D. Jesus’ miracles (5:1–26)
D. Jesus’ miracles (5:1–26)
Luke narrates a trio of miracles: a nature miracle, then a couple of healings. They emphasize Jesus’ mastery of the situations in which he found himself and show his compassion.
1. The miraculous catch of fish (5:1–11)
Some scholars hold that this is a variant of the story in John 21, a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus. But the differences are too many and too great. Thus in Luke a crowd was pressing in on Jesus but in John there are only seven disciples, five of whom are named. In Luke there are two boats, in John one. In both the fishermen have completed an unsuccessful night’s fishing, but in Luke Jesus proposes a new trip, while in John the wonderful catch comes at the end of a trip proposed by Peter and accepted by the others. In Luke Jesus got into a boat (specified as Simon’s), in John he remained on the shore throughout and the owner of the boat is not named. In Luke he is known all the time, but in John he is unrecognized until the Beloved Disciple identifies him. Luke tells us that Jesus taught the people, in John there is no equivalent (and no people to teach). In Luke Jesus told Peter to launch out into the deep and let down the nets and was met by Peter’s reply that he and his friends had toiled all night without success but that nevertheless he would obey. In John the disciples had already had an unsuccessful night; their trip was not at Jesus’ direction. John’s account includes Jesus’ instruction that they let down their nets on the right side of the ship, whereas Luke says nothing about sides. In John there is no objection, nothing to correspond to Peter’s telling the Master of their night-long toil. In Luke Jesus was in the boat, in John he was on the shore. In Luke the nets broke and the fishermen had to summon their partners for help with the result that they filled both boats to the point where they were sinking. In John the net did not break and the fishermen dragged it to the shore. Both make it clear that there were many fish, but John gives us the total number (153), while Luke does not say how many there were. Luke tells us that Peter was very impressed and that he declared his sinfulness and called on Jesus to depart from him, but there is no Johannine equivalent. James and John are named at the end of Luke’s account, while Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, and the sons of Zebedee are named at the beginning of John’s story (there were also two unnamed people). Clearly the differences are so many and of such magnitude that it is not easy to think that these two writers were talking about the same thing.
We should also see Luke’s incident as distinct from the story of the call of the disciples in Mark 1:13–20. It is just possible that Mark tells of the incident without the miracle (though with not inconsiderable differences). But it is more likely that Luke is referring to a different incident.
1–3. Luke sets the scene. The crowd, eager to hear the word of God (which may mean ‘the word that comes from God’ or ‘the word that tells of God’), pressed in on Jesus as he stood by the lake of Gennesaret. Luke always calls this sheet of water a lake, whereas the other Evangelists follow the Old Testament in calling it a sea. It measures roughly 13 miles by 7 miles and is situated about 700 feet below sealevel. This is the only place where it is called Gennesaret, the usual name being Galilee (Chinneroth in the Old Testament; Tiberias twice in John). Jesus saw two boats from which the fishermen had gone out to wash their nets. After each fishing trip the equipment had to be checked and cleaned in readiness for the next. Jesus got into one of the boats, which belonged to Simon, and asked him to thrust out a little from the shore. Jesus then sat down (the customary position for teaching), and taught the people from the boat.
4–5. The lesson over, Jesus suggested to Peter that they go fishing. In reply Peter calls Jesus Master (Epistata), a word found in this Gospel only in the New Testament. In all seven of its occurrences it is used in addressing Jesus. The term is not specific like ‘Rabbi’ (which Luke never uses), but denotes anyone in authority. Peter goes on, we toiled all night and took nothing! There is perhaps an implied rebuke. Night was the best time for fishing, and Peter may be suggesting that, when experts, fishing at the right time, had caught nothing, it was useless to try at the request of a carpenter. If that is the way of it, Peter’s willingness to act on Jesus’ suggestion shows a realization that his word was not to be ignored on any subject. Peter might not agree but he could obey.
6–7. Obedience brings results! Peter and his friends let down the nets and enclosed a great shoal of fish. There were too many for the nets to hold. Even when the fishermen signalled to their partners in the other boat and they too came up, there was still not the necessary capacity. They filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. The number of fish is not given (as it is in the story in John), but clearly the catch was abnormal. It was not to be explained along the usual lines of fishing techniques.
8. Here only in his Gospel Luke uses the compound name Simon Peter. Up till 6:14 (apart from this verse) he always calls this man Simon. Afterwards, except in passages where he is quoting other people, Luke always calls him Peter. Perhaps surprisingly Peter did not welcome the great catch. He recognized the miracle and reacted as one in the presence of God. It is not easy to see the meaning of fell down at Jesus’ knees. But perhaps we should take ‘Iēsou as dative and render with Phillips ‘fell on his knees before Jesus’. Peter’s next words, Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord, remind us of the experience of great saints in the immediate presence of God, such as Abraham (Gen. 18:27), Job (Job 42:6), or Isaiah (Isa. 6:5). Cf. also Israel’s ‘let not God speak to us, lest we die’ (Exod. 20:19). Peter had experienced ‘the unimaginable grace of God’ (Schweizer) and that drove him to realize his own sinfulness. The address, Lord, replaces ‘Master’ of verse 5 and this is probably connected with this heightened apprehension. While it can be used as no more than a form of polite address (like our ‘Sir’), the word is also used consistently of God in the LXX and is common in many religions in referring to deity. On the change Plummer comments, ‘It is the “Master” whose orders must be obeyed, the “Lord” whose holiness caused moral agony to the sinner (Dan. x.:16).’ This reaction, when nothing is recorded as taking place after earlier miracles, is probably not due to Luke’s recording of the miracle out of order, as some suggest. Rather it will be because this was a miracle in Peter’s own area of expertise. He knew fishing; and therefore he knew what this haul implied.
