Luke 5
BolesLuke 5:1-11
3.THE CALLING OF THE FIRST
Now it came to pass,—Parallel accounts of this are found in Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20. Some think that this portion of Luke’s narrative should be placed between the thirty-first and thirty-second verses of chapter 4 Luke often departs from the regular order of events, anticipating some things and passing by others; others think that this call of Peter and his friends is different from the one recorded in Matthew 4:18 and Mark 1:16-20. Matthew and Mark do not record Jesus’ preaching from the boat, hence some conclude that this is a different occasion; the order of events is also advanced as another reason against accepting this account as being the same as that given by Matthew and Mark. However no argument can be adduced that will justify making this account given by Luke as another one different from that recorded by Matthew and Mark. We have here a brief account of the multitude that gathered around him and heard “the word of God” as he preached from “the lake of Gennesaret.” This body of water is called by four names in the Bible; it is an expansion of the river Jordan, about twelve miles long and six miles broad. It is called “sea of Galilee,” “lake of Gennesaret,” “sea of Chinnereth” (Numbers 34:11), “Chinneroth” , and “Tiberias” (John:1, 21:1).
2, 3 and he saw two boats standing—These boats were used for fishing. As is common Peter is made prominent; one of these boats belonged to Peter. The boats were empty at this time as the owners had “gone out of them, and were washing their nets.” The servants or the hired men may have been doing this. (Mark 4:20) It seems that they had finished their fishing and that it had been an unsuccessful night’s labor. Jesus entered one of these boats and asked Peter to push it out “a little from the land.” This was done that he might have a better place to teach the multitude that was pressing upon him. The boat being pushed out from the shore and anchored would give him a good pulpit from which to preach to the multitude without being pressed upon and disturbed. He “sat down and taught the multitudes out of the boat.” It was usual for the teacher to sit and teach; Jesus followed this custom here as he did in preaching the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5:1.) Jesus here assumed his usual posture in teaching. (Luke 4:20.)
4, 5 And when he had left speaking,—When Jesus ceased speaking to the multitude from the boat, he may have dismissed the people; it appears that he had finished his discourse with a proper ending and then began his conversation with Peter. Jesus commanded that they “put out into the deep,” and when they had done this, he commanded further that they “let down your nets for a draught.” Jesus addressed the others as well as Peter; he seems to have addressed the fishermen collectively. He stated why he wanted them to let down their nets; it was in order to take the fish from the water. This was a trial and test of Peter’s faith. The fishermen had hung out their nets to dry, and were discouraged by their failure to catch any that night.
And Simon answered and said,—Peter is the spokesman here as he was on several other occasions. He said: “Master, we toiled all night, and took nothing.” The word from which “Master” is translated is used only by Luke. (Luke 8 :24, 45 9:33, 49; 17:13.) He always applies it to Jesus; he never uses “Rabbi” as does John. “Toiled” means “suffering, weariness,” and indicates exhausting toil. Peter stood the test, for after expressing himself and telling that they had failed in their efforts during the entire night, but “at thy word I will let down the nets.” “At thy word” means relying on, or on the ground only of thy word I will do as you command. Peter sacrificed his own practical knowledge as a fisherman to the authoritative word of Jesus; his faith was not great, as the sequel shows, but he had the spirit of obedience. Peter was not expecting a miracle and probably, at the best, but a small haul of fish. Peter ’s act was one purely of faith.
6, 7 And when they had done this,—Here the entire company is included; Peter was the leader and directed the others. They cast out their nets with as much care and skill as they had done the preceding night when they had toiled without success. They enclosed such a large number of fish, “a great multitude of fishes,” is the way Luke describes it, that “their nets were breaking.” Portions of the net gave way, but although through the rents some fishes made their escape, yet those taken were sufficient to fill their boat and the boat of their partners to a sinking condition. Such a wondrous draught of fishes surely filled Peter and others with amazement.
and they beckoned unto their partners—It seems that Peter and Andrew, James and John were all partners. The other boat was either so far from the one in which Peter was as to be unable to be heard, or Peter was so filled with astonishment at the miracle, that “they beckoned” to their partners to come to their rescue. Some have thought that they were all so amazed that they were incapable of speaking and therefore “beckoned unto their partners.” They came and filled their boats until they “began to sink.” The boats were on the point of sinking from the weight of the fishes.
