Restoring Apostolic Faith

Allegiance at the Table and the Scandal of Proximity

When the Gospels say that Jesus ate with “sinners,” modern readers almost instinctively mishear the charge.

Today, sinner is usually shorthand for someone engaged in obvious moral failure—especially sexual or social misconduct. From that assumption, Jesus’ table fellowship becomes a lesson in tolerance or moral leniency.

That is not how the word functioned in the world of Jesus.

To understand why eating with “sinners” caused outrage, we must first recover what “sinners” actually meant in Second Temple Judaism—and just as importantly, what it did not mean.

Who “Sinners” Were in the World of Jesus

In Second Temple Jewish usage, “sinners” (hamartōloi) did not primarily refer to people who occasionally broke moral rules.

The category functioned socially and covenantally, not merely ethically.

“Sinners” typically included:

• those who lived outside strict Torah observance,

• those who did not keep purity practices as interpreted by religious authorities,

• those entangled with Roman systems (tax collectors, collaborators),

• and those who ignored or rejected the interpretive frameworks that governed covenant life.

In other words, sinners were people out of alignment with the accepted markers of covenant faithfulness.

They were not necessarily more immoral than anyone else.

They were misaligned.

This distinction matters.

“Sinner” as a Status, Not a Confession

In the Gospels, many people labeled “sinners” never confess specific crimes. Nor are their behaviors always described.

They are known as sinners because of:

• their occupation,

• their associations,

• their refusal or inability to conform to approved religious standards,

• or their marginal position within covenant society.

“Sinner” functioned less like a personal admission and more like a social verdict.

It marked who could:

• eat freely,

• participate fully,

• be treated as faithful.

And who could not.

Why Eating Together Was the Flashpoint

This is why table fellowship matters so much in the Gospels.

In the ancient world, meals were never neutral.

To eat together was to signal acceptance, alignment, and shared identity.

Sharing a table implied:

• recognition,

• mutual belonging,

• and a shared social horizon.

So when Jesus eats with “sinners,” He is not merely being polite.

He is placing them within His circle of allegiance.

That is the scandal.

The Problem Was Not Mercy — It Was Authority

Notice the pattern.

Religious leaders do not accuse Jesus of denying sin’s seriousness.

They accuse Him of eating with the wrong people.

The offense is not compassion.

It is unauthorized proximity.

By sharing meals with sinners:

• Jesus bypasses exclusionary systems,

• implicitly challenges who gets to define covenant faithfulness,

• and re-centers belonging around Himself.

This is why Jesus’ defense is never, “Sin doesn’t matter.”

Instead, He says:

• physicians go to the sick,

• repentance is expected,

• restoration is the goal.

But the order is crucial.

Belonging precedes reform.

Allegiance precedes sorting.

And that order strips controlling authorities of their leverage.

What Jesus Is Actually Doing at the Table

Jesus is not declaring sinners righteous by default.

He is doing something more disruptive:

• calling them close,

• demanding allegiance,

• and creating space for repentance inside proximity, not outside it.

The table becomes a place where:

• repentance can happen,

• loyalty can shift,

• and life can be reordered.

Jesus does not lower expectations.

He changes who has the authority to call people into transformation.

Why This Was Dangerous

From the perspective of religious leadership, this is intolerable.

If sinners can be restored without first passing through gatekeeping systems, then:

• authority has been bypassed,

• boundaries are redefined,

• and control is lost.

That is why table fellowship provokes hostility.

It is not about etiquette.

It is about jurisdiction.

Reading “Sinners” Correctly Changes Everything

Once “sinners” are understood as those outside approved covenant alignment, the narrative comes into focus.

Jesus is not applauded for moral laxity.

He is resisted for restructuring access to God around Himself.

Eating with sinners announces:

• who now defines belonging,

• where allegiance is centered,

• and how repentance will be lived out.

This is not moral relativism.

It is messianic authority enacted in public.

The Scandal of Proximity

Jesus’ table practice declares something unmistakable:

Restoration does not begin at a distance.

It begins in proximity.

But proximity is never neutral.

It always signals allegiance.

Which is why the question beneath every shared meal in the Gospels is not:

“Is this person moral enough?”

But:

“Who now has the authority to call, restore, and reshape?”

That is the scandal.

And it is why the table became one of the earliest battlegrounds over allegiance in Jesus’ ministry.