CHAPTER V

Outline of Chapter 5

Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do

5:1–11 A Miraculous Catch

5:12–16 A Leper Cleansed

5:17–26 The Healing of a Paralytic

5:27–32 The Call of Levi

5:33–39 The Question About Fasting

5:1–11 A Miraculous Catch

5 1 Once while the crowd was pressing upon him, listening to God’s word, and Jesus was standing beside the Lake of Gennesaret, 2 he saw two boats lying at the edge of the lake,²¹⁵ but the fishermen had left them and were washing their nets. 3 Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, Jesus asked him to push out a little from shore. Then he sat down and from the boat began to teach the people.

4 When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a haul.” 5 Simon answered, “Master, all through the night we toiled and caught nothing, but because you say so²¹⁶ I’ll let down the nets.”²¹⁷

6 Having done this, they enclosed such an enormous shoal of fish that their nets started to tear. 7 So they signaled their comrades²¹⁸ in the other boat to come and help them. They arrived and filled both boats, so that they began to sink.

8 When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, for I’m a sinful man, Lord.” 9 For, because of the haul of fish they had made, amazement had gripped him and all who were with him. 10 This was true also with respect to Zebedee’s sons, James and John, who were Simon’s partners.

Then Jesus said to Simon, “Have no fear; from now on you will be catching men.”²¹⁹ 11 So, running their boats ashore, they left everything and followed him.

Again, as often, Luke is indefinite as to time. Note, however, the following: (a) we find Jesus still in Galilee; (b) the disciples are still being “called”—there were several steps in this calling (see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 245); (c) it would seem that Levi (= Matthew) has not yet joined the group (Luke 5:27–32; cf. Mark 2:13–17); and (d) The Twelve, as a body, have not yet been chosen and charged (cf. Luke 6:12–16; 9:1–6; and see also Mark 3:13–19; 6:7–13; cf. Matt. 10:1–42). On the other hand, (e) “the calling of four fishermen” (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20) has already taken place.

Taken as a unit, the story found here in Luke 5:1–11 is peculiar to Luke; it has no parallel.²²⁰

The incident is meaningful and even thrilling. It is all this because it shows what a wonderful Savior is Jesus. He stands revealed here in a fivefold aspect, each of the five little paragraphs setting forth one phase of his greatness; as follows:

A. his practical wisdom

1–3. Once while the crowd was pressing upon him, listening to God’s word, and Jesus was standing beside the Lake of Gennesaret, he saw two boats lying at the edge of the lake, but the fishermen had left them and were washing their nets. Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, Jesus asked him to push out a little from shore. Then he sat down and from the boat began to teach the people.

It will become clear that Jesus’ practical wisdom is revealed in these first three verses. The situation was as follows. Jesus was standing on the shore of that body of water which Luke always calls a “lake,” the other evangelists a “sea.” In the present instance Luke adds “of Gennesaret” (according to some, meaning “princely garden”), the adjoining amazingly fertile plain (to the south of Capernaum) described in N.T.C. on Mark, p. 264. The Speaker, in his own captivating and authoritative manner, was bringing the word or message of God to his audience. That message was “the gospel of the kingdom,” the reign of God in hearts, lives, and spheres. Cf. Mark 1:14, 15.

So huge was the assembled multitude that the One who addressed them was actually being crowded. The people were pressing closer and closer. Does not this remind us of Mark 4:1 and especially of Mark 3:9? Just then Jesus saw two fishermen’s boats lying at the water’s edge. They were empty, their occupants having stepped ashore to wash their nets, to ready them for another try. So, in order to solve his problem, Jesus stepped into one of these boats and asked its owner to push out a little from shore. Having arrived at a spot not too close to nor too far away from the land, the Lord sat down (the usual speaking position) and then began once more, or continued, to teach the people.

This was surely a very practical way of solving a problem. There was nothing stiff or inflexible about Jesus’ method of reaching the people. Within reason almost anything could serve as his pulpit. Many a time he preached or taught at the regular synagogue service, as has already been shown (Luke 4:15, 16), and in Judea also in the temple (Matt. 26:55). But he did not limit himself to synagogue and temple. Sometimes he chose a convenient spot on a mountain as his pulpit (Matt. 5:1), or a house (Luke 5:17 f.), or a desert (Mark 8:1, 4), or a cemetery (John 11:38). In the present instance speaking while seated in a fisherman’s boat meant not only a more comfortable position but also a better view of the audience and even better acoustics.

However, in this case Jesus revealed his practical wisdom also in another way. The owner of the boat from which Jesus now addressed the people was Simon. It was to him that he addressed the request that, with his Master aboard, he push out a little from shore. Upon this very man, Simon, the Lord had already bestowed many a blessing. He had “called” him, and this not once but twice (John 1:42; then Mark 1:16–18). He had visited his home and had even healed this fisherman’s mother-in-law (Luke 4:38, 39). But now he did the very opposite: he asked Simon to render a service to him! Today’s preacher, teacher, etc., should take this practical lesson to heart. If you wish to see your church, class, or whatever, grow numerically and spiritually, not only do something for this group but also ask them to do something for the good cause. Get your people involved!

B. his penetrating knowledge

4, 5. When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a haul.

When Jesus was through speaking to the multitude, he told Simon to bring the boat to a place where the water was deep, and then, with the help of his men, to lower the nets for the purpose of catching fish. Note the change here from the singular to the plural. It took more than one individual to lower the nets.

The boat to which Luke refers was probably rather large, with room enough for Jesus and his disciples (cf. Mark 6:7, 30, 32). It is therefore reasonable to assume that also now, together with Jesus and Simon, there were others in this boat. One of them may have been Andrew (cf. Mark 1:16), though in this entire account he is never mentioned by name. The probability must also be granted that Simon and his partners (see verses 7 and 10) had employed a crew of hired men. Cf. Mark 1:20.

Humanly speaking, the order which Jesus issued—“Launch out into the deep,” etc.—was strange. A carpenter telling an experienced fisherman how to catch fish! He was ordering him to fish at an unlikely place and time, that is, in deep water and in bright daylight. It must be borne in mind that Jesus had already twice addressed the people on the shore, each time presumably at some length (verses 1 and 3). By this time it may well have been around noon, therefore.

Accordingly, when Simon receives this order, faith and doubt, trust and misgiving, are battling it out. His fisherman’s expertise raises a doubt and whispers to him that he must not obey Jesus. His conscience, illuminated by faith, tells him that he must obey. Faith conquers, though still tempered with some misgiving. Simon answered, Master—this is Luke’s constant substitute for the term Rabbi of the other Gospels—all through the night²²¹ we toiled and caught nothing, but because you say so I’ll let down the nets. This not, to be sure, all by himself but with the help of his men, so that the translation “I’ll have the nets lowered” can be substituted.

Implied in Jesus’ command is at least the fact that he knew that at the spot where Simon would lower the nets there would be an abundance of fish. How did he know this? Here we are confronted with a mystery. It cannot be denied that even during his sojourn on earth Jesus, according to his divine nature, was omniscient. That he actually knew the whereabouts of fishes is clear not only from our present passage but also from Matt. 17:27. He also knew where human individuals would be and what they would be doing at this or that particular moment (Mark 14:13; John 1:47–49). He was even aware of the contents and deliberations of hearts and minds (Luke 5:22; John 2:25). Yet, according to his human nature his knowledge was limited (Matt. 24:36; Mark 11:13; Luke 8:45, 46). How these two natures, each possessing certain characteristics in distinction from the other, could be inseparably united in one divine person is beyond human comprehension. The best we can do, when we contemplate this great mystery, is to derive comfort from our Savior’s penetrating knowledge, so that with Simon Peter we cry out, “Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee” (John 21:17b).

So far we have referred only to Christ’s omniscience. But according to his divine nature he was not only omniscient but also omnipotent. Therefore we cannot rule out the possibility that he not only knew that at a certain moment this enormous shoal of fish would be at a certain definite place, but that he also actually directed them to that place! And if that is what happened, then he naturally knew where they would be.

When God created man he gave him “dominion over the fish of the sea.” To an extent, at least, this dominion was lost when man fell. In Christ it is restored (Gen. 1:28; Matt. 11:27; 28:18; Heb. 2:5–8).

C. his lavish generosity

6, 7. Having done this, they enclosed such an enormous shoal of fish that their nets started to tear. So they signaled their comrades [or: partners] in the other boat to come and help them. They arrived and filled both boats, so that they began to sink.

So enormous was the quantity of fish caught that the nets started to tear. The meaning cannot be that they actually began to rip apart so that the fish could escape and swim away, but that noises were heard associated with the snapping of a little cord here, a little cord there. Because of this emergency—the nets starting to tear, the boat’s capacity inadequate—Simon and his men signaled their comrades in the other boat to come and help.

Note: they “signaled.” Why did they not shout? It will be recalled that there were two boats (verse 2). One answer, then, might be that the second boat was either still lying ashore or was at least too far away from the first one to be reached by shouting. The first boat was “in deep water” (verse 4); the second may not have been. Another solution would be that, by reason of their very occupation, fishermen would communicate with each other not by shouts but by signals.

Who were those “comrades” in the other boat? Opinions are divided. According to Lenski (op. cit., p. 180) they were “hired men”; while Plummer, too (op. cit., p. 146), is not sure whether the signaled men of verse 7 and Zebedee’s sons of verse 10 were the same people.²²² The position that they were the same in both cases, namely, Zebedee’s sons, James and John, who were business associates of Simon, a view endorsed by many commentators including Greijdanus and Robertson, is in line with Matt. 4:18, 21; Mark 1:16, 19. It can be considered a reasonable assumption.

The summoned men arrived. The holds of both boats were now filled with fish. The result was that the two vessels became so heavy that they went down, down, down, reaching a level that was so near to the surface of the water that they were but barely kept afloat.

Here is an example of the lavish generosity of our Lord. When he gives he does not stint. “He giveth and giveth and giveth again.” See Matt. 14:20, 21; 15:37, 38; also N.T.C. on John 1:16.

D. his ineffable majesty

8–10a. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, Go away from me, for I’m a sinful man, Lord. —For, because of the haul of fish they had made, amazement had gripped him and all who were with him. This was true also with respect to Zebedee’s sons, James and John, who were Simon’s partners.

Note “Simon Peter,” his name fully spelled out, as it is also in Matt. 16:16. In both cases this disciple pours out his heart in humble confession and adoration.

He fell at Jesus’ knees. At this point some interpreters experience a difficulty. They cannot understand this posture and suggest that the meaning is probably that Simon fell on his knees before Jesus. The difficulty disappears, however, when Jesus is pictured as sitting down. There was room for Simon to fall as well as there was room for Simon’s men to walk around and do their work. The fish were in the hold.

