Matt 11 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' But wisdom is proved right by her deeds."
We are taught in the gospels that Jesus entered the houses and ate with people who had bad reputations. Lk 5 29"Then Levi hosted a great banquet for Jesus at his house. A large crowd of tax collectors was there, along with others who were eating with them." Here Jesus goes to a party at Levi's house. Was Jesus simply going to the party to witness? No He was going to enjoy the company of men who were notorious sinners.
Jesus developed a reputation of being identified with the wrong crowd. Lk 15 2 So the Pharisees and scribes began to grumble: "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them." In fact when the religious leaders had caught a woman in adultery, she was brought out into the public arena and was about to be stoned when Jesus ended the event by saying "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." This reasoning was used by the Jews to defend themselves against the nations. It was very rarely used in the OT to defend a Gentile convert. In the OT the Gentile nations were identified as sinners not the Jewish nation. Could these leaders be accused of the same sin of Adultery? Yes but the scripture teaches that a specific sin points to a much worse condition. No one is condemned because they are have a problem with a sin but they are condemned because their many sins point to their condition of being lost and blind because of Adams original sin.
We can see that Jesus sought to defend the people with a bad reputation with the lowest common denominator. In other words if it was wrong for Jesus to enjoy the company of sinners then the question is if all men are sinners then how can they judge another sinner? What Jesus is showing here was that , God was the only Judge who was able to declare someone guilty. Because God is the only Person who is sinless. In this way Jesus was declaring that He is the standard of perfect justice. In this way there is no person who has the ultimate authority to condemn a sinner. Any earthly ruler has borrowed authority.
So the question is ...if Jesus loved the company of notorious sinners then how can He be holy if He is accused of teaching by example that its ok to accept people who have not repented? So this leads to another point. We are taught that we can be innocent even tho we have friends who have bad reputations. You see the teachers of the law failed to understand the ot teaching on sinners and sin.
We have been taught that there are two lines. Both lines are equally important. One line represents Gods view of sin and sinners. The other line represents the value of being innocent as we judge sin in comparison to other sinners. But this reasoning is contradictory. Because Jesus failed in crossing the line in having a reputation in that society where He was teaching by example that its ok to hang out with friends who are known sinners. This is just intellectually insulting.
But we are taught in the ot that God is the only ruler who has the right to be the judge. Gods law has been established in His counsel from eternity past. So Gods law goes beyond mans system of the chain of command. Gods law cannot be thwarted or overturned. Because Gods law is not silent or a standard of moral ability. Rather Gods law is the agent that eliminates any presence of leaven. It is always speaking ..either the curse or the blessing. Man is only able to govern this earth as God allows him in blessing or prevents him in cursing.