9–11. The extraordinary nature of the catch astonished the fishermen: Peter, those with him and Peter’s partners (the word is different from that in v. 7; Moffatt distinguishes with ‘mates’ and ‘partners’). Then Luke goes to the important thing, the sequel to the miracle. First, Jesus reassures Peter. Do not be afraid means ‘Stop being fearful’ rather than ‘Don’t get scared’. It calms an existing fear. Peter was evidently awe-struck, as his whole reaction shows. Henceforth introduces a new set of circumstances. A turning-point has been reached. From now on things will be different with Peter. The nature of the new life to which Jesus is calling him comes out in the final words: You will be catching men. The tense is continuous, signifying a habitual practice. And Peter will no longer be concerned with fish but with people. Catching is, of course, used in a different sense, catching for life not for death (zōgreomeans ‘catch alive’, ‘catch for life’). When the fishing party got to land they left everything (cf. 18:28–30). They left the greatest catch they had seen in all their lives. That catch was not as important as what it showed them about Jesus, so they followed him. They became disciples in the fullest sense.
2. Healing a leper (5:12–16)
Leprosy in biblical times was the name given to a variety of diseases, some curable and some not. In its worst form it was a greatly dreaded and very dreadful disease. It was both disfiguring and fatal and the ancient world’s only defence against it was quarantine (Lev. 13:46). Sufferers were forbidden to approach other people, and to prevent accidental contact they were required to call out ‘Unclean’ (Lev.13:45). They had no way of earning a living and had to depend on charity. The psychological effects of all this seem to have been as serious as the physical. People had (and often have) an attitude to leprosy different from that to any other disease. It was defiling. People were ashamed of it, though it was no fault of their own. Jesus healed lepers and saw in this one of the signs of his Messiahship (7:22).
12. Luke does not locate the incident with precision, but in some town there was a man full of leprosy. Luke alone has full of; it was apparently a medical term for an advanced case, though Creed notes that there is no exact parallel. It was against the law for a leper to come into the city (Lev. 13:46). Luke may mean that the encounter took place on the outskirts. Or the man, desperate in his misery, may have ignored the regulation. At any rate he came close enough to Jesus to prostrate himself before him and speak to him. He had no doubt about Jesus’ ability to heal, but was not so sure whether he was willing. Notice that he does not speak of being healed, but says, you can make me clean. Leprosy was a dirty disease. To be healed meant to be cleansed.
13. Jesus’ compassion comes out in the fact that he stretched out his hand (was the man keeping his distance?), and touched him. People shunned lepers and we are safe in saying that nobody but other lepers had touched this man in years. That touch spoke volumes. Then Jesus pronounced words of healing: I will; be clean. The result was immediate cure.
14. Jesus had already forbidden demoniacs to speak of him (4:35, 41). Similarly he now commands the former leper to be silent. He does not say why. Perhaps it was to prevent the popular enthusiasm that would try to make Jesus into the Messianic conqueror nationalists looked for. Instead Jesus told him to perform a quiet religious rite. The procedure for anyone claiming to be cured of leprosy was to go to the priest, who acted as a kind of health inspector. If the priest was satisfied, a sacrifice was offered, after which the healed person was able to take his place in the community (see Lev. 14). The Greek behind for a proof to the people means ‘for a testimony to them’. Everything depends on the meaning of them. Phillips renders, ‘as evidence to the authorities’. He may be right, but perhaps RSV is more likely. The words probably point to a safeguard for the healed man. People would know that he had been a leper and would be slow to accept him. But if a priest had inspected him and accepted his offering, there was proof that he had been healed. It would also show that Jesus upheld the law. And it would be a testimony to people in general that the power of God was at work in Jesus.
15–16. Jesus’ request for silence was not heeded: so much the more the report went abroad concerning him (Mark says that the healed man himself took the lead in this). The inevitable result was that crowds flocked round Jesus. But this was not in his plan. He had rejected the devil’s temptation to become a popular wonder-worker. So he forsook the cities and went to the wilderness. Characteristically Luke tells us that there he prayed (both verbs, withdrew and prayed, indicate continuous action). In the midst of pressing duties he found it necessary to be quiet and pray.
3. Healing a paralytic (5:17–26)
The fascinating story of the healing of the paralytic lowered through the roof is in all three Synoptists. Jesus meets the objection to his forgiving sins by working a miracle expressly ‘that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins’ (24). The people reacted as those in the very presence of God.