When Simon now asks Jesus to depart from him, this must not be interpreted too literally, as if he were requesting Jesus to walk off the boat and into the lake. The words must be viewed as a sincere and humble expression of this disciple’s recognition of his own unworthiness as contrasted with Christ’s greatness and holiness. Peter stands in awe of his Master and confesses him to be his “Lord.” Astonishment and fear had seized him, and not only him but also his men (see on verse 4) and his partners, James and John. They have become aware of the fact that Jesus is superhuman; in fact, that he is God! Again and again in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) the title Lord is used as an equivalent of God. Instantaneously, under the impression of the astounding miracle, Simon Peter knew in his heart that his “Master” was at the same time his “Lord,” truly worthy of worship and adoration. Over against this “Lord” Peter was nothing but a “sinful man.”

In the presence of the holy God sinful man trembles. Other examples: Abraham (Gen. 18:27, 30, 32); Manoah and his wife (Judg. 13:20); Job (Job 42:5, 6); Isaiah (Isa. 6:5); the apostle John (Rev. 1:17). This applies even to groups: Israel (Exod. 20:19; Deut. 5:25); the nations (Isa. 64:2).

The question may be asked, “How is it that this confession fell from Simon’s lips now and not before?” This, after all, was not the first miracle Simon had witnessed. In fact, Jesus had performed a supernatural healing act right in this disciple’s own home (Luke 4:38, 39). The answer is probably that this particular miracle was performed in the very area which Simon regarded as his own, that is, in the sphere in which he considered himself a specialist, fishing!

When one is confronted with Jesus, it is impossible to remain neutral. His enemies react to his miracles with hatred and reviling; his true disciples, with homage and reverence. They stoop and worship.

E. his profound mission-mindedness

10b, 11. Then Jesus said to Simon, Have no fear; from now on you will be catching men. On “Have no fear” or “Do not be afraid” see the explanation of 1:13, including the note on that passage on page 80. Jesus, kind Shepherd that he is, has taken note of Peter’s alarmed feeling. It is for this reason that he now puts his disciple’s mind to rest. Next, he reveals to him that this is a critical moment, a turning point, in Peter’s life. From this moment on the disciple’s main vocation will change. Simon has been catching fish. He is going to be catching men. He has been catching in order to kill. He will be catching in order to impart life, that is, to be an instrument in God’s hand in doing this. All this may well be implied in the words used in the original, which can also be rendered, “From now on you will be catching men alive,” implying “and for life.”

Once before Jesus had promised, “I will make you fishers of men” (Matt. 4:19; cf. Mark 1:17). But this time the words are more definite. It is clearly indicated that this altered stage in Peter’s life—and he, of course, also represents the other disciples—begins here and now; and also that the effort will be crowned with a measure of success: “you will be catching men.” Moreover, the continuity of the work is stressed: day by day, week after week, month upon month, etc., you will be engaged in this great and glorious task.

The reason Jesus wanted to catch men in his gospel net, and wanted his disciples to follow his example, was that this was a very important part of the task the Father had assigned to him. In order to accomplish this assignment he had come to earth (Luke 5:32). To bring about this result he was “sent” by the Father (4:18; 9:48; 10:16; cf. John 3:16, 17, 34, etc.; Gal. 4:4; I John 4:9, 10, 14). And he himself eagerly desired to rescue men from death and to impart life to them (Luke 10:2; cf. Matt. 9:36–38; John 4:34, 35), even though he fully realized what would be the cost to himself (Luke 12:50). O the depth of love! Yet his final aim did not center in man but in God, that he (God) might be glorified (Luke 17:18; cf. John 17:1, 4), and the ardent desire of the holy angels (Luke 2:14) might thus be fulfilled.

It is understandable, therefore, that in meditating on Jesus’ promise to his disciples that from now on they would be catching men, we speak of his “profound mission-mindedness.” For more on this general subject see on verse 32.

So, running their boats ashore, they left everything and followed him.

Note that this time Peter, James, and John leave everything behind to follow Jesus. Never before had they done this. There had been a call to accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (John 1:35–51); next, a call to become Christ’s more steady companions, without bidding farewell to their occupation as fishermen (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20). But the present implied call meant that they must leave all.

As already mentioned, this call was implied, rather than expressed. It was implied in the promise, “From now on you will be catching men.”

How great was the sacrifice these men were required to make? The answer becomes clear by studying a question raised by Peter sometime later, and especially by pondering Christ’s answer to that question. See Luke 18:28–30 (cf. Matt. 19:27–30; Mark 10:28–31). To be specific: these men actually left their fish, boats, business, homes, families!

Note: They left everything, even though the promise had been made to Simon alone. The other disciples correctly understood that what Jesus had spoken to Peter concerned them also.

What became of the fish? Were they simply left to rot? Certainly not. He who was going to see to it that broken pieces of food were gathered (Matt. 14:20; 15:37) would never have allowed that to happen. If Zebedee himself was still alive, he could take charge. Besides, there were the hired men. The rich supply had been intended by the Lord, we may be sure, as food for many. A portion could be sold. Some could be given to the poor. The families of the fishermen could be supplied.

But why such an enormous provision? The thought occurs that God—Jesus, if one prefers—furnished such an immense quantity in order to rid the disciples of any worry about their families, as if to say, “Will not he who just now has blessed you abundantly continue to care for you?” How great thou art!²²³

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 5:1–11

Many of the practical lessons are found in the explanation. For the rest, note the following:

Verse 1

“Pressing upon him, listening to God’s word.” For a successful service the preacher must proclaim God’s word; the audience must listen eagerly.

Verse 4

“Launch out,” figuratively speaking, by means of bearing witness by word of mouth, giving moral and financial support, being a living example.

Verse 5

“At your word I’ll let down the nets.” This is another way of saying, “I’ll trust and obey.” What a multitude of excuses we can offer to show why the business of spreading the gospel net should be left to others! These excuses will never convince God … or our conscience.

Verse 7

“They signaled their comrades … to come and help them.” In unity there is strength. See Esther 4:16; Phil. 2:2.

Verse 8

“Depart from me.” Is it not wonderful that the Lord did not grant this request? Sermon theme: “The Comfort of Rejected Petitions.” Other examples: I Chron. 17:4; Mark 1:35–38; 5:19.

Verse 10

“You will be catching men.” This promise still holds.

Verse 11

“They left everything and followed him.” In order to catch men stay close to Jesus!

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 5:1–11

Verse 1

ἐπικεῖσθαι, pres. infinitive of ἐπίκειμαι, to lie upon, press upon; in 23:23 in the sense of insist. Cf. John 11:38, a stone lying against the tomb; 21:9, a fish lying on a charcoal fire. See also Acts 27:20; I Cor. 9:16; Heb. 9:10.

αὐτός, unemphatic, “he.” Luke has not prepared us for the conclusion (Lenski’s) that καὶ αὐτός here means “he too.”

ἦν ἑστώς, periphrastic imperfect, he was standing.

λίμνη, a body of water; specifically, the Lake of Gennesaret (Sea of Galilee). In chapters 19–21 of the book of Revelation mention is made of the λίμνη of fire = “the second death.” The base of λίμνη is li; cf. liquid.

Verse 2

ἁλιεῖς, pl. of ἁλιεύς, fisherman; cf. ἅλς, salt, the sea.

ἔπλυνον, third per. pl. imperf. indicat. active of πλύνω, to wash. For synonyms and fine distinctions see N.T.C. on Mark, p. 272, footnote 309.

δίκτυα, acc. pl. of δίκτυον, net. This is the most general word for net. It can refer to any net whatever, even a hunting net or a net for catching birds. In the New Testament, however, it is confined to fishing nets of any description. The sagene is the seine or dragnet. And the amphiblestron is the casting-net.

Verse 3

ἐπαναγαγεῖν, 2nd aor. active infinitive of ἐπανάγω, lit., to bring or lead up or back (Matt. 21:18); here, in Luke 5:3, 4, to push off from shore, out to sea. Note also the sec. per. s. aor. active imperative in verse 4.

Verse 4, 5

χαλάσατε, sec. per. pl. aor. imperat. of χαλάω, to let down, to lower; cf. Mark 2:4 (a pallet); Acts 9:25 and II Cor. 11:33 (Paul); Acts 27:17 (an anchor); 27:30 (a boat). In verse 5 note the first per. s. fut. indicat. of this verb, perhaps causative here.

ἄγρα*, haul, catch (the act of catching); so probably also in verse 9, though it is difficult to separate the act of catching from its result: that which is caught.

ἐπιστάτα, voc. s. of ἐπιστάτης*, master; in Luke always in the vocative (cf. 8:24, 45; 9:33, 49; 17:13).

Verse 6

συνέκλεισαν, third per. pl. aor. active indicat. of συγκλείω, to enclose; cf. Rom. 11:32 and see N.T.C. on Gal. 3:22.

διερρήσσετο, third per. s. (s. because of neut. pl. δίκτυα) imperfect (inchoative) passive of διαρρήσσω (also spelled διαρήσσω), late form of the old verb διαρρήγνυμι, to break, rend, tear; in 8:29 to snap; elsewhere in the New Testament only in connection with a garment that is torn as a sign of grief or horror (whether real or feigned). See Matt. 26:65; Mark 14:63; Acts 14:14.

Verse 7

κατένευσαν (for synonym see 1:22), third per. pl. aor. active indicat. of κατανεύω*, to signal.

For the aor. middle infinitive συλλαβέσθαι see the note on 1:24 on page 81; and for ἔπλησαν see the note on 2:6 on page 147, and the note on 4:28 on page 261.

Something can be said in favor of the position that the difference between μέτοχοι here, and κοινωνοί (verse 10) should be preserved in the translation. But the point is not very important.

ὥστε is consecutive (indicates result), and is here followed by the present passive infinitive, to submerge, sink; hence here: to be submerged, to sink. See also N.T.C. on I Tim. 6:9. Cf. βυθός, bottom, deep sea; and cf. abyss.

Verse 9

περιέσχεν, third per. s. aor. active of περιέχω; lit. to hold all around, to encircle; and so here: to seize, grip. Cf. I Peter 2:6.

Verse 10

ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν, the latter from ζωός, alive, and ἀγρεύω, to catch; hence literally: to catch men alive. The periphrastic (continuative) future indicat. is used here: you will (constantly) be catching alive. The verb ζωγρέω occurs only here and in II Tim. 2:26. See N.T.C. on that passage. For the simple (uncompounded) ἀγρεύω see N.T.C. on Mark, footnote 578 on p. 480.

Verse 11

καταγαγόντες, nom. pl. masc. aor. participle of κατάγω. With this compare ἐπανάγω, to push out to sea (verses 3, 4). The verb used here in verse 11 means the opposite of the one in verses 3, 4. It means: to push away from the sea, to run (a boat) to shore. Both verbs are nautical terms.