8-10 But Simon Peter, when he saw it,—Peter was an impulsive man; he takes the lead in nearly everything; here he expresses his deep feeling which also expressed the feelings of others. The draught was so far beyond anything he had ever seen or heard of that he is overwhelmed with amazement and with a conviction of the superhuman power of Jesus. “Peter” means “stone”; he was so named when he was first introduced to Jesus. (John 1:42.) It was fitting for Luke here to speak of him as “Simon Peter” when relating this deep religious experience which was so essential to his usefulness and character as one of the foundation stones in the spiritual kingdom of Christ. When Peter saw what was done he “fell down at Jesus’ knees” in homage and worshiped.
For he was amazed,—Peter and the servants who were with him were all amazed , even James and John shared in the amazement. The mention of James first here and elsewhere leads to the conclusion that he was the elder brother; John had probably before believed in Jesus as the Messiah; he was doubtless the one who went with Andrew to the dwelling place of Jesus. (John 1:39.) He did not at that time give up his occupation, but may have been much with Jesus. Jesus addressed Simon personally and said: “Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.” James and John were partners with Peter and Andrew. The original from which we get “partners” means “fellowship” and here denotes a common interest and a very close association. “Thou shalt catch men” means literally “thou shalt be catching” men.
11 And when they had brought their boats—When these four had brought their boats to land, they forsook their nets, the ships, the fishes, their friends, hired servants, and their work, and “followed him.” They showed their faith in him and their willingness to pursue their spiritual calling in his kingdom; they forsook all, not merely in form, but in heart. (2 Timothy 3:5.) Jesus had a great work for these men in saving the lost; they were called under such surrounding circumstances that they showed their faith in following him without a moment’s hesitation. The promptness with which they obeyed the call showed their willingness to sacrifice all for him.
Luke 5:12-16
- JESUS A LEPER
12 And it came to pass,—Parallel records of this healing are found in Matthew 8:2-4 and Mark 1:40-45. While Jesus was “in one of the cities,” a man “full of leprosy” came to Jesus and “fell on his face,” and said, “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” Among all the diseases to which human flesh is heir, leprosy is one of the worst; it is more tenacious in its grasp, most defiant of treatment, most infectious, more loathsome. Leprosy enforces almost utter seclusion from society, and from all that makes life pleasant and happy. Frequently this disease came under the notice of Jesus and his healing hand. “Leper” is derived from “Lepis,” which means “a scale”; it is so called because the disease shows itself in dry, thick scales, or scabs, which are white in common leprosy. (Exodus 4:6; Numbers 12:10; 2 Kings 5:27.) The spots are usually about the size of a dollar. This man was “full of leprosy”; his body was thoroughly infected with the disease;the disease was in its worst form.
13 And he stretched forth his hand,—Jesus stretched forth his hand and touched him; it was considered a dangerous thing to touch a leper; the leper was unclean, and the one who touched him became unclean, but Jesus touched him with the healing power. When he touched him Jesus said: “I will; be thou made clean.” The leper had thrown himself on the mercy of Jesus, and had faith strong enough to prostrate himself at the feet of Jesus; hence Jesus said, “I will.” Some think that Jesus violated the law of Moses when he stretched forth his hand and touched the leper; however we may look for an interpretation of the law in the divinity of Jesus; the law had been given for those who were subjects to the law, but Jesus was himself the lawgiver. The man was healed immediately; “and straightway the leprosy departed from him.” The cure was instantaneous; the leprosy, the cause of his defilement, “departed from him” at the very moment that Jesus spoke.
14-16 And he charged him to tell no man:—Jesus frequently gave this prohibition. (Mark 5:43; Mark 7:36.) The reasons for this may vary according to the circumstances. Jesus was not wanting to create a sensation, in the enthusiams of the blessing received, the recipient often forgot or disregarded the command not to tell what had been done. The excitement of the people needed to be repressed so that greater good could be done again they did not know enough about Jesus to bear intelligent testimony about him;sometimes it was not wise because the one who had received the blessing might be so enthusiastic that the enemies of Jesus would do harm to the one who espoused his cause. Jesus did not wish to arouse undue excitement (Mark 1:45), nor would he expose himself or the cleansed leper to the charge of violating the law. He was commanded to show himself “to the priest, and offer” for his “cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.” There were two stages in the ceremonial or purification of the leper (Leviticus 14:1-32); the purifying ceremonies and offerings were united with confessions of sin and pollution, and with grateful acknowledgment of God’s mercy.