17. Luke does not locate the incident (Mark tells us it was in Capernaum). Jesus had quite a reputation by now, for Pharisees had come even from Judea and from Jerusalem, as well as locally. The Pharisees took their religion very seriously. They were so anxious not to break God’s commandments that they ‘put a fence about the law’. For example, when the law said, ‘Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain’, they made sure they did not break it by refusing to pronounce the name at all. This hedge around all the provisions of the law (‘the tradition of the elders’) had the unfortunate result of externalizing religion. People then put a good deal of effort into the outward without necessarily coming to love God in their hearts. The Pharisees were not numerous (Josephus put the number at something in excess of 6,000, Antiquities xvii.42), but they were very influential. They were the unofficial religious leaders of the day and they spearheaded the opposition to Jesus. Teachers of the law translatesa word that seems to have been coined by the Christians to bring out the concentration on the law so characteristic of the Jewish scribes. Luke goes on to say that the power of the Lord (i.e. God) was with him to heal.
18–19. Some men (Mark tells us there were four) brought a paralysed man on his bed. Because of the crowd they could not lay him before Jesus, so they took him up to the roof. Houses usually had flat roofs, often with external staircases leading up to them. So the crowd did not stop these men from reaching the roof. There they let him down with his bed through the tiles. Mark says nothing about the tiles (he does not say what the roof was made of), but says that they ‘unroofed the roof ’ and that they ‘dug it out’. Most commentators say that Palestinian houses did not have tiled roofs and that Luke has described houses he knew elsewhere, not a Palestinian house. But according to NBD 6 ‘the tiled roof … appeared before New Testament times’.
20. Apparently nothing was said, but the action was a mute appeal. It showed their faith and that is important (for other examples of faith availing for others cf. 7:9f.; 1 Cor. 7:14). It is unlikely that it is only the faith of the bearers that is in mind. First, the unqualified plural their seems meant to include the whole party, the sick man as well as his friends, and secondly, it is impossible to think that the man’s sins were forgiven if he had no faith of his own. Jesus’ first words have to do with sin, not sickness. In authoritative language he said, Man, your sins are forgiven you. This is very important. Manson comments, ‘what the incident is intended primarily to bring out is that the authority of Jesus in religion starts with the forgiveness of sins. He comes to deliver souls from the paralysis of moral and spiritual energy.’ He rejects Bultmann’s contention that the forgiveness of sins is a late doctrinal accretion and sees it (in my judgment, rightly) as rather ‘the core of the original narrative’. Jesus brings no partial salvation: it is spiritual as well as physical.
21. These words provoked a reaction from the scribes and the Pharisees. The scribes were men learned in the law (cf. ‘teachers of the law’, 17) and might be Pharisees or Sadducees (Luke links them with the Pharisees five times and with the chief priests seven times). This opposition group correctly sees that only God can forgive sin, but incorrectly assumes that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy. They do not stop to ask whether Jesus’ relationship to the Father is such that he can in fact forgive. Luke, incidentally, is rather fond of questions which begin with ‘Who?’ and refer to Jesus (7:49; 8:25; 9:9, 18, 20; 19:3).
22–23. Jesus perceived their questionings, which seems to mean that he knew their thoughts rather than that he heard what they were saying (cf. in your hearts and also Mark 2:8). Jesus replied by posing some questions also. On the surface it is easier to say Your sins are forgiven you than Rise and walk. The latter may be put to an immediate and obvious test, whereas the onlooker does not know whether sins are forgiven or not. This may be the sense of it. But it is not improbable that Jesus is saying that it is much harder really to pronounce the word of forgiveness than the word of healing. He was doing more than the healers of the day could do.
24. Jesus performs the cure that they may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins. His words about forgiveness and healing go together. If he can do the one he can do the other. The Jews of the day thought that all sickness was due to sin (cf. John 9:2). ‘R. Alexandri said in the name of R. H. iyya b. Abba: A sick man does not recover from his sickness until all his sins are forgiven him’ (Nedarim 41a). Had they been consistent, accordingly they must have accepted the man’s forgiveness!
This is Luke’s first use of the expression the Son of man, which he will use in all twenty-six times. It is Jesus’ favourite self-designation, being found in the Gospels over eighty times, and in all the strata that critics discern in all four Gospels. It is used only by Jesus (except for Stephen, Acts 7:56). It appears to be his way of referring to his Messiahship with the use of a term which would not arouse the wrong associations in people’s minds.7 The Son of man, then, spoke the word of healing and told the paralytic to take up his bed and go home.
25–26. The cure took place immediately. The man did as Jesus told him. Bengel comments on took up that on which he lay, ‘A happy expression. The couch had borne the man: now the man was bearing the couch.’ Luke alone tells us that he went off glorifying God. The healing did not centre on the human Jesus: it was God that the man glorified. Luke proceeds to tell of the reaction among the onlookers. They, too, saw the hand of God, for they glorified him and were filled with awe (the appropriate emotion in the presence of deity). Their comment was, We have seen strange things today, where strange means ‘beyond expectation’; cf. Moffatt, ‘We have seen incredible things to-day.’ Human achievement could not explain what had happened.