5:12–16 A Leper Cleansed

Cf. Matt. 8:1–4; Mark 1:40–45

12 While Jesus was in one of the towns, lo and behold, a man full of leprosy! When he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and implored him, “Lord, if you will, you can cleanse me.” 13 So Jesus stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, “I will; be cleansed.” And at once the leprosy left him. 14 And Jesus charged him to tell no one, “But [he said] go and show yourself to the priest, and for a testimony to them make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded.”

15 But all the more the news about Jesus continued to spread, and vast crowds were gathering to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses. 16 And he²²⁴ would go away to lonely places to pray.

12. While Jesus was in one of the towns, lo and behold, a man full of leprosy! Jesus was “in one of the towns,” perhaps on the outskirts, for lepers were not generally seen inside cities and towns.

The time and place are indefinite, both here and in the other Gospels. Most natural, however, is the theory according to which this meeting took place during the Galilean circuit to which the more chronologically arranged Gospel According to Mark has just referred (see Mark 1:39, 40). If so, the incident occurred shortly before the healing of the paralytic (Luke 5:17–26; cf. Mark 2:1–12), which, in turn, was followed by the call of Levi (Luke 5:27–32; cf. Mark 2:13–17). All this transpired sometime before the calling of The Twelve (to apostleship) and the preaching of the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:12–49; cf. Mark 3:13–19; and for the sermon cf. Matt. 5–7).

For a summary of the Bible’s teaching on leprosy see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 388–391. And for a discussion of the question, “Was this leprosy?” see N.T.C. on Mark, p. 77.

“A man full of leprosy,” and nevertheless approaching close enough to Jesus to be touched by him! It is not surprising, therefore, that Luke prefaces his description of the man by saying “lo and behold!” The closeness of this man’s approach to Jesus is remarkable especially in view of Lev. 13:45, 46, “… Alone shall he dwell; outside the camp shall be his habitation.” See also Num. 5:2–4; 12:14, 15; II Kings 7:3. With this compare “ten lepers who stood at a distance” (Luke 17:12). It is Luke, he alone, who describes this man as “full of leprosy,” not simply “a leper.” Of course, it is Luke, the beloved physician, who would have made inquiries concerning the exact physical condition of this individual. His leprosy must have reached a very advanced stage.

When he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and implored him, Lord, if you will, you can cleanse me. The man did not know whether the help he craved would be given to him. But there was nothing wrong in asking. He does this in a most humble manner. He drops to his knees (thus Mark), then lowers his face to the ground (“fell on his face,” thus Luke), and implores or begs, “Lord,” etc. By addressing Jesus in this manner he must have meant far more than “Sir.” Otherwise, how could he have made the confession he actually made, namely, “You can cleanse me”? Of this power on the part of Jesus he is sure. Of Jesus’ willingness to cleanse him he is not sure, as is indicated by the fact that he says, “If you will.” But he submits himself to the Savior’s sovereign disposition, hoping eagerly that he too may be the recipient of Christ’s healing power and mercy.

13. So Jesus stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, I will; be cleansed. Repeatedly and in varying phraseology the Gospels speak of Christ’s healing touch. To Luke 5:13 add 7:14; 22:51; cf. Matt. 8:3, 15; 9:29; 17:7; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 7:33. Sometimes, however, the sick touched Jesus (Luke 8:44–47; cf. Matt. 9:20, 21; Mark 3:10; 5:27–31; 6:56). Either way the afflicted ones were healed. Evidently in connection with such physical contact healing power issued from the Savior and was transmitted to the person in need of it (Mark 5:30; Luke 8:46). This, however, was no magic! The healing power did not originate in his fingers or his garment. It came straight from the divine and human Jesus, from his almighty will and infinitely sympathetic heart. There was healing power in that touch because he was, and is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Heb. 4:15). It should not escape the reader that according to Mark 1:41 Jesus was “moved with compassion” when he stretched out his hand and touched the leper. The leper’s need and faith found an immediate response in the Savior’s eagerness to help. And in this readiness his power and his love embraced each other.

It is sometimes said that between the words of the leper and those of Jesus there is perfect correspondence. This is correct in the sense that the two statements do not clash but are in full harmony, revealing even a partial identity of phraseology. One could also say, however, that the words of the Lord excel mere “correspondence.” To be sure, the leper’s “you can cleanse me” is answered by Christ’s “I can, indeed!” implied in his act of healing. But the leper’s “if you will” is superseded by the Master’s swift and splendid “I will.” Here the will joins the power, and the subtraction of “if” conjoined with the addition of “be cleansed” transforms a condition of hideous disease into one of hardy health.

And at once the leprosy left him. One moment the man was “full of leprosy.” The next moment not a speck of the disease was left.

The healings brought about by Jesus were complete and instantaneous. Peter’s mother-in-law does not have to wait until the following day to be cured of her fever (Luke 4:38, 39). The paralytic immediately begins to walk away, carrying his little bed (5:17–26). The withered hand is restored at once (6:6–11). The demoniac, wild a moment earlier, all at once is fully cured (8:26–39). The same holds with respect to the woman who touched Christ’s garment (8:43–48). Even the dead daughter of Jairus is in one moment restored to life, so that she arises and is given something to eat (8:40–42, 49–56). Let the healers of today imitate this! Let them cure every illness immediately. Yes, let them even raise the dead (7:11–17), for if their claim to be able to do what Jesus did and what he commanded his apostles to do is valid, they should certainly also raise the dead (Matt. 10:8). So far, however, they have not succeeded in doing this. In fact, they have not even succeeded in getting rid of death by denying its existence.

Continued: 14. And Jesus charged him to tell no one. But [he said] go and show yourself to the priest, and for a testimony to them make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded.

Exactly why the cured man was ordered to be silent has not been revealed. Was it in order to forestall a nationalistic movement centering in Jesus? Cf. John 6:15. Was it to prevent a premature crisis? To counteract the taking root of an erroneous conception of the Savior’s character and identity, as if he were primarily a thaumaturgist (miracle-worker)? See also above, on 4:40, 41; and N.T.C. on Matt. 8:4 and on Mark 1:43, 44.

Hand in hand with the prohibition Jesus issued a positive command. The cleansed leper must present himself to the priest, so that he may be restored to full social and religious fellowship with his people. If he passes the inspection, so that the priest considers him cured, he must bring the required offering (Lev. 14:1–7). That offering consisted of two clean, living birds. One had to be killed. In its blood the other bird had to be dipped and then released. The blood of the slain bird was also sprinkled over the healed man; in fact, seven times. He was then pronounced cured. When the priests hear that it was Jesus who had so completely and instantly cured this man, they will have received an irrefutable testimony to Jesus’ power and love. They will also know that even though Jesus condemns human traditions that make void God’s holy law, he does not disobey that law.

It is clear from the entire context that the cleansed leper passed the test. Did he and others remain silent, as Jesus had ordered? The answer is given in verses 15, 16. But all the more the news about Jesus continued to spread, and vast crowds were gathering to hear him and to be healed of their sickness. And he would go away to lonely places to pray.

The request of Jesus was ignored. What actually happened was the very opposite of that which Jesus had ordered. Instead of silence there were voices. Note “all the more.” It was as if these voices were saying, “Now we’ll advertise him more than ever.” Moreover, according to Mark 1:45 it was the cleansed man himself who took the lead in this activity of disobedience.

The result was that vast crowds kept gathering for the twofold purpose of listening to the Master’s teaching and being healed of their sicknesses; this probably implies, “and having their sick healed.”

We can be sure of the fact that at least some of this enthusiasm was of an unhealthy nature.

So, again and again, Jesus would withdraw himself and steal away to lonely places. This withdrawal also had a positive purpose, namely, to pour out his heart in prayer in order that the reservoirs of his body and soul might be replenished from his Father’s inexhaustible resources.

It was to be expected that Luke—the very evangelist who more than any other stresses the importance of prayer—would mention this. See Introduction, point I A 5 b.²²⁴

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 5:12–16

Verse 13

“Jesus stretched out his hand and touched the leper.” When Francis of Assisi reflected on the manner in which Jesus had treated the leper, a great wave of pity swept over him and changed his life. Should not Luke 5:12–16 and similar accounts have a sanctifying effect on us also?

Verses 15, 16

“Vast crowds were gathering … to be healed of their sicknesses.… And he would go away to lonely places to pray.” Jesus gave us an example by not allowing anything to stand in the way of regular seasons of prayer.

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 5:12–16

Verses 12–14

At the end of verse 12 note the future more vivid (third class) conditional sentence, with ἐάν followed by sec. per. s. pres. subjunctive in the protasis, and the sec. per. s. pres. indicat. in the apodosis. Note also the aor. active infinitive καθαρίσαι. For the verb καθαρίζω see the note on 4:33 on page 267 (a cognate adjective, negative). And see also the cognate noun (positive) καθαρισμός, cleansing, in 5:14 (there in the gen.); and the sec. per. s. aor. passive imperative καθαρίσθητι in 5:13.

At the end of verse 14 note αὐτοῖς, to them. Though no plural antecedent is expressed, it is implied in “the priest,” for the latter represents the entire priesthood and probably even the people who adhered to its beliefs and instructions.

Verse 15

Note the two imperfects: the news was spreading (or: continued to spread) and the crowds were gathering (continued to gather).

For θεραπεύεσθαι, pres. passive infinitive of θεραπεύω, see the note on 4:23 on page 261.

With the gen. pl. ἀσθενειῶν cf. the cognate pres. participle in 4:40; see the note on that verse on page 271.

Verse 16

ἦν ὑποχωρῶν, periphrastic imperfect of ὑποχωρέω*. See also 9:10, to go (or steal) away, withdraw. Cf. anchorite.

5:17–26 The Healing of a Paralytic

Cf. Matt. 9:1–8; Mark 2:1–12

17 On one of those days, as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting by. They had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with him for healing.

18 And look, some men were carrying on a bed a man who was paralyzed. They were trying to bring him in and to place him in front of Jesus. 19 Not finding a way to carry him in because of the crowd, they went up the roof and, together with his little bed, let him down through the tiles and into the midst (of the crowd), right in front of Jesus. 20 When he saw their faith he said, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.”

21 But the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this fellow that speaks blasphemies? Who but God alone is able to forgive sins?”

22 When Jesus perceived their (inward) reasonings, he said to them, “Why are you reasoning thus in your hearts? 23 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 24 But in order that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (he said to the paralytic), I say to you, get up, pick up your little bed and go home.” 25 Instantly he stood up in front of them, picked up what he had been lying on, and went home, glorifying God.

26 Amazement gripped everyone,²²⁶ and they glorified God. Filled with awe, they were saying, “We have seen incredible things today.”

Through constant repetition this story has become well known. Is it possible to renew interest in it? Perhaps. To this end we have tried a new approach, namely, in connection with the theme:

Jesus demonstrates his divine right to forgive sins

We have distributed the material contained in Luke 5:17–26 under the following five subheadings: a battle is brewing (between Jesus and his opponents), a challenge is flung (by Jesus, before his opponents), an attack is made (by the opponents), a victory is won (by Jesus), and a triumph is celebrated (by the onlookers). We believe that such a treatment is true to the meaning and purpose of the account, and preserves its unity.