But so much the more went abroad the report—Jesus had commanded the cleansed leper to “tell no man,” but the report of what Jesus had done “went abroad,” and “great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed of their infirmities.” The unintentional disobedience of the man who had been healed in telling about his cure caused the great multitude to come together “to hear” Jesus and “to be healed of their infirmities.” Another result recorded by Mark (Mark 1:45) was that he could no longer enter into any city, both because it had become known that he had touched a leper and the crowds and excitement might attract the suspicious notice of the authorities. Jesus was forced for a time to go into desert places. When he “withdrew himself in the deserts” he spent much time in prayer. Luke signifies in his record continuous coming together of the multitudes so that Jesus could not do his most effective work.
Luke 5:17-26
- JESUS HEALING THE PALSIED MAN
17 And it came to pass on one of those days,—Luke is indefinite and says that these things “came to pass on one of those days.” Mark is more definite with respect to the place, as it was in Capernaum. Parallels of this account are found in Matthew 9:2-8 and Mark 2:1-12. Mark and Luke are much fuller than Matthew; Matthew records only the principal features of the event, while Mark and Luke give the efforts made to get the sick man into the presence of Jesus. Jesus “was teaching”; this was his mission. There were present “Pharisees and doctors of the law” they had come “out of every village of Galilee and Judaea and Jerusalem.” The “Pharisees” were a religious party or sect which originated about 150 years before Christ: their name means “separatists” they were those who separated themselves from all impurities, as they claimed. To become a member of the Pharisaic association one had to agree to set apart all the sacred tithes and refrain from eating anything that had not been tithed.
They held strictly to their oral law or traditions, attaching more importance to them than to the written law. (Matthew 15:1-6.) Jesus often classed them with the hypocrites. “Doctors of the law” were teachers of the law. They were supposed to be men of learning and ability to expound the Jewish law; they were “law-teachers,” lawyers, scribes. Distinguished hearers of the Pharisees and teachers of the law were “sitting by” in their dignity while the people stood there seems to have been a general assembly of them from “every village of Galilee and Judaea and Jerusalem.”
18-20 And behold, men bring on a bed a man—This man was a paralytic; he was paralyzed, having lost the power of muscular motion; he had very likely been in this condition for some time; Mark states that he was “borne of four,” each holding a corner of the bed on which he lay. He was brought to the house where Jesus was. (Mark 2:1.) They were unable to get very close to Jesus with the man on account of the multitude which filled both the house and the doorway. However, they were not to be outdone, but were determined to bring the palsied man into the presence of Jesus; so when they could not find any way to get into the presence of Jesus, “they went up to the housetop, and let him down through the tiles with his couch into the midst before Jesus.” We are not told how they went “up to the housetop”; they probably went up the stairs on the outside or up a ladder; some think that they went up the stairs within an adjoining house, and passed from its roof to the roof of the house where Jesus was. The roofs of the houses were commonly flat: they removed that portion of the roof which was just above Jesus, and then they let the man down on his bed into the presence of Jesus. Jesus saw their faith and commended it. When Jesus saw their faith he said: “Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.” It was encouraging for Jesus to address the sick man; he spoke in an encouraging way. We have only two recorded occasions that Jesus said “thy sins are forgiven”; this case and another recorded in Luke 7:48.
21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason,— These were the religious leaders and they began to say “within themselves,” not aloud; the word in Mark here means “held a dialogue with themselves.” They reached the conclusion that Jesus was a blasphemer, but were not courageous enough to accuse him of blasphemy to his face; in their reasoning they came to the conclusion that he was speaking words of blasphemy, because no man could forgive sins except God. Their reasoning was logical, if their premises were true. Their argument was: “It is blasphemy for any but God to claim to forgive sins”; this man claims the power to forgive sins; therefore he is a blasphemer. If Jesus is not what he claimed to be, he is a blasphemer.
22-24 But Jesus perceiving their reasonings,—Jesus knew their thoughts and answered their accusation. They must have been greatly surprised when Jesus asked: “Why reason ye in your hearts?” Jesus knew the hearts of men; he did not need “that any one should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man.” (John 2:24-25.) He asked further: “Which is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise and walk?” Again they must have been surprised. Jesus asked them these questions, showing that he knew what was in their hearts. The one who could say with authority, arise and walk, could say with effect, thy sins are forgiven; both were possible only for God, but impossible for man.
