What does it mean that Jesus is a friend of sinners?

The self-righteous religionist always did and always will murmur against the grace of God, but what folly is this, for where should the doctor be but among the folk that are sick, and where should the great Saviour be but among sinners. It was for this He came — to call sinners to repentance. We are glad that His foes called Him "the Friend of sinners"; they gave Him a name that shines out with an imperishable lustre and countless multitudes will rejoice in the glory of God for ever because He befriended every individual soul of them, when apart from Him they were hopeless and lost.

Man, however, objects. "Their scribes and the Pharisees murmured at his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with the tax-gatherers and sinners?" They had not the honesty to complain to Jesus, but vented their spleen against His disciples. But the Lord answers for His people. "Jesus answering said to them, They that are in sound health have not need of a physician; but those that are ill" — a simple but most satisfactory and impressive answer. Grace always enables even a man, a believer, to speak the whole truth; it is the only thing that does. How much more did He, Who was full of grace, speak in the power of truth! Granted that they were sick; they were just the persons for the physician. It is not even said that they were conscious of their sickness. At least God knows the need, and God seeks the needy, and Jesus was God Himself as man presented in grace. As He said, "I am not come to call righteous [persons], but sinful ones to repentance."130 It is instructive to observe that in the parallel passage of Matthew and of Mark the best authorities omit "to repentance." How far from the truth is it that repentance is a Jewish thing! Luke, according to the deep moral design of his Gospel, has these words.

(V. 17). The Lord disposes of this question with a simple illustration, 'They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick." He then applies the illustration, by saying, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." They insinuated that the Lord was associating with sinners; His reply is that He was "calling" sinners out of their things to follow Him. Grace to the sinner does not mean indifference to his sins.

If we are going to be Nazarites, there is a certain sense in which it must be a voluntary thing. We must be willing to be Nazarites. "When any one voweth the vow of a Nazarite." There was only one true Nazarite that ever walked this earth, and His Nazariteship was not a mere negative thing, it was that positive thing which associated Him with God, rather than merely separated Him from the world. As a matter of fact He was not a literal Nazarite. John the Baptist was a literal Nazarite. He was a man who abstained from all kinds of things; "he came neither eating nor drinking," and the compliment he got was that he had a devil. The Son of Man came eating and drinking. He was a Man with men. The blessed Lord did not need any external self-righteous separation. Ah, His holy soul was separate unto His Father completely, and He needed nothing to witness outwardly of that. None could ever approach Him with defilement, none could ever link His holy Name with even the thought of sin. He was so completely absorbed in His Father's will, so completely yielded up to His Father, that the very finger of the world itself could scarce point at Him as anything but what He was. It was such a palpable falsehood, when they spoke of Him as a gluttonous man and a winebibber, as not even to require contradiction. He even takes the name of reproach Himself. Yes, He is the Friend of sinners, and associates Himself with that expression. Do not our hearts delight to know Him in that way! But who thinks of Him as the friend of sinners in any way save to deliver them from their sins? Who thinks of Him as in any way identifying Himself with the low state about Him, save in grace coming down to bear the consequence of man's distance from God, in order that He might associate His people with Himself in true Nazariteship unto God!

It was true, thank God, to the letter. There He was in perfect liberty, as Son of the Father, using His creatures in a way which could not be understood by the legalist, and befriending even the publican and sinner. He was a Man amongst men—the Son of Man, as He said—and His friendship toward the sinner was one of His distinctive glories. True, He was holy, harmless, and undefiled in all His ways; but by that friendship He could pronounce pardon on the guilty, and do more than speak of paradise to a penitent malefactor. And yet for such grace He was commonly stigmatized! Blessed stigma Oh! how He gloried in an offence of this kind! His love for the poor, sinful souls of men—that sublimest of all charities—should have secured something else than His rejection. For this reason too He might have said, “Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in Me.”

Let us take a closer look at their accusation before we continue. On the principle that a man is known by the company he keeps, they insinuated that He is congenial to tax collectors and immoral persons in character and tastes. There was a sting in this charge that He was a 'friend' of such people. Friend is a very strong word in a Jewish context. It is a word which makes somebody indebted to another; it implies an obligation on both persons involved in the friendship. In fact Luke is the author in the New Testament who uses this word most often. We get a deep impression of what this word meant in Christ's mouth when He said to His disciples: 'But I have called you friends' John 15:15. This charge of His relationship to the outcasts of the Jewish society recurs theme time and time again. The first time they made the accusation as recorded in Luke He answered them that He was among them as a physician with the express purpose of healing them-to call them to repentance (5:33). Here in this chapter He answers the same accusation by telling them that wisdom is justified by wisdom's children. The religious leaders questioned the propriety of the Lord Jesus' association with tax collectors and sinners, and drew negative conclusions as to His person that were unwarranted. However in this verse Christ affirms that the reception of God's grace transforms the sinner. Grace is the source of true holiness, not of licentiousness. In the story recorded immediately after this saying the effect of grace is so apparent in the behaviour of this woman that it should be possible to see even for a blind man like Simon.

The Lost Sheep. — Subjective teaching was addressed to the company in the house. Objective teaching on grace was uttered in the presence and in the hearing of publicans and sinners. Suited was the line of instruction for each company. Near the Lord were now coming publicans and sinners for to hear Him. Beholding this movement on their part, for the historian tells us "they were drawing nigh," the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, "This man receives sinners, and eats with them" (15:2). It was true. He did receive sinners, and eat with them. What grace! Not only to receive, but to eat with them! Those murmurers would have done neither. He did both. Unconsciously they were heralds of His grace, whilst intending to bring Him into disrepute. But they knew Him not, nor of what His ways with sinners were the indication. These murmurers had spoken and had freely expressed their mind. Now He will speak, and unfold something of the mind and heart of God, but in parables, thus bringing home to all that listened to them, and to any who should attentively read them, how natural it was, so to speak, for Him to act thus, illustrating it from pictures of real life — pastoral, domestic, and family.

But there is that also in the sayings of the Pharisees and scribes which shows that they, too, felt the point of the truth, and what they resented most was grace. For they murmured saying, "This [man] receives sinners380a and eats with them." Indeed He does; it is His boast. It is the going out of Divine love to receive sinners. And it was His grace as a man that deigned to eat with them. Had He not done so, with whom could He have eaten at all? But in truth, if He deigned to eat with men, He did not choose His company. He had come down and been manifested in the flesh expressly to manifest the grace of God; and, if so, He received sinners and ate with them.

Strange company indeed! We say amongst men that “like draws to like,” but here we find that rule contradicted. What greater unlikes could be conceived than the sinless Saviour and publicans and sinners? Yet He saw fit to eat and drink with such. But in so doing He condescended in grace: He did not associate Himself with them. A fellowship that resulted from community of thought or feeling, and that would, therefore, have marred all testimony to holiness, was far from His mind.

The Pharisees and scribes might murmur, “This Man receives sinners, and eats with them,” but they knew that Jesus was not contaminated with the sin of those into whose company He had come. He was not with sinners to have part with them, He had come to set them free from the bondage of sin, and to cleanse them from the defilement of sin, so that they might have part with Him in things that were pure and holy. The poor sinner of Luke 7 touched the holy feet of the Lord Jesus, but His feet were not defiled: it was the heart of the poor sinner that was affected, and the Lord was able to say to her, “Thy sins are forgiven…thy faith has saved thee; go in peace” (Luke 7:48-50).