A. A battle is brewing

17. On one of those days, as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting by. They had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with him for healing.

As often, Luke’s reference to the time when this incident occurred is very indefinite: “on one of those days.” But see also on 5:12. As to the place, from Mark’s parallel account we learn that it was a house in Capernaum. Some think of Simon’s house. But in that case would not Luke’s reference to it have been more definite, as in 4:38? The possibility must be allowed that friends had provided Jesus with a house he could use while carrying on his ministry in and around Capernaum. That at this particular occasion the house was crowded is stated in so many words in Mark 2:2 and implied also in Luke 5:17, 19.

No doubt disciples and friends of Jesus were present, with genuine interest in the truth. Also, there must have been people who were merely burning with curiosity to see what Jesus would say and do. But Luke focuses our attention on still another group, consisting of straitlaced Pharisees and likeminded law-teachers.

In Luke’s Gospel this is the first reference to the Pharisees, who are mentioned frequently in Matthew (beginning with 3:7) and in Mark (beginning with 2:16).

They were a relatively small sect of Separatists. They separated themselves not only from ceremonial impurity, from the heathen, publicans and “sinners,” but even in a sense from the indifferent Jewish multitudes, whom they derisively dubbed “the people who do not know the law” (John 7:49).

The scribes were the men who studied, taught, interpreted, and transmitted the Mosaic law; that is, generally that law as explained by tradition. In fact, often the real law of God was in their teaching buried beneath tradition. See Matt. 15:6, and take note of the interesting example there given of this evil practice (15:1–5).

In the following passages Luke mentions the scribes in one breath with the Pharisees (5:21, 30; 6:7; 11:53; 15:2); and in the following the scribes are linked with the chiefpriests (9:22; 19:47; 20:1, 19; 22:2, 66; 23:10). In the present account (5:17–26) the combination “Pharisees and teachers of the law [= scribes]” is clear. For more on the scribes see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 382, 383; and on Mark, p. 96; for more on Pharisees and scribes, N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 294, 295, 817 ff.; and on Mark, p. 100.

Now these Pharisees and these teachers of the law had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem (probably hyperbole). It is clear from Luke’s entire account that these men were anything but open-minded. They seem to have been filled with envy, probably deeply disturbed about the large crowds Jesus was attracting and about the content of his teaching.

Significantly Luke adds that the power of the Lord—that is, of Jehovah—was with Jesus “for healing,” meaning: enabling him to heal. The “healing” described in the present story affected both soul and body, as will be shown.

Consider, then, these two groupings: on the one side Pharisees and teachers of the law, filled with a desire to destroy; on the other Jesus himself, overflowing with power to heal. Clearly a conflict is in the making, a battle is brewing.

B. A challenge is flung

18–20. And look, some men were carrying on a bed a man who was paralyzed. They were trying to bring him in and to place him in front of Jesus. Not finding a way to carry him in because of the crowd, they went up the roof and, together with his little bed, let him down through the tiles and into the midst (of the crowd), right in front of Jesus. When he saw their faith he said, Man, your sins are forgiven you.

Wretched indeed was this man. The disease that plagued him is characterized by extreme loss of power of motion, and is generally caused by inability of the muscles to function, due to injury in the motor areas of the brain and/or of the spinal cord. In addition to the parallels in Matthew and Mark see also Matt. 4:24; 8:5–13; Acts 8:7; 9:33. In the present case whatever may have been the parts of the body affected by paralysis and the point to which the sickness had progressed, one fact is clear: the stricken person was unable to move about. He had to be carried. Four men—relatives? friends?—performed this service for him, as Mark indicates.

The courage and resourcefulness of all five—the paralytic plus his four helpers—particularly also their faith in the success of their venture, hence ultimately their trust in Jesus, must be admired. If the house where the crowd had gathered had an outside stairway, then the four and their precious cargo reached the roof by means of that stairway. If that house did not have an outside stairway but the adjoining house did, then, having reached the top of that other house, they crossed over from roof to roof. In one way or another they reached the place directly above the spot where Jesus was addressing the people.

Now to get through the roof! This outside cover of a house was generally flat. It had beams with transverse rafters overlaid with brushwood, tree branches, etc., on top of which was a thick blanket of mud or clay mixed with chopped straw, beaten and rolled. Such a roof was not difficult to “unroof.”

But Luke states that they lowered the man through the tiles. When the nature of these tiles is misconstrued and they are regarded as having been placed in a sturdy framework of very small squares, a difficulty is unnecessarily created. Besides, the roof opening did not have to be as long as the man was tall! By means of skillful manipulation of ropes even a sick man of average size could be gently lowered through a rather small opening. “Where there is a will, there is a way.”

Much has been written about Luke’s mention of “tiles.” He has been accused of introducing non-Palestinian architecture into this passage,²²⁷ since Palestinian roofs had no tiles. Or he has been described as accommodating himself to the intelligence of his Gentile readers.²²⁸ Still another view is that proposed by G. C. D. Howley, F. F. Bruce, and H. L. Ellison, in their New Testament Commentary, p. 218, namely, that the term tiles, as used here, simply means “roof.” That theory has the merit of absolving Luke from any error. However, even this solution may be unnecessary. N. Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 189, probably already pointed in the right direction whew he asked the question, “With all the Gentile influence in Palestine at that time, why could not some Jewish homes have tiled roofs?” Recent discoveries have confirmed the fact that the tiled roof came into use before New Testament times and that Palestine was by no means excluded.²²⁹

Having made an opening in the roof, the four lowered the “little bed” on which the paralytic was lying. Since there were four men who lowered it, ropes had probably been attached to its four corners. Thus it was that the sick man landed right in front of Jesus. The latter, looking down, saw this patient; and glancing up, took notice of the four “friends in need” who were proving to be “friends indeed.”

We do not read that the four, from their position on top of the roof, shouted anything to Jesus. Nor does any evangelist report that the sick man himself said anything to Jesus. As far as the paralytic is concerned, it is even possible that, due to his condition, he was unable to speak. But though the five did not talk, they trusted! And that was what really mattered.

The confidence of the five touched the very heart of Jesus, who now, in accents tender yet firm, said to the paralytic, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.”

It was definitely the faith of the five that caused these words to flow from the Savior’s lips. For corroborating passages, showing how very important Jesus regarded faith to be, see Luke 7:9, 10; 8:48, 50; 17:19; 18:42; and see also Heb. 11:32 f.

From the words of absolution spoken to this man some have concluded that Jesus traced the paralytic’s sickness to his sin. This inference is, however, wholly unwarranted. Such passages as Luke 13:1–5 and John 9:1–3 clearly show that Jesus rejected the common Jewish error of thinking that a sorely afflicted individual must have sinned grievously (Job 4:7; 22:5–10; and for a similar belief among non-Jews see Acts 28:3, 4).

Jesus never took sin lightly. He never told people, “Do you have a sense of guilt? Forget about it.” On the contrary, he regarded sin as inexcusable departure from God’s holy law (Luke 10:25–28), as having a soul-choking effect (8:7, 14; cf. John 8:34), and as being a matter of the heart and not only of the outward deed (Luke 6:45; 8:15). But he also offered the only true solution. He was well aware of the fact that the advice, “Get rid of your guilt feelings; a little cruelty, promiscuity, infidelity is not so bad,” creates more problems than it solves. He also knew that it was entirely impossible for a person to rid his soul of the sense of guilt by trying to offset his sins by good deeds. He knew that this philosophy would lead but to tragic failure and appalling despair. Instead, he had come to proclaim—no, not only to proclaim but first of all to provide—the one and only solution, namely forgiveness, and this on the basis of his own atonement for sin (22:20). Cf. John 1:29. When he therefore now says to the paralytic, “Forgiven are your sins,” he is not only conveying to this man the news of God’s forgiveness, as Nathan had done to penitent David (II Sam. 12:13); he is also in his own right canceling the paralytic’s debt. He blots out his sins completely and forever. Cf. Ps. 103:12; Isa. 1:18; 55:6, 7; Jer. 31:34; Mic. 7:19; John 1:29. Moreover, such forgiveness never stands alone. It is ever “pardon plus.” In Christ, God dispels the invalid’s gloom and embraces him with the arms of his protecting and adopting love. Cf. Rom. 5:1.

By saying “Forgiven are your sins” (thus literally), Jesus had not only lifted a burden from the soul of this sin-burdened sufferer, but had also proclaimed that the cleansing of the soul was even more important than the healing of the body. He had done one more thing: he had claimed for himself the divine prerogative of pronouncing and actually bringing about freedom from guilt. To his opponents, therefore, he had thrown down the gauntlet. Will they take it up? If not openly, then at least in their hearts and minds?

C. An attack is made

21. But the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this fellow that speaks blasphemies? Who but God alone is able to forgive sins?

In the hearts of the scribes who had come here to find fault with Jesus there was no room for participation in the joy of this grievously stricken man who at this moment heard words of encouragement and cheer. In a highly derogatory manner these enemies are saying something decidedly unfavorable. However, they are not saying it out loud, only within their hearts. But hearts are very important. Are they not the mainsprings of dispositions as well as of feelings and thoughts? Does not a man’s heart show what kind of a person he really is? See Mark 3:5; 6:52; 7:14–23; 8:17; 11:23; 12:30, 33; Eph. 1:18; 3:17; Phil. 1:7; I Tim. 1:5. Cf. Prov. 23:7 A.V.

In their hearts, then, the scribes are attacking Jesus. They are accusing him of speaking blasphemies. They are carrying on a dialogue, throwing thoughts back and forth. What they are saying is: “Who is this fellow that speaks blasphemies? Who but God alone is able to forgive sins?” Jesus is claiming for himself a prerogative that belongs to God alone.

The scribes were right in considering the remission of sins to be a divine prerogative (Exod. 34:6, 7a; Ps. 103:12; Isa. 1:18; 43:25; 44:22; 55:6, 7; Jer. 31:34; Mic. 7:19). To be sure, there is a sense in which we too forgive, namely, when we earnestly resolve not to take revenge but instead to love the one who has injured us, to promote his welfare, and never again to bring up the past (Matt. 6:12, 15; 18:21; Luke 6:37; Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). But basically, as described, it is God alone who forgives. It is he alone who is able to remove guilt and to declare that it has actually been removed.

But now the thinking of the scribes arrives at the fork in the road, and they make the wrong turn. Either: (a) Jesus is what by implication he claims to be, namely, God, or (b) he blasphemes in the sense that he unjustly claims the attributes and prerogatives of deity. The scribes accept (b).