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority —Jesus proposes to give them evidence that they cannot doubt, evidence that they must accept or stultify their own intelligence. To perform a miracle is as much the work of God as to forgive sins; Jesus proposes to perform the miracle as proof of his power to forgive sins; hence he said: “That ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (he said unto him that was palsied), I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go unto thy house.” Jesus wrought the miracle by his own divine power; he did not have a delegated power, but used his own power as the Messiah. The scribes rightly understood Jesus as acting by his own authority, and thereby claiming divine honor to himself. The “scribes” were the learned men who preserved, copied, and expounded the law and their traditions. (Ezra 7:12; Nehemiah 8:1; Matthew 15:1-6.) It was God in Christ manifesting his glory, and hence a proof that Jesus could forgive sins.
25, 26 And immediately he rose up before them,—All eyes were fixed on the paralytic and were anxiously awaiting to see the results. If Jesus was what he claimed to be, he could heal this man or could forgive sins; if he were not what he claimed to be, he could do neither. Jesus calmly commanded the sick man, not only to arise, but to take the bed or couch upon which he lay and bear it away. The man immediately obeyed Jesus, took up his bed, departed out of the house, “glorifying God.” The man in the presence of all, not only stood up, but showed that he was fully restored by immediately taking up his bed and departing from the house and going to his own house, praising God as he left. The evidence of the power of Jesus was manifested in the presence of all.
And amazement took hold on all,—The effect of the miracle on the people was great; literally “amazement took hold on all”; they were brought into a state of wonder, fear, and dread. Very likely the scribes and Pharisees had never given Jesus the credit of working a real miracle; or if they had, they had never carried out in thought this reasoning: he who can work a miracle must have divine power, and therefore the right to forgive sins. Now they had both the fact and the inference to dispose of in their thought. If they had been honest minded before God, they must have come at once to the conclusion that Jesus was really divine, and therefore the Messiah who was to come. They had never seen or heard of anything that could compare to what Jesus was teaching and doing; their conclusion should have been in his favor.
Luke 5:27-32
27 And after these things he went forth,—Parallel records of this account are found in Matthew 9:9-13 and Mark 2:13-17. This “publican,” or tax collector, here called Levi and by Mark “Levi, the son of Alphaeus,” is undoubtedly the man otherwise known as Matthew. The usual explanation of this diversity in name, not a discrepancy, is that he had two names, of which Levi was more used before his call, and Matthew after his call. He is the writer of the first book of the New Testament that bears his name. It is very probable that he had seen and heard Jesus before and was prepared to accept this call and to obey it. He was busy at the time Jesus called him. “Matthew” in Hebrew means “the gift of God”; “Levi” means “joined,” and was the name of the third son of Jacob by Leah. Two of the ancestors of Jesus as given by Luke bore this name. (Luke 3:24-29.) Matthew was “sitting at the place of toll” when Jesus came by and said: “Follow me.” The place of receiving custom may have been a regular customhouse or a temporary office.
28 And he forsook all,—Jesus had said: ‘Follow me." He had addressed Philip, James and John, Peter and Andrew, and others in the same way. (Matthew 4:19-21; Matthew 9:9; John 1:43.) To follow Christ was then as now the highest calling that one could have. The promptness and obedience of Levi is to be noted. “He forsook all, and rose up and followed him.” Like Andrew and Peter (John 1:40-42), he left everything. We are not to understand by this that he left his office without making satisfactory arrangements with the proper authorities; he did not abruptly leave his office and the funds which he had collected without proper arrangements; this would have been unfair to the Roman government.
29 And Levi made him a great feast—A record of this feast is found also in Matthew 9:10-17 and Mark 2:15-22. This feast gives rise to two conversations, one in regard to eating with publicans and sinners, and the other in regard to fasting. Some think that there was much time that intervened between Matthew’s call and this feast, while others would put the intervening time between the discourse about eating with publicans and sinners and that about fasting. It is not probable that the feast occurred on the day that Matthew was called, hut possibly soon after, and occasioned the discourse. It was proper for Matthew to give this feast as a kind of farewell meal to his business associates, and to show that he not only arranged and settled up matters, but that he still held property of his own. Matthew himself prepared and gave this reception and entertainment “in his house”; it is designated as a “great feast” because of its extensive preparation and abundant provision for a large company. Many publicans and others were present.
