Jesus’ Attitudes to Disregarded People

Why some people were disregarded

In first-century society, a person’s gender, age, occupation, health or religious background could affect how others treated them. To be disregarded meant being treated as unimportant, ignored or excluded. Mark’s Gospel presents Jesus as challenging this treatment: he gave attention and dignity to people whom others avoided.

The reasons for exclusion were not all the same. Women and children generally had less status in a largely male-dominated, or patriarchal, society. Tax collectors were resented because of their work and reputation. People with certain illnesses could be excluded because they were considered ritually impure.

Ritual impurity concerned religious purity rules, not necessarily wrongdoing. A person could be considered impure because of an illness rather than a choice they had made. This distinction matters: illness did not make someone morally bad. Nor did everyone in Jewish society share the same attitudes. Jesus and his earliest followers were themselves Jewish, and Mark records disagreements about how people should be treated.

Tax collectors: rejection or an opportunity to change?

Tax collectors worked for the Roman authorities, whose rule and taxation were unpopular. They were considered dishonest, associated with taking more money than was required, and regarded as failing to keep the religious Law. Their reputation made them people whom respectable religious teachers might be expected to avoid.

In Mark 2:13–17, Jesus called Levi, a tax collector, to follow him. Levi got up from his tax booth and followed. Jesus then ate with tax collectors and sinners at Levi’s house. Sharing a meal showed a willingness to associate with them rather than keep them at a distance.

The scribes of the Pharisees challenged this behaviour. Jesus answered by comparing his work to that of a doctor: sick people need a physician, not healthy people. He explained, “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners” (Mark 2:17).

His reason for including them was therefore more than friendliness. People needing forgiveness and change were central to his mission. Rejecting them would prevent him from reaching those he had come to help. Calling Levi also showed that a person’s unpopular occupation did not automatically prevent them from becoming a follower.

Illness: restoring dignity as well as health

People described as having leprosy were excluded from ordinary social life. Religious purity concerns could lead others to avoid contact with them. Jesus, however, touched the man with leprosy. The touch mattered alongside the healing: someone accustomed to rejection was treated as a person worthy of care. Jesus’ response restored human dignity rather than reinforcing exclusion.

The woman with a haemorrhage, or persistent bleeding, was also regarded as ritually impure. Jesus did not respond by treating her as someone to be despised. He addressed her respectfully and praised her faith. The contrast is between reducing someone to a condition others feared or rejected and recognising her as a person with faith and value.

For Christians, these encounters show that care should involve more than dealing with a physical problem. Respect, personal attention and inclusion can matter deeply to someone who has experienced rejection.

Women, children and people beyond the Jewish community

Mark also shows Jesus challenging assumptions about whose actions and needs deserved attention. When people brought children to Jesus, the disciples tried to turn them away. Jesus instead took the children in his arms and blessed them, teaching that the Kingdom of God belonged to those who were childlike. Those with little social standing were not unimportant to God.

Jesus also valued the poor widow’s self-sacrificial offering and praised the motivation of the woman who anointed him. These examples show that social status and outward appearances were not his measure of a person’s worth. Someone easily overlooked could demonstrate outstanding generosity or devotion.

The Greek, Syro-Phoenician woman and her daughter provide another important example. She was both a woman and a Gentile: a person who was not Jewish. Jesus’ response to her daughter’s need shows concern extending beyond his own religious community. Taken together, these encounters support the Christian belief that God’s concern is not limited to the socially powerful or to one group.

Why Jesus’ example matters today

For Christians, Jesus’ actions reveal how people should be treated. If Jesus welcomed those whom others rejected, churches should not reserve their care for respectable, popular or influential people. His example supports welcoming people into community as well as offering practical assistance.

This can influence work with people experiencing homelessness, food poverty or illness, and with prisoners and asylum seekers. For example, local churches and The Salvation Army provide meals and food support. Such action can put Jesus’ compassion into practice by responding to need rather than judging someone by their reputation.

Christians may emphasise different aspects of these encounters. Some focus on immediate practical care and restoring dignity. Others emphasise forgiveness and inviting people to follow Jesus, as in Levi’s call. These approaches need not conflict: helping someone and sharing Christian beliefs can be understood as parts of the same mission.

The example can also be relevant to non-religious people in contemporary Britain. A humanist may support inclusion because every person’s welfare and dignity matter, without believing that Jesus acted with divine authority. An atheist can admire his compassion without accepting the religious explanation of his actions. Agreement about helping excluded people does not require agreement about God.

Did Jesus give disregarded people too much attention?

One argument is that a religious teacher should have prioritised teaching religious leaders and preparing his disciples. Better understanding among these groups might have helped his message reach more people. His association with sinners also provoked criticism, as the meal with Levi demonstrates. From the perspective of those concerned with purity rules, contact with people regarded as impure could seem inappropriate for a religious teacher.

The opposing argument is that these criticisms misunderstand Jesus’ purpose. His doctor comparison explains why people in need required his attention. Care for them demonstrated God’s concern and made his teaching visible in action. Avoiding them to protect his reputation would have undermined that message.

Nor did he care only for outsiders. His help for Jairus, a synagogue leader, shows concern for someone with recognised standing. The pattern is therefore a response to need, not simply a preference for one social group over another.

A justified conclusion could be that Jesus gave disregarded people much attention, but not too much. They needed help that others were unwilling to provide, and including them fulfilled his stated mission. For Christians today, this supports giving particular attention to excluded people without neglecting anyone else who needs care.

Reasons for exclusion and Jesus’ response

• Tax collectors: resented for working for Rome and considered dishonest. Jesus called Levi and ate with tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2:13–17).
• People with leprosy: excluded through purity concerns. Jesus touched the man, restoring dignity as well as helping him.
• Woman with a haemorrhage: regarded as ritually impure. Jesus addressed her respectfully and praised her faith.
• Women and children: generally had less status in a patriarchal society. Jesus blessed children, valued the poor widow’s sacrifice and praised the woman who anointed him.
• Gentiles: outside the Jewish community. Jesus responded to the Syro-Phoenician woman’s daughter’s need.

Significance today

Jesus’ example supports compassion, inclusion, practical help and opportunities for change. Christians may emphasise care, forgiveness or both. Humanists and atheists can value his concern for human dignity without accepting his divine authority.

Evaluation: too much attention?

Agree: time could have been spent teaching leaders and disciples; association with outsiders provoked criticism.

Disagree: helping those in need fulfilled his mission: “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners” (Mark 2:17). Helping Jairus shows he did not neglect everyone else.

Judgement: assess whether the attention fulfilled Jesus’ purpose, not simply whether it challenged social expectations.