Not only do they commit this tragic error, but, as the following context indicates, they compound it by reasoning somewhat as follows, “It is an easy thing for him to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ for no one is able to disprove it, since no one can look into his neighbor’s heart or enter the throne-room of the Almighty and discover his judicial decisions as to who is, and who is not, forgiven. On the other hand, to tell this man, ‘Get up and walk’ would be far more difficult, for if no cure results, as is probable, we are all here to witness his embarrassment.” As they see it, therefore, Jesus is both blasphemous and flippant.

D. A victory is won

22–25. When Jesus perceived their (inward) reasonings, he said to them, Why are you reasoning thus in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and walk? But in order that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (he said to the paralytic), I say to you, get up, pick up your little bed and go home. —Instantly he stood up in front of them, picked up what he had been lying on, and went home, glorifying God.

Jesus perceived in his spirit what these scribes were thinking. Their inner deliberations were not concealed from him. Cf. Matt. 17:25; John 1:45, 48; 2:25; 21:17. Had he not been God he would not have been able to penetrate so deeply into their “secret” cogitations (Ps. 139; Heb. 4:13). By means of questioning these men—“Why are you reasoning thus?”—he sharply reprimands them. Their “dialogue” was wicked (cf. Matt. 9:4), for they were accusing him falsely. They themselves were the evil ones. Was it not in order to find fault with Jesus that they had come here today, with the ultimate purpose that they might destroy him (cf. Mark 3:6)? Let them then examine their own hearts.

As to which was easier to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven,” or “Get up and walk,” do not both in an equal measure require omnipotent power? Jesus decides, however, that if, as the scribes reason, a miracle in the physical sphere is required in order to prove to them his “authority” (right plus power) in the spiritual realm, then let them see this miracle!

So to the paralytic he addresses the words, “I say to you, get up, pick up your little bed and go home.” Obedience to this command will prove that he, the humble yet all-glorious “Son of man,” has the divine authority on earth—hence, before the door of grace is closed—to forgive sins.

Here for the first time in Luke, the term Son of man is found. In all it occurs twenty-five times in this Gospel. It is Jesus’ self-designation. As such it emphasizes the fact that its bearer is not the nationalistic Messiah of Jewish dreams but, in a sense, “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42; I John 4:14; cf. I Tim. 4:10). He himself is unique among men. He is the Son of man. He is the man of sorrows, but this very path of sorrows leads to the crown, to glory. Moreover, this glory is revealed not only when he comes with the clouds (Dan. 7:13), but reaches back through his entire life on earth and through every redemptive act. He is always the glorious Son of man. For more on the title Son of man see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 403–407.

The glory of the Son of man is evident also in the present account. Jesus, as Son of man, had commanded the paralytic to get up, pick up his little bed, and go home. The man believed that he who had so ordered would also enable him to obey the order. So, in full view of all the onlookers, he at once got up, started to carry the very object on which he had been carried, and went home. In fact, he went home in high spirits, “glorifying God,” that is, Jehovah.

In heart and mind the scribes and Pharisees had made an attack on Jesus. It had been a murderous assault, for inwardly they had accused him of speaking blasphemy, and they knew very well that according to the law the blasphemer must be put to death (Lev. 24:10–16). But by means of this astounding miracle Jesus had demonstrated that he was clothed with divine authority and majesty. This being true, he also had the right and the power to forgive sins. His victory was therefore complete. O that everyone present would have taken it to heart!

E. A triumph is celebrated

26. Amazement gripped everyone, and they glorified God. Filled with awe, they were saying, We have seen incredible things today.

All three Synoptics report how jubilantly the onlookers reacted to what they had just now witnessed. Mark reports the people’s astonishment. Never in all their past experience had they witnessed anything similar. According to Matthew the crowd was “awestruck.” Luke here relates that amazement gripped everyone. This can also be rendered, “All were seized with astonishment.” He adds, “Filled with awe, they were saying, ‘We have seen incredible things today.’ ” Common to these three Gospel writers is the remark that the people glorified God: “all” (thus Mark and Luke) ascribed to God the honor and splendor due to him. This “all,” as often, is very general, and does not mean that scornful and faultfinding scribes suddenly experienced a genuine change of heart and mind. That men of this type remained hostile and became more and more hardened is clear from Luke 5:30; 6:7, 11; 11:15, 53; 13:17; 15:1, 2; 19:47; etc. Nevertheless, the response of glorifying God was sufficiently general to warrant the use of the word all. And no doubt among the many who did exalt him there were those upon whom Christ’s words and deeds had made a lasting and saving impression.

It is clear that Jesus had triumphed completely over his enemies. In the process of doing this he had imparted inestimable spiritual and physical blessings to a sorely afflicted man, and had cheered the four friends. Most of all, he had publicly demonstrated his divine right to forgive sin(s). He had proved himself to be The Savior.²³⁰

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 5:17–26

Verse 17

“And the power of the Lord was with him for healing.” If even Jesus, in his state of humiliation, was deeply conscious of the need of this power (John 5:19, 30), as was Paul (I Cor. 4:7; II Cor. 4:7; Phil. 4:13), should not we be also? Is not this an incentive to prayer?

Verse 19

“They went up the roof and … let him down through the tiles.” Is not this our weakness, that so often we are willing to help the other man if this can be done without sacrifice and exertion? Contrast these four men. Even better: II Cor. 8:9.

Verse 21

“Who is this fellow that speaks blasphemies?” If these critics had made a thorough and prayerful study of Isa. 35:5, 6; 42:8, 9; 61:1, 2, etc., they would have known better. This shows why earnest, systematic, prayerful Bible study is required.

Verses 25, 26

“He … they glorified God.” If such ascription of glory to God is not merely a work of the lips but of the heart, it is exactly what is needed. I Cor. 10:31 should be our motto, as it was Paul’s.

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 5:17–26

Verse 17

Hebraistic καὶ ἐγένετο can be translated “now it happened,” or can be skipped in translation, it being implied.

αὐτός is unemphatic, simple “he,” not “he himself.” The immediately preceding καί (cf. Hebrew waw in such cases) may be rendered “that” or “as.” Note also the periphrastic and vividly descriptive “he was teaching,” and “they were sitting by.” It is clear that Luke is not trying to be specific with respect to the time when this event took place. The word νομοδιδάσκαλος, pl. -οι, is confined to Christian writers. It refers to “teachers” or “doctors” of the (Mosaic) law. Cf. Acts 5:34; I Tim. 1:7. Synonyms are “scribe” (Luke 5:21) and “law-expert” (10:25).

ἦσαν ἐληλυθότες, periphrastic pluperfect. Does Luke mean that these men had come out of “every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem”? See A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 74. Or even out of “every city of … Jerusalem”? See Robertson’s Translation, p. 37. The question arises, “Did Jerusalem have villages and even cities?” Also grammatically possible is the rendering, “out of [or: from] every village of Galilee and (from) Judea and Jerusalem.”

εἰς τὸ ἰᾶσθαι, to be healing or “for healing.” The healing activity in which Jesus engaged was the result of the presence within him of Jehovah’s power.

ἰᾶσθαι is the present infinitive of ἰάομαι. See the note on 4:23 on page 261 (Healer, Physician).

Verse 18

A κλίνη is a “bed” of any kind; in the present case (cf. Mark 2:4) a pallet, that is, a poor man’s bed, perhaps a thin, straw-filled mattress or even a mat.

ἦν παραλελυμένος, periphrastic passive pluperfect. The man had been, and was still, paralyzed.

ἐζήτουν, third per. pl. conative imperfect active indicative of ζητέω: they were seeking or trying. Note the two aor. infinitives that follow this verb.

Verse 19

ποίας represents ποίας ὁδοῦ, literally “by what way,” hence, “and not finding by what way they might carry him in.”

κέραμος*, a tile. Cf. ceramics.

καθῆκαν, third per. pl. aor. active indicat. of καθίημι**, to let down (see also Acts 9:25; 10:11; 11:5), should not be confused with the verb κατέκειτο in verse 25, which is third per. s. imperfect indicat. of κατάκειμαι, to lie down, recline; see also 5:29; 7:37; elsewhere in the New Testament found in Mark, John, Acts, and I Cor.

κλινίδιον* (also in verse 24), diminutive of κλίνη; hence, little bed.

Verses 20–23

In verses 20 and 23 note ἀφέωνται, third per. pl. Doric perfect passive indicat. of ἀφίημι, here in the sense of forgive, where the parallels in Matthew (9:2, 5) and Mark (2:5, 9) use the present passive. But whether one says “are forgiven” or “have been and remain forgiven,” the result is the same: the man’s sins are no longer reckoned against him. They “are forgiven.” In verse 21 the aor. infinitive ἀφεῖναι stresses the fact of forgiveness as such, apart from any time reference. By contrast, the pres. active infinitive ἀφιέναι in verse 24 has reference to the continuing forgiving activity of the Son of man.

For the forms of the verb διαλογίζομαι, to reason, in verse 21 (pres. infinitive) and in verse 22 (sec. per. pl. pres. indicat.) and for the noun διαλογισμός (acc. pl. in verse 22), see the detailed discussion and chart in N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 283–289.

Verse 24

As to verse 24, does not the occurrence of very similar style, including even the mid-sentence parenthesis, in both Mark 2:10 and its parallels (Matt. 9:6; Luke 5:24), point in the direction of literary dependence? See the discussion of the Synoptic Problem in N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 6–54. Literally the closing statement of verse 24 (Jesus’ command to the paralytic) can be translated as follows, “I say to you, get up, and having picked up your little bed, go to your house.”

Verse 26

For ἐπλήσθησαν see the note on 4:28 on page 261.

With ἔκστασις (amazement) cf. ecstasy; and with παράδοξα (incredible things) cf. paradoxes.

5:27–32 The Call of Levi

Cf. Matt. 9:9–13; Mark 2:13–17

27 After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax-collector, named Levi, sitting at the tax-collector’s booth; and he said to him, “Follow me.” 28 So he left everything behind, got up and followed him.

29 Then, at his own house, Levi gave a big dinner²³¹ for him. There was a large crowd of tax-collectors and others who were reclining at table with them.

30 But the Pharisees and their scribes were grumbling against Jesus’ disciples, saying, “Why are you eating and drinking with the tax-collectors and sinners?”

31 Jesus answered them, “It is not those who are healthy that need a doctor but those who are ill. 32 I have not come to call righteous people to conversion but sinners.”

As Matt. 9:9 indicates, the healing of the paralytic was followed closely by the call of Levi. That is the sequence reported in all three Synoptics. The present narrative may be conveniently divided into four paragraphs, in harmony with its four movements:

A. Levi leaves everything behind and follows Jesus

27, 28. After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax-collector, named Levi, sitting at the tax-collector’s booth; and he said to him, Follow me. —So he left everything behind, got up and followed him.

Again, as before, when he had called the first four disciples, Jesus was walking along the Sea of Galilee (or “Lake of Tiberias,” as Luke would call it). See Mark 1:16. It is not surprising that out of an uncomfortably crowded house the Master directed his steps to the refreshing breezes of the shore. As Mark 2:13, 14 indicates, it was in the vicinity of the seashore that Levi received the call to become one of Jesus’ disciples.