30 And the Pharisees and their scribes—This does not mean merely the Pharisees and scribes who belonged to Capernaum, but those who may have belonged to the sect or party of the Pharisees. They “murmured against his disciples”; with a spirit of cowardice, they did not go to Jesus, but to his disciples. We are not to suppose that the Pharisees were present at the feast, but since it was such a large feast, their attention was called to the fact that Jesus with his disciples sat down with publicans and sinners at the feast. Matthew and Mark both give the question as aimed at Jesus: “Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners?” The fault with him implied guilt with his disciples. Persons regarded as the basest and most depraved by the selfrighteous scribes and Pharisees were called “sinners.” That Jesus should call Matthew, a publican, to be a disciple, and then should attend a feast with publicans, was an occasion for the scribes and Pharisees to criticize him. At another time they said: “This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them” (Luke 15:2.)
31, 32 And Jesus answering said unto them,—Jesus had either overheard the question they had asked his disciples or his disciples had told him. (Mark 2:17.) Jesus here used a very familiar statement or proverb—“they that are in health have no need of a physician; but they that are sick.” His great mission as a physician was to heal the great disease of sin; if any were really righteous, as the Pharisees imagined they were, then they did not need his healing power; the fact that these publicans and sinners were admittedly vile and wicked in the estimation of the scribes and Pharisees was proof that they were very “sick” and needed a physician. This justified the conduct of Jesus and condemned the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus then added the purpose of his mission to earth: “I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
Luke 5:33-39
- ABOUT FASTING
33 And they said unto him,—Other records of this may be found in Matthew 9:14-17 and Mark 2:18-22. This question as recorded in Matthew was asked by the disciples of John, while Mark records that both the disciples of John and those of the Pharisees asked it; Luke represents it as being proposed by the scribes and Pharisees. Some think that the scribes and Pharisees were responsible for John’s disciples joining them in asking the question. “The disciples of John fast often, and make supplications.” The original for “often” as used here and in Acts 24:26 and 1 Timothy 5:23 means “close-packed” as a thicket, or the plumage of a bird. The language indicates what was their practice. The only fast required by the law of Moses was that of the great day of atonement. (Leviticus 16:29.) Other fasts were added after the destruction of the temple.
34, 35 And Jesus said unto them,—Jesus here makes his defense and answers the question which was asked; in his reply he presented three illustrations showing that it would be unbecoming for his disciples to fast at that time. The first illustration is taken from the familiar marriage ceremonies. He asked: “Can ye make the sons of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?” The friends of the bridegroom were called “sons of the bridechamber” because they had access to it during the bridal feast. (Judges 14:10-11.)
But the days will come;—There was no occasion for his disciples to fast while he was with them to comfort them; but the time would come when he would leave them, then they would fast and mourn. The time would arrive when the circumstances would be changed and fasting would be in order then.
36 And he spake also a parable unto them:—The second illustration that Jesus uses in answering the question as to why his disciples did not fast is here given. It is drawn from the familiar practice of patching a garment; he points out what no one of his hearers would think of doing. Luke calls this “a parable,” and he gives a fuller account of it than either Matthew or Mark. The cloth used at that time was not “shrunk”; no one would think of taking a new piece of cloth which had not been shrunk and put it upon an old garment which had been shrunk. If such should be done, “the piece from the new will not agree with the old.” This thought is closely connected with the preceding thought, and is intended to enforce the same principle. If the disciples of Jesus had fasted, as did John’s disciples and those of the Pharisees, they would have done that which was unsuitable to the spirit of the new dispensation.
37-39 And no man putteth new wine into old—The third illustration that Jesus uses is taken from the use of handling wine. These illustrations were very appropriate since garments and wine were very prominent at feasts. A “wineskin” was prepared by taking the skin off an animal and by some process fix the skin so that it would hold a liquid and using the skin as a vessel. To put “new wine” into an old wineskin would cause it to burst and the wine would be lost and the skin would be of no value. Old wineskins had been stretched to their utmost capacity; if new wine, which ferments and expands, is put into the old wineskin, it would burst the skin, and all would be lost. Jesus reminds his hearers of this which they knew to be true. “New wine must be put into fresh wineskins” so that when the wine expands the wineskin can expand with it. This illustrates the same thought as the other two illustrations.