that dinners were typically hosted in one’s own residence, it seems more probable than not that the event described in Mk 2.15–22 is envisioned as occurring in Jesus’s house.

Jesus’s and Others’ Houses in the Gospel of Mark

Although several scholars (e.g., Best 1981: 175; Culpepper 2007: 84; France 2002: 133; Gundry 1993: 124; Loisy 1912: 91; Marcus 2005: 225; Theobald 1978: 175; van Iersel 1998) have claimed that the lack of reference to a house of Jesus elsewhere in Mark’s narrative makes Jesus an unlikely referent of αὐτοῦ in 2.15, such a verdict depends on the debatable interpretation of a series of other passages where a house of Jesus is potentially referenced.

The House in Capernaum

To begin with, it certainly appears possible according to the overall logic of the narrative that the house in v. 15 belonged to Jesus. For, unlike both Matthew (8.20) and Luke (9.58), Mark contains no material such as the Son of Man being homeless and having ‘nowhere to lay his head’ or the like that would contradict such a notion. ³⁹

On the contrary, several passages suggest otherwise. In 2.1 it is said that, ‘When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home (ὅτι ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν) …’ As Joel Marcus (2005: 215) notes, ἐν οἴκῳ can simply mean ‘in a house’, but from classical times onward, it is also a fixed idiom for being ‘at home’. Similarly, in 3.20 Mark says that, ‘Then he went home (ἔρχεται εἰς οἶκον) …’ Furthermore, in 7.17 Mark writes about how, ‘When he had left the crowd and entered the house (εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον), his disciples asked him about the parable’. In 9.28 there is talk of how ‘When he had entered the house (εἰσελθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς οἶκον), his disciples asked him privately’. In 9.33 Mark writes about how ‘they came to Capernaum, and when he was in the house (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ) he asked them …’ Then finally, in 10.10 it is said that ‘in the house (εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν) the disciples asked him again about this matter’.

It is possible that Mark is talking about Peter’s house, which had been made available to Jesus. However, this is far from clear. Most notably, Mark never explicitly claims that Jesus took up residence in Peter’s house, and the interpretative move from Jesus’s visit in Peter’s house (1.29–34) to the notion that this was where he set up base more permanently is not self-evident. Why would Jesus visiting someone else’s house entail that he did not have one of his own (Doole 2017: 48–49)? This is a non sequitur. Vice versa, if αὐτοῦ in 2.15 is interpreted as referring to Jesus, then it becomes natural to see these other mentions as references to the house of Jesus.

Mark’s Identification of Houseowners

On a related note, though the material is admittedly not overly abundant, there is a discernible pattern with regards to Mark either identifying or leaving unspecified the owner of a house that he mentions. It is especially telling that in three cases when Mark depicts Jesus entering or being in a house, he explicitly states whom that house belongs to. ⁴⁰ The first example is found in 1.29 where it is said that ‘they entered the house of Simon and Andrew (ἦλθον εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Σίμωνος καὶ Ἀνδρέου)’. In a similar fashion, 5.38 reads, ‘When they came to the synagogue leader’s house (ἔρχονται εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου)’. Likewise, 14.3 states, ‘While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper (ὄντος αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ)’. Conversely, in 2.1; 3.20; 7.17; 9.28, 33; and 10.10—that is, the passages noted above that reference the house in Capernaum—such information is left out. Granted, the pattern is not completely consistent, and 7.24 (‘From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house …’) poses an exception to the rule. Still, considering Mark’s general propensity it is more likely than not that he would have identified the house in 2.15 as Levi’s if it was his and not Jesus’s.

In summary, the lack of material intimating Jesus’s basic homelessness, the multiple (potential) references to Jesus’s house/home in Capernaum, and Mark’s typical predisposition to explicate the owner of houses, all suggest that Jesus is the owner of the house of 2.15.

Summary and Conclusion

Grammatically speaking, αὐτοῦ in Mk 2.15 may refer to either Jesus or Levi, and sensible arguments for and against both alternatives have been put forward. As has been argued above, however, and contrary to the majority view, the scales ultimately tip in favour of the house being Jesus’s. First of all, the traditional arguments against it being Jesus’s house can be reasonably answered, whereas the objections against the majority view appear more severe and persistent. Second, several features suggest that Mark portrays Jesus as the host of the banquet; and, considering the default assumption that banquets were held in the host’s house, insofar as Jesus is indeed the host, the house is likely his. Third, the lack of comments about Jesus being homeless, combined with numerous additional references to a potential house of his, combined with Mark’s penchant for specifying the ownership of houses that Jesus enters and the concomitant lack of specification in 2.15, all point in the same direction: αὐτοῦ in Mk 2.15 refers to Jesus—and thus to Jesus’s house.