Mark and Luke call this man Levi. For explanation of the name see Gen. 29:34. He calls himself Matthew (Matt. 9:9). Besides, in all the lists of the apostles he is called Matthew (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13).

When was his name changed from Levi to Matthew? Did Jesus give him this new name when the tax-collector became a disciple, as the Lord had also changed Simon’s name to Cephas (= Peter) when the latter joined the group (Mark 3:16; John 1:42)? It is, however, possible that from the beginning the man here described as becoming a disciple had two names, as may also have been true with respect to Thomas (John 11:16) and Bartholomew (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13; cf. John 1:45–49; 21:2).

The identity of Levi and Matthew can hardly be questioned, as a comparison of the three Synoptic accounts of this event proves. Moreover, Luke calls Levi a “publican” (5:27), and in the list of The Twelve as recorded in Matt. 10:3 there is mention of “Matthew the publican.”

Levi’s father’s name was Alphaeus, not to be confused (as is sometimes done) with the man by the same name who was the father of James the Less and of Joses (Mark 3:18; cf. 15:40). If Levi or Matthew had had a brother who was also one of The Twelve, this fact would probably have been mentioned, as it was in the case of Peter and Andrew, and of James and John.

When Jesus, proceeding along the shore, saw Levi, the latter was sitting at (i.e., in or near the entrance of) the tax-collector’s booth, the place where the tariff was collected on any merchandise that passed along the international highway between Syria and Egypt.

Levi, then, was a tax-collector or “publican.” See above, on 3:12. The low esteem in which publicans were held appears from passages such as the following: Luke 5:30; 7:34; 15:1; 19:7; cf. Matt. 9:10, 11; 11:19; 21:31, 32; Mark 2:15, 16. “Publicans” and “sinners” are at times mentioned in one breath. Yet it was to such a hated individual, such a publican, that Jesus now turned in order to make him one of his disciples. It was to him that the Master said, “Follow me.”

When Jesus said, “Follow me,” Levi immediately got up and followed him. In Matthew’s own Gospel, as well as in Mark, the decisive and immediate obedience of the tax-collector is thus soberly reported. For more detail with emphasis on the greatness of the sacrifice, we must turn to our present passage, Luke 5:28. This informs us that Levi “left everything behind, got up and followed Jesus.” He left his lucrative business and trusted that God would provide for his needs.

Accordingly, Levi’s sacrifice was much greater than that made by the four earlier disciples (Simon and Andrew, James and John) as recorded in Mark 1:18, 20. Far more closely did it resemble what these men gave up a little later, as described in Luke 5:11. Besides, would it not have been easier for the fishermen to return to their fishing than for Levi to become reemployed as a collector of customs duties?

B. At his home Levi gives a great reception for Jesus

29. Then, at his own house, Levi gave a big dinner for him. There was a large crowd of tax-collectors and others who were reclining at table with them.

What is so wonderful about Levi is that surrendering everything made him “the happiest man in the world.” So filled with deep, inner delight was he that he immediately arranged a feast in honor of the One whom he considered his Benefactor! The party was held at Levi’s own home. Reclining at table with Jesus, his disciples, and Levi, were a good many tax-collectors and “others,” people who were held in low esteem by the “better” citizens, by such worthies (?), for example, as the Pharisees and those scribes who belonged to their sect. It is not difficult to visualize Levi and all his guests reclining on mattresses, couches, or divans around low tables; each person resting on his left elbow, as was customary at least at festive occasions such as this one (see N.T.C. on John 13:23), and all enjoying the food and the fellowship.

That Levi would welcome Jesus we can understand. That the Master’s disciples would not be barred is not strange, but why did Levi also welcome all those “shady” characters, those “publicans and sinners” (cf. verse 29 with verse 30; and see also Mark 2:15)? Is it sufficient to say that he would naturally invite tax-collectors because until this moment these people had been his associates, since he too was a tax-collector? Is not the real reason this, that Levi thought so highly of Jesus, who had become his Lord and Savior, that he wanted everybody—including by all means those with whom until this moment he had been on intimate terms—to know, trust, and love this wonderful Friend he had discovered; or rather, who had discovered him?

C. Pharisees, etc., blame Jesus’ disciples for partying with publicans, etc.

30. But the Pharisees and their scribes were grumbling against Jesus’ disciples, saying, Why are you eating and drinking with the tax-collectors and sinners?

Note: “the Pharisees and their scribes,” thus phrased to distinguish between the scribes who were Pharisees (Mark 2:16) and those who were Sadducees. These men, then, were grumbling. They were not at all pleased with Levi’s party. In all probability it was when the banquet had ended and the guests were departing that these Pharisees and their scribes approached Jesus’ disciples with the reproachful question, “Why are you eating and drinking with the tax-collectors and sinners?”

As these hair-splitting legalists saw it, it would be impossible to remain ceremonially pure when one consented to dine with people whom they considered riffraff, scum. Did not the rabbis lay down this rule, “The disciples of the learned shall not recline at table in the company of the people of the soil (the rabble, the disreputable ones)”? Contamination must be avoided. Besides, did not eating and drinking with a person imply that one had entered into a covenant relationship with him? Was it not true that not only the rabbinical interpretation of God’s law but even that divine law itself was being grossly violated by tax-collectors and their ilk? Were they not traitors and extortionists? Then why not stay clear of them?

Criticism of this nature was leveled against Jesus’ disciples (thus Luke) and even against Jesus himself via his disciples (thus Matthew and Mark). This is no contradiction. It should be easy to understand that both Jesus and his disciples were the objects of Pharisaic disgust. See Matt. 10:25; Luke 6:40; 10:16.

D. Jesus defends his disciples’ conduct and by implication his own

31, 32. Jesus answered them, It is not those who are healthy that need a doctor but those who are ill.

The criticism of the scribes has been duly noted by Jesus. He himself, by means of what may have been a current proverb, flings back a clinching answer. When he associates on intimate terms with people of low reputation he does not do this as a hobnobber, a comrade in evil, “birds of a feather flocking together,” but as a physician, one who, without in any way becoming contaminated with the diseases of his patients, must get very close to them in order that he may heal them! Moreover, it is especially the Pharisees who should be able to understand this. Are not they the very people who regard themselves as being healthy, and all others as being sick? See Luke 18:9. If, then, in the eyes of the Pharisees, publicans and sinners are so very sick, should they not be healed? Is it the business of the healer to heal the healthy or the sick? The sick, of course.

Jesus adds: I have not come to call righteous people to conversion but sinners. Substantially this is the reading also in Matthew and Mark, though in Matthew these words are preceded by a quotation from Hos. 6:6, and prefixed by “for”; while Luke here adds the phrase “to conversion,” where most translators favor “to repentance.”

The passage makes clear that the invitation to salvation, full and free, is extended not to “righteous people,” that is, not to those who consider themselves worthy, but rather to those who are unworthy and in desperate need. It was sinners, the lost, the straying, the beggars, the burdened ones, the hungry and thirsty, whom Jesus came to save. See also Matt. 5:6; 11:28–30; 22:9, 10; Luke 14:21–23; ch. 15; 19:10; John 7:37, 38. This is in line with all of special revelation, both the Old Testament and the New (Isa. 1:18; 45:22; 55:1, 6, 7; Jer. 35:15; Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; Hos. 6:1; 11:8; II Cor. 5:20; I Tim. 1:15; Rev. 3:20; 22:17). It is a message full of comfort and “relevant” to every age!

As reported by Luke, Jesus adds that the call he had come to extend to sinners was “to conversion.” Not only “repentance” or sorrow for sin is needed, but nothing less than complete transformation: change of mind, heart, will, conduct. For more material in defense of the rendering “conversion” instead of merely “repentance” see the note on Luke 5:32 on page 306.

Are we now finished with the explanation of Luke 5:27–32? Not entirely. Something must still be added. Otherwise the reader might conclude that the main purpose of the section is to show what a wonderful man Levi (= Matthew) was. He was, indeed, wonderful. Nothing should ever be said to detract from the value of his complete and immediate surrender to Jesus. However, that is not the legitimate point of emphasis. What is far more important is the fact that Jesus, who even at this early point in Luke’s Gospel had performed so many miracles of mercy, added this to them all, namely, the exhibition of his power to bring about a radical and permanent change in the mind, heart, will, and life of … Matthew. So, whenever we read his beautiful Gospel let us think of the saving power of the Triune God as revealed through his Spirit in Christ.²³²

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 5:27–32

Verses 27, 28

“Jesus said … ‘Follow me.’ … So Levi left everything and followed him.” What a Magnet is Jesus. Cf. John 12:32. A magnet attracts; a repellent—think of water-repellent fabrics—rejects. What are we?

Verses 28, 29

“So he left everything behind … [and] gave a big dinner.” What an example of joyful giving!

Verse 30

“But the Pharisees … were grumbling.” Why? The answer is found in such passages as Mic. 6:8; Matt. 23:23. These passages also show how one may become filled with joy and cease to be a grumbling Pharisee.

Verse 32

“I have come to call … sinners to conversion.” The importance of conversion is emphasized throughout Scripture. But how can it be achieved? See Jer. 31:18.

Notes on Greek, Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 5:27–32

Verse 27

ἐθεάσατο, third per. s. aor. indicat. of θεάομαι, to see, behold. For synonyms see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 85, footnote 33.

τελώνιον, tax-collector’s booth (see Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14); cf. toll.

Verses 29, 30

δοχή*; cf. δέχομαι, to receive; hence, reception, banquet, dinner; see also 14:13. Note graphic description: a periphrastic imperfect (verse 29b, “were reclining at table”), followed by a regular imperfect (“were grumbling”), and this, in turn, followed by two durative presents, “Why are you eating and drinking …?”

Verse 31

ὑγιαίνοντες, nom. pl. masc. pres. participle of ὑγιαίνω, to be in good health, whether literally, as here (with spiritual overtone), or figuratively, sound in doctrine (see I Tim. 1:10; 6:3; II Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1). Cf. hygiene. See also on Luke 15:27.

οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες; literally, “those having it badly,” that is, “those who are ill.” Cf. French avoir mal.

Verse 32

μετάνοια (here acc. -ν). The rendering favored by almost all English translations, namely, “repentance,” is too weak and one-sided. That translation emphasizes only the negative aspect of what is meant here. The word used in the original indicates a radical transformation. The Dutch rendering (both Statenvertaling and Nieuwe Vertaling) is correct: bekering; not merely berouw. The concept has two elements: (a) a definite sorrow for and turning from evil; (b) a resolute turning to God in faith and obedience. Only in such instances in which the emphasis is placed exclusively on sorrow for sin is the rendering “repentance” or (for the verb) “repent” justified. See, for example, Luke 10:13 (cf. Matt. 11:21). “They would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” See further: the explanation of Luke 3:3 in this commentary; N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 196, 197, including the footnotes on p. 197; and see also J. Behm on this word, Th.D.N.T., Vol. IV, pp. 999–1003. Note that on p. 1001 that author also endorses the rendering “conversion” for Luke 5:32.

5:33–39 The Question About Fasting

Cf. Matt 9:14–17; Mark 2:18–22

33 They said to him, “John’s disciples often fast and say prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours keep on eating and drinking.”

34 Jesus said to them, “So long as the bridegroom is with them, you cannot make the bridegroom’s attendants fast, can you? 35 But days will arrive when the bridegroom will be taken away from them; then, during those days, they will fast.”

36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will tear the new, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and will be spilled, and the skins will be ruined. 38 But new wine must be poured into fresh wineskins. 39 And no one, after drinking old (wine) wants new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’ ”²³³

Neither Mark nor Luke informs us when this incident occurred. Matthew, however, establishes a clear chronological connection between this event and the shocking news Jesus received with reference to a ruler’s daughter. That evangelist writes, “While Jesus was saying these things [regarding the question about fasting], a ruler came,” etc. And the story about the resurrection of this child is, in turn, intertwined with that of the healing of the woman who touched Christ’s garment. Both Mark and Luke leave the definite impression that these two miracles occurred after the preaching of The Sermon on the Mount and the commissioning of The Twelve. Cf. Mark 5:21–43 with 3:13 ff.; and Luke 8:40–56 with 6:12 ff. The probability is, therefore, that, while Matthew’s call and the banquet at his home occurred before the sermon and the commissioning, the question about fasting—followed shortly by the double miracle—occurred afterward.

This would mean that there is probably no close chronological connection between the feasting in Matthew’s house and the question about fasting; that is, between Luke 5:27–32 and 5:33–39. But there may well have been a logical or topical relationship. Fellowship with publicans and sinners, and this on more than one occasion (besides Luke 5:27–32 see also 7:34; 15:1, 2; 19:10; cf. Matt. 11:19), while the disciples of John and of the Pharisees abstained from such convivialities, and even practiced a measure of austerity, was sooner or later bound to lead to what is reported here in Luke 5:33–39.

The story readily divides itself into material for three subheadings:

A. The question

33. They said to him, John’s disciples often fast and say prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours keep on eating and drinking. As to “they,” does this refer to “the Pharisees and their scribes” (see verse 30)? However, the parallel passage, Matt. 9:14, states that the questioners were “the disciples of John.” The possibility must be granted that the pronoun they in Mark 2:18 (“They came and said”) and here in Luke 5:33 (“They said”) has no antecedent but simply means “some people.” We shall have to be content, therefore, with identifying the questioners with “the disciples of John.” But since not only they but also the Pharisees were actually fasting at this time (Mark 2:18), it is conceivable that the enquirers also included some Pharisees.

The law of God suggests only one fast in an entire year, namely, on the day of atonement (Lev. 16:29–34; 23:26–32; Num. 29:7–11; cf. Acts 27:9). In course of time, however, fasts (not always total; see the text in each instance) began to multiply, so that we read about their occurrence at other times also: from sunrise to sunset (Judg. 20:26; I Sam. 14:24; II Sam. 1:12; 3:35); for seven days (I Sam. 31:13); three weeks (Dan. 10:3); forty days (Exod. 34:2, 28; Deut. 9:9, 18; I Kings 19:8); in the fifth and seventh month (Zech. 7:3–5); and even in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth month (Zech. 8:19). The climax was the observance of a fast “twice a week,” the boast of the Pharisee (Luke 18:12).

It is not surprising therefore that for some reason or other the Pharisees were once again keeping a fast. Their manner of fasting—looking glum, making their faces unsightly in order that everybody might see that they were fasting—was roundly condemned by Jesus (Matt. 6:16).

But why were the disciples of John also fasting? Various reasons have been suggested. John had probably made his first public appearance in the summer of the year a.d. 26. About the close of the year 27 he had been imprisoned. Jesus may have preached the Sermon on the Mount sometime during the spring to midsummer of the year 28. Not long afterward—perhaps near the beginning of the year 29—John was put to death. It is therefore not impossible that the fasting of John’s disciples was essentially a mourning for their master.

It is not necessary to believe that the Pharisees and John’s disciples were fasting for the same reason. But the opposite possibility—that both groups were indeed fasting for the same reason—must also be granted. It should be borne in mind that John was in a sense an ascetic (Matt. 11:18; Luke 7:33). He emphasized sin and the necessity of turning away from it. It is not inconceivable, therefore, that he may have encouraged fasting as an expression of mourning for sin, the very reason which the Pharisees probably also gave for much of their fasting (cf. Matt. 6:16).

With respect to those of whom it is predicated that they were now fasting, the reference to “John’s disciples” presents no further important difficulty. Even after John’s imprisonment his disciples continued as a separate group, one that distinguished itself from the followers of Jesus. There was, however, a relation of friendship and co-operation between the two groups, as is clear from such passages as Matt. 11:2, 3; 14:12, and probably even from the passage now under study, Luke 5:33. A difficulty arises, however, in connection with the phrase the disciples of the Pharisees (see also Mark 2:18). Considered as a group “Pharisees” were not technically teachers; hence they had no disciples. However, the difficulty may be more apparent than real. Luke, in writing “the disciples of the Pharisees,” may well have had in mind disciples of “the scribes who were Pharisees,” as in Mark 2:16. The main point is that John’s disciples and presumably the disciples of these Pharisaic scribes were fasting, in harmony with the teaching and/or example of their leaders. Matt. 9:14 states that the Pharisees fasted “often.” On the other hand, Christ’s disciples did not join in observing these fasts, but kept on eating and drinking. This striking contrast gave rise to the question. In Matthew and Mark the question is expressed. In Luke it is implied.

In favor of these enquirers it must be said that they did not bypass Jesus but approached him directly and frankly. Also, their question, though perhaps not entirely free from a tinge of criticism, was probably an honest request for information rather than a veiled but bitter accusation.

In reality, however, there was no justification for this question. Had these men been better students of Scripture they would have known (a) that, as has been indicated, the only fast that could by any stretch of the imagination be derived from the law of God was the one on the day of atonement, and (b) that according to the teaching of Isa. 58:6, 7 and Zech. 7:1–10 it was not a literal fast but love, both vertical and horizontal, which God demanded.

B. Jesus’ answer

34, 35. Jesus said to them, So long as the bridegroom is with them, you cannot make the bridegroom’s attendants fast, can you?

In all three synoptics the question is so phrased that the answer must be “No.” Jesus here compares his blessed presence on earth with a wedding feast. Again and again Scripture compares the relationship between Jehovah and his people, or between Christ and his church, with the bond of love between bridegroom and bride (Isa. 50:1 ff.; 54:1 ff.; 62:5; Jer. 2:32; 31:32; Hos. 2:1 ff.; Matt. 25:1 ff.; John 3:29; II Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:32; Rev. 19:7; 21:9). Verse 34 speaks about “the sons of the bridal chamber” (thus literally), meaning “the bridegroom’s attendants.” These were friends of the groom. They stood close to him. They had been invited to the wedding, were in charge of arrangements, and were expected to do everything possible to promote the success of the festivities.

Bridegroom’s attendants fasting while the feast is in progress! How absurd, suggests Jesus. Disciples of the Lord mourning while their Master is performing works of mercy and while words of life and beauty are dropping from his lips—how utterly incongruous!

Jesus adds, however, but days will arrive when the bridegroom will be taken away from them; then, during those days, they will fast. This is an early prediction of Christ’s death on the cross. The prediction that the bridegroom, Christ, will be taken away is found also in the parallels (Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:20). It strongly reminds one of Isa. 53:8, “By oppression and judgment he was taken away.”

It is remarkable how often in the Gospels Jesus himself quotes from (or at least alludes to passages from) Isaiah. Among the well-known are those found in Matt. 11:5 (cf. Isa. 35:5, 6); Luke 4:18, 19 (cf. Isa. 58:6; 61:1, 2); and 22:37 (cf. Isa. 53:12). In the Gospel According to Luke see also

*Luke*	*Isaiah*
6:21	61:3
7:22	35:5; 61:1
8:10	6:9, 10
10:15	14:13, 15
19:46	56:7
20:9	5:1
21:10	19:2
21:24	63:18
21:25	13:10; 24:19 (LXX)
21:35	24:17

The present passage, Luke 5:35, is not the only one containing at least an allusion to Isa. 53. See also Luke 23:9; cf. Isa. 53:7. Isaiah’s expression “will be taken away,” and this “by oppression and judgment,” refers, of course, to a violent death; note context: “He was oppressed … led to the slaughter … cut off [cf. Dan. 9:26] out of the land of the living.” It is natural to assume that here in Luke the meaning is similar.

With reference to “days will arrive,” followed by Luke’s “during those days,” Jesus is saying that his approaching violent death will mean days of mourning for his disciples. Then, at that particular time, fasting as an expression of sorrow will be in order and will occur. That the mourning will not be of long duration is pointed out in John 16:16–22.

The important truth which Jesus here reveals and which makes the passage so practical and filled with comfort especially for today is that for those who acknowledge Christ as their Lord and Savior the proper attitude of heart and mind is not that of sadness but that of gladness. If it be true that “God with us” (Immanuel) spells joy for believers, should not “God within us” (the situation on and after Pentecost) awaken in every child of God joy unspeakable and full of glory? It was in order to bring such abounding joy that Jesus came on earth and that he, through his sacrificial death, brought salvation full and free. See Luke 2:10: “good tidings of great joy”; 24:52: “they … returned to Jerusalem with great joy”; John 15:11: “that your joy may be full”; 17:13: “that they may have my joy made full in themselves.” The apostles learned that lesson (Rom. 5:11; 15:13; Gal. 5:22; Philippians, the entire epistle; I Peter 1:8; 4:13; I John 1:4; II John 12).

C. Two illustrations in support of that answer

36–39. He told them this parable: No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will tear the new, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and will be spilled, and the skins will be ruined. But new wine must be poured into fresh wineskins.

The first illustration is taken from the custom of patching clothes. If a piece torn from a new garment is used to patch an old one, both are ruined: the new one because it has now been torn, the old one because it has received a patch that does not match it.

In Matthew and Mark the illustration is not exactly the same. There the patch of unshrunk cloth pulls to pieces the bordering cloth of the old, badly worn garment, so that a worse tear results. The difference between these two reports creates no real problem. As Jesus went from place to place he probably varied his illustrations. Is it not true that in either case (Matthew and Mark on the one hand, Luke on the other) the patch that was supposed to solve a problem creates a bigger one? The lesson is the same. Don’t try to mix the new with the old; instead, accept the new, strong, vigorous, joy-imparting teaching of Jesus and the salvation brought by him. In the joy he and his teaching bring to those who by grace are transformed by it there is no room for Judaistic, legalistic fasting.

The second figure reinforces the first. It is taken from the use of wineskins. The wineskin was usually made of the skin of a goat or a sheep. After being removed from the animal it was tanned, and after the hair had been cut close the skin was turned inside out. The neck opening became the mouth of the “bottle.” The other openings, at the feet and the tail, were closed with cords.

What Jesus is saying is this: Old wineskins are no match for new, still fermenting wine. Such wine would burst the skins, resulting in the loss of both skins and wine. Similarly the new wine of rescue and riches for all who are willing to accept these blessings, even for publicans and sinners, must be poured into new, that is, fresh, strong wineskins of gratitude, freedom, and spontaneous service to the glory of God. Judaistic, legalistic, joyless fasting is out of line with the salvation Jesus is bringing.

And no one, after drinking old (wine) wants new, for he says, The old is good.

Verse 39 is a commentary on the ultraconservatism, the ingrained and inflexible traditionalism, of the Pharisees and their followers. They were constantly saying, “The old is good.” So they rejected the “new,” fresh, life-imparting teaching of Jesus.

Not that Jesus offered something that was entirely new, in the sense that it amounted to rebellion against the very essence of Old Testament teaching: “Love God above all … trust in him completely, exercise justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” No, indeed! In that respect the teaching of Jesus was old in the best sense of the term. See, for example, Matt. 23:23; Luke 10:25–37. But the Pharisees had buried that law beneath their man-made “traditions.” See Matt. 15:3. These traditional teachings had been passed on from generation to generation. It was to these (by this time) old rabbinical interpretations and applications of the law that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were clinging. They preferred stuffiness to fresh air. That was their downfall.²³⁴

Practical Lessons Derived from 5:33–39

Verse 33

“John’s disciples often fast … but yours,” etc. Adherence to conventional forms is good if these forms are pervaded by the spirit of Jesus and his gospel. Don’t cling to the old just because it happens to be old!

Verse 34

“So long as the bridegroom is with them, you cannot make the bridegroom’s attendants fast.” The religion of Jesus is one of “joy unspeakable and full of glory” (I Peter 1:8).

Verse 37

“No one pours new wine into old wineskins.” Christian optimism and pessimism do not match. Salvation’s joy and the habit of clinging to every detail of an old ceremony or liturgy, just because that detail was in vogue during the days of your great-grandmother, cannot dwell together peacefully in one and the same person.

Verse 39

“No one … wants new wine.” By nature no one does. It takes grace to create within man’s heart the desire for the new life in Christ and all this implies as to attitudes, deeds, and customs.

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 5:33–39

Verses 33–35

Note the durative (continuative, linear) present tenses in verse 33. Contrast (they) fast, present tense (verse 33), with (you cannot make the bridegroom’s attendants) fast (verse 34). The latter is an aor. active infinitive. The aorist takes a snapshot; the present, a time exposure. It is sometimes stated that the aorist indicates a single act. Is this always the case? See John 2:20. Would not “a single fact” be the better wording?

For derivation of νηστεύω and its cognates see the note on Luke 2:37 on page 177.

Note pleonastic (Hebraistic) use of καί in verse 35.

Verses 36–39

For the term παραβολή see the note on 4:23 on page 261.

ἐπίβλημα, something put on, piece, patch.

σχίσας and σχίσει, respectively, nom. sing. masc. aor. active participle; and third per. s. fut. active indicat. of σχίζω, to tear. Cf. schism.

παλαιούς, acc. pl. of παλαιός, old; cf. paleontology.

συμφωνήσει, third per. s. future indicat. of συμφωνέω, to agree, to match; cf. symphonize.

Note the use of the word new. The original speaks of:

a. a new garment, new wineskins;

b. new wine.

Under (a) “new” (καινός, -ή, -όν) emphasizes quality and sometimes means “fresh”; under (b) “new” (νέος, -η, -ον) stresses age.

ἀσκός, wineskin.

ῥήξει, third per. s. fut. indicat. act. of ῥήγνυμι, to burst, tear, rend, break; cf. wreck.

ἐκχυθήσεται, third per. s. fut. indicat. pass. of ἐκχέω, to pour out, shed, spill; in pass., to be spilled. Cf. chemist, gush, geyser, chyle, chyme; German ausgiessen; Dutch uitgieten.

βλητέος*, verbal adjective or gerundive, meaning “must be put,” or here “must be poured.”

Summary of Chapter 5

A Miraculous Catch (verses 1–11). On the edge of Lake Gennesaret (= Sea of Galilee) Jesus, beleaguered by a vast listening crowd, climbs into Simon’s (= Peter’s) fishing boat, and asks him to push off a little from shore. Seated in this boat the Master then finishes his discourse.

That done, he gives Simon this surprising order, “Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a haul.” Simon starts to protest, “All through the night we toiled and caught nothing.” Then he quickly changes to, “But because you say so I’ll have the nets lowered.”

At once such a large quantity of fish is caught that the nets threaten to break. An S.O.S. is signaled to Simon’s partners, James and John. They, in another boat, come rushing to the scene. Both boats are filled with fish. Even then, so enormous is the catch, the boats can hardly keep afloat.

Overwhelmed with awe, Simon Peter blurts out, “Go away from me, for I’m a sinful man, Lord.”

Jesus answers, “Have no fear; from now on you will be catching men, alive and for life.” Simon’s partners correctly conclude that these words are meant also for them. So all leave behind everything—fish, boats, business, homes, families—and follow Jesus, this time “for keeps.”

This story shows us Christ’s practical wisdom, penetrating knowledge, lavish generosity, ineffable majesty, and profound mission-mindedness.

A Leper Cleansed (verses 12–16). Probably while Jesus was on the circuit to which Luke refers in 4:44 (see explanation of that verse), a Galilean tour according to Mark 1:39, a man full of leprosy came up to Jesus. In spite of Lev. 13:45, 46 he came close enough to be touched by the Master. Falling on his face he implored, “Lord, if you will, you can cleanse me.” The Healer answered, “I will; be cleansed.” At once the leprosy left him, so that he was completely cured. Not only that, but Jesus even saw to it that the man’s standing among the public and in the religious life of Israel would be restored. For that purpose he sent him to the priest so that, having been pronounced cured by him and having brought the required offerings, he would be able to resume his place in society without being shunned by anyone. This very cure would bear testimony to Christ’s greatness and obedience to the divine law. For reasons not stated Jesus charged the man not to broadcast what had happened to him: how and by whom he had been healed. Against the dark background of disobedience to this command—non-compliance in which, according to Mark 1:45, the cleansed man took a leading part—the mercy of Jesus stands out all the more conspicuously. Luke’s story closes with these significant words, “… and vast crowds were gathering to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses. And he would go away to lonely places to pray.”

The Healing of a Paralytic (verses 17–26). Back in Capernaum Jesus is speaking the word in an overcrowded house (note verse 19; cf. Mark 2:2). Pharisees and teachers of the law, who had come from everywhere, are sitting by. By four men a paralytic is lowered through the roof-tiles, landing in front of Jesus. The Sympathetic Physician for both soul and body, deeply touched by the faith of the five and realizing that what bothered the sorely afflicted person most of all was his guilt in the sight of God, pronounces his pardon, full and free. The scribes and the Pharisees, bent on finding fault with their enemy, Jesus, in their hearts accuse him of blasphemy, for “who but God alone is able to forgive sins?” Pronouncing forgiveness is easy enough. Let him do something for the physically afflicted one. If he is unable to do this, his claim to bless the poor man’s soul is false. So they reason. By means of instantly and completely delivering the paralytic of his illness “the Son of man” proves his claim, to the astonishment of everybody.

The Call of Levi (verses 27–32). After this Jesus goes out and sees a tax-collector, named Levi (= Matthew), sitting at his booth. He says to him, “Follow me.” Immediately Levi obeys. Not only that but, having sacrificed his lucrative position to follow Jesus, he is so happy about it that he prepares a banquet or reception in honor of Jesus. Many tax-collectors (“publicans”) and other people of low repute are also present. In answering the criticism of the Pharisees and their scribes, who were grumbling against Jesus’ disciples and were saying, “Why are you eating and drinking with the tax-collectors and sinners?” Jesus reminds them that it was exactly to call sinners, not (self-)righteous people, that he had come.

The Question About Fasting

(verses 33–39). One day some people (disciples of John, Matt. 9:14, and probably some Pharisees; see Mark 2:18) came to Jesus with an implied question, “John’s disciples often fast and say prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours keep on eating and drinking.” They meant, “How do you explain this?” Jesus answers that in their capacity as “bridegroom’s attendants” it would be improper and impossible for them to fast. By means of a double illustration—(a) a person does not place a piece of new cloth on an old and badly worn garment; otherwise he will tear the new, and the patch from the new will not match the old; and (b) new wine is not poured into old, stiff and rigid wineskins; otherwise the wine will be spilled, the skins ruined—Jesus drives home the lesson that the new message he is bringing requires a fresh reception, one of faith and freedom, not one of fear and fasting.

²¹⁵ Literally, standing beside the lake.

²¹⁶ Literally, at your word.

²¹⁷ Or: I’ll have the nets lowered.

²¹⁸ Or: partners (as in verse 10).

²¹⁹ Literally: “catching men alive.” This deserves consideration as a possible alternative rendering.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

²²⁰ For the opposite view see A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 68. A. Plummer is not sure (op. cit., pp. 141, 142). On this question see also N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 245; and Lenski, op. cit., p. 176. Identification with the incident related in John 21:1–14, a post-resurrection occurrence, is impossible.

²²¹ I can see no good reason why the order of the words in the original, with emphasis on “all through the night,” should not be retained in the translation.

²²² Plummer on the same page states that the difference of words in the original—in verse 7 μέτοχοι and in verse 10 κοινωνοί—should be preserved in the translation. Two different words are used by Phillips, Goodspeed, Moffatt, Lenski, Dutch (Nieuwe Vertaling), etc.; while most of the other translators use the same word—generally “partners”—in both cases. A good argument can be presented for either alternative. If we accept the theory that the persons indicated in both verses were the same, namely, James and John, this point is rather insignificant. The difference in words may be simply stylistic. In both cases the Greek terms probably describe Zebedee’s sons as Simon’s “business partners.”

²²³ Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 5:1–11 begin on page 287.

²²⁴ Or: he himself.

²²⁴ Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 5:12–16 begin on page 292.

²²⁶ Or: All were seized with astonishment.

²²⁷ See The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. VIII, p. 106.

²²⁸ See R. H. Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1970, p. 135.

²²⁹ See N.B.D., article “House.”

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

²³⁰ Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 5:17–26 begin on page 300.

²³¹ Or: reception, banquet.

²³² Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 5:27–32 begin on page 306.

Th.D.N.T. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, and translated from the German by G. W. Bromiley

²³³ Another reading is: the old is better.

²³⁴ Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 5:33–39 begin on page 312.

↑